The relative effects of processing instruction and meaning-based output instruction on L2 acquisition of the English subjunctive

Abstract

This study investigates the impacts of an input-based instruction (processing instruction, PI) and an output-based instruction (meaning-based output instruction, MOI) on the acquisition of the English present subjunctive form by Turkish EFL learners. There were three groups of participants involved in the study: (N=64). PI (n=19), MOI (n=23), and Control (n=22). The PI treatment consisted of structured input (SI) activities that involved sentence-level interpretation and production tasks whereas the MOI treatment involved structured output (SO) activities that required the participants to produce the subjunctive form to convey meaning. The improved performance of both instructional groups was equal at the interpretation level; however, at the production level the MOI group performed significantly better than the PI group.

Keywords

• input processing, processing instruction, meaning-based output instruction, the English subjunctive, Turkish EFL learners

References

1. Allen, L. Q. (2000). Form-meaning connections and the French causative: An experiment in Processing Instruction. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 22, 69–84.
2. Benati, A. (2001). A comparative study of the effects of processing instruction and output based instruction on the acquisition of the Italian future tense. Language Teaching Research, 5, 95-127.
3. Benati, A. (2005). The effects of processing instruction, traditional instruction, and meaningful- based output instruction on the acquisition of English past simple tense. Language Teaching Research, 9, 67-93
4. Cadierno, T. (1995). Formal instruction from a processing prospective: an investigation into the Spanish past tense. Modern Language Journal 79, 179-93.
5. Cheng, A. C. (1995). Grammar instruction and input processing: The acquisition of Spanish ser and estar. (Doctoral dissertation). University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign. Dissertation Abstracts International, 56, 3485A-3486A.
6. DeKeyser, R., & Sokalski, K. (1996). The differential role of comprehension and production practice. Language Learning, 46, 613-642
7. Farley, A. P. (2000). Processing and meaning output-based instruction: the acquisition of Spanish subjunctive. (Unpublished doctoral dissertation). University of Illinois at Urbana- Champaign. Urbana, Illinois.
8. Farley, A. P. (2001). Authentic processing instruction and the Spanish subjunctive. Hispania, 84, 289-299.

9. 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: Lawrence Erlbaum & Associates.
10. Gass, S., & Selinker, L. (2001). Second language acquisition. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
11. 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.
12. Lee, J. F., & VanPatten, B. (2003). Making communicative language teaching happen (2nd ed.). NY: McGraw-Hill.
13. Morgan-Short, K., & Bowden, H. W. (2006). Processing instruction and meaningful output based instruction: Effects on second language development. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 28, 31-65.
14. 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.
15. Swain, M. (1993). The output hypothesis: Just speaking and writing aren’t enough. Canadian Modern Language Review, 50, 158-164.
16. VanPatten, B. (1985). Communicative value and information processing in second language acquisition. In E. Judd, P. Nelson, and D. Messerschmittz (Eds.). On TESOL ’84: A brave new world (pp. 88-89). Washington, DC: TESOL.
17. VanPatten, B. (1993). Grammar teaching for the acquisition-rich classroom. Foreign Language Annals, 26, 435-450.
18. VanPatten, B. (1996). Input Processing and grammar instruction. Norwood, NJ: Ablex.
19. VanPatten, B. (2002). Processing instruction: An update. Language Learning, 52, 755-803.
20. VanPatten, B. (2004a). Input processing in SLA. In B. VanPatten (Ed.) Processing instruction: theory, research, and commentary (pp.5-31) Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
21. VanPatten, B. (2004b). Input and output in establishing form-meaning connections. In B. VanPatten, J. Williams, S. Rott, & M. Overstreet (Eds.) Form-meaning connections in second language acquisition (pp. 29-47). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
22. VanPatten, B., & Cadierno, T. (1993). Explicit instruction and input processing. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 15, 225–243.
23. VanPatten, B., Farmer, J. L., & Clardy, C. L. (2008). Processing instruction and meaning-based output instruction: A response to Keating and Farley. Hispania, 92(1), 116-126
24. VanPatten, B, & Wong, W. (2004). Processing instruction and the French causative: Another replication. In B. VanPatten (Ed.) Processing Instruction: theory, research, and commentary (pp. 97-118) Mahwah, NJ, Erlbaum.
25. Wong, W. (2005). Input enhancement: From theory and research to classroom. New York. McGraw-Hill.