Premium
P rocessing I nstruction and R ussian: Further Evidence Is IN
Author(s) -
Comer William J.,
deBenedette Lynne
Publication year - 2011
Publication title -
foreign language annals
Language(s) - English
Resource type - Journals
SCImago Journal Rank - 1.258
H-Index - 49
eISSN - 1944-9720
pISSN - 0015-718X
DOI - 10.1111/j.1944-9720.2011.01155.x
Subject(s) - teaching method , mathematics education , linguistics , task (project management) , meaning (existential) , computer science , robustness (evolution) , psychology , philosophy , biochemistry , chemistry , psychotherapist , gene , management , economics
In response to L eaver, R ifkin, and S hekhtman (2004), W ong and V anPatten (2004) challenged instructors of R ussian to present evidence for the claim that mechanical drills ( T raditional I nstruction) were necessary for second language learning, and to demonstrate empirically the claim that P rocessing I nstruction would not be an effective intervention for R ussian. The current study compares the effects of the two instructional models for teaching the distinction between directional and locational expressions in R ussian. P rocessing I nstruction is found to be more effective than traditional mechanical drills, because learners made significant improvement in interpreting as well as producing locational and destinational sentences, while the T raditional I nstruction group improved most only on the production task. The study shows P rocessing I nstruction's robustness for teaching complex form‐meaning mappings in R ussian.