Comparative Effectiveness of Input-based Instructions on L2 Grammar Knowledge: Textual Enhancement and Processing Instruction

Abstract

This study investigated comparative effectiveness of Textual Enhancement (TE) and Processing Instruction (PI) on the acquisition of English simple present tense third person singular form by elementary level EFL young learners. To this end, 43 seventh grade secondary school learners were conveniently selected for the study and randomly distributed into two experimental groups: TE (n = 21), PI (n = 22). Each group received different instructions (namely TE or PI) during two consecutive regular classroom hours (80 minutes in total). The learners took a pretest one week before the instructions, an immediate posttest one day after the instructions, and finally a delayed posttest after four weeks. According to the results of an interpretation task and two production tasks, both types of instructions helped the participants to increase their performance on the interpretation task. However, the results from production tasks showed that both input groups could not improve their production scores as much as expected from the literature. Although the study was conducted with limited number of students and without a control group, its results still suggest that English language teachers can use input-based instruction to help especially young learners to comprehend notoriously difficult structures as in this study.

Keywords

• Input-based Instruction,Textual Enhancement,Processing Instruction,Morphology,teaching English to young learners

Girdi-temelli İki Farklı Öğretim Yönteminin İngilizce Dilbilgisi Öğretimine Etkileri: Metinsel Girdi Geliştirme ve Yapılandırılmış Girdi

Abstract

Bu çalışma, metinsel girdi geliştirme ve yapılandırılmış girdi alıştırmalarının İngilizce geniş zaman 3. tekil şahıs ekinin edinimine etkisini araştırmıştır. Deneysel çalışma, toplamda iki deney grubundan oluşmaktadır. Her bir deney grubuna bahsedilen alıştırma çeşitlerine ilişkin ayrı ayrı ikişer ders saati (toplamda 80 dakika) eğitim verilmiştir. Gruplara eğitimden bir hafta önce ön test, eğitimden bir gün sonra son test ve edinimin kalıcılığını ölçmek için dört hafta sonra geciktirilmiş son test uygulanmıştır. Katılımcılar ortaokul düzeyinde İngilizce’yi yabancı dil olarak öğrenen öğrenciler arasından seçilmiştir (n = 43). Testler hedef yapıyı kavramaya ve üretmeye yönelik iki farklı türde hazırlanmıştır. Araştırmanın sonuçlarına göre, her iki girdi-temelli öğretim yönteminin öğrenci başarısını hedef yapıyı kavrama düzeyinde olumlu yönde etkilediği, ancak üretme düzeyinde benzer etkiyi göstermediği bulunmuştur. Makale sonunda, sonuçlara yönelik genelde İngilizce öğretmenleri, özelde Türkiye’deki İngilizce öğretmenleri için bir dizi pedagojik önerilerde bulunulmaktadır. Bu çalışma sınırlı sayıda öğrenciyle yürütülmesine rağmen, sonuçlar İngilizce öğretmenlerinin girdi-temelli öğretim yöntemlerinin öğrenilmesi güç yapıların öğrenimini kolaylaştırmak amacıyla özellikle de çocuklara yabancı dil öğretiminde kullanabileceklerini önermektedir.

Keywords

• Girdi-temelli Öğretim Yöntemi,Metinsel Girdi Geliştirme Alıştırmaları,Yapılandırılmış Girdi Alıştırmaları,Biçimbilim,Çocuklara Yabancı Dil Öğretimi

References

1. Agiasophiti, Z. (2011). An Empirical Psycholinguistic Investigation of Input Processing and Input Enhancement in L1 English. Published doctoral dissertation. Newcastle University.
2. Alanen, R. (1995). Input Enhancement and Rule Presentation in Second Language Acquisition. Attention and Awareness in Foreign Language Learning, 259-302.
3. Benati, A. (2004a). The Effects of Structured Input Activities and Explicit Information on the Acquisition of the Italian Future Tense. Processing instruction: Theory, Research, and Commentary, 207-225.
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(1), 67-93.
6. Cheng, A. C. (2002). The Effects of Processing Instruction on the Acquisition of ser and estar. Hispania, 308-323.
7. Dekeyser, R., & Botana, G. P. (2015). The Effectiveness of Processing Instruction in L2 Grammar Acquisition: A Narrative Review. Applied Linguistics, 36(3), 290-305.
8. Doughty, C. (1991). Second Language Instruction Does Make a Difference. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 13(04), 431-469.

9. Ellis, R. (1991). Instructed Second Language Acquisition: Learning in the Classroom. Wiley-Blackwell.
10. Farley, A. P. (2001). Authentic Processing Instruction and the Spanish subjunctive. Hispania, 289-299.
11. Farley, A., & Aslan, E. (2012). The Relative Effects of Processing Instruction and Meaning-based Output Instruction on L2 Acquisition of the English Subjunctive. ELT Research Journal, 1(2), 120-141.
12. Izumi, S. (2002). Output, Input Enhancement, and the Noticing Hypothesis. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 24(04), 541-577.
13. Jahan, A., & Kormos, J. (2015). The Impact of Textual Enhancement on EFL Learners' Grammatical Awareness of Future Plans and Intentions. International Journal of Applied Linguistics, 25(1), 46-66.
14. Jourdenais, R., Ota, M., Stauffer, S., Boyson, B., & Doughty, C. (1995). Does Textual Enhancement Promote Noticing? A think-aloud Protocol Analysis. Attention and Awareness in Foreign Language Learning, 183-216.
15. Krashen, S. (1982). Principles and practice in second language acquisition.
16. Krashen, S. D. (1985). The Input Hypothesis: Issues and Implications. Addison-Wesley Longman Ltd.
17. Lee, J. F. & Benati, A. (2007). Second Language Processing: An analysis of Theory, Problems and Possible Solutions. Continuum.
18. Lee, J. F. & Benati, A. G. (2009). Research and Perspectives on Processing Instruction (Vol. 36). Walter de Gruyter.
19. Lee, S. K. (2007). Effects of Textual Enhancement and Topic Familiarity on Korean EFL Students' Reading Comprehension and Learning of Passive form. Language learning, 57(1), 87-118.
20. Leow, R. P. (2001). Do Learners Notice Enhanced Forms While Interacting with the L2?: An Online and Offline Study of the Role of Written Input Enhancement in L2 Reading. Hispania, 496-509.
21. Long, M. H. (1983). Native Speaker/Non-native Speaker Conversation and the Negotiation of Comprehensible Input1. Applied linguistics, 4(2), 126-141.
22. Long, M. H., & Larsen-Freeman, D. (1991). An Introduction to Second Language Acquisition Research. Longman.
23. Lynch, B. K. (1996). Language Program Evaluation: Theory and Practice. Cambridge University Press.
24. Nassaji, H., & Fotos, S. (2011). Teaching Grammar in Second Language Classrooms. Routledge.
25. Park, E. S., & Nassif, L. (2014). Textual Enhancement of two L2 Arabic Forms: A Classroom-based Study. Language Awareness, 23(4), 334-352.
26. Schmidt, R. W. (1990). The Role of Consciousness in Second Language Learning1. Applied Linguistics, 11(2), 129-158.
27. 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.
28. 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.
29. Shook, D. J. (1994) FL/L2 Reading, Grammatical Information, and the Input-to-intake Phenomenon. Applied Language Learning, 5(2), 57-93.
30. Smith, M. S. (1991). Speaking to Many Minds: On the Relevance of Different Types of Language Information for the L2 Learner. Second Language Research, 7(2), 118-132.
31. Smith, M. S. (1993). Input Enhancement in Instructed SLA. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 15(02), 165-179.
32. Soruç, A. (2015). Comparing the Effects of Processing Instruction and Production-based Instruction on the regular verb form of English simple past tense: The Role of Explicit Information. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Yeditepe University.
33. Swain, M. (1995). Three Functions of Output in Second Language Learning. Principle and Practice in Applied Linguistics: Studies in Honour of HG Widdowson, 2(3), 125-144.
34. Swain, M. (2000). The Output Hypothesis and Beyond: Mediating Acquisition through Collaborative Dialogue. Sociocultural Theory and Second Language Learning, 97, 114.
35. VanPatten, B. (2002). Processing Instruction: An Update. Language Learning, 52(4), 755-803.
36. VanPatten, B. (Ed.). (2004). Processing Instruction: Theory, Research, and Commentary. Routledge.
37. VanPatten, B. (2015). Foundations of Processing Instruction. International Review of Applied Linguistics in Language Teaching, 53(2), 91-109.
38. VanPatten, B., & Cadierno, T. (1993). Explicit Instruction and Input Processing. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 15(02), 225-243.
39. VanPatten, B., & Oikkenon, S. (1996). Explanation versus Structured Input in Processing Instruction. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 18(04), 495-510.
40. VanPatten, B., & Benati, A. G. (2010). Key Terms in Second Language Acquisition. Bloomsbury Publishing.
41. VanPatten, B., & Uludag, O. (2011). Transfer of Training and Processing Instruction: From Input to Output. System, 39(1), 44-53.
42. Wong, W. (2003). Textual Enhancement and Simplified Input: Effects on L2 Comprehension and Acquisition of Non-Meaningful Grammatical Form. Applied Language Learning, 13(2), 17-46.
43. Wong, W. (2004a). The Nature of Processing Instruction. Processing instruction: Theory, Research, and Commentary, 33-63.
44. Wong, W. (2004b). Processing Instruction in French: The Roles of Explicit Information and Structured Input. Processing Instruction: Theory, Research, and Commentary, 187-205.
45. Wong, W. (2005). Input Enhancement: From Theory and Research to the Classroom. McGraw-Hill.
46. Zanotto, M. (2015). The Effects of Textual Enhancement and Structured Input Activities on the Acquisition of the Italian noun-adjective agreement. Italiano LinguaDue, 6(2), 67-109.