The Mediating Role of Explicit Information in Processing Instruction and Production-Based Instruction on Second Language Morphological Development

Abstract

This study explored the effectiveness of processing instruction (PI) and production-based instruction (PBI) with and without explicit information (EI) on the acquisition of the English simple past tense regular verb morpheme (-ed). To this end, nine Turkish EFL classes at a preparatory school of an English medium university in Istanbul were randomly selected and assigned into four instructional groups: PI+EI (n = 28), PI-EI (n = 32), PBI+EI (n = 32), PBI-EI (n = 36), and one control group (n = 16). Pre/post-test analyses showed that all the instructional groups outperformed the control group from the pre-test to the posttest. Regarding specific group differences, the PI-EI and PBI-EI groups made equal gains in both interpretation and production tasks. When EI was included as a component, however, the PI+EI group performed significantly better than the PBI+EI group on the interpretation task, while both groups showed equally improved performance on the production task. That is, EI mediated for the greater effectiveness of the PI condition than the PBI condition on the interpretation task. Further comparisons of PI+EI to PI-EI and of PBI+EI to PBI-EI showed no significant difference within the groups. Findings are discussed, implications are provided for the teachers; directions are made for further research.

Keywords

• Processing instruction
• production-based instruction
• explicit information
• structured input
• structured output

Açık Anlatım Destekli Dilsel Girdi İşlemleme ve Dilsel Çıktı Eğitiminin İkinci Dil Biçimbilgisi Gelişimine Etkisinin Araştırılması

Abstract

Bu çalışma, dilsel girdi işlemleme (input) ve dilsel çıktı (output) eğitimlerinin İngilizce’deki geçmiş zaman ekinin (-ed) edinimine olan etkisini araştırmıştır. Ayrıca, çalışmada açık anlatım destekli dilbilgisi eğitiminin (explicit information) dilsel girdi işlemleme ve çıktı eğitim grupları üzerindeki etkisi de araştırılmıştır. Bu bağlamda, Istanbul’da eğitim dili İngilizce olan bir üniversitenin İngilizce hazırlık okulunda eğitim görmekte olan dokuz sınıf rastgele seçilmiş olup bu sınıflar açık anlatım destekli dilsel girdi işlemleme eğitimi grubu (n=28), sadece dilsel girdi işlemleme eğitimi grubu (n=32), açık anlatım destekli dilsel çıktı eğitimi grubu (n=32) ve sadece dilsel çıktı eğitimi grubu (n=36) olmak üzere dört deney grubuna ve bir de kontrol grubuna (n=16) rastgele dağıtılmıştır. Ön ve son testler göstermiştir ki bu dört deney grubunun, aldıkları eğitim sonucunda hedef dilbilgisi yapısı ile ilgili verilen hem kavrama hem de çıktı testlerinde kontrol sınıfından daha fazla başarı göstermişlerdir. Ayrıca sadece dilsel girdi işlemleme eğitimi ve sadece çıktı eğitimi alan gruplar kavrama ve çıktı testlerinde eşit düzeyde performans gösterirken, bu gruplar açık anlatımlı dilbilgisi eğitimi ile desteklendiğinde girdi işlemleme eğitimi grubu çıktı eğitimi alan gruptan kavrama testlerinde daha başarılı bulunmuştur. Bu sonuç, ilgili alınyazın için oldukça önemli bir sonuçtur, çünkü bu sonuç göstermiştir ki açık anlatımlı dilbilgisinin, girdi işlemleme için özellikle hedef dilbilgisi yapısının kavranmasına faydası olduğu görülürken, dilsel çıktı grubuna ise çıktı testlerinde girdi işlemleme eğitimi grubundan daha fazla katkı sağlamamıştır. Araştırmada ortaya çıkan bu önemli sonuca bağlı olarak bu makalede hem Bill VanPatten’a ait olan girdi işlemleme eğitimi modeline katkı sağlanacak hem de sonuçlar göz önünde bulundurularak İngilizce öğretmenlerine bir dizi önerilerde bulunulacaktır.

Keywords

• Girdi işlemleme
• üretime dayalı dilbilgisi çıktı eğitimi
• açık anlatım destekli dilbilgisi eğitimi
• yapılandırılmış girdi
• yapılandırılmış çıktı

References

1. Bayrak, S., & Soruç, A. (2017). Comparative effectiveness of input-based instructions on L2 grammar knowledge: Textual enhancement and processing instruction. Sakarya University Journal of Education, 7(1), 195-208.
2. Benati, A. (2001). A comparative study of the effects of processing instruction and output-based instruction on acquisition of the Italian future tense. Language Teaching Research, 5, 95-127.
3. Benati, A. (2004a). The effect of structured input activities and explicit information on the acquisition of Italian future tense. In B. VanPatten (Ed.), Processing instruction: Theory, research, and commentary (pp. 211–229). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
4. Benati, A. (2004b). The effects of processing instruction and its components on the acquisition of gender agreement in Italian. Language Awareness, 13(2), 67-80.
5. Benati, A. (2005). The effects of processing instruction, traditional instruction and meaning-output instruction on the acquisition of the English past simple tense. Language Teaching Research, 9, 67-93.
6. Benati, A., & Angelovska, T. (2015). The effects of processing instruction on the acquisition of English simple past tense: Age and cognitive task demands. International Review of Applied Linguistics in Language Teaching, 53(2), 249- 269.
7. Cadierno, T. (1995). Formal instruction from a processing perspective: An investigation into the Spanish past tense. Modern Language Journal, 19, 179-193.
8. Chan, M. (2019). The Role of classroom ınput: Processing instruction, traditional instruction, and implicit instruction in the acquisition of the English simple past by Cantonese ESL learners in Hong Kong. System, 80, 246-256. Cheng, A. (2002). The effects of processing instruction on the acquisition of ser and

9. ester. Hispania, 85, 308-323.
10. Culman, H., Henry, N., & VanPatten, B. (2009). The role of explicit information in instructed SLA: An on-line study with processing instruction and German accusative case inflections. Die Unterrichtspraxis/Teaching German, 42(1), 19- 31.
11. DeKeyser, R., & Botana, G. P. (2015). The effectiveness of processing instruction in L2 grammar acquisition: A narrative review. Applied Linguistics, 36(3), 290-305.
12. Farley, A. P. (2001). Authentic processing instruction and the Spanish subjunctive. Hispania, 84, 289-299.
13. Farley, A. P. (2004). Processing instruction and the Spanish subjunctive: Is Explicit Information Needed? In B. VanPatten (Ed.), Processing instruction: Theory, research, and commentary (pp. 231-243). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
14. Fernandez, C. (2008). Reexamining the role of explicit information in processing instruction. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 30, 277–305.
15. Henry, N., Culman, H., & VanPatten, B. (2009). More on the effects of explicit information in processing instruction: A partial replication and response to
16. Fernandez (2008). Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 31, 359–375.
17. Izumi, S. (2003). Comprehension and production processes in second language learning: In search of the psycholinguistic rationale of the output hypothesis. Applied Linguistics, 24(2), 168–196. Jiang, N. (2004). Morphological insensitivity in second language processing. Applied Psycholinguistics, 25(4), 603–634.
18. Keating, G. D., & Farley A. P. (2008). Processing instruction, Meaning-based output instruction, and Meaning-based drills: Impacts on classroom L2 acquisition of Spanish object pronouns. Hispania 91(3), 639-650.
19. Krashen, S. (1982). Principles and practice in second language acquisition. Oxford: Pergamon.
20. Krashen, S. (1985). The input hypothesis: Issues and implications. London: Longman.
21. Lee, J. F., & VanPatten, B. (2003). Making communicative language teaching happen. McGraw-Hill.
22. Lee, J. F., & Benati, A. (2009). Research and perspectives on processing instruction. Mouton de Gruyter. Leminen, A., Smolka, E., Dunabeitia, J. A., & Pliatsikas, C. (2019). Morphological processing in the brain: The good (inflection), the bad (derivation) and the ugly (compounding). Cortex, 116, 4-44.
23. Qin, J. (2008). The effect of processing instruction and dictogloss tasks on the acquisition of English passive voice. Language Teaching Research, 12, 61-82.
24. Sanz, C. (2004). Computer delivered implicit vs. explicit feedback in processing instruction. In B. VanPatten (Ed.), Processing instruction: Theory, research, and commentary (pp. 245–59). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
25. Sanz, C., & Morgan-Short, K. (2004). Positive evidence vs. explicit rule presentation and explicit negative feedback: A computer-assisted study. Language Learning, 54(1), 35-78.
26. Schmidt, R. (1990). The role of consciousness in second language learning. Applied Linguistics, 11, 129-58.
27. Sharwood-Smith, M. (2015). A commentary on processing instruction. International Review of Applied Linguistics in Language Teaching, 53(2), 271–275.
28. Shintani, N. (2015). The Effectiveness of Processing Instruction and Production-based Instruction on L2 Grammar Acquisition: A Meta-analysis. Applied Linguistics, 36(3), 306-325.
29. Shintani, N., Li, S., & Ellis, R. (2013). Comprehension-based versus production-based grammar instruction: A meta-analysis of comparative studies. Language Learning, 63(2), 296–329.
30. Soruç, A., Qin, J., & Kim, Y. (2017). Comparing the effectiveness of processing instruction and production-based instruction on L2 grammar acquisition: The role of explicit information. TESL Canada, 34(2), 49-70. Swain, M. (1985). Communicative competence: Some roles of comprehensible input and comprehensible output in its development. In S. Gass & C. Madden (Eds.), Input in second language acquisition (pp. 235–253). Rowley, MA: Newbury House.
31. Swain, M. (1995). Three functions of output in second language learning. In G. Cook &B. Seidlhofer (Eds.), Principle and practice in applied linguistics: Studies in honour of H.G. Widdowson (pp. 125–144). Oxford: Oxford University Press.
32. Swain, M. (2007). The Output hypothesis and beyond: Mediating acquisition through collaborative dialogue. In M. Pawlak (Ed.), Exploring focus on form in language teaching (pp. 73-91). Poznan: Faculty of Pedagogy and Fine Arts in Kalisz.
33. Toth, P. (2006). Processing instruction and a role for output in second language acquisition. Language Learning, 56(2), 319–385.
34. VanPatten, B. (1990). Attending to form and content in the input. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 12, 287–301.
35. VanPatten, B. (1993). Grammar teaching for the acquisition-rich classroom. Foreign Language Annals, 26, 435-450.
36. VanPatten, B. (1996). Input processing and grammar instruction: Theory and research. Norwood, NJ: Ablex.
37. VanPatten, B. (2002). Processing instruction: An update. Language Learning, 52(4), 755–803.
38. VanPatten, B. (2004). Input processing in SLA. In B. VanPatten (Ed.), Processing instruction: Theory, research, and commentary (pp. 5–31). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
39. VanPatten, B. (2015). Foundations of processing instruction. International Review of Applied Linguistics in Language Teaching, 53(2), 91–109.
40. VanPatten, B., & Borst, S. (2012). The roles of explicit information and grammatical sensitivity in the processing of clitic direct object pronouns and word order in Spanish L2. Hispania, 95(2), 270-284.
41. VanPatten, B., & Cadierno, T. (1993). Explicit instruction and input processing. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 15, 225–243.
42. VanPatten, B., Collopy, E., Price, J.E., Borst, S., & Qualin, A. (2013). Explicit information, grammatical sensitivity, and the first-noun principle: A crosslinguistic study in processing instruction. The Modern Language Journal, 97(2), 506–527.
43. VanPatten, B., Farmer, J. L., & Clardy, C. L. (2009). Processing instruction and meaning-based output instruction: A response to Keating and Farley (2008). Hispania, 92(1), 124–135.
44. VanPatten, B. & Fernandez, C. (2004). The Long-term effects of Processing Instruction. In B. VanPatten (Ed.), Processing instruction: Theory, research, and commentary (pp. 277–93). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
45. VanPatten, B., Inclezan, D., Salazar, H., & Farley, A. (2009). Processing instruction and dictogloss: A study on object pronouns and word order in Spanish. Foreign Language Annals, 42(3), 557-575.
46. VanPatten, B., & Oikkenon, S. (1996). Explanation versus structured input in processing instruction. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 18, 495-510.
47. VanPatten, B. & Sanz, C. (1995). From input to output: Processing instruction and communicative tasks. In F. Eckman, D. Highland, P. Lee, J. Mileham & R. Rutkowski (Eds.), Second language acquisition: Theory and pedagogy (pp. 169- 186). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
48. VanPatten, B., & Uludag, O. (2011). Transfer of training and processing instruction: from input to output. System, 39, 44–53.
49. VanPatten, B., & Wong, W. (2004). Processing instruction and the French Causative: Another replication. In B. VanPatten (Ed.), Processing instruction: Theory, research, and commentary (pp. 99–120). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
50. Wong, W. (2004a). The nature of processing instruction. In B. VanPatten (Ed.), Processing instruction: Theory, research and commentary (pp. 33-65). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
51. Wong, W. (2004b). Processing instruction in French: The role of explicit information and structured input. In B. VanPatten (Ed.), Processing instruction: Theory, research, and commentary (pp. 187-206). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.