Processing Instruction Revisited in the Iranian EFL Context and the Moderating Role of Grammatical Sensitivity

Document Type : Research Paper

Authors

1 Department of Foreign Languages and Linguistics, Faculty of Literature and Humanities, Shiraz University, Shiraz, Iran

2 Professor, Department of Foreign Languages and Linguistics, Faculty of Literature and Humanities, Shiraz University, Shiraz, Iran

Abstract

The present study was primarily aimed at investigating how Processing instruction would affect the Iranian EFL learners’ grammatical knowledge and how the effectiveness of this method would be modulated by the learners’ individual differences in grammatical sensitivity. To this end, three senior intact high school classes were selected and randomly assigned to two experimental and one control group. Each of the experimental groups was treated with one operationalization of Processing instruction, namely, full PI (n=24), and Structured input (n=24) while the control group (n=20) received traditional output-based instruction (TI) on the English passive structure over three weekly sessions. The results illustrated that Processing instruction was more effective than TI since it improved learners’ both interpretation and production while TI only could improve learners’ production. Additionally, the results demonstrated that the positive impact of Processing instruction was not affected by the learners’ differences in grammatical sensitivity. All in all, this suggests that as long as a grammatical structure is affected by an underlying processing problem, Processing instruction is possibly a more effective pedagogical option compared to traditional output-based instruction. Furthermore, Processing instruction seems to work for all learners irrespective of their differences in terms of grammatical sensitivity.

Keywords

References

Angelovska, T., & Benati, A. (2013). Processing instruction and the age factor: Can adults and school-age native speakers of German process English simple past tense correctly? In A. Benati & J. Lee (Eds.), Individual differences and processing instruction (pp. 131–53). Equinox.
Artieda, G., & Muñoz, C. (2016). The LLAMA tests and the underlying structure of   language aptitude at two levels of foreign language proficiency. Learning and Individual Differences, 50,42-48.
Baleghizadeh, S., & Saharkhiz, A. (2014). The impact of processing instruction on the recognition and production of English derivational affixes among EFL learners. SAGE Open, 4, 1-11.https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/pdf/10.1177/215824401 4551930 
Batziou, M. (2017). Measuring short and Long-term effects of isolated and combined structured input and structured output on the acquisition of the English causative form at sentence and discourse level [Unpublished doctoral dissertation]. The University of Portsmouth.
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.
Benati, A. (2004). The effects of structured input and explicit information on the acquisition of Italian future tense. In B. VanPatten (Ed.), Processing instruction: Theory, research, and commentary (pp. 207-255). NJ: Erlbaum.
Benati, A. (2005). The effects of PI, TI, and MOI in the acquisition of English simple past tense. Language Teaching Research, 9, 67–113.
Benati, A. (2013). Age and the effects of processing instruction on the acquisition of English passive constructions among school children and adult native speakers of Turkish. In J.­F. Lee, & A. Benati (Eds.), Individual differences and processing instruction (pp. 83-104).Equinox.
Benati, A. (2016). Input manipulation, enhancement, and processing: Theoretical views and empirical research. Studies in Second Language Learning and Teaching, 6, 65-88.
Benati, A. (2019). Classroom-oriented research: Processing instruction (findings and implications). Language Teaching, 52, 343-359.
Benati, A. & Batziou, M. (2019). The relative effects of isolated and combined structured input and structured output on the acquisition of the English causative form. International Review of Applied Linguistics in Language Teaching, 57, 265-287.
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, 249–69.
Benati, A. G., Lee, J. F. (2010). Exploring the effects of processing instruction on discourse      level interpretation tasks with the Japanese passive construction. In A. G. Benati, & J.            F. Lee    (Eds.), Processing instruction and discourse (pp. 178-197). Continuum.
Benati, A., & Lee, J. F. (2015). Processing instruction: New insights after twenty years of theory,             research, and application. Special Issue in International Review of Applied Linguistics in Language Teaching, 53, 87–275.
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, 64,598-609.
Birjandi, P., & Rahemi, J. (2009). The effect of processing instruction and output-based instruction on the interpretation and production of English causatives. International Journal of Applied Linguistics, 12, 1-30.               
Cadierno, T. (1995). Formal instruction from a processing perspective: An investigation into the Spanish past tense. The Modern Language Journal, 79, 179-93.
Carroll, J. B. (1962). The prediction of success in intensive foreign language training. In R. Glaser (Ed.), Training research and education (pp. 87-136). University of Pittsburgh Press.
Carroll, J. B. (1973). Implications of aptitude test research and psycholinguistic theory for foreign language teaching. International Journal of Psycholinguistics, 2, 5–14.
Carroll, J. B. (1981). Twenty-five years of research on foreign language aptitude. In K. C. Diller (Ed.), Individual differences and universals in language learning aptitude (pp. 83–118). Rowley, MA: Newbury House.
Carroll, J. B., & Sapon, S. M. (1959). Modern language aptitude test: MLAT. Psychological Corporation.
Cheng, A. (2004). Processing instruction and Spanish ser and estar: Forms with semantic          aspectual value. In B. VanPatten (Ed.), Processing instruction: Theory, research, and commentary (pp. 119-141). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
Clark V. L. P., & Creswell, J. W. (2015). Understanding research: A consumer’s guide. Pearson.
Dave, A. (2004). Oxford placement test 2. Oxford University Press.
Dekeyser, M. (2012). Interactions between individual differences, treatments, and structures in SLA. Language Learning, 62 (Suppl. 2), 189-200.
Dekeyser, M., & Botana, G. P. (2014). The effectiveness of processing instruction in L2 grammar acquisition: A narrative review. Applied Linguistics, 36,290-305.
 Erlam, R. (2005). Language aptitude and its relationship to instructional effectiveness in second           language acquisition. Language Teaching Research, 9, 147-171.
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 and Practice, 5,204-214.
Farhat, A., & Benati, A. (2018). The effects of motivation on processing instruction in the acquisition of modern standard Arabic gender agreement. Instructed Second Language Acquisition, 2, 61–82.
Ghasemi Torkabad, M., & Fazilatfar, A. M. (2014). Textual enhancement and input processing effect on the intake of present and past simple tenses. Procedia - Social and Behavioral Sciences, 98, 562-571.
Granena, G. (2013). Reexamining the robustness of aptitude in second language acquisition. In G. Granena & M. Long (Eds.), Sensitive periods, language aptitude, and ultimate L2               attainment (pp. 179-203). John Benjamins Publishing Company.
Granena, G. (2016). Cognitive aptitudes for implicit and explicit learning and information processing styles: An individual differences study. Applied Psycholinguistics, 37, 577- 600.
Hanan, R. E. (2015). The effectiveness of explicit grammar instruction for the young foreign   language learner: A classroom-based experimental study [Unpublished doctoral dissertation]. The University of York.
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, 266-281.
Kasprowicz, R., & Marsden, E. (2017). Towards ecological validity in research into input-based practice: Form spotting can be as beneficial as form-meaning practice. Applied Linguistics, 39, 886-911.
Keenan, A. P., & Stevens, J. P. (2016). Applied multivariate statistics for the social sciences analyses with SAS and IBM’s SPSS (6th edition). Routledge.
Lee, J. F. (2015). The milestones in twenty years of processing instruction research. IRAL, 53, 111-126.
Lee, J. F. & Benati, A. G. (2007). The effects of structured input activities on the acquisition of two Japanese linguistic features. In J. F. Lee, & A. G. Benati (Eds.), Delivering Processing instruction in classrooms and virtual contexts: Research and practice (pp. 49-72). Equinox.
Lee, J. F. (2015). The milestones in twenty years of processing instruction research. IRAL, 53, 111-126.
Lee, J., & VanPatten, B. (1995). Making communicative language teaching happen.: McGraw-Hill.
Lima, MS; Barcellos, PSCC., & Spada, N. (2016). Paths in applied Linguistics: A         conversation with Nina Spada. Calidoscópio, 14,176-179.
Long, M. (2001). Focus on form: A design feature in language teaching methodology. In N. Christopher, N. Candlin, & N. Mercer (Eds.), English language teaching in its social context: A reader (181-190). Routledge.
Marsden, E. (2006). Exploring input processing in the classroom: An experimental comparison of processing instruction and enriched input. Language Learning, 56, 507–566.
Meara, P. M. (2005). Llama language aptitude tests. Lognostics.
Nassaji, H. (2000). Towards integrating form-focused instruction and communicative interaction in the second language classrooms: Some pedagogical possibilities. The Modern Language Journal, 84, 241-250.
Nassaji, H., & Fotos, S. (2011). Teaching grammar in second language classrooms:    Integrating form-focused instruction in a communicative context.       London: Routledge.
Pallant, J. (2013). SPSS survival manual: A step by Step guide to data analysis using IBM SPSS. Open University Press.
Qin, J. (2008). The effect of processing instruction and dictogloss tasks on the acquisition of the English passive voice. Language Teaching Research, 12, 61-82.
Rahemi, J. (2018). The effect of isolated vs. combined processing instruction and output-based instruction on the learning of English passives. Iranian Journal of Applied Linguistics (IJAL), 21, 163-194.
Rahimzadeh, F., & Ghaemi, F. (2016). Processing instruction: An input-based instruction on compound sentencing. International Journal of Language Learning and Applied Linguistics World, 11,62-74.
Robinson, P. (1996). Learning simple and complex language rules under implicit, incidental, rule-search and instructed conditions. Studies in Second Language         Acquisition, 18, 2762.
Seyednejad, H., & Gholami, H. (2017). The effect of structured input, meaningful output and traditional instruction on EFL learners’ productive use of passive voice. Theory and Practice in Language Studies, 7,737-747.
Skehan, P. (1989). Individual differences in second language learning. Edward Arnold.
Skehan, P. (1998). A cognitive approach to language learning. Oxford University Press.
Spada, N. (2011). Beyond form-focused instruction: Reflections on past, present and future research. Language Teaching, 44, 225-236.
Uludag, O., & VanPatten, B. (2012). The comparative effects of processing instruction and dictogloss on the acquisition of the English passive by speakers of Turkish. International Review of Applied Linguistics, 50, 189-212.
Vafaparvar, S. & Kheirzadeh, S. (2018). The acquisition of the English future tense by Iranian EFL learners: Processing instruction vs. meaningful output-based instruction. International Journal of Research Studies in Language Learning, 7,45-56.
VanPatten, B. (1996). Input processing and grammar instruction in second language  acquisition. NJ: Ablex.
VanPatten, B. (2002). Processing instruction: An update. Language Learning, 52, 755–803.
VanPatten, B. (2004). Input processing in second language acquisition. In B. VanPatten (Ed.), Processing instruction: Theory, research, and commentary (pp. 5–31). NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
VanPatten, B. (2015). Input processing in adult SLA. In B. VanPatten, & J. Williams (Eds.), Theories in second language acquisition (2nd ed.) (pp. 113-135). Routledge.
VanPatten, B., & Borst, S. (2012). The roles of explicit information and grammatical sensitivity in processing instruction: Nominative-accusative case marking and word order in German L2. Foreign Language Annals, 45, 92–109.
VanPatten, B., & Cadierno, T. (1993). Explicit instruction and input processing. Studies in Second         Language Acquisition, 15, 225–244.
VanPatten, B., Collopy, E., Price, J., Borst, S., & Qualin, A. (2013). Explicit information, grammatical sensitivity, and the First-Noun Principle: A cross-linguistic study in     processing instruction. The Modern Language Journal, 97, 504-525.
VanPatten, B., & Oikkenon, S. (1996). Explanation vs. structured input in processing instruction. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 18, 495–510.
VanPatten, B., & Wong, W. (2004). Processing instruction and the French causative: Another Replication. In B. VanPatten (Ed.), Processing instruction: Theory, research, and commentary (pp. 99–121). NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
Wong, W. (2004). The nature of processing instruction. In B. VanPatten (Ed.), Processing instruction: Theory, research, and commentary (pp. 187-205). Erlbaum.
Wong, W. (2010). Exploring the effects of discourse-level structured input activities with French causative. In A. G. Benati, & J. F. Lee (Eds.), Processing instruction and discourse (pp. 198-2016). Continuum.
Younesi, H., & Tajeddin, Z. (2014). Effects of structured input and meaningful output on EFL learners’ acquisition of nominal clauses. Iranian Journal of Applied Linguistics (IJAL), 17, 145-167.
 
Iranian Journal of Applied Language Studies
Volume 12, Issue 2
October 2020
Pages 115-160

Files

Share

How to cite

Statistics