KaydedilenlerDerginizi ekleyin

Dergiler / Eurasian Journal of Applied Linguistics / 2019 / Cilt: 5 - Sayı: 1

Processing Instruction Revisited: Does it Lead to Superior Performance in Interpretation and Production?

Majid FARAHİAN
Farnaz AVARZAMANI
Sayfa
89–111
Yayın Tarihi
2022-10-18
DOI
—
🏛️Bu makalenin bibliyografik verileri ve tam metin bağlantısı DergiPark üzerinden sağlanmıştır.
DergiPark Kaydı ↗
✨

Yapay Zeka Hızlı Bakış & Çıkarımlar

AI Insight
⚡ TL;DR(1 Cümlede Hızlı Çıkarım)

This is an open-accessarticle distributed under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution license (CC BY-NC-ND)(http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/).

📌 3 Maddede Bu Makale

🎯
Amaç & Hipotez:There have been plenty of research studies which have demonstrated the efficacy of focus on form (FonF)approach in language teaching.
📊
Temel Bulgular & Veri:The participants recruited for the study were 51pre-intermediate level EFL students.
💡
Sonuç & Katkı:This is an open-accessarticle distributed under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution license (CC BY-NC-ND)(http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/).
🔬Tür:Araştırma Makalesi
📍Kapsam:2019 Verileri
⚙️Değişkenler:Alan Parametreleri

Abstract

There have been plenty of research studies which have demonstrated the efficacy of focus on form (FonF)approach in language teaching. However, processing instruction as a kind of FonF approach has not beengiven due attention. As such, the present study is an attempt to shed more lights upon the effects of theprocessing instruction (PI) on EFL (English as a Foreign Language) learners’ acquisition of passive voiceby comparing PI to dictogloss and an output instruction. The participants recruited for the study were 51pre-intermediate level EFL students. The pretest revealed that there was no significant differencebetween the groups regarding passive voice knowledge. As to the treatment, the first group (n=17)received processing instruction, the second group (n=17) was exposed to dictogloss tasks, and the third(n=17) was given meaningful output instruction. In the immediate posttest, two types of tasks(interpretation and production) were used to assess the participants’ English passive voicecomprehension and production. The findings indicated that the processing instruction groupoutperformed dictogloss and meaningful output instruction in both tasks, and thus it had a significantlypositive effect on the comprehension and production of the English passive voice.© 2019 EJAL & the Authors. Published by Eurasian Journal of Applied Linguistics (EJAL). This is an open-accessarticle distributed under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution license (CC BY-NC-ND)(http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/).

🔖

Bu Makaleye Atıf Yap

FARAHİAN, M., AVARZAMANI, F. (2022). Processing Instruction Revisited: Does it Lead to Superior Performance in Interpretation and Production?. Eurasian Journal of Applied Linguistics, Cilt: 5 - Sayı: 1, 89–111. https://ajindex.com/articles/507012

📄 Tam Metin PDF Okuyucu

📄

PDF görüntüleyici hazırlanıyor...

Kaynakça (13)

  1. Alderson, C. (1997). Models of language: whose? what for? what use? In A. Ryan & A. Wray (Eds.), Evolving models of language: British Studies in Applied Linguistics 12, (pp. 1-22). Clevedon: BAAL/Multilingual Matters. 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.
  2. Benati, A. (2016). Input manipulation, enhancement and processing: Theoretical views and empirical research. SSLLT, 6(1), 65-88.
  3. Benati, A. (2017). The role of input and output tasks in grammar instruction: Theoretical, empirical and pedagogical considerations. SSLLT, 7(3), 377-396.
  4. Cadierno, T. (1995). Formal instruction from a processing perspective: An investigation into the Spanish past tense. Modern Language Journal, 19, 179-193.
  5. DeKeyser, R. M. (1997). Beyond explicit rule learning; Automatizing second language morphosyntax. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 19, 195-221.
  6. DeKeyser, R. M. (2001). Automaticity and automatization. In P. Robinson (Ed.), Cognition and second language instruction (pp. 125-151). New York: Cambridge University Press.
  7. DeKeyser, R., Salaberry, R., Robinson, P., & Harrington M. (2002). What gets processed in processing instruction? A commentary on Bill VanPatten's processing instruction: an update. Language Learning, 52(4), 805-23.
  8. Dekeyser, R., & Botana, G. P. (2014). The effectiveness of processing instruction in L2 grammar acquisition: A narrative review. Applied Linguistics, 36(3), 290-305. doi:10.1093/applin/amu071 Doughty, C., & Williams, J. (1998). Pedagogical choices in focus on form. In C. Doughty & J. Williams (Eds.), Focus on form in classroom second language acquisition (pp. 197-262). New York: Cambridge University Press.
  9. Ellis, R. (1981). The role of input in language acquisition: some implications for second language teaching. Applied Linguistics, 2, 70-82.
  10. Ellis, R. (1994). The study of second language acquisition. Oxford, England: Oxford University Press.
  11. Ellis, R., & He, X. (1999). The roles of modified input and output in the incidental acquisition of word meanings. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 21, 285-301.
  12. Ellis, R. (2002). Does form-focused instruction affect the acquisition of implicit knowledge? A review of the research. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 24, 223-236.
  13. Ellis, R. (2003). Task-based language learning and Teaching. Oxford, England: Oxford University Press