Cited by 122EFL/ESL Teaching and LearningSecond Language Acquisition and LearningNeurobiology of Language and Bilingualism

What Gets Processed in Processing Instruction? A Commentary on Bill VanPatten’s “Processing Instruction: An Update”

DeKeyser, Robert, Salaberry, Rafael, Robinson, Peter, Harrington, Michael·2002·Language Learning

Abstract

In this article we respond to VanPatten’s update of the findings for processing instruction. We begin by questioning the explanatory adequacy of the model of input processing that VanPatten has proposed and that underpins his pedagogic proposals. We question both the validity of the limited–capacity, single–resource model of attention he proposes for second language classroom learning, and also the details of the mechanisms he argues are implicated in second language processing. We then arguefor alternative explanations of the effects found for input processing instruction and against VanPatten’s claim that the studies he reviews are true replications of earlier findings.Throughout we argue that further specification of cognitive resources, processing mechanisms,and conditions of learning operationalized in putative replications areessential if research into input processing instruction is to be explanatory, and cumulative, as VanPatten claims it is.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1111/1467-9922.00204

Cites

1 of 1 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Claims the paper makes

We couldn’t retrieve this paper’s full text, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

  • The balance of experimental findings supports the effectiveness for SLA of encouraging learners to produce output.

    “The balance of experimental findings supports the effectiveness for SLA of encouraging learners to produce output+”

    From AT THE INTERFACE: DYNAMIC INTERACTIONS OF EXPLICIT AND IMPLICIT LANGUAGE KNOWLEDGE (2005) · cites this paper as DeKeyser et al., 2002

Cites

  • Focus on Form

    Long, M. (1991) · Studies in Bilingualism · doi:10.1075/sibil.2.07lon · Cited by 1,775 · cited 2× · see citing works

    “…his analysis of the state of the art of the field of L2 instruction is open to criticism given that language teaching practice does not necessarily mirror the pedagogical approach presented in textbooks, nor does it necessarily reflect what teachers claim they do in a language class (Long, 1991).”
    Background

Flagged first, then by citations

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
DeKeyser, R., Salaberry, R., Robinson, P., & Harrington, M.
Affiliations
  • University of Pittsburgh (US)
  • Aoyama Gakuin University (JP)
  • The University of Queensland (AU)
Venue
Language Learning
Publisher
Wiley
Published
2002-12
Volume
52
Issue
4
Pages
805-823
ISSN
  • 0023-8333 (ISSN-L)
  • 1467-9922
OpenAlex
W1998874217
Cited by
122
References
1
Citations by year
2025: 1 · 2024: 1 · 2023: 1 · 2021: 1 · 2020: 2 · 2019: 1 · 2018: 1 · 2016: 5 · 2015: 30 · 2014: 7 · 2013: 3 · 2012: 6
FWCI
31.20
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Locations
Language Learning (publishedVersion)
Topics
  • Social Sciences › Arts and Humanities › Language and Linguistics › EFL/ESL Teaching and Learning
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Developmental and Educational Psychology › Second Language Acquisition and Learning
  • Life Sciences › Neuroscience › Cognitive Neuroscience › Neurobiology of Language and Bilingualism
Keywords
processing instruction, input processing, attentional resources, second language acquisition, cognitive resources, cumulative research

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review