Comparing Two Modes of Instruction in English Passive Structures (Processing and Meaning-Based Output Instruction) Membandingkan Dua Mode Instruksi dalam Struktur Pasif Bahasa Inggris (Instruksi Output Berbasis Pemrosesan dan Makna)
Article Sidebar
Main Article Content
(1) * Asma Dabiri
Shiraz University of Medical Sciences
Iran, Islamic Republic of
(*) Corresponding Author
Abstract
This research compared the effects of two types of instruction: Processing Instruction (PI) and Meaning-based Output Instruction (MOI) on the interpretation and production of English passive structures. Ninety EFL intermediate tertiary level female students (PI group= 30, MOI group= 30 and control group = 30) participated in this study. The instruments were a proficiency test, a test to assess English passive structures and two instructional materials (PI and MOI). The data were analyzed by running one-way analysis of variance (ANOVA) and mixed between-within ANOVA. The study indicated the effectiveness of PI and MOI on English passive structures. PI had considerable enhancement on interpretation tasks all the time. It supported the use of PI rather than the use of traditional instructions in which mechanical components were emphasized. Also, the PI and MOI had long term effects on the interpretation and production of English passive sentences. This study supported the use of PI and MOI rather than the use of traditional instruction (TI) in EFL settings. The implication for particularly classroom teaching is that successful grammar instruction has to related to ultimate learning outcomes. Also, creating communicative tasks to offer opportunities for teaching grammar can lead to long-lasting learning effects.
Downloads
Article Details
Copyright (c) 2018 Asma Dabiri
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.
Funding data
References
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, 67– 93.
Benati, A., & Schwieter, J. W. (2017). Input processing and processing instruction: Pedagogical and cognitive considerations for L3 acquisition. In T. Angelovska, & A. Hahn (Eds.), L3 Syntactic Transfer: Models, New Developments and Implications (pp. 253-275). (Bilingual Processing and Acquisition; Vol. 5). John Benjamins Publishing Company.
Collentine, J. (2004). Commentary: Where PI research has been and where it should be going. In B.VanPatten (Ed.), Processing instruction: Theory, research, and commentary (pp. 173–186).Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
Ellis, R. (2001). Form–focused instruction and second language learning. A supplement to Language Learning, 51: supplement 1, 122–39.
Lee, J. (2015). Processing instruction on the Spanish passive with transfer-of-training effects to anaphoric and cataphoric reference contexts. International Review of Applied Linguistics in Language Teaching, 53(2), 203-223.
Irmawati, D. (2016). What Makes High-Achiever Students Hard to Improve Their Speaking Skill?. JEES (Journal of English Educators Society), 1(2), 71-82. doi:http://dx.doi.org/10.21070/jees.v1i2.442
Moradi, M., & Farvardin, M. T. (2016). A comparative study of effects of input-based, meaning-based output, and traditional instructions on EFL learners’ grammar learning. Research in Applied Linguistics, 7(2), 99-119.
Morgan-Short, K., & Bowden, H. W. (2006). Processing instruction and meaningful output-based Norwood, NJ: Ablex.
Processing instruction: Theory, research, and commentary (pp. 5-32). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Elbaum.
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.
Shintani, N., Li, S., & Ellis, R. (2013). Comprehension-Based Versus Production-Based Grammar Instruction: A Meta-Analysis of Comparative Studies. Language Learning, 63, 296–329.
Szudarski, P., & Carter, R. (2016). The role of input flood and input enhancement in EFL learners’ acquisition of collocations. International Journal of Applied Linguistics, 26(2), 245-265.
VanPatten, B. (1996). Input processing and grammar instruction in second language acquisition. Norwood, NJ: Ablex.
VanPatten, B. (2004a). Input processing in second language acquisition. In B. VanPatten (Ed.),
VanPatten, B. (2004b). Processing instruction: Theory, research, and commentary. Mahwah, NJ:
VanPatten, B. (2007a). Input processing in adult second language acquisition. In B. VanPatten and J. Williams (Eds.), Theories in Second Language Acquisition: An Introduction (pp. 115–135).
VanPatten, B. (2007b). Processing instruction. In C. Sanz (Ed.), Mind and cntext in adult second language acquisition (pp. 267–281). Washington DC: Georgetown University Press.
VanPatten, B., & Cadierno, T. (1993). Input processing and second language acquisition: A role for instruction. Modern Language Journal, 77, 45–57.
VanPatten, B., & Sanz, C. (1995). From input to output: Processing instruction and communicative tasks. In F. R. Eckman, D. Highland, P. W. Lee, J. Mileham, & R. R. Weber (Eds.), Second language acquisition and pedagogy (pp. 169–185). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
VanPattern, B., Collopy, E., Price, J. E., & Borst, S. (2013). Explicit information, grammatical sensitivity, and the first-noun principle: A cross-linguistic study in processing instruction. The Modern Language Journal, 97(2), 506-527.
Wong, W. (2004a). The nature of processing instruction. In B. VanPatten (Ed.), Processing instruction: Theory, research, and commentary (pp.33–64). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
Wong, W. (2004b). 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: Lawrence Erlbaum.