Sequential or Simultaneous Processing

1
Sequential or Simultaneous Processing?

• ZhaoHong Han
• The Spring 2004 Advanced SLA Class Symposium

2
Practical motivation

• Live demo of experimental procedures
• Experiencing experimental tasks that are typical
  of studies of memory and attention
• Providing an experiential basis for understanding
  memory constructs

3
Theoretical Motivation

• A fundamental assumption Human beings have a
  limited capacity for information processing
• Three predictions
• Input processing is selective
• Simultaneous processing of two different types of
  information is difficult
• Simultaneous processing of two different types of
  information can lead to inadequate processing of
  either type or both types of information

4
Theoretical Motivations

• Processing is isomorphic with attention and
  memory, but neither attention nor memory is
  monolithic.
• A much asked question Which type of attention is
  needed for L2 input processing?
• Differing theoretical positions
• Focal
• Peripheral
• Multiple-resources

5
L2 researchers have been interested in finding
out

• Are L2 learners able to process L2 reading
  materials for form and meaning simultaneously?
• Meaning and form are two distinct aspects of
  input.
• Major empirical findings
• Meaning-oriented processing as the primary
  approach to input processing
• Form-oriented processing is secondary.
• Learners appear to be more capable of sequential
  than simultaneous processing
• However, existing studies have focused, almost
  exclusively, on learners who have had some
  knowledge of the target language.

6
What remains to be seen

• Input processing performed by learners who have
  zero linguistic knowledge relevant to the reading
  material
• Is input processing incurred by the very first
  exposure to a new language subject to the
  putative default, meaning-based approach?

7
Research Questions and Hypotheses

• What is the default approach for complete
  beginners to process a reading text?
• Do they score better when processing the meaning
  and form of the reading text sequentially or
  simultaneously?

• They would adopt a meaning-based approach to
  processing a reading text, as has been argued by
  VanPatten (1996) and Skehan (1998).
• They would achieve better comprehension and
  recognition of form when processing input
  sequentially than otherwise.

8
Method
9
Design and Procedures
10
Coding and Analyses

• Coding categories
• Correct idea units
• TL words without understanding (Word -M)
• TL words with understanding (Words M)
• Correct answers on the fill-in-the-blank task
• Analyses
• Quantitative
• Qualitative

11
Some Results
12
Descriptive Statistics
13
Between-group Variance
14
Between-group Similarities and Differences

• The SM group scored better on the idea units than
  did the SQ group.
• The SQ group recognized more TL words without
  attendant understanding thereof than did the SM
  group.
• The SM group recognized more TL words with
  understanding thereof than did the SQ group.
• Both groups scored equally well on the
  fill-in-the-blank test.

15
Some Tentative Findings

• The default approach for both groups appeared
  to be form-oriented rather than meaning-oriented.
  
• The SM Group were better able to process the
  reading text for meaning.
• The SQ Group were better able to process the
  reading text for form.