Here are suggested answers to the Think About It items in this chapter of the Online Learning Center website.

1. Argue against the misconception that VanPatten advocates Processing Instruction alone to the exclusion of any output centered practice. Are structured input and structured output activities incompatible? What does each foster?

Teacher’s Note: Response should include the following:


• Although the structured input (SI) approach to focus on form is designed to help input be converted into intake, Lee and VanPatten also advocate the use of structured output (SO) activities. In addition, they lay out certain guidelines for the design of these SO activities. SI and SO activities are compatible in that they serve very different functions; the former addresses the acquisition of form and structure, while the latter give learners practice in accessing forms and structures that have already been acquired. SO activities help learners become more accurate and fluent.

2. How are structured output activities different from communicative drills? Briefly explain how each might look.

Teacher’s Note: Response should include the following:


• Communicative drills are often so grammar focused that the exchange of any real information becomes secondary at best and sometimes nonexistent. In communicative drills, activity items may be unrelated since there is seldom an overarching theme or topic. Finally, mechanical and meaningful drills usually precede communicative drills, so learners quickly perceive the “grammatical agenda” and abandon the sharing of interesting, unknown information. In contrast, structured output activities keep meaning in focus and always involve the exchange of new information. Learners also are required to respond to their classmates.

3. Explain the debate over the psycholinguistic validity of paradigms as well as their affective function. After weighing both sides of the debate, what is your personal opinion on the matter?

Teacher’s Note: Response should include the following:


• Some argue that paradigms found in pedagogical texts are not similar in nature to the internal network of forms in learners’ heads. However, even though the two representations (internal vs. external on paper) are quite different, paradigms still may serve an important function. They may satisfy learners’ psychological need to summarize the lesson(s) so they don’t “miss the forest for the trees.” While it may be agreed that learners don’t possess internal, textbook-like paradigms, paradigms may help some students conceptualize the grammar point(s) more easily. Overall, they couldn’t hurt more than they help!