On the Applicability of the Input-enhancement Hypothesis and Input Processing Theory in Multimedia CALL
The Case of Spanish Preterite and Imperfect Instruction in an Input Application
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.1558/cj.v21i2.317-338Keywords:
Data-driven Learning, Form-meaning Mapping, Input Enhancement, Processing Instruction, Spanish Aspect, VideoAbstract
Researchers have suggested that the input-enhancement hypothesis (e.g., Chapelle, 1998) and mind-centered input-based theories (e.g., Collentine, 1998) might be consulted for the design of multimedia CALL. The input-enhancement hypothesis, processing instruction theory, and the nature of Spanish preterite and imperfect were examined in this light in order to determine how the input-based hypothesis and theory could inform the input-enhancement methods and techniques needed for the design of a computer application focusing on the instruction of the targeted structures. Despite having considered the above mentioned hypothesis and theory, to derive potentially effective input-enhancement techniques, the application would have to take the following into account: the student's learning problems observed during classroom teaching, the shortcomings of the language models included in textbooks, the drawbacks of current grammar rules, our incomplete knowledge of the uses of the Spanish preterite/imperfect. Consequently, this mini input-enhancement application draws insights from the following areas to guide its design: the input-enhancement hypothesis, processing instruction theory, the author's investigation in the uses of the Spanish preterite/imperfect, the benefits of using videos in language instruction, and the concept of data-driven learning as exemplified by concordances. The author concludes by proposing that to create a potentially effective input application for grammar instruction, CALL designers need to consult other relevant areas in addition to considering SLA theory.
References
Anderson, R. W. (1991). Developmental sequences: The emergence of aspect marking in second language acquisition. In T. M. Huebner & C. A. Ferguson (Eds.), Crosscurrents in second language acquisition and linguistic theory (pp. 305-323). Amsterdam, Philadelphia: John Benjamins.
Chapelle, C. (1998). Multimedia CALL: Lessons to be learned from research on instructed SLA. Language Learning & Technology, 2 (1), 22-34. Retrieved from http:// llt.msu.edu/vol2num1/article1/index.html
Chapelle, C. (1997). CALL in the year 2000: Still in search of research paradigms? Language Learning & Technology, 1 (1), 19-43. Retrieved from http://llt.msu. edu/ vol1num1/chapelle/default.html
Collentine, J. (1998). Cognitive principles and CALL grammar instruction: A mind-centered, input approach. CALICO Journal, 15 (1-3), 1-18.
Doughty, C. (1991). Second language instruction does make a difference: Evidence from an empirical study of SL relativization. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 13, 431-469.
Ellis, R. (1998). Teaching and research: Options in grammar teaching. TESOL Quarterly, 32, 39-60.
García, E. C., & van Putte, F. C. M. (1988). The value of contrast: Contrasting the value of strategies. IRAL (International Review of Applied Linguistics in Language Teaching), 26 (4), 263-280.
Garza, T. (1996). The Message is the medium: Using video materials to facilitate foreign language performance. Texas Papers in Foreign Language Education, 2, 118.
Grice, H. P. (1975). Logic and conversation. In P. Cole & J. Morgan (Eds.), Syntax and semantics: Vol. 3. Speech acts (pp. 41-58). New York: Academic Press.
Hwu, F. (2003). Learners’ behaviors in computer-based input activities elicited through tracking technologies. CALL Journal, 16 (1), 5-29.
Johns, T. (1998). Whence and whither classroom concordancing? In T. Bongaerts, P. de Haan, S. Lobbe, & H. Wekker (Eds.), Computers in English language learning (pp. 9-33). Dordrecht, Holland: Foris.
Johns, T. (1990). From printout to handout: Grammar and vocabulary teaching in the context of data-driven learning. In T. Johns & P. King (Eds.), Classroom concordancing, English Language Research Journal, iv (pp. 293-313). Birmingham: University of Birmingham.
Johns, T. (1986). Micro-concord: A language learner’s research tool. System, 14 (2), 151162.
Krashen, S. (1982). Principles and practices in second language acquisition. New York: Pergamon Press.
Lee, J., & VanPatten, B. (1995). Making communicative language teaching happen. New York: McGraw-Hill.
Lonergan, J. (1984). Video in language teaching. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
López-Ortega, N. R. (2000). Tense, aspect, and narrative structure in Spanish as a second language. Hispania, 83, 487-502.
Rézeau, J. (2001). Concordances in the classroom: The evidence of the data. In A. Chambers & G. Davies (Eds.), ICT and language learning: a European perspective (pp. 147-166). Amsterdam, The Netherlands: Swets & Zeitlinger.
Salaberry, M. R. (1999). The development of Spanish tense verbal morphology in classroom L2 Spanish. Applied Linguistics, 20 (2), 151-178.
Schmidt, R., & Frota, S. (1986). Developing basic conversational ability in a second language: A case study of an adult learner of Portuguese. In R. Day (Ed.), Talking to learn: Conversation in second language acquisition. Rowley, MA: Newbury House.
Sharwood Smith, M. (1991). Speaking to many minds: On the relevance of different types of language information for the L2 learner. Second Language Research, 7 (2), 118-132.
Sharwood Smith, M. (1993). Input enhancement in instructed SLA: Theoretical bases. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 15, 165-179.
Sinclair, J. C. (1985). Retrospect and prospect: Selected issues in English in the world. In R. Quirk & H. G. widdowson (Eds.), English in the world. Teaching and learning the language and literatures (pp. 248-254). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Tomasello, M., & Hurron, C. (1988). Down the garden path: Inducing and correcting overgeneralization errors in the foreign language classroom. Applied Psycholinguistics, 9, 237-246.
Tomasello, M., & Hurron, C. (1989). Feedback for language transfer errors: The garden path technique. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 11, 385-395.
Tribble, C. (1990). Concordancing and an EAP writing program. CAELL Journal, 1-2, 10-15.
Tribble, C., & Jones, G. (1997). Concordances in the classroom. A resource for teachers. Houston, TX: Athelstan Publications.
VanPatten, B. (1996). Input processing and grammar instruction. Theory and research. Norwood, NJ: Ablex Publishing.
Westfall, R., & Forester, S. (1996). Beyond aspect: New strategies for teaching the preterite and the imperfect. Hispania, 79, 550-560.
