This paper firstly presents and examines the pedagogical intervention called Processing Instruction (PI). Secondly, it reviews and discusses the main findings of the empirical research conducted to measure the relative effects of PI. Current research trends within the PI research framework will be outlined. Experimental research investigating the effects of this pedagogical intervention in language teaching, and grammar instruction in particular, has primarily used listening and reading measures (so-called ‘off-line measures’) to elicit how learners comprehend and process sentences. On-line measurements, such as eye tracking and self-paced reading, have now been incorporated into PI research to measure language processing more directly. Finally, this paper provides specific guidelines and procedures for teachers on when and how to use PI.

The present study explores discourse and long-term effects of structured input (SI) and structured output when delivered in isolation or in combination on the acquisition of the English causative. Research investigating the effects of SI has indicated that it is the causative variable in the positive effects of processing instruction. To provide answers to the questions formulated in this study, one classroom experiment was carried out. Sixty-eight school-age Greek learners (aged 10–12) participated. The participants were randomly assigned to three groups: SI only group (n = 22); structured output only group (n = 22); combined SI and structured output group (n = 24). Subjects who scored lower than 50% in the pre-tests were included in the final data collection. Instruction lasted for 3 h. The design included a delayed post-tests battery (immediate, 3 weeks after instruction, 24 weeks after instruction). The assessment tasks included an interpretation and production task at discourse-level. The results indicated that learners who received SI both in isolation and in combination benefitted more than learners receiving structured output only. These two groups were able to retain instructional gains 3 weeks after instruction (short-term effects) in all assessment measures. Long-term effects after 6 months were also investigated.

The present study explores the effects of structured input and traditional instruction on the acquisition of English causative passive forms using online measurements (eye-tracking). Previous empirical research investigating the effects of processing instruction through offline measurements (sentence and discourse) has overall shown positive results for this pedagogical intervention. Research investigating the main factor responsible for the effectiveness of processing instruction has confirmed that it is the structured input component that is the causative factor for the positive effects of processing instruction. The main questions of this study are: (1) what are the effects of structured input and traditional instruction on accuracy when measured by an eye-tracking picture selection task? (2) would possible difference in accuracy between structured input and traditional instruction be accompanied by changes in eye-movement patterns? To provide answers to the two questions formulated in this study, one eye-tracking study was carried out. Fifty-two adult learners (aged 19–21 years) participated and were assigned to one of two groups: structured input (n = 26) or traditional instruction (n = 26). Neither instructional groups received explicit information. A pre and post-training design was adopted and the two groups received two different instructional treatments (structured input vs. traditional instruction). Participants were assessed through a picture selection eye-tracking task to measure accuracy and eye-movement patterns while they were processing auditory sentences. Results of the eye-tracking task indicated that the structured input group achieved significantly higher accuracy scores compared to the group receiving traditional instruction. The main findings from the present study reveal that structured input training causes a change in learners’ eye-movement patterns.

Input Processing refers to the initial process by which learners connect grammatical forms with their meanings as well as how they interpret the roles of nouns in relationship to verbs. The pedagogical intervention derived from this theoretical framework, Processing Instruction (PI), has consistently shown success at improving second language (L2) learners’ processing strategies. PI helps learners to intake “better input” by directing their attention to targeted forms during input processing and to assign grammatical and semantic roles. Although previous findings reveal that PI is an effective pedagogy in L2 learning, in this chapter we explore whether similar benefits would hold for third language (L3) learning. Through considerations related to the complimentary and competitive nature of first languages (L1s) and L2s, along with insight from cognitive bilingualism, we advocate for future studies to test the hypotheses discussed in this chapter.

Input Processing is a theoretical framework on which the pedagogical paradigm called Processing Instruction is predicated. In this book, new data on the acquisition of Italian and Modern Standard Arabic are presented and analyzed within this framework. Each study in the book explores how input processing strategies affect the acquisition of a particular linguistic feature and/or structure in the two languages. The studies use both offline (e.g., sentence and discourse-level tasks) and online tests (e.g., eye-tracking) to measure the effects of this instructional training.

The importance of input has always been recognised in the field of second language acquisition and hence one of the key questions addressed by researchers is how second language (L2) learners process input when listening or reading. The purpose of the present chapter is threefold. First, a synopsis of VanPatten’s Input Processing Theory (VanPatten 1996, 2004, 2007) is provided. Input Processing Theory aims to offer an explanation as to how L2 learners process input, how they make form-meaning connections and how they map syntactic structures onto the utterance. Secondly, a review of empirical research supporting input processing principles will be provided and, finally, theoretical and pedagogical implications from research within the input processing framework will be drawn.