Jump to ContentJump to Main Navigation
Show Summary Details
More options …

International Review of Applied Linguistics in Language Teaching

Ed. by Jordens, Peter / Roberts, Leah

4 Issues per year


IMPACT FACTOR 2017: 1.242

CiteScore 2017: 1.47

SCImago Journal Rank (SJR) 2017: 0.892
Source Normalized Impact per Paper (SNIP) 2017: 0.915

Online
ISSN
1613-4141
See all formats and pricing
More options …
Ahead of print

Issues

The relative effects of isolated and combined structured input and structured output on the acquisition of the English causative forms

Alessandro Benati / Maria Batziou
Published Online: 2017-09-05 | DOI: https://doi.org/10.1515/iral-2016-0038

Abstract

The present study explores the effects of structured input and structured output when delivered in isolation or in combination on the acquisition of the English causative. Research investigating the effects of processing instruction and meaning output-based instruction has provided some interesting and sometimes conflicting results. Additionally, there are a number of issues (e. g., measuring a combination of structured input and structured output, measuring discourse-level effects) that have not been fully and clearly addressed. To provide answers to the questions formulated in this study, two classroom experiments were carried out. In the first study, fifty-four Chinese university students (age 18–20) participated. The participants were randomly assigned to four groups: structured input only group (n=13); structured output only group (n=15); combined structured input and structured output group (n=16); control group (n=10). In the second study, thirty school-age Greek learners (age 10–12) participated. The participants were randomly assigned to three groups: structured input only group (n=10); structured output only group (n=10); combined structured input and structured output group (n=10).

Only subjects who participated in all phases of each experiment and scored lower than 60 % in the pre-tests were included in the final data collection. Instruction lasted for three hours. The control group received no instruction on the causative structure. Interpretation and production tasks were used in a pre-test and post-test design. The design included a delayed post-test battery (3 weeks after instruction) for both experiments. In the first study, the assessment tasks included an interpretation and production task at sentence-level, and an interpretation task at discourse-level. In the second study, an additional discourse-level production task was adopted along with the interpretation discourse-level task. The results indicated that learners who received structured input both in isolation and in combination benefitted more than learners receiving structured output only. These two groups were able to retain instructional gains three weeks later in all assessment measures.

Keywords: structured input; structured output; English causative; sentence-level tasks; discourse-level tasks

References

  • Benati, Alessandro. 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.CrossrefGoogle Scholar

  • Benati, Alessandro. 2004a. The effects of structured input and explicit information on the acquisition of Italian future tense. In Bill VanPatten (ed.). Processing instruction: Theory, research, and commentary, 207–255. Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.Google Scholar

  • Benati, Alessandro. 2004b. The effects of processing instruction and its components on the acquisition of gender agreement in Italian. Language Awareness 13. 67–80.CrossrefGoogle Scholar

  • Benati, Alessandro. 2005. The effects of PI, TI and MOI in the acquisition of English simple past tense. Language Teaching Research 9. 67–113.CrossrefGoogle Scholar

  • Benati, Alessandro & G. James Lee. 2015. Processing instruction: New insights after twenty years of theory, research and application. Special Issue in IRAL.Google Scholar

  • Benati, Alessandro & James F. Lee. 2008. Grammar acquisition and processing instruction: Secondary and cumulative effects. Bristol: Multilingual Matters.Google Scholar

  • Benati, Alessandro & James F. Lee. 2010. Processing instruction and discourse. London: Continuum.Google Scholar

  • Cadierno, Teresa. 1995. Formal instruction from a processing perspective: An investigation into the Spanish past tense. The Modern Language Journal 79. 179–193.CrossrefGoogle Scholar

  • Cheng, An-Chung. 2004. Processing instruction and Spanish ser and estar: Forms with semantic-aspectual value. In Bill VanPatten (ed.), Processing instruction: Theory, research, and commentary, 119–141. Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.Google Scholar

  • Farley, Andrew. 2004. The relative effects of processing instruction and meaning-based output instruction. In Bill Van Patten (ed.), Processing instruction: Theory, research, and commentary, 143–168. Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.Google Scholar

  • Farley, Andrew. 2005. Structured input: Grammar instruction for the acquisition-oriented classroom. New York: McGraw-Hill.Google Scholar

  • Farley, Andrew P. 2001. The effects of processing instruction and meaning-based output instruction. Spanish Applied Linguistics 5. 57–94.Google Scholar

  • Gely, Anne. 2005. Output-Based Instruction versus Processing Instruction on the acquisition of the French imperfect tense (Unpublished Master’s thesis). London: University of Greenwich.Google Scholar

  • Keating, Greg & Andrew P. Farley. 2008. Processing instruction, meaning-based output instruction, and meaning-based drills: Impacts on classroom L2 acquisition of Spanish object pronouns. Hispania 19. 639–650.Google Scholar

  • Kirk, Rachel. 2013. The effects of processing instruction with and without output: Acquisition of the Spanish subjunctive in three conjunctional phrases. Hispania 96. 153–169.CrossrefGoogle Scholar

  • Lee, James & Bill VanPatten. 1995. Making communicative language teaching happen. New York: McGraw-Hill.Google Scholar

  • Lee, James F. & Alessandro Benati 2007a. Delivering processing instruction in classrooms and virtual contexts: Research and practice. London: Equinox.Google Scholar

  • Lee, James F. & Alessandro Benati. 2007b. Second language processing: An analysis of theory, problems and possible solutions. Continuum: London.Google Scholar

  • Lee, James F. & Alessandro Benati. 2009. Research and perspectives on processing instruction. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar

  • Lee, James F. & Alessandro Benati. 2013. Individual differences and processing instruction. London: Equinox.Google Scholar

  • Morgan-Short, Kara & Harriet W. Bowden. 2006. Processing instruction and meaningful output-based instruction: Effects on second language development. Studies in Second Language Acquisition 28. 31–65.Google Scholar

  • Mystkowska-Wiertelak, Anne. 2011. The effects of a combined output and input-oriented approach in teaching reported speech. Research in Language 9(2). 111–126.Google Scholar

  • Sanz, Cristina. 2004. Computer delivered implicit versus explicit feedback in processing instruction. In Bill VanPatten (ed.), Processing instruction: Theory, research, and commentary, 241–255. Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.Google Scholar

  • Van Patten, Bill. 2015a. Input processing in adult SLA. In B. Van Patten & J. Williams (eds.), Theories in second language acquisition, 2nd edn., 113–135. New York: Routledge.Google Scholar

  • Van Patten, Bill. 2015b. Foundations of processing instruction. IRAL 53. 91–109.Google Scholar

  • Van Patten, Bill. 1996. Input processing and grammar instruction: Theory and research. Norwood, NJ: Ablex.Google Scholar

  • Van Patten, Bill. 2002. Processing instruction: An update. Language Learning 52. 755–803.CrossrefGoogle Scholar

  • Van Patten, Bill (ed.). 2004. Processing instruction: Theory, research, and commentary. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.Google Scholar

  • Van Patten, Bill & Alessandro Benati. 2015. Key Terms in SLA, 2nd edn. London: Bloomsbury.Google Scholar

  • Van Patten, Bill & Teresa Cadierno. 1993. Explicit instruction and input processing. Studies in Second Language Acquisition 15. 225–243.CrossrefGoogle Scholar

  • Van Patten, Bill, Jeffrey Farmer & Caleb Clardy. 2009. Processing instruction and meaning-based output instruction: A response to Keating and Farley (2008). Hispania 92. 116–126.Google Scholar

  • Van Patten, Bill & Soile Oikennon. 1996. Explanation vs. structured input in processing instruction. Studies in Second Language Acquisition 18. 495–510.CrossrefGoogle Scholar

  • Van Patten, Bill & Wynne Wong. 2004. Processing instruction and the French causative: Another replication. In Bill VanPatten (ed.). Processing instruction: Theory, research, and commentary, 97–118. Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.Google Scholar

  • Wong, Wynne. 2004. The nature of processing instruction. In: B. (ed.), Processing instruction: Theory, research and commentary, 33–65. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.Google Scholar

About the article

Published Online: 2017-09-05


Citation Information: International Review of Applied Linguistics in Language Teaching, ISSN (Online) 1613-4141, ISSN (Print) 0019-042X, DOI: https://doi.org/10.1515/iral-2016-0038.

Export Citation

© 2017 Walter de Gruyter GmbH, Berlin/Boston.Get Permission

Comments (0)

Please log in or register to comment.
Log in