The Coastal Review: An Online Peer-reviewed Journal The Coastal Review: An Online Peer-reviewed Journal
Volume 7
Issue 1
Fall 2015- Spring 2016
Article 3
2016
Making your traditional text work: Input, Scaffolding and Making your traditional text work: Input, Scaffolding and
Communication Communication
Andrew J. DeMil
University of Tampa
Follow this and additional works at: https://digitalcommons.georgiasouthern.edu/thecoastalreview
Part of the Adult and Continuing Education and Teaching Commons, Bilingual, Multilingual, and
Multicultural Education Commons, Higher Education Commons, Higher Education and Teaching
Commons, Junior High, Intermediate, Middle School Education and Teaching Commons, Other Teacher
Education and Professional Development Commons, and the Secondary Education and Teaching
Commons
Recommended Citation Recommended Citation
DeMil, Andrew J. (2016) "Making your traditional text work: Input, Scaffolding and Communication,"
The
Coastal Review: An Online Peer-reviewed Journal
: Vol. 7: Iss. 1, Article 3.
DOI: 10.20429/cr.2016.070103
Available at: https://digitalcommons.georgiasouthern.edu/thecoastalreview/vol7/iss1/3
This research article is brought to you for free and open access by the Journals at Georgia Southern Commons. It
has been accepted for inclusion in The Coastal Review: An Online Peer-reviewed Journal by an authorized
administrator of Georgia Southern Commons. For more information, please contact
Making your traditional text work: Input, Scaffolding and Communication Making your traditional text work: Input, Scaffolding and Communication
Cover Page Footnote Cover Page Footnote
I'd like to thank all the researchers of Processing Instruction.
This research article is available in The Coastal Review: An Online Peer-reviewed Journal:
https://digitalcommons.georgiasouthern.edu/thecoastalreview/vol7/iss1/3
Introduction
Second Language Acquisition (SLA) as a field addresses issues of how a second
language is learned and the best practices for an instructor. Furthermore, studies in the field
offer evidence on the teaching methods that promote effective language comprehension and
production, and those that are unable to do so. However, many studies bring to light that
textbooks used in the classroom are not providing what instructors need to promote
communicative language teaching (Allen; DeMil; DeMil and Aubry; Fernández; Lally; Lee and
VanPatten; Walz). Therefore, this article sets to demonstrate how to transform current
practices in foreign language pedagogy to reflect the theories and research in SLA. In this
article, a variety of language examples are used to help teachers of different languages
relate, and it is hoped that this does not confuse or confound the main point, that instruction
must happen in a meaningful way, regardless of the language taught.
Traditional Instruction
Traditional instruction (TI) is the most widespread teaching methodology in foreign
language classrooms in the United States (Fernández; Wong and VanPatten). TI begins with
grammar information, explanation and examples of use. TI then employs 3 types of drills to
train learners to use the form: mechanical, meaningful, and communicative (Paulston),
mechanical and communicative are the most prevalent (DeMil; DeMil and Aubry; Fernández;
Lally).
Mechanical drills ask learners to use the correct grammatical form to complete the
activity without knowing the meaning. Learners need only pay attention to grammatical cues,
e.g. the subject-verb agreement to get a correct answer. The English is provided here but
would not be available to the learner.
1
DeMil: Input, Scaffolding and Communication
Published by Georgia Southern Commons, 2016
Example 1: Mechanical drill for the French passé composé (past tense)
Complete the sentence with the passé composé.
1. Hier, la femme _____ (voir) le garçon.
(Yesterday, the woman ____ (to see) the boy).
2. Ce matin, le garçon ______ (parler) avec sa mère.
(This morning, the boy______ (to talk) with his mother).
Above, learners must notice the subject to conjugate the verb correctly. No
understanding of meaning is necessary. These drills were originally designed to help train
learners to produce the form correctly. However, this can be problematic when the form is
divorced from meaning. That is, learners are practicing to write or say the form correctly.
When learners are later asked to produce in a meaningful well, it becomes difficult for them,
as they were never trained to do so. (Wong and VanPatten). Furthermore, this type of drill
does nothing to train the learners to comprehend the meaning of the form; that is, the passé
composé is a grammatical problem for them to complete, devoid of meaning (Cheng;
VanPatten and Cadierno; VanPatten and Wong)
The next step of TI is the meaningful drill. With these drills, students respond to
questions, while at the same time producing the correct form. This combines meaning and
form. In other words, learners must understand the meaning of the question to answer
correctly, and ideally, answer with the correct grammar. Below is an example one might find
in a beginning Portuguese course. The English translation is provided here, but would not be
available to the learner.
Example 2: Meaningful Drill
Answer the following questions with a complete sentence.
1. Quando começa a aula de português?
(When does Portuguese class start?)
2
The Coastal Review: An Online Peer-reviewed Journal, Vol. 7 [2016], Iss. 1, Art. 3
https://digitalcommons.georgiasouthern.edu/thecoastalreview/vol7/iss1/3
DOI: 10.20429/cr.2016.070103
The student answers with a sentence using the correct form of the verb, and the time
(e.g. A aula começa às 2. ‘Class starts at 2’.) This answer demonstrates the ability to use
the present tense of the verb, and comprehension of the question. This type of activity is
becoming more and more uncommon in modern textbooks (DeMil; DeMil and Aubry). More
often mechanical or communicative drills are used to teach grammar, and, therefore,
meaningful drills will not be discussed further in this article. The third and final step of TI is
the Communicative drill. This drill is the culmination of the production practice and is used to
teach learners to speak in groups. This drill has learners use the correct form, but also stating
a yes/no type answer, based on the speaker's life. The activity below is an example one
might see in a beginning Spanish course that teaches the preterit. The English translation is
provided here, but would not be given to the learner.
Example 3: Communicative drill
Talk in groups about what you did yesterday. Use the preterit.
Modelo: comer en un restaurante
(Model: to eat in a restaurant)
Student 1: Ayer, ¿comiste en un restaurante?
(Yesterday, did you eat in a restaurant?)
Student 2: Sí, comí en un restaurante/No, no comí en un restaurante.
(Yes, I ate in a restaurant. /No, I didn't eat in a restaurant.)
1. hablar con la madre (talk with your mother)
2. nadar en la playa (swim at the beach)
When carried out in class, it appears learners are communicating. However, just
because students are speaking to each other, does not automatically indicate
communication. It is often the case that the students are merely ignoring the meaning and
listening for the verb form. For example, if the above drill is modified using non-sense words,
the learners are still able to complete the activity.
3
DeMil: Input, Scaffolding and Communication
Published by Georgia Southern Commons, 2016
Example 4: Mechanical drill with non-sense words
Ejemplo: tomer en un reparante
(Example: to tomer in a reparante' [nonsense])
Student 1: Ayer, ¿tomiste en un reparante?
(Yesterday, did you tomer in a reparante?)
Student 2: í, tomí en un reparante/bNo, no tomí en un reparante.
(Yes, I tomered in a reparante. /No, I didn't tomer in a reparante.)
As demonstrated above, once analyzed, it is easy to see that this type of drill is also
is mechanical. There is no exchange of meaning. When learners are later questioned, where,
when, with whom, following a communicative drill, learners often reveal they don't know what
the sentence means, even though the form was correct. This is not to say that some learners
would not understand the meaning, but the drill does not require comprehension for learners
to complete.
This traditional methodology has several issues that are not in line with what is known
about Second Language Acquisition (SLA). Learners produce language before
comprehending what they are saying and what the grammatical form communicates, which
can lead to overgeneralization of a form, incorrect use (Lightbown). Second, training learners
to connect form to meaning is missing, and therefore, learners do not have the necessary
skills necessary to understand and speak a language. "There is sufficient evidence to discard
mechanical drills from instructional practice." (Wong and VanPatten 403). However, in the
11 years since this article was published, there has been little change in the methodology of
language teaching. Therefore, the aim of this article is to show instructors how to modify
traditional mechanical and communicative drills into effective language learning tools that
promote comprehension, production, and communication.
4
The Coastal Review: An Online Peer-reviewed Journal, Vol. 7 [2016], Iss. 1, Art. 3
https://digitalcommons.georgiasouthern.edu/thecoastalreview/vol7/iss1/3
DOI: 10.20429/cr.2016.070103
Input and Output
Input, or language that a learner hears or reads to comprehend a message, drives
language acquisition; without input, acquisition simply cannot take place; (White). There is
no theory of Second Language Acquisition that does not have a crucial place for input. Input
forms the underlying language system and is available to learners in order for them to be
able to produce output, i.e. speaking and writing. (Gass and Mackey). Output allows learners
to practice fluency, as well as helps them discover what they lack in linguistic knowledge,
and helps them discover misunderstandings (Swain and Lapkin; VanPatten). However, Input
is solely responsible for modifying the underlying language system. As Vanpatten states “A
good deal of acquisition is dependent upon learners correctly interpreting what a sentence
means.” (115). In other words, when learners hear or read a sentence, they use underlying
strategies to interpret, or sometimes misinterpret the meaning. This language is then
available for output, to test hypotheses, and communicate meaning to others. Therefore,
without input, there is no language available for output. This is very important when
considering language pedagogy. If language acquisition begins with Input, it follows that
instruction should as well.
Processing Instruction
Processing Instruction (PI) is a method of grammar teaching that trains learners to
“process” input, i.e. comprehend language. PI does this by designing structured input (SI)
activities in which learners must notice and comprehend the grammatical form to understand
the message. Below is a sample SI activity for the French passé composé. The English is
provided here but is not available to the learner.
5
DeMil: Input, Scaffolding and Communication
Published by Georgia Southern Commons, 2016
Example 5: SI activity
Instructions: Mark when the action happened [aujourd'hui 'today' or hier 'yesterday']
and then mark Vrai 'True' if the sentence describes the drawing, or Faux 'False' if it
does not.
Le garçon a parlé. aujourd'hui / hier vrai/faux
(The boy spoke)
La femme écoute. aujourd'hui / hier vrai/faux
(The woman listens.)
As you can see, the learner decides the tense and meaning based on the verb form. There
are no temporal adverbs, e.g. Hier (yesterday), to clue the learner in to the time of the action,
and the learner must rely on the verb for meaning (True or False) and form (today/yesterday).
This simple exercise demonstrates comprehension of grammar and meaning without
production, the first step in communication that is meaningful comprehension.
PI and TI
As demonstrated above, PI focuses on comprehension of language input and trains
them to better comprehend language. TI begins with mechanical production, and skips
comprehension to develop the underlying linguistic system, and output (meaningful
production in order to communicate). Many studies offer evidence that PI is more effective
than TI when teaching learners to comprehend written and spoken Spanish, (Cadierno;
6
The Coastal Review: An Online Peer-reviewed Journal, Vol. 7 [2016], Iss. 1, Art. 3
https://digitalcommons.georgiasouthern.edu/thecoastalreview/vol7/iss1/3
DOI: 10.20429/cr.2016.070103
Cheng; Leeser and DeMil; VanPatten and Cadierno) Italian, (Benati) French (VanPatten and
Wong), and English (Benati and Lee).
Furthermore, learners trained with PI also perform as well or better than learners
trained with meaningful output instruction (MOI), a type of instruction in which learners
produce language that communicates meaning. When compared empirically, learners
trained with PI perform as well, if not better, than MOI (Benati; Farley; Farley; Morgan-Short
and Bowden). In short, beginning with language comprehension improves overall
comprehension and production of the language better than TI, and other methodologies.
Previous Studies on Grammar presentation in L2 Textbooks
Researchers have observed that the majority of foreign language and English as a
Second Language (ESL) textbooks include TI as the main or sole type of instruction. Most
activities were mechanical drills and most production was mechanical, e.g. "listen and repeat"
exercises (Aski; Ellis; Islam). Walz observed that that drills used for communication were
simply mechanical drills disguised in a communicative context. Walz recommended that
exercises should lead to more communicative situations, start with forced choice when
interpreting language (as SI activities do, though they had not yet been developed), and there
should be a majority of communicative exercises, rather than mechanical or meaningful drills.
Lally examined 6 beginning French textbooks to find that half of the books had a
preponderance of mechanical drills, (Lally). Fernández found that in 6 top-selling elementary
Spanish university level textbooks, the prominent features were explicit information and
controlled production practice, i.e. TI (Fernández). Only half provided aural input as main
activities, that is, only half provided learners the opportunity to process or comprehend the
form. According to Fernández, "at least half of the textbooks...overlook what is currently know
in SLA: the central role of input in the development of an L2 grammar." (165)
7
DeMil: Input, Scaffolding and Communication
Published by Georgia Southern Commons, 2016
DeMil looked at intermediate Spanish University texts. In 7 texts, the majority
implement TI. The main type of exercise used to teach grammar were mechanical and
communicative drills. The majority of these drills were placed in a context, such as travel,
health, etc., but did not lead to communication.
Finally, DeMil and Aubry looked at 6 beginning level University French texts. Of the 6
texts, only 3 had any exercises that used input, the starting point of language acquisition.
The majority of these exercises with input came from 1 text; half had more communicative
drills than mechanical drills, but of all the communicative drills, only 3 had a steps leading to
the demonstration of communication.
Scaffolding
If leaners need to start with input comprehension, and lead to output, how will they do
so? As demonstrated above, speaking does not automatically equal communication. Lee and
VanPatten, (2003) point out "it is important not to mistake 'getting or exchanging information'
as the purpose of the task". (62). What is the purpose of the exchange of information?
"Learners will not only get and exchange information--they will do something with it." (62). In
DeMil and DeMil and Aubry the majority of activities were lacking this final step, having
students do something with the information that they received from another. For example, an
activity can have students make judgments about another based on what the information
exchanged (My classmate is an [active/sedentary] person because...). This final step
demonstrates communication.
Just asking the students to make a statement based on what was heard does not
provide learners with the necessary skills to do so. As can be seen below, if students are
asked to complete a sentence such as the example below, it becomes easier for the student
8
The Coastal Review: An Online Peer-reviewed Journal, Vol. 7 [2016], Iss. 1, Art. 3
https://digitalcommons.georgiasouthern.edu/thecoastalreview/vol7/iss1/3
DOI: 10.20429/cr.2016.070103
to demonstrate communication of the information exchanged with a classmate. The example
below is in English and could be used in any language taught.
Example 6
Step 1. Mark Yes/No to indicate what you did last weekend: Yes/No
1. I went to the store to buy clothes.
2. I ate in a restaurant.
3. I read a book.
4. I studied at the library.
5. I exercised at the gym.
6. I went to the beach.
Step 2. Share what you did and did not do last weekend, e.g. I went to the beach. And
you?
Step 3. Now that you have spoken in groups, complete the sentence below. My
classmate (name) had a(n) (active/sedentary) weekend, because (he/she)…went to
the beach.
As you can see above, the underlined information is what was exchanged in groups.
Students, without having to produce the sentence alone, are aided by this scaffold sentence,
in order to demonstrate comprehension. This scaffolding will help learners be able to
communicate at a level that they may not yet be ready to do alone (Lee and VanPatten).
From traditional to effective
The advantages of using a text versus not having one are many: texts help organize
the semester, help students follow, and can keep an entire language section teaching the
same content in the same order. Transforming a mechanical drill into an effective activity that
demonstrates communication can be done in a few simple steps. Wong outlines the steps
for developing an effective Structured Input activity (37-38). These steps allow instructor to
use the book as a base, but redesign the activities in such a way as to promote
comprehension, interaction and communication. The first step is to identify the problem. The
9
DeMil: Input, Scaffolding and Communication
Published by Georgia Southern Commons, 2016
examples below are in English, but would be in the target language (e.g. Spanish, French,
German, Russian, etc.)
Example 7: Traditional Mechanical Drill
Fill in the blank with the preterit tense of the verb to talk about activities people did last
week.
Last week:
1. I __________ (to cook) one meal a day.
2. Juan _______ (to prepare) lunch at home.
3. You _______ (to drink) water at dinner.
4. Mary ______ (to dine) in a restaurant.
5. We ________ (to use) salt and pepper often.
6. They_______ (to enjoy) a lot of fatty foods.
Without getting into the specific problems learners have with the preterit form (see VanPatten
2007), this will be the form with which the new activity will be designed.
Step 2, according to Wong, is to present one thing at a time. One might think that the
preterit is only one “thing” but there are lots of 'things' included in the preterit, such as all 6
subjects, e.g. I, you, he, we, etc., irregulars, stem-changers, etc. Therefore, one thing at a
time means limiting the form to one person, one type of verb (-er verbs). For the example,
the 'I' (1st person singular) will be used.
Example 8: Structured Input Activity: T F
Last week, I...
...cooked one meal a day.
...prepared lunch at home.
...ordered water at dinner.
...dined in a restaurant.
...used salt and pepper often.
...enjoyed a lot of fatty foods.
10
The Coastal Review: An Online Peer-reviewed Journal, Vol. 7 [2016], Iss. 1, Art. 3
https://digitalcommons.georgiasouthern.edu/thecoastalreview/vol7/iss1/3
DOI: 10.20429/cr.2016.070103
The above example focuses on the I form of the preterit, and sticks with the regular –ed
formation of the past tense.
Step 3 is to keep meaning in focus. In example 8, learners cannot correctly and
accurately respond true or false without knowing what the sentences mean. Step 4,
according to Wong, is to move from sentences to connected discourse. As you can see in
the examples above, the sentences are related in meaning and topic. Therefore, whether
they complete the activity, or do something else with it, the sentences all connect to a theme,
and can easily be used in discourse.
Step 5 is to use oral and written input. When presenting the above activity to students,
the professor might read the sentences to the students and have them dictate, or simply write
them on the board (PowerPoint, Projected Laptop, etc.) and have students read them alone.
Step 6 is to have learners do something with the input. Now that learners have been pushed
to comprehend meaning, this is when interaction and demonstration of comprehension (i.e.
communication) begin.
Example 9: Using the sentences above, converse with a classmate. Be sure to note
their information.
Last week, I... ate (5) meals a day. And you?
As in the above example, learners are asked to use the input in order to interact with
others. The question, “And you?” is added to the end of the sentence in order to have the
students interact while still focusing on one form. Otherwise, the activity would get into
question formation, and changing the verb from the first person I, to the second person you,
which violates the 'one thing at a time' step. Finally, learners are asked to do something with
the information that was exchanged with a classmate.
11
DeMil: Input, Scaffolding and Communication
Published by Georgia Southern Commons, 2016
Example 10: Complete the sentence based on the information your classmate
shared.
My classmate (Name) was (very/not very) healthy last week because (he/she)...
...cooked one meal a day.
...prepared lunch at home.
...ordered water at dinner.
...dined in a restaurant.
...used salt and pepper often.
...enjoyed a lot of fatty foods.
In the above example, learners complete a sentence that has been scaffold for them.
This allows them to use the 3
rd
person, he/she, form of the verb, without asking them to
produce it. With the information, learners are asked to make a judgment based on the
information exchanged. With this final step, learners have comprehended input, interacted
with a classmate, and demonstrated that they have understood (comprehension); in other
words, they have communicated.
Conclusion
The main instructional method present in the majority of foreign language texts is the
Traditional Method, which has been outperformed in numerous studies. This study strictly
defines communication as asking learners to exchange and comprehend information. Using
the above format to modify the activities from these texts allows instructors to ensure
communication.
12
The Coastal Review: An Online Peer-reviewed Journal, Vol. 7 [2016], Iss. 1, Art. 3
https://digitalcommons.georgiasouthern.edu/thecoastalreview/vol7/iss1/3
DOI: 10.20429/cr.2016.070103
Works Cited
Allen, H. “Textbook materials and foreign language teaching.” The NECTFL review 62
(2008): 5-28.
Aski, J. “Foreign language textbook activities: Keeping pace with Second Language
Acquisition Research.” Foreign Language Annals 36.1 (2003): 57-65.
Benati, A. “A comparative study of the effects of Processing Instruction and output-based
instruction on the acquisition of the Italian future tense.” Language Teaching Research
5 (2001): 95–127.
---. “The effects of structured input and explicit information on the acquisition of Italian future
tense.” Processing Instruction: Theory, research and commentary. Ed. Bill VanPatten.
Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum, 2004. 207-255.
---. “The effects of Processing Instruction and its components on the acquisition of gender
agreement in Italian.” Language Awareness 13 (2004): 67-80.
---. The effects of PI, TI and MOI in the acquisition of English simple past tense. Language
Teaching Research 9 (2005): 67-113.
Benati, Alessandro, and James Lee. Grammar acquisition and Processing Instruction:
Secondary and cumulative effects. Bristol: Multilingual Matters, 2008.
Cadierno, Teresa. “Formal instruction from a processing perspective: An investigation into
the Spanish past tense.” The Modern Language Journal 79 (1995): 179-193.
Cheng, A. “Processing instruction and Spanish ser and estar: Forms with semantic-aspectual
value.” Processing Instruction: Theory, Research and Commentary. Ed. Bill
VanPatten. Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum, @004. 119-141.
DeMil, Andrew. “Communicative or communication: what your textbook is
teaching. “International Journal of Instructional Technology and Distance Learning
10.6 (2013): 23-34.
DeMil, Andrew, and James Aubry. “Beginning French Textbooks: Are they teaching
communication?” Florida Foreign Language Journal (2013): 19-29.
Ellis, R. “Methodological Options in Grammar Teaching.” New Perspectives on Grammar
Teaching in Second Language Classrooms. Eds. E. Heinkel and S. Fotos. Mahwah,
NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum, 2002. 155-179.
13
DeMil: Input, Scaffolding and Communication
Published by Georgia Southern Commons, 2016
Ellis, R. The study of Second Language Acquisition. 2nd ed. Oxford: Oxford University Press,
2008.
Farley, Andrew. “The effects of Processing Instruction and meaning-based output
instruction”. Spanish Applied Linguistics 5 (2001): 57-94.
---. “Authentic processing instruction and the Spanish subjunctive.” Hispania 84 (2001): 289-
299.
---. “The relative effects of processing instruction and meaning-based output
instruction.” Processing Instruction: Theory, Research and Commentary. Ed. Bill
VanPatten. Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum, 2004. 143-168.
Fernández, Claudia. “Approaches to grammar instruction in teaching materials: A study in
current L2 beginning-level spanish textbooks.” Hispania 94.1 (2011): 155-170.
Gass, S. "Integrating research areas: A framework for second language studies." Applied
Linguistics 9 (1988): 198–217.
Gass, S., and A. Mackey. "Input, Interaction and Output in Second Language Acquisition."
Theories in Second Language Acquisition: An introduction. Eds. Bill Van Patten and
Jessica Williams. Mahwah, New Jersey: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, 2007. 175-
199.
Gass, S, and L. Selinker. Second language acquisition: an introductory course. Hilldale, NJ:
Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, 1994.
Gass, S, and E Varonis. "Input, Interaction, and Second Language Production." Studies in
Second Language Acquisition 16 (1994): 283–302.
Islam, Carlos. “Materials for Beginners.” Developing materials for language teaching. Ed. B.
Tomlinson. London: Continuum, 2003. 257-74.
Krashen, S. Second Language Acquisition and second language learning. Oxford: Pergamon
Press, 1981.
Krashen, S, and T. Terrell. The natural approach: Language acquisition in the classrooms.
San Francisco: Alemany Press, 1983.
Lally, Carolyn. “Back to the future: A look at present textbooks and past recommendations.”
Foreign Language Annals 31.3 (1998): 307-314.
Lantolf, J. P. "Sociocultural theory and second language learning." Modern Language
Journal 78 (1994): 418-420.
14
The Coastal Review: An Online Peer-reviewed Journal, Vol. 7 [2016], Iss. 1, Art. 3
https://digitalcommons.georgiasouthern.edu/thecoastalreview/vol7/iss1/3
DOI: 10.20429/cr.2016.070103
Lantolf, J. P., and G. Appel, eds. Vygotskian approaches to second language research.
Norwood, NJ: Ablex, 1994.
Lee, James, and Alessandro Benati. Second language processing: An analysis of theory,
problems and solutions. London: Continuum, 2007.
Lee, James, and Bill VanPatten. Making communicative language teaching happen. NY:
McGraw-Hill, 2003.
Leeser, Michael and Andrew DeMil. “Investigating the Secondary Effects of Processing
Instruction in Spanish: From Instruction on Accusative clitics to Transfer-of-Training
Effects on Dative Clitics.” Hispania 96.4 (2013): 748-62.
Lightbown, P. “Exploring relationships between developmental and instructional sequences
in L2 acquisition.” Classroom Oriented Research in Second Language Acquisition.
Eds. H. Seliger and M.H. Long. Rowley, MA: Newbury House, 1983. 217-243.
Morgan-Short, K. and H.W. Bowden. “Processing Instruction and meaningful output-based
instruction: Effects on second language development.” Studies in Second Language
Acquisition 28 (2006): 31-65.
Paulston, C. B. Teaching English as a second language: Techniques and procedures.
Cambridge: Winthrop Publishers, 1976.
Swain, M. and S. Lapkin. “Problems in output and the cognitive processes they generate: A
step towards second language learning.” Applied Linguistics 16 (1995): 371-391.
VanPatten, Bill. From input to output: A teachers guide to Second Language Acquisition.
Boston: McGraw-Hill, 2003.
---. “Input Processing in Adult Second Language Acquisition.” Theories in
Second Language Acquisition. Eds. Bill Van Patten and Jessica Williams. Mahwah,
New Jersey: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, 2007. 115-135.
Van Patten, Bill and Teresa Cadierno. “Input Processing and Second Language Acquisition:
A role for instruction.” The Modern Language Journal 77.1 (1993): 45-57.
VanPatten, B and S. Oikkenon. “Explanation versus Structured Input in Processing
Instruction.” SSLA 18 (1996): 495-510.
VanPatten, B. and W. Wong. “Processing Instruction and the French causative: Another
replication.” Processing Instruction: Theory, Research and Commentary. Ed. Bill
VanPatten. Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum, 2004. 97-118.
15
DeMil: Input, Scaffolding and Communication
Published by Georgia Southern Commons, 2016
Walz, Joel. “Context and contextualized language practice in foreign language teaching.” The
Modern Language Journal 73.2 (1989): 160-168.
White, Lydia. “Linguistic Theory, Universal Grammar, and Second Language Acquisition.”
Theories in Second Language Acquisition. Eds. Bill Van Patten and Jessica Williams.
Mahwah, New Jersey: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, 2007. 37-55.
Wong, W. “The nature of Processing Instruction.” Processing Instruction: Theory, Research
and Commentary. Ed. Bill VanPatten. Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum, 2004. 33-63.
Wong, Wynne and Bill VanPatten, Bill. “The Evidence is IN: Drills are OUT.” Foreign
Language Annals 36.3 (2003): 403-423.
16
The Coastal Review: An Online Peer-reviewed Journal, Vol. 7 [2016], Iss. 1, Art. 3
https://digitalcommons.georgiasouthern.edu/thecoastalreview/vol7/iss1/3
DOI: 10.20429/cr.2016.070103
