Loading...
Processing Instruction and Russian: Further Evidence is IN
Comer, William J. deBenedette, Lynne
Comer, William J.
deBenedette, Lynne
Citations
Altmetric:
Abstract
In response to Leaver, Rifkin, and Shekhtman (2004), Wong and VanPatten (2004) challenged instructors of Russian to present evidence for the claim that mechanical drills (Traditional Instruction) were necessary for second language learning, and to demonstrate empirically the claim that Processing Instruction would not be an effective intervention for Russian. The current study compares the effects of the two instructional models for teaching the distinction between directional and locational expressions in Russian. Processing Instruction 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 Traditional Instruction group improved most only on the production task. The study shows Processing Instruction's robustness for teaching complex form-meaning mappings in Russian.
Description
Author Posting. © American Council on the Teaching of Foreign Languages, Inc. 2011. This is the author's version of the work. It is posted here by permission of the American Council on the Teaching of Foreign Languages, Inc. for personal use, not for redistribution. The definitive version was published in Foreign Language Annals, 44 (4): 646–673. http://dx.doi.org/ DOI: 10.1111/j.1944-9720.2011.01155.x
Date
2011-11-14
Journal Title
Journal ISSN
Volume Title
Publisher
Blackwell Publishing
Research Projects
Organizational Units
Journal Issue
Keywords
Russian, Processing Instruction, classroom praxis, mechanical drills, second language acquisition
Citation
Comer, W. J., & deBenedette, L. (2011). Processing Instruction and Russian: Further Evidence Is IN. Foreign Language Annals, 44(4), 646-673. http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1944-9720.2011.01155.x