Previous second language studies (Benati, 2004; Buck, 2000; Cadierno, 1995) have shown Processing Instruction (VanPatten & Cadierno, 1993a) to be successful in altering L2 learners' incorrect processing strategies. Studies conducted from the Input Processing perspective (VanPatten, 2004) have found that English learners of French incorrectly assign direct object nouns/pronouns as subject nouns/pronouns and confuse who is doing the action to whom. Heilenman & McDonald (1993a) suggest that teaching dislocation can help these learners to rely less on word order and more on clitic pronouns. Input Processing as well as other research (Harrington, 1992; MacWhinney, 2005; Mikaye & Friedman, 1998) suggests that working memory plays an important role in L2 acquisition. In this study, I evaluate the effect of instruction type on altering L2 processing strategies and the influence of working memory on instruction type. Second and third semester French students received either Processing Instruction (PI), Traditional Instruction (TI), or no instruction. Those receiving instruction learned about dislocation while the PI group also learned how to interpret OVS, OSV and SOV strings. The two instructional groups practiced what they had learned through oral and written activities: structured input activities for the PI group and mechanical and meaningful drills for the TI group. Each participant also did an in-class reading span test, and was classified as having a higher or a lower working memory capacity. Success of the instructional types was operationalized by the scores of an immediate and a delayed posttest. Results indicate that the PI group did better on the interpretation task while the TI group scored higher on the production task. Participants performed as they had been taught. In addition, learners with certain cognitive resources did not benefit from one type of instruction over the other. Those with higher working memory scored higher than those with lower working memory on both tasks. These results do not support other Processing Instruction findings because the PI group was not as successful as the TI group on the production task. They do, however, support previous working memory research and indicate that working memory plays a role in both comprehension and production activities. / A Dissertation Submitted to the Department of Modern Languages and Linguistics in Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements for the Degree of Doctor of
Philosophy. / Spring Semester, 2007. / February 19, 2007. / Processing Instruction, L2 Learning, Working Memory / Includes bibliographical references. / Gretchen Sunderman, Professor Directing Dissertation; Leigh Edwards, Outside Committee Member; Michael Leeser, Committee Member; William Cloonan, Committee Member.
| Identifer | oai:union.ndltd.org:fsu.edu/oai:fsu.digital.flvc.org:fsu_180326 |
| Contributors | Santamaría, Kindra, 1975- (authoraut), Sunderman, Gretchen (professor directing dissertation), Edwards, Leigh (outside committee member), Leeser, Michael (committee member), Cloonan, William (committee member), Department of Modern Languages and Linguistics (degree granting department), Florida State University (degree granting institution) |
| Publisher | Florida State University, Florida State University |
| Source Sets | Florida State University |
| Language | English, English |
| Detected Language | English |
| Type | Text, text |
| Format | 1 online resource, computer, application/pdf |
| Rights | This Item is protected by copyright and/or related rights. You are free to use this Item in any way that is permitted by the copyright and related rights legislation that applies to your use. For other uses you need to obtain permission from the rights-holder(s). The copyright in theses and dissertations completed at Florida State University is held by the students who author them. |
Page generated in 0.002 seconds