Processing Instruction and Russian: Further Evidence is IN
Comer, William J.
Scholarly/refereed, author accepted manuscript
MetadataShow full item record
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.
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
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
Items in KU ScholarWorks are protected by copyright, with all rights reserved, unless otherwise indicated.
We want to hear from you! Please share your stories about how Open Access to this item benefits YOU.