Processing instruction (PI) might be questioned as to whether it should truly be
regarded as one FonF technique, in that it is mainly featured with pedagogical
emphasis on learner processing. To clarify the doubt, it is necessary to have a glance
at what PI is.
There is a set of procedure that is consisted of a few steps (see Van Patten, 2005):
1. Learners are given information about a linguistic structure or form.
2. Learners are informed about a particular input processing strategy that may negatively affect their picking up of the form or structure during comprehension.
3. Learners are pushed to process the form or structure during activities with structured input—input that is manipulated in particular ways so that learners become dependent on form and structure to get meaning (i.e., learners are pulled away from their natural processing tendencies toward more optimal tendencies).
The initial explicit teaching is a move to inform learners of their non-target forms
and of their previous habitual (less optimal) processing strategy. External stimuli that
push the learners out of the less optimal strategy are then given by engaging learners
in structured task-essential activities. Structured task-essential input activities are
those specifically manipulated in a particular way involving written and aural
endeavors, in which learners are propelled to get meaning from form and structure.
Structured input activities can be divided into referential and affective activities.
Referential structured input activities are those which involve only right or wrong
answersandfor which the learner must rely on the targeted grammatical form to get
meaning. Here is one example:
Students’ instructions: Listen to each sentence. Then indicate when the action takes place by answering each question.
1. Did John jog sometime in the past, or does John jog as a habit?
2. Did Mary go to bed late or does she go to bed late?
Affective structured input activities are those where learners express an opinion,
belief, or some other affective response and are engaged in processing information
about the real world. Here is one example:
In this activity, you will compare and contrast what George did in the winter vacation and what he does in everyday life with what your classmate(s) did in the winter vacation and what your classmate(s) do in everyday life.
To optimize the efficacy of PI and to provide learners with an optimal encoding
environment for the target structure, Van Patten contends that referential structured
input activities, which are more controlled, need to precede affective structured
activities, which are more open-ended.
While not the entire PI procedure matches the FonF principle, a crucial and vital
part which accounts for the major efficacy of PI does fit FonF. Regardless of the
differences in implementation sequence, both referential and affective structured
activities aim at directing learners’ attention to the target form with focus on
contextualized meaning-oriented activities. In this regard, the structured input
provided in PI neatly corresponds to the FonF framework.
The efficacy of PI is supported by a few studies (VanPatten & Wong, 2004;
Cheng, 2002; Wong, 2004; Benati, 2004). VanPatten and Wong (2004) conducted a
study to see whether PI is superior to traditional instruction (TI), which was defined
and operationalized as a presentation of explicit information concerning the form or
structure, followed by a move from mechanical, through meaningful, and finally to
communicative exercises. The comparison between PI and TI was made on two facets:
the interpretation and production of target form, the French causative. Final research
question concerned whether the efficacy, if any, would hold to a delayed posttest or
not. Participants from two universities (U1 and U2) were divided into Processing
group (U1 n=18, U2 n=11), Traditional group (U1 n=11, U2 n=9), and Control group
(U1 n=14, U2 n=14). Both experimental groups received explicit information about
the French causative. The result showed that, in terms of interpretation, there was a
difference between the three groups, with the Processing superior to the Tradition,
which was in turn superior to the Control. In terms of production, both experimental
groups were superior to the Control group. When test-taking strategy is taken into
account, however, the Processing group is superior to the Traditional group.
The difference between Processing and Traditional was that, in the
explicit-information-giving phase, the Processing group received information about
the word order problem that learners of French are confronted with, while the
Traditional did not. In the activity phase, the differences can be summarized as
follows:
Structured input activities in the processing group required participants to attend to both meaning and form to successfully complete the activities but they were never required to produce the target structures; activities in the traditional packet always required participants to produce the target forms. (p. 104)
In other words, structured input activities were of crucial status that distinguished
the different outcomes of the experimental groups (Traditional Teaching vs.
Processing Instruction). Since structured input activities aim to treat how learners
process what they learn, it is not difficult to generate that PI particularly concerns
learner processing, as compared with TI. As the researchers indicated, “If subjects in a
traditional group are given the chance to process before practice as in Allen’s study,
one might expect no difference between the two groups on the interpretation test after
treatment” (VanPatten & Wong, 2004). VanPatten thus suggested that PI is overall
superior than TI and that future studies could generate PI to other structures to further
examine its pedagogical value (2004, p. 113).
The significance of structured input activities was further examined and
supported by VanPatten and Oikkenon (1996). They recruited 59 participants studying
Spanish at a high school in Champaign, Illinois, and divided them into three groups: a
control group with regular processing instruction (17 participants), a group which
received explanations only (22 participants), and a group which received structured
input activities (20 participants). After receiving the treatments, the participants were
assessed in terms of interpretation and production. The results showed that the
significant improvement on the interpretation test was due to the presence of
structured input activities but not to the explicit information provided during the
explanation phase. As for the production test, although the explicit information could
also be attributed for the improved performance, it was not as significant as the
structured input activities. Therefore, “explicit information may enhance performance
on the production test…[and] structured input significantly on both interpretation and
production measures” (VanPatten & Oikkenon, 1996).
PI partially matches the principles of FonF, and differs from TI with greater
efficacy in fostering learner noticing and processing. It can be expected that PI may
have a great effect on raising learners’ accuracy in using form, considering the fact
that CF and IE have not touched processing issue as much as PI has. Yet, this is in
need of empirical backup.
Examined thus far, each of these three aforementioned FonF techniques has
pedagogical values. In order to compare them further and find out whether there
would be an alternative to CF in writing, it would be necessary to recognize the
limitations.