《Processing Instruction and Structured Inputppt课件》由会员分享，可在线阅读，更多相关《Processing Instruction and Structured Inputppt课件（94页珍藏版）》请在金锄头文库上搜索。
1、Chapter 7Processing Instruction and Structured Input1/94In this chapter we explore:lThe nature of input processinglProcessing instruction: grammar instruction that has structured input at its corelResearch on processing instruction that demonstrates its effectivenesslA set of guidelines for developi
2、ng structured input activities2/94Input processinglTraditional instruction consisting of drills in which learner output is manipulated and the instruction is divorced from meaning or communication is not an effective method for enhancing language acquisition.lWhat is needed is a new pedagogy of gram
3、mar instruction that takes as its point of departure what we know about how grammatical forms and structures are acquired.lThis pedagogy needs to work with input and with the processes learners use to get data from that input.3/94Input processinglOf concern is input processing, how learners initiall
4、y perceive and process linguistic data in the language they hear.lIn input processing, learners might encounter their first problems in dealing with the properties of the new language.lWe must come to some understanding of what input processing looks like.4/94Intake from inputlInput processing is co
5、ncerned with those psycholinguistic strategies and mechanisms by which learners derive intake from input.lIntake refers to the linguistic data in the input that learners attend to and hold in working memory during online comprehension.5/94Form lResearch on input processing attempts to explain how le
6、arners get form from input while their primary attention is on meaning.lForm here is defined as surface features of language, although input processing is also relevant to syntax.6/94The most complete modellVanPatten (1996,2003b) presents the most complete model of input processing in SLA.lThe role
7、of working memory is important in this model since some of the principles are predicated on a limited capacity for processing.lHumans develop mechanisms that allow them to selectively attend to incoming stimuli. Without such mechanisms, there would be informational overload.7/94VanPattens Principles
8、lPrinciple 1(P1). The Primacy of Meaning Principle. Learners process input for meaning before they process it for form.P1a. The Primacy of Content Words Principle. Learners process content words in the input before anything else.P1b. The Lexical Preference Principle. Learners will tend to rely on le
9、xical items as opposed to grammatical form to get meaning when both encode the same semantic information.Example: I went to the store yesterday.8/94VanPattens Principles continued P1c. The Preference for Nonredundancy Principle. Learners are more likely to process nonredundant meaningful grammatical
10、 form before they process redundant meaningful forms. Examples: I went to the store yesterday. (redundant past)I went to the store. (non-redundant past)9/94Principle 1clIn this principle, “more”, “less”, and “nonmeaningful” refer to the communicative value that a grammatical feature contributes to o
11、verall sentence meaning.lCommunicative value refers to the meaning that a form contributes to overall sentence meaning and is based on two features.+/- inherent semantic value+/- redundancy10/94Communicative valuelA form that can be classified as having inherent semantic value and is not a redundant
12、 feature of language, will tend to have high communicative value.lFor example:In English verbal morphology, -ing tends to have high communicative value: 1) It has inherent semantic value because it encodes progressive aspect (i.e., -ing = in progress)2) -ing tends to be high in communicative value b
13、ecause it is seldom redundant in naturally occurring discourse since no lexical information in the utterance co-occurs to provide cues to aspect.11/94Nature of communicative valuelIn order to grasp the semantic notion of “in progress” the L2 learner of English must process the verbal inflection ing
14、in the input.lThe nature of communicative value is important for input processing.lThe more communicative value a form has, the more likely it is to get processed and made available in the intake data for acquisition (P1d).12/94ConverselylThe less communicative value a form has, the more likely lear
15、ners are to “skip” it in the input.lFor learners to process forms of little or no communicative value in the input, they must be able to comprehend an utterance such that the act of comprehension does not tie up all their attentional resources.13/94VanPattens Principles continuedP1d. The Meaning-bef
16、ore-Nonmeaning Principle. Learners are more likely to process meaningful grammatical forms before nonmeaningful forms irrespective of redundancy.Example:Los gatos negros.(masculine non-meaningful)(plural “s” meaningful)14/94VanPattens Principles continued P1e. The Availability of Resources Principle
17、. For learners to process either redundant meaningful grammatical forms or non-meaningful forms, the processing of overall sentential meaning must not drain available processing resources (i.e. no overload of information) .15/94VanPattens Principles continued P1f. The Sentence Location Principle. Le
18、arners tend to process items in sentence initial position before those in final position and those in medial position. For example, learners are much more likely to pick up question words and their syntax than object pronouns or the subjunctive, which tends to occur inside the sentence.Example: Habl
19、o espaol.Yo quiero que t hables espaol.16/94An example in FrenchExample: Jean fait promener le chien Marie. (*French causative)Students: *John walks the dog for Mary.Correct: John makes Mary walk the dog.(*Students will incorrectly encode “Jean” as the subject of the second verb and thus delivering
20、erroneous intake to their developing linguistic systems.)17/94VanPattens Principles continuedlPrinciple 2. The First Noun Principle. Learners tend to process the first noun or pronoun they encounter in a sentence as the subject or agent. Example: A Juan no le gusta helado.(*Students will incorrectly
21、 encode “Juan” as the subject of the sentence and thus delivering erroneous intake to their developing linguistic systems.)18/94VanPattens Principles continuedP2a. The Lexical Semantics Principle. Learners may rely on lexical semantics, where possible, instead of word order to interpret sentences.(s
22、ee previous examples)19/94Word orderlWord order is important in Input processing.lP2, the first noun principle, may have important effects on the acquisition of a language that does not follow strict subject-verb-object (SVO) word order.20/94Erroneous inputlResearch has shown that learners do indeed
23、 encode such pronouns and noun phrases as subjects, thus delivering erroneous input to their developing linguistic systems.lThey think that Juan is the subject.lIt is not that meaning is gotten elsewhere; it is that meaning is not gotten at all or is gotten wrong.lThe form-meaning connections are no
24、t only filtered, they are altered.21/94VanPattens Principles continued P2b. The Event Probabilities Principle. Learners may rely on event probabilities (i.e. whats more likely to happen), where possible, instead of word order to interpret sentences. For example, fluent English speakers would assign
25、the semantic role of agent to the hunger and the role of patient to the lion: The lion was killed by the hunter. Research has shown that learners of English as an L2 incorrectly interpret it as: The lion killed the hunter. 22/94VanPattens Principles continuedP2c. The Contextual Constraint Principle.
26、 Learners may rely less on the First Noun Principle if preceding context constrains the possible interpretation of a clause or sentence.(see previous example)23/94SummarylResearch on input processing attempts to describe:What linguistic data learners attend to during comprehensionWhich ones they do
27、not attend toWhat grammatical roles learners assign to nounsHow position in an utterance influences what gets processed.lIntake is grammatical information as it relates to meaning that learners have comprehended (or think they have comprehended.)24/94A reminderlAs a reminder, input processing is but
28、 one set of processes related to acquisition.lThat learners derive some kind of intake from the input does not mean that the data contained in the intake automatically make their way into the developing mental representation of the L2 in the learners head (i.e., intake does not equal acquisition).25
29、/94Rethinking grammar instruction: Structured inputlWe now have some idea of what learners are doing with input when they are asked to comprehend it.lWe can begin to develop a new kind of grammar instruction-one that will guide and focus learners attention when they process input.26/94Processing ins
30、tructionlProcessing instruction consists of three basic components:Learners are given information about a linguistic structure or form.Learners are informed about a particular processing strategy that may negatively affect their picking up of the form or structure during comprehension.Learners are p
31、ushed to process the form or structure during activities with structured input- input that is manipulated in particular ways to push learners to become dependent on form and structured to get meaning.27/94Processing-oriented grammar instructionInputIntakeDeveloping SystemOutputProcessing MechanismsF
32、ocused Practice28/94An example of relating processing strategies to instruction: Verb morphologylWe turn to activities that focus learners attention on verb endings; the goal is for learners to use these morphological endings to comprehend tense rather than solely rely on lexical items.lAfter learne
33、rs receive a brief explanation of how past-tense endings work, they might first practice attaching the concept of past time to verb forms in an activity such as the following.29/94Listening for time referenceListen to each sentence. Indicate whether the action occurred last week or is part of a set
34、of actions oriented toward the present.1.John talked on the phone.2.Mary helped her mother.3.Robert studies for two hours.4.Sam watched TV.5.Lori visits her parents.30/94Structuring the inputlNote that only the very ending encodes tense in the input sentence.lLexical terms and discourse that would i
35、ndicate a time frame are not present, thereby encouraging learners to attend to the grammatical markers for tense.lThe input has been structured.31/94An example of relating processing strategies to instruction: Adjective agreementlThis time we focus on the following strategy: P1d. Learners are more
36、likely to process meaningful grammatical forms before nonmeaningful forms, irrespective of redundancy.lSome features of language do not have inherent semantic or communicative value.32/94For examplelIn the Romance languages, adjectives must agree in number and gender with the nouns they modify, but
37、this feature of grammar contributes little or nothing to the meaning of the utterance in most cases.lIn the following Spanish-language activity, learners attention is directed toward proper adjective form by a task in which the adjective endings must be attended to.33/94Who is it?Listen to each sent
38、ence in which a person is described. Determine which person is being described and then indicate whether you agree or disagree.David LettermanMadonna1.Es dinmica. (Shes dynamic.)2.Es comprensivo. (Hes understanding.)3.Es reservada. (Shes reserved.)34/94lRemember that learners apply a first-noun stra
39、tegy to determine subjects and objects of sentences (“who did what to whom”)lWith the French causative, this leads to misinterpretation and nonacquisition.lIn this activity, learners are pushed to process correctly; to be sure this happens, sentences with the noncausative faire (faire du ski, “to sk
40、i”) that involve two people are also included.An example of relating processing strategies to instruction: The French causative35/94Who is performing?Listen to each sentence. Then answer the question.1.Who cleans the room?2.Who packs the bags?Teachers script Read each sentence ONCE. After each sente
41、nce, ask for an answer.1.Claude fait nettoyer la chambre Richard. (Structured)2.Marc fait les valises pour Jean.36/94Research on processing instructionlThere has been ongoing research regarding the effectiveness of processing instruction.lAn important part of this research has examined the relative
42、effects of processing instruction versus those of traditional instruction.lThe study that launched this research agenda is VanPatten and Cadierno (1993).lIt is the most frequently cited study and has been the impetus for a number of replication studies.37/94Research questionslVanPatten and Cadierno
43、sought to answer the following research questions:Does altering the way in which learners process input have an effect on their developing systems?If there is an effect, is it limited solely to processing more input or does instruction in input also have an effect on output?If there is an effect, is
44、 it the same effect that traditional instruction has (assuming an effect for the latter)?38/94Focus of the researchlVanPatten and Cadierno compared three groups of learners:A processing instruction group (number=27)A traditional instruction group (number=26)A control group (number=27)lThe processing
45、 group received instruction based along the lines presented earlier.lThe focus was word order and object pronouns in Spanish.39/94Who did whatlIn the processing treatment, learners first received activities with right or wrong answers (“Select the picture that best goes with what you hear”) followed
46、 by activities in which they offered opinions.lIn the traditional group, learners received involving a typical explanation of object pronouns and the complete paradigms of the forms.lThe control group did not receive instruction on the target structure and instead read an essay and discussed it in c
47、lass.40/94AssessmentlAssessment consisted of two tests: a sentence-level interpretation test and a sentence-level production test.lThese were administered as a pretest, an immediate posttest, a two-week delayed posttest, and a four-week delayed posttest. 41/94Assessment continuedlThe interpretation
48、test consisted of ten target items and ten distractors.lThe production test consisted of five items with five distractors.lThe interpretation group was based on an activity performed by the processing group (“Select the picture that best goes with what you hear.”)lThe production test was based on an
49、 activity the traditional group performed (“Complete the sentence based on the pictures you see.”)42/94Results!lThe pretests yielded no differences among the groups on the two tests prior to treatment.lIn the posttesting phase, the processing group made significant gains on the interpretation test w
50、hereas the traditional and control groups did not.lOn the production test, both the traditional and processing groups made significant gains but were not significantly different from each other.lThe control group did not make significant gains.43/94ConclusionslAltering the way learners process input
51、 could alter their developing systems.lThe effects of processing instruction are not limited to processing but also show up on production measures.lThe effects of processing instruction are different from those of traditional instruction.44/94Two for onelBy being pushed to process form and meaning s
52、imultaneously, learners with processing instruction not only could process better but also could access their newfound knowledge to produce a structure that never produced during the treatment stage.lMembers of the traditional group learner to do a task, while the members of the processing group act
53、ually experienced a change in their underlying knowledge that allowed them to perform on different kinds of tasks.45/94Areas for future researchlAre the effects of processing instruction (PI) generalizable to other structures?lAre the effects of PI due to different explicit information?lAre the effe
54、cts of PI observable with different assessment tasks?lAre the effects of PI different from the effects of other types of instruction?lDo the effects of PI hold over time?46/94Are the effects of P1 generalizable to other structures?lCadierno (1995) replicated the VanPatten and Cadierno study using th
55、e Spanish preterite (past) tense as the target structure.lAgain contrasting a control group, a traditional instruction (TI) group, and a processing instruction (PI) group, Cadierno measured the effects of treatment via two measures:An interpretation test (Is the sentence youre hearing present, past,
56、 or future?)A production test (writing sentences in the past)47/94ResultslCadiernos results matched those of VanPatten and Cadierno exactlylOn the interpretation test, the PI group improved significantly, but the other two groups did not.lOn the production test, both the PI and TI groups improved si
57、gnificantly but were not different from each other.48/94Chengs studylIn her dissertation, Cheng (1995) conducted a study with ser and estar, the two major copular verbs in Spanish.lShe compared a control, a processing, and a traditional group in the use of copular verbs with adjectives as the target
58、.lHer results mirrored those of the original VanPatten and Cadierno study.49/94Farleys studylIn another study, Farley (2001a) demonstrated the effects of PI on the Spanish subjunctive with noun clauses.lIn his study he showed that participants who received PI made significant gains in both interpret
59、ation and production abilities with the subjunctive both in form and use.50/94Bucks dissertationlBuck (2000) investigated the relative effects of PI and TI in the acquisition of the present continuous (versus the present progressive) in English by native speakers of Spanish.l“Bill is smoking a pipe”
60、 versus “Bill smokes a pipe.”lHe results indicated greater gains for the processing group that were maintained over time on the interpretation test.51/94VanPatten and WonglIn one other study, VanPatten and Wong (2003) demonstrated that PI was superior to TI with the French causative.lThey compared a
61、 control, a processing, and a traditional group and measured outcomes with an interpretation and a production test.lTheir results were the same as the results of the original study.52/94Acquisition of verbal morphologylIn another study involving the acquisition of verbal morphology, Benati (2001) co
62、mpared PI, TI, and a control group using the Italian future tense as the target structure.lHis results were similar to but not the same as those of the original study.lOn the interpretation task, the PI group improved significantly, the TI group did as well, and the control group did not.lHowever, t
63、he gains made by the PI group were significantly greater than those of the TI group. PITIC53/94Are the effects of PI due to different explicit information?lIn VanPatten and Oikennon (1996), the researchers compared three groups.One that received PI exactly as in the original VanPatten and Cadierno s
64、tudy.Another that received the structured input activities only, with no prior explicit information and no explanation during the activitiesAnother that received explicit information only, with no structured input activities.lThe researchers used the same assessment tests as in the original study.54
65、/94ResultslBoth the regular processing group and the structured input-only group improved significantly but were not different from each other.lThe effects of PI are due not to the explicit information provided to learners but to the particular nature of the structured input activities.55/94Computer
66、-assisted language learning (CALL)lSanz and Morgan-Short (2003) set out to test whether explicit feedback is necessary or helpful to learners.lThey tested four groups using the variables +/- explanation and +/- explicit feedback.lAll groups, regardless of the combinations of these variables, receive
67、d the same structured input as practice.56/94The groupslThe first group was + explanation (explicit information about the language and how to process it in the input) and + explicit feedback (telling learners not only whether an answer is correct or not but what the problem is if the answer is not c
68、orrect0lThe second group was - explanation and - explicit feedback (learners received structured input only, with indications only of whether their answers were right or wrong.57/94The groups continuedlThe third group was + explanation but - explicit feedback.lThe fourth group was - explanation but
69、+ explicit feedback.58/94ResultslThe results showed that all groups improved significantly on the three assessment tasks (interpretation and two production tasks- a sentence-completion task and a video-retelling task) from pre- to posttests.lThe researchers found that no group was better than any ot
70、her on any task.lNeither explicit information nor explicit feedback seemed to be crucial for a change in performance.lPractice in decoding structured input alone (as in the second group) seemed to be sufficient.59/94Benatis studylIn one other recent study, Benati (2003) reported similar findings wit
71、h the Italian future tense.lHe compared a regular PI groups with a structured input-only group and an explicit information-only group.60/94Benatis resultslThe explicit-only information group improved slightly from pre- to posttest measures, but that both PI and structured input-only groups improved
72、much more, and they improvement was not significantly different from each other.lBoth treatments were significantly better than the explicit information-only group.lThese results suggest a major if not causative role for the structured input activities of PI and only a minor role, if any, for explic
73、it information.61/94Conclusions lStructured input appears to be the causative variable in processing instruction.lThis means that explicit information is not important if the types of activities learners are engaged in actually push them to alter their processing strategies and make more or better f
74、orm-meaning connections.62/94Two additional studieslFarley (2003)- In Farleys study, the target item was the subjunctive in noun clauses in Spanish.lWongs study (2003) focused on negation of indefinite articles and partitives with avoir in French.lIn both studies, the learners who received structure
75、d input only, without any prior explanation of the rule, made significant gains.63/94Are the effects of PI observable with different assessment tasks?lIn VanPatten and Sanz (1995) the researchers investigated the effects of PI as measured by three kinds of output tests.lThey compared a PI group to a
76、 control group, using the same materials as in VanPatten and Cadierno.64/94Their output testslTheir output tests included not only a sentence-level test but also a question-answer test (based on pictures) and a video-narration test.lThey administered the output tests in two modes: written and oral.l
77、In the video narration, participants must provide all vocabulary, all syntax, and all grammatical features on their own, without any prompts.65/94Their resultslVanPatten and Sanz found that the control group did not improve on any tests.lThe PI group improved significantly on the interpretation test
78、 and on the sentence-level test in both modes.lTheir gains were significant in the written mode but just missed significance in the oral mode.lIn all tests, the PI participants performed better on the written tests than the oral.lIt appears that the effects of PI are observable in a variety of outpu
79、t tests and are not limited to sentence-level tests.66/94Are the effects of PI different from the effects of other types of instruction?lFarley (2001a) compared the relative effects of PI with the effects of “meaning-based output” instruction (MOI).lFarley based the PI materials on P1b of VanPattens
80、 model.lFarleys initial activities pushed learners to attend to subordinate clauses without main clauses in Spanish and had them indicate what the possible main clause could have been (or vice versa).lFarleys activities had learners combine main and subordinate clauses to express doubt and belief ab
81、out various people, places, and events.67/94MOI (meaning-based output)lUnlike TI (Traditional Instruction), MOI (meaning-based output) contains no mechanical drills and is based on the tenets of structured output activities that were first mentioned in VanPatten and Cadierno (1993).lParticipants mig
82、ht have heard (translated from Spanish) “I dont think that dogs” and on a sheet of paper would see “(to be) intelligent.”lThey would then have to indicate what the person might be saying by using the correct verb form.68/94Farleys procedurelBoth the PI (Processing Instruction) and the MOI (Meaning B
83、ased Output Instruction) groups had two days of instruction on the Spanish subjunctive.lFarley assessed outcomes using a pretest and posttest design, with one posttest administered one month after treatment.lThe tests consisted of an interpretation test based on the PI materials and a production tes
84、t based on the MOI materials.69/94Farleys resultslFarleys results differed from the results of the previous studies comparing PI with TI.lHis results showed that the PI and MOI groups improved significantly on both the interpretation and the production tests, with no difference between them.lThus, P
85、I was not superior to MOI, and neither was MOI superior to PI.70/94Another Farley studylIn Farley (2001b), he used the same design, procedure, and target structure as in his 2001a study.lHis results: Although both groups improved on the interpretation task, only the PI group maintained its performan
86、ce on a delayed task.lThe MOI group declined in performance.lThus, PI did prove to be superior to MOI in the long run.71/94Do the effects of PI hold over time?lIn the studies reported so far, the longest time delay in administering a posttest in any one study was four weeks.lAs we saw with Lightbown
87、s 1983 study, after one year the effects of instruction wore off and learners were back where they had been at the beginning.72/94Long-term effects of PIlIn VanPatten and Fernndez (2003), the long-term effects of PI were studied.lAn immediate posttest was given after instruction, and another one was
88、 given eight months later to the students who had continued on to the next semester and who had completed all phases of study.73/94ResultslWhen VanPatten and Fernndez compared the posttest results to the pretest results, they found that, as in all other studies, the students improved significantly o
89、n both measures.lEven though the scores dropped somewhat on the eight-month delayed test, the students were still significantly better at performing the tests than they were prior to treatment.lAt least in this one study, the observed effects of PI seem to be durable.74/94Guidelines for developing s
90、tructured input activitieslPresent one thing at a time.lKeep meaning in focus.lMove from sentences to connected discourse.lUse both oral and written input.lHave the learner do something with the input.lKeep the learners processing strategies in mind.75/94Present one thing at a timelStructured input
91、must be delivered to the learners developing system in an efficient way.lMaximum efficiency is achieved when one function and one form are the focus at any given time.lBreaking up paradigms and lists of rules if useful for two reasons.It allows the explicit presentation and explanation of the gramma
92、tical structure to be kept to a minimum.Breaking up a paradigm is more likely to result in attention directed toward the targeted item.76/94Keep meaning in focuslLearners should not engage in the mechanical input activities of traditional grammar instruction.lRemember that input should be attended t
93、o for its message so that learners can see how grammar assists in the “delivery” of that message.77/94Activity:Looking for verb endingsCheck off the statements you think are true based on what you know about your instructor. He enjoys teaching. He enjoys watching the news at night.He enjoys preparin
94、g exams. He enjoys correcting exams.78/94Analysis of activitylIn the activity, the task cannot be performed without the learner making the form-meaning connections.lIn order to indicate whether or not the sentence is applicable to the instructor, the learner must know what the sentence means and how
95、 the grammar encodes meaning in each.79/94Move from sentences to connected discourselWhen we teach grammar via structured input activities, it is important to begin with sentences first, the shorter the better.lShorter, isolated sentences give learners processing time, whereas in longer stretches of
96、 speech, grammatical form can get lost if the demands to process meaning overwhelm the learner.80/94Use both oral and written inputlIn activities, the learner should be provided with opportunities to hear and see the input.lAny combination of oral and written input within a single activity is fine.l
97、Although all learners need oral input, some learners benefit from “seeing” the language and even claim they need to see it in order to learn it.81/94Keep the learners processing strategies in mindlLearners should focus attention during processing on the relevant grammatical items and not on other el
98、ements of the sentence.lIf one is teaching object pronouns in Spanish, it does little good to have each sentence begin with an explicit subject.l“Target” input sentences should begin with object pronouns, and subjects should be implied or positioned after the verb.82/94Types of activities for struct
99、ured inputlStructured input activities consist of two broad types:Referential activities are those for which there is a right or wrong answer and for which the learner must rely on the targeted grammatical form to get meaning.Affective structured input activities are those in which learners express
100、an opinion, belief, or some other affective response and are engaged in processing information about the real world.83/94Structured input activities classified by response typeStructured input activitiesSupplying informationBinary optionsOrdering/rankingSelecting alternativesMatchingSurveys84/94Bina
101、ry optionslACTIVITY: The Typical StudentBased on your experience, determine whether the following statements are likely or unlikely.1.A student who works part-time takes more morning classes.2.An engineering student studies more than an art student.85/94MatchinglIn matching activities, the learner i
102、ndicates the correspondence between an input sentence and something else: Matching a picture to an input sentence, etc.lFor each sentence in column A, indicate to which activity in column B it is most logically connected.86/94AssociationsCOLUMN ACOLUMN BAliceShe1. Works part-time.a. Goes to the gym.
103、2. Exercises five times a week.b. Studies every night.Gets good grades.c. Earns $5.00 an hour.87/94Supplying informationlIn information-supplying activities that provide structured input, learners dont produce the grammatical item that is being taught but something else.lUnless he had to, (name).Wou
104、ld never eat _.Would never watch _.Would never go to _.Would never spend money on _.88/94Selecting alternatives Select the phrase that best completes each statement about your instructor.1. As soon as he gets home, my instructor.a. reads the mailb. has a cocktail.c. plays with his dogd. something el
105、se 2. When its time for dinner, hea. prepares the mealb. helps with the mealc. waits for the meald. orders a pizza89/94SurveyslIn a survey, one or both of the following can happen:The learner responds to a survey itemThe learner elicits survey information from someone else.lSurveys can use a variety
106、 of the response formats already discussed (binary options, supplying information, selecting from alternatives, and matching)90/94Signature searcheslSignature searches are a type of survey activity in which learners mill around the room attempting to find people who can answer affirmatively to a par
107、ticular statement.lLearners who ask questions get input because they must read the questions and know what they mean.lSignature searches place input in the hands of the learner.91/94Ordering and rankinglAnother type of activity for structured input involves having learners order items either in term
108、s of importance or likelihood or in terms of chronology.lStudents are engaged in processing and reprocessing the verb forms, all the time connecting them to meaning as they work through the task of this kind of activity.92/94Summary of chapterlViewed in as much detail as possible the nature of proce
109、ssing informationlExamined the nature on structured input activities and how they push learners toward more optimal processing of language datalReviewed research on processing instruction that demonstrates in effectiveness93/94Summary of Chapter 7lViewed in as much detail as possible the nature of p
110、rocessing instructionlExamined in particular the nature of structured input activities and how they push learners toward more optimal processing of language datalReviewed research on processing instruction that demonstrates its effectiveness, an effectiveness that comes essentially from carefully constructed activities.94/94
