Processing Instruction Revisited: Does it Lead to Superior Performance in Interpretation and Production?

Year 2019, , 89 - 111, 24.03.2019

Majid Farahian Farnaz Avarzamani

https://doi.org/10.32601/ejal.543783

Abstract

There have been plenty of research studies which have demonstrated
the efficacy of focus on form (FonF) approach in language teaching. However,
processing instruction as a kind of FonF approach has not been given due
attention. As such, the present study is an attempt to shed more lights upon
the effects of the processing instruction (PI) on EFL (English as a Foreign
Language) learners’ acquisition of passive voice by comparing PI to dictogloss
and an output instruction. The participants recruited for the study were 51
pre-intermediate level EFL students. The pretest revealed that there was no
significant difference between the groups regarding passive voice knowledge. As to the treatment, the first group
(n=17) received processing instruction, the second group (n=17) was exposed to
dictogloss tasks, and the third (n=17) was given meaningful output instruction.
In the immediate posttest, two types of tasks (interpretation and production)
were used to assess the participants’ English passive voice comprehension and
production. The findings indicated that the processing instruction group
outperformed dictogloss and meaningful output instruction in both tasks, and
thus it had a significantly positive effect on the comprehension and production
of the English passive voice. 

Keywords

processing instruction, dictogloss, meaning-based output instruction, English passive voice

References

• Alderson, C. (1997). Models of language: whose? what for? what use? In A. Ryan & A. Wray (Eds.), Evolving models of language: British Studies in Applied Linguistics 12, (pp. 1-22). Clevedon: BAAL/Multilingual Matters.
• 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(1), 67-93.
• Benati, A. (2016). Input manipulation, enhancement and processing: Theoretical views and empirical research. SSLLT, 6(1), 65-88.
• Benati, A. (2017). The role of input and output tasks in grammar instruction: Theoretical, empirical and pedagogical considerations. SSLLT, 7(3), 377-396.
• Cadierno, T. (1995). Formal instruction from a processing perspective: An investigation into the Spanish past tense. Modern Language Journal, 19, 179-193.
• DeKeyser, R. M. (1997). Beyond explicit rule learning; Automatizing second language morphosyntax. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 19, 195-221.
• DeKeyser, R. M. (2001). Automaticity and automatization. In P. Robinson (Ed.), Cognition and second language instruction (pp. 125-151). New York: Cambridge University Press.
• DeKeyser, R., Salaberry, R., Robinson, P., & Harrington M. (2002). What gets processed in processing instruction? A commentary on Bill VanPatten's processing instruction: an update. Language Learning, 52(4), 805-23.
• Dekeyser, R., & Botana, G. P. (2014). The effectiveness of processing instruction in L2 grammar acquisition: A narrative review. Applied Linguistics, 36(3), 290-305. doi:10.1093/applin/amu071
• Doughty, C., & Williams, J. (1998). Pedagogical choices in focus on form. In C. Doughty & J. Williams (Eds.), Focus on form in classroom second language acquisition (pp. 197-262). New York: Cambridge University Press.
• Ellis, R. (1981). The role of input in language acquisition: some implications for second language teaching. Applied Linguistics, 2, 70-82.
• Ellis, R. (1994). The study of second language acquisition. Oxford, England: Oxford University Press.
• Ellis, R., & He, X. (1999). The roles of modified input and output in the incidental acquisition of word meanings. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 21, 285-301.
• Ellis, R. (2002). Does form-focused instruction affect the acquisition of implicit knowledge? A review of the research. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 24, 223-236.
• Ellis, R. (2003). Task-based language learning and Teaching. Oxford, England: Oxford University Press.
• Ellis, R. (2016). Focus on form: A critical review. Language Teaching Research, 20, 405–428.
• Farley, A. P. (2001). Authentic processing instruction and the Spanish subjective. Hispania, 84, 289-299.
• Farley, A. P. (2004). The relative effects of processing instruction and meaning-based output instruction. In B. VanPatten (Ed.), Processing instruction: Theory, research and commentary (pp. 143-168). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
• Husseinali, G. (2016). Arabic L2 interlanguage: Syntactic sequences, agreement and variation. New York: Routledge.
• Iwanaka, T. (2007). Roles of noticing in English language learning: A literature review. Languages & Literatures, 2, 53-67.
• Izumi, S. (2002). Output enhancement, and the noticing hypothesis: An experimental study on ESL relativization. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 24, 541-577.
• Lee, J., & VanPatten, B. (1995): Making communicative language teaching happen. New York: McGraw-Hill.
• Lew, W. M. A. (2008). Processing Instruction and Second Language Grammar Acquisition, APPLE Award Winning Papers in AL & TESOL, 8 (2), 1-33.
• Long, M. (1991). Focus on form: A design feature in language teaching methodology. In K. de Bot, R. Ginsberg & C. Kramsch (Eds.), Foreign Language Research in Cross-cultural Perspective (pp.39-52). Amsterdam: John Benjamin.
• Mackey, A. (1999). Input, interaction and second language development: An empirical study of question formation in ESL. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 21, 557-587.
• Norris, J., & Ortega, L. (2000). Effectiveness of L2 instruction: A research synthesis and quantitative meta-analysis. Language Learning, 50, 417-528.
• Qin, J. (2008). The effect of processing instruction and dictogloss tasks on acquisition of the English passive voice. Language Teaching Research, 12(1), 61-82.
• Schmidt, R. (1990). The role of consciousness in second language learning. Applied Linguistics, 11, 129-158.
• Shack. (2004). Children using dictogloss to focus on form. Reflections on English Language Teaching, 5(2), 47-62.
• Sharwood-Smith, M. (1993). Input enhancement in instructed SLA: Theoretical bases. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 15, 165-179.
• Sheen, R. (2007). Processing instruction. ELT Journal, 61(2), 161-163.
• Shintani, N., Li, Shaofeng, & Ellis, R., (2013). Comprehension-based versus production-based grammar instruction: A meta-analysis of comparative studies. Language Learning, 63(2), 296–329.
• Swain, M. (1998). Focus on form through conscious reflection. In C. Doughty & J. Williams (Eds.), Focus on form in classroom second language acquisition (pp. 64-81). New York: Cambridge University Press.
• Swain, M. (2000). French immersion research in Canada: Recent contributions to SLA and applied linguistics. Annual Review of Applied Linguistics, 20, 199-212.
• Sun, Y. A. (2008). Input processing in second language acquisition: A discussion of four input processing Models. Working Papers in TESOL & Applied Linguistics, 8(1), pp.1-10.
• Toth, P. D. (2006). Processing instruction and a role for output in second language acquisition. Language Learning, 56(2), 319-385.
• Vahedi-Langroodi, M. M. (1996). The syntax, semantics and argument structure of complex predicates in modern Farsi. (Unpublished doctoral dissertation). University of Ottawa, Canada. http://dx.doi.org/10.20381/ruor-7974
• VanPatten, B., & Cadierno, T. (1993). Explicit instruction and input processing. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 15, 225-43.
• VanPatten, B. (1996). Input processing and grammar instruction: They and research. Westport, CT: Ablex
• VanPatten, B. (2000). Processing instruction as form-meaning connection: Issues in theory and research. In Lee, J. F. & Valdman, A.,(Eds.), Form and meaning in language teaching(43-68). Boston: Heinle&Heinle.
• VanPatten, B. (2004a). Input and output in establishing form-meaning connection. In B. VanPatten, J. Williams, S. Rott &. M. Overstreet (Eds.), Form-meaning connection in second language acquisition (pp. 29-47). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
• VanPatten, B. (2004b). Input processing in second language acquisition. In B. VanPatten (Ed.), Processing Instruction: Theory, Research, and Commentary (pp. 5-32)., England: Oxford University Press.
• VanPatten, B. (2005). Processing instruction. In C. Sanz (Ed.), Mind and context in adult second language acquisition (pp. 267-281). Washington, DC: Georgetown University Press.
• VanPatten, B. (2007). Input processing in adult second language acquisition. In B. VanPatten & J. Williams (Eds.), Theories in second language acquisition (pp. 115–135). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
• VanPatten, B., Inclezan, D., Salazar, H., & Farley, A. P. (2009). Processing Instruction and Dictogloss: A study on object pronouns and word order in Spanish. Foreign Language Annals, 42(3), 557-575.
• Wajnryb, R. (1990). Grammar dictation. Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.
• Williams, J., & Evans, J. (1998). What kind of focus and on which forms? In C. Doughty & J. Williams (Eds.), Focus on form in classroom second language acquisition (pp. 139-155). New York: Cambridge University Press.
• Wong, W. (2004). Processing instruction in French: The roles of explicit information and structured input. In B. VanPatten (Ed.), Processing instruction: Theory, research, and commentary (pp. 187–205). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.