[Home ] [Archive]   [ فارسی ]  
:: Main :: About :: Current Issue :: Archive :: Search :: Submit :: Contact ::
:: Volume 21, Issue 2 (9-2018) ::
IJAL 2018, 21(2): 163-194 Back to browse issues page
The Effect of Isolated vs. Combined Processing Instruction and Output-Based Instruction on the Learning of English Passives
Jamileh Rahemi
Abstract:   (7030 Views)
The studies on the merits of processing instruction (PI) and output-based instruction (OI) have mostly treated the two approaches as mutually exclusive. To address the potentials of combining interpretation and production activities, this research compared the two isolated approaches of PI and OI with two combined approaches in which processing and output tasks were used in two opposite orders suggested by the researcher, i.e.  processing-output-based instruction (POI) and output-processing-based instruction (OPI). The target structure was English passives. Participants included 185 Iranian EFL students from five intact classes, with four assigned to each treatment and one comprising a control group. Results on sentence-level interpretation and production tests administered before, immediately after, and one month following instruction indicated similar improvement for the treatment groups on the first interpretation posttest, and the superiority of POI over OPI and PI over the delayed posttest. On the first production test, POI, OPI, and OI performed equally well and better than PI, while more accurate uses of the target form were observed by POI and OPI on the delayed posttest. It was concluded that the combined approaches, particularly POI, could produce more persistent outcomes by giving learners the opportunity to both process a form and produce it.
Keywords: Processing instruction, Output-based instruction, Combined approaches, English passives
Full-Text [PDF 575 kb]   (1081 Downloads)    
Type of Study: Research | Subject: Special
Received: 2018/02/1 | Accepted: 2018/06/9 | Published: 2018/07/28
References
1. Allen, L. Q. (2000). Form-meaning connections and the French causative. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 22(1), 69-84. [DOI:10.1017/S0272263100001030]
2. Barkhuizen, G., & Ellis, R. (2005). Analyzing learner language. Oxford: OUP.
3. Batstone, R. (2002). Making sense of new language: A discourse perspective. Language Awareness, 11(1), 14-29. [DOI:10.1080/09658410208667043]
4. 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(2), 95-127. [DOI:10.1177/136216880100500202]
5. Benati, A. (2004). The effects of processing instruction and its components on the acquisition of gender agreement in Italian. Language Awareness, 13(2), 67-80. [DOI:10.1080/09658410408667087]
6. 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. [DOI:10.1191/1362168805lr154oa]
7. Benati, A. (2016). Input manipulation, enhancement and processing: Theoretical views and empirical research. Studies in Second Language Learning and Teaching, 6(1), 65-88. [DOI:10.14746/ssllt.2016.6.1.4]
8. Benati, A. (2017). The role of input and output tasks in grammar instruction: Theoretical, empirical and pedagogical considerations. Studies in Second Language Learning and Teaching, 7(3), 377-396. [DOI:10.14746/ssllt.2017.7.3.2]
9. 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. [DOI:10.1515/iral-2015-0012]
10. Benati, A., & Batziou, M. (2017). The relative effects of isolated and combined structured input and structured output on the acquisition of the English causative forms. IRAL, Retrieved from doi.
11. Birjandi, P., Maftoon, P., & Rahemi, J. (2011). VanPatten's processing instruction: Links to the acquisition of the English passive structure by Iranian EFL learners. European Journal of Scientific Research, 64(4), 598-609.
12. Birjandi, P., & Rahemi, J. (2009). The effect of processing instruction and output-based instruction on the interpretation and production of English causatives. Iranian Journal of Applied Linguistics, 12(2), 1-30.
13. Buck, M. (2006). The effects of processing instruction on the acquisition of English progressive aspect. Estudios de Lingüística Aplicada,(43), 77-95.
14. Cadierno, T. (1995). Formal instruction from a processing perspective: An investigation into the Spanish past tense. The Modern Language Journal, 79(2), 179-193. [DOI:10.1111/j.1540-4781.1995.tb05430.x]
15. Celik-Yazici, I. (2007). A study of the effects of processing instruction on the development of English wh-questions used by Turkish EFL learners. (Doctoral dissertation), Çukurova University, Adana.
16. Collentine, J. (1998). Processing instruction and the subjunctive. Hispania, 81(3), 576-587. [DOI:10.2307/345673]
17. Collentine, J., & Collentine, K. (2015). Input and output grammar instruction in tutorial CALL with a complex grammatical structure. CALICO Journal, 32(2), 273. [DOI:10.1558/cj.v32i2.24548]
18. de Bruijn, N. (2015). The effectiveness of processing instruction. (Master's thesis), Utrecht University, Holand.
19. Dehaven, M. R. (2016). Input processing and the teaching of German two-way prepositions. (Doctoral dissertation), University of Kansas, Lawrence, Kansas.
20. DeKeyser, R. (2007). Introduction: Situating the concept of practice. In R. M. DeKeyser (Ed.), Practice in a second language: Perspectives from applied linguistics and cognitive psychology (pp. 1-18). Cambridge: CUP. [DOI:10.1017/CBO9780511667275.002]
21. DeKeyser, R. M., & Sokalski, K. J. (1996). The differential role of comprehension and production practice. Language Learning, 46(4), 613-642. [DOI:10.1111/j.1467-1770.1996.tb01354.x]
22. Doughty, C. J. (2003). Instructed SLA: Constraints, compensation, and enhancement. In C. J. Doughty & M. H. Long (Eds.), The handbook of second language acquisition (pp. 256-310): UK: Blackwell Publishing. [DOI:10.1002/9780470756492.ch10]
23. Ellis, R. (1994). The study of second language acquisition. Oxford: OUP.
24. Ellis, R. (1999). Input-based approaches to teaching grammar: A review of classroom-oriented research. Annual Review of Applied Linguistics, 19, 64-80. [DOI:10.1017/S0267190599190044]
25. Ellis, R. (2006). Current issues in the teaching of grammar: An SLA perspective. TESOL Quarterly, 40(1), 83-107. [DOI:10.2307/40264512]
26. Erlam, R. (2003). Evaluating the relative effectiveness of structured-input and output-based instruction in foreign language learning. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 25(4), 559-582. [DOI:10.1017/S027226310300024X]
27. Ertürk, N. O. (2013). Effects of visually enhanced input, input processing and pushed output on grammar teaching. Porta Linguarum: revista internacional de didáctica de las lenguas extranjeras, 20, 153-167.
28. Fahim, M., & Ghanbar, H. (2014). Processing instruction and dictogloss: Researching differential effects of two modes of instruction on learners' acquisition of causatives. Journal of Education & Practice, 5(37), 204-214.
29. Farley, A. P. (2001). Authentic processing instruction and the Spanish subjunctive. Hispania, 84(2), 289-299. [DOI:10.2307/3657760]
30. Jabbarpoor, S., & Tajeddin, Z. (2013). The effect of input enhancement, individual output, and collaborative output on foreign language learning: The case of English inversion structures. RESLA, 26, 267-288.
31. Jafarigohar, M., Hemmati, F., Soleimani, H., & Jalali, M. (2015). The efficacy of input-based instruction in promoting the acquisition of English embedded questions. International Journal of Asian Social Science, 5(5), 266-281. [DOI:10.18488/journal.1/2015.5.5/1.5.266.281]
32. Jafarigohar, M., & Jalali, M. (2014). The Effects of processing instruction, consciousness-raising tasks, and textual input enhancement on intake and acquisition of the English causative structures. Iranian Journal of Applied Linguistics, 17(1), 93-118.
33. Kirk, R. W. (2013). The effects of processing instruction with and without output: Acquisition of the Spanish subjunctive in three conjunctional phrases. Hispania, 96(1), 153-169. [DOI:10.1353/hpn.2013.0009]
34. Kondo-Brown, K. (2000). Effects of three types of practice after explicit explanation. Second Language Studies, 19(1), 99-125.
35. Krashen, S. D. (1987). Principles and practice in second language acquisition: New York.
36. Lightbown, P. M. (2000). Anniversary article: Classroom SLA research and second language teaching. Applied linguistics, 21(4), 431-462. [DOI:10.1093/applin/21.4.431]
37. Long, M. H. (1983). Does second language instruction make a difference? A review of research. TESOL Quarterly, 17(3), 359-382. [DOI:10.2307/3586253]
38. Maftoon, P., & Arianfar, A. (2014). The effects of VanPatten's input processing instruction and consciousness-raising instruction. Iranian EFL Journal (Special Edition of 2014), 46, 288-303.
39. Mitchell, R., & Myles, F. (2004). Second language learning theories (2nd ed.). London: Arnold Publishers.
40. 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(1), 31-65. [DOI:10.1017/S0272263106060025]
41. Mountaki, Y. (2016). The relative effects of processing instruction and traditional outputinstruction on the acquisition of the Arabic subjunctive. (Doctoral dissertation),University of South Florida.
42. Mystkowska-Wiertelak, A. (2011). The effects of a combined output and input-oriented approach in teaching reported speech. Research in Language, 9(2), 111-126. [DOI:10.2478/v10015-011-0020-2]
43. Nagata, N. (1998a). Input vs. output practice in educational software for second language acquisition. Language Learning & Technology, 1(2), 23-40.
44. Nagata, N. (1998b). The relative effectiveness of production and comprehension practice in second language acquisition. Computer Assisted Language Learning, 11(2), 153-177. [DOI:10.1076/call.11.2.153.5686]
45. Nassaji, H., & Fotos, S. (2007). Issues in form-focused instruction and teacher education. In S. Fotos and H. Nassaji (Eds.), Form-focused instruction and teacher education: Studies in honor of Rod Ellis (pp. 7-16). Oxford: OUP.
46. Oumelaz, S. (2015). The effect of input processing instruction on teaching English past tenses. (Doctoral dissertation), University of Constantine, Republic of Algeria.
47. Peart, S. M. (2008). The relative effects of enhanced and non-enhanced structure input on L2acquisition of Spanish past tense. (Doctoral dissertation), Texas Tech University.
48. 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. [DOI:10.1177/1362168807084494]
49. Radwan, A. A. (2009). Input processing instruction and traditional output practice instruction: Effects on the acquisition of Arabic morphology. The Asian EFL Journal Quarterly, 11(3), 267-298.
50. Salimi, A., & Shams, K. (2016). The effect of input-based and output-based instruction on EFL learners' autonomy in writing. Theory and Practice in Language Studies, 6(3), 525-533. [DOI:10.17507/tpls.0603.10]
51. Shintani, N. (2012). Input-based tasks and the acquisition of vocabulary and grammar: A process-product study. Language Teaching Research, 16(2), 253-279. [DOI:10.1177/1362168811431378]
52. 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. [DOI:10.1111/lang.12001]
53. Smith, G. (2015). Combining input-and output-based instruction in second language learning. (MA thesis), Concordia University, Montréal, Québec, Canada.
54. Stern, H. H. (1992). Issues and options in language teaching. Oxford: OUP.
55. Swain, M. (2000). The output hypothesis and beyond: Mediating acquisition through collaborative dialogue. In J. P. Lantolf (Ed.), Sociocultural theory and second language learning (pp. 97-114). Oxford: OUP.
56. Tanaka, T. (1999). The effect of combination of comprehension and production practice in grammar instruction. JACET Bulletin, 30, 119-133.
57. Tanaka, T. (2001). Comprehension and production practice in grammar instruction: Does their combined use facilitate second language acquisition? JALT, 23(1), 6-30.
58. Toth, P. D. (2006). Processing instruction and a role for output in second language acquisition. Language Learning, 56(2), 319-385. [DOI:10.1111/j.0023-8333.2006.00349.x]
59. VanPatten, B. (1996). Input processing and grammar instruction: Theory and research. Norwood, NJ: Ablex.
60. VanPatten, B. (2002). Processing instruction: An update. Language Learning, 52(4), 755-803. [DOI:10.1111/1467-9922.00203]
61. VanPatten, B., & Cadierno, T. (1993). Explicit instruction and input processing. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 15(2), 225-243. [DOI:10.1017/S0272263100011979]
62. 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. [DOI:10.1111/j.1944-9720.2009.01033.x]
63. VanPatten, B., & Oikennon, S. (1996). Explanation vs. structured input in processing instruction. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 18(4), 495-510. [DOI:10.1017/S0272263100015394]
64. VanPatten, B., & Uludag, O. (2011). Transfer of training and processing instruction: From input to output. System, 39(1), 44-53. [DOI:10.1016/j.system.2011.01.013]
65. White, J. P. (2008). The effect of input-based instruction type on the acquisition of Spanish accusative CLITICS. Florida State University.
66. Wijaya, D., & Djasmeini, C. C. (2017). Input-based processing instruction vs. output-based traditional instruction in learning plural-s. Electronic Journal of Foreign Language Teaching, 14(1), 70-83.
67. Wong, W., & Ito, K. (2018).The effects of processing instruction and traditional instruction on L2 online processing of the causative construction in French: An eye-tracking study. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 40(2), 241-268. [DOI:10.1017/S0272263117000274]
68. Yamashita, T., & Iizuka, T. (2017). The effectiveness of structured input and structured output on the acquisition of Japanese comparative sentences. Foreign Language Annals, 50(2), 387-397. [DOI:10.1111/flan.12272]
69. Younesi, H., & Tajeddin, Z. (2014). Effects of structured input and meaningful output on EFL learners' acquisition of nominal clauses. IJAL, 17(2), 145-167.
Add your comments about this article
Your username or Email:

CAPTCHA


XML   Persian Abstract   Print


Download citation:
BibTeX | RIS | EndNote | Medlars | ProCite | Reference Manager | RefWorks
Send citation to:

Rahemi J. The Effect of Isolated vs. Combined Processing Instruction and Output-Based Instruction on the Learning of English Passives. IJAL. 2018; 21 (2) :163-194
URL: http://ijal.khu.ac.ir/article-1-2939-en.html


Volume 21, Issue 2 (9-2018) Back to browse issues page
Iranian Journal of Applied Linguistics
Persian site map - English site map - Created in 0.1 seconds with 32 queries by YEKTAWEB 4137