Traditional form-focused instruction produces significant gains in production but not in comprehension¶

Claim · All claims
Evidence · 1 study · causal r? · q3
Currency · newest study 1993 · not yet checked against its sources · not reviewed by a person

Subclaims¶

q3 i? Learners experiencing traditional instruction (explanation and output practice) made significant gains on the production task only, with no reported comprehension gains. → Bill VanPatten and Teresa Cadierno 1993

Evidence¶

Bill VanPatten and Teresa Cadierno 1993¶

Bill VanPatten and Teresa Cadierno. (1993). Explicit Instruction and Input Processing. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, Volume 15, Issue 2. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0272263100011979

q3 · i? · causal · r?

In the same experiment analyzed by ANOVA, the traditional instruction group, whose treatment "involves explanation and output practice of a grammatical point," showed significant gains on the production measure only. No effect size is printed, and equivalence on comprehension was not tested.

"For those experiencing traditional instruction, significant gains were made in production only."

Discussion¶

Related Claims¶

• Processing instruction produces significant gains in both sentence-level comprehension and production — related
• A 1982 bilingual-education teacher-training packet asserts, citing Krashen, that repetitive drill and grammar-focused instruction are ineffective for second language acquisition — related
• Comprehensible input alone is insufficient for acquisition of high levels of grammatical proficiency — related
• Form-focused instruction combined with prompts is more effective than FFI combined with recasts or no feedback, especially on written tasks — related