ELTWeekly Vol. 4 Issue#36 | September 3, 2012 | ISSN 0975-3036
Abstract
The purpose of the present study was to see which one of the two instruction-processing instruction (PI) and meaningful output based instruction (MOBI) accompany with prompt and recast- is more effective on EFL learners’ writing accuracy. To fulfill the purpose of the study, a sample of 74 intermediate students of one of the language school of Iran sat for a standardized sample of PET English Testing (PET). Sixty students whose score fell one standard deviation above and below the mean were selected and randomly divided into two equal groups. One group was taught and practiced processing instruction (PI) and the other group received meaningful output-based instruction (MOBI) and did not practice processing strategies. Before starting any treatment a free-writing was administrated at first phase of instruction as a pre test. Moreover, at the final phase a free writing posttest was administered too among the students in both groups in order to see if there is any significant difference between their writing accuracy. The pretest and posttest required the subjects to use three English tenses (simple present, simple past, future) in their writing. The mean scores of both groups on the pre test and post test were compared through a t-test. The results of the pretest showed that there was not any significant difference between two groups. The result of posttest led to the rejection of the null hypothesis, implying that PI had a significantly more effect on writing accuracy. These results suggested that, although processing instruction appears to be more effective, output-based instruction as well as processing instruction can lead to linguistic development. The findings of this study have implications not only for both EFL learners and teachers but also for EFL textbook writers.
Keywords: Processing instruction (PI), Meaningful output-based instruction (MOBI), Prompt, Recast, Writing accuracy.
Introduction
Second language acquisition (SLA) is complex because acquisition cannot be reduced to one simple theory or one simple mechanism or a single process. SLA is best conceived as involving multiple processes or theories. So attention to linguistic form in language teaching can be accomplished by using a variety of processes and procedure. In regard to this complexity in SLA, VanPatten (1993) asserted a simple question that has proven difficult to answer: “what kind of grammar instruction fits with newer context and input-rich communication classrooms?”(p. 437). He answered this question with suggesting an instruction that change the behaviors of learners’ cognitive mechanisms to extract meaning from input. Only one of the processes involved in SLA, the initial process, by which learners connect grammatical forms with their meanings, is termed input processing.
VanPatten and his colleagues demonstrated that learners’ input-processing mechanisms often interpret input incorrectly or they process it in ways that make it impossible to extract linguistic elements of surface structure. Consequently, VanPatten (1993, 1996) VanPatten and Cadierno (1993) posited Processing Instruction (PI) that learners’ grammatical development would be advanced with comprehensible input if they were trained to process input in different way.
In the same way, the role of output is an important issue in SLA. VanPatten (2008) mentioned that the crucial debate among SLA theorist and practitioner is about output based instruction as, Swain (1985) and Harley (1993) claimed that comprehensible input alone was not sufficient for successful SLA. They believed that comprehensible output was also required, so ample opportunities for learners output and provision of useful and consistent feedback was necessary. Although VanPatten (2002) mentioned that output plays a number of important roles in language development and that, in fact it plays facilitative role in acquisition,
In fact there are at least two perspectives about fundamental role of output in SLA. One perspective has suggested both input and output develop comprehension and production skills (Dekeyser, 1997, 2001; Dekeyser & Sokalski, 1996). From second perspective the output hypothesis (Swain, 1993, 1995, 1998; Swain & Lapkin, 1995) holds that although input is essential to SLA, output might bring about mental processes that both directly and indirectly affect acquisition. This hypothesis has supported a positive role for output practice in conjunction with input. Research motivated by this hypothesis has supported a positive role for output practice in conjunction with input (e.g., Izumi, 2002; Izumi & Biglow, 2000; Swain, 1995). Following the idea that both input and output-based instruction can be effective for SLA, many studies have attempt to compare the two under variety of research designs (Allen, 2000; Collentine, 19998; Dekeyser& Sokalski,1996). But few studies have specifically addressed whether meaningful output-based can be effective as PI when it matched to PI on all variables other than practice mode.
Review of Literature
Input and Processing Instruction Studies
Processing instruction (PI) is an input-based instructional techniques informed by VanPatten’s work on learners’ input processing strategies. VanPatten conceptualizes second language acquisition (SLA) as the result of internal mechanisms acting on meaning-bearing input.
PI has three basic characteristics to push learners to engage in more effective input processing. First, learners are given information about how the linguistic form or structure works, focusing on one form or use at a time. This explicit information (EI) also informs learners about a particular IP strategy that may lead them to process the input incorrectly. This is the second characteristic of PI. The third characteristic of PI involves giving learners “structured input” (SI) activities. They are termed structured input activities because the input has been manipulated so that learners are pushed away from the less-than-optimal strategies described earlier. Furthermore, because the goal of these activities is to help learners create intake from input, they do not produce the target structure. Instead, learners are pushed to make form-meaning connections by requiring them to rely on form or sentence structure to interpret meaning
In the first PI studies VanPatten and Cadierno’s (19993a, 1993b) empirically compared the effectiveness of PI and TI on the development of Spanish preverbal direct object pronouns by second- year Spanish students. TI presented learners with (a) paradigmatic grammatical instruction with input through examples and (b) oral and written output-based practice that move from mechanical to meaningful to more communicative activities .Thus PI and TI differed in both explanation and practice In the post-testing phase, for interpretation the processing group made significant gains on the interpretation test but the traditional and control groups did not. On the production test, both the traditional and processing groups made significant gains but were not significantly different from each other .The control group did not make significant gain.
Subsequent to VanPatten and Cadierno (1993a, 1993b) other researchers under took the replications of the initial studies, employing a new target forms and a wider variety of task measures.
Allen (2000) attempts to replicate the results of previous PI studies using the French causative construction as the target structure. Her results differ from those of previous PI studies in that PI did not prove to be superior to traditional instruction (TI) on the two measures she used. Allen claimed to have maintained treatment fidelity to VanPatten and Cadierno and that both the PI and TI in her study were consistent with the two treatment types as defined in the original study.
Cheng (2002) compares PI and TI on the different target form, the Spanish copulas ser and estar and with additional task measure. The purpose of the study was to see are the results of VanPatten and Cadierno (1993) are generlizable to a semantic-aspectual feature of language? Separate instructional packets for the PI and TI groups were developed to reflect the two different approaches to focusing on ser and estar followed by adjectives and past participles. Results revealed both the processing and traditional groups were superior to the control group but no difference was found between the processing and traditional groups. There was no significant difference between the PI and TI groups on any of the contextual features of estar use.
According to Morgan-Short and Bowden (2006) it remains unclear whether these studies offer evidence that supports claims made Krashen (1982) and Schwartz (1993) with regard to acquisition and learning distinction and whether the primary linguistic data affect the developing system. Additionally, it appears that the meaningfulness of practice might have some effect on linguistic development (Cheng; Morgan-Short & Bowden) and thus, should be explored further; finally, the role of output is clearly of interest and remains to be clarified.
The Output Hypothesis and Relevant Studies
Some researches (e.g., Izumi, 2002; Izumi & Biglelow, 2000; Swain & Lapkin, 1995) have specifically set out the research to clarify what role(s) output might play in SLA. These researches working from an out-put based perspective, do not deny the essential role of input in SLA.
On the other hand, some linguistic theorist challenged the Krashen’s Input Hypothesis. Swain’s (1985, 1995) Output Hypothesis challenges the assumption that input is the only necessary requirement for second language acquisition, and that output is only the end product of second language acquisition that does not have any significant function in language acquisition processes.
Evidence from the researches that were carried by the Izumi (2002), Izumi and Bigelow (2000) supports some of function of the output hypothesis. Izumi and Bigelow compared an experimental group, which received output tasks, to a comparison group, which did not engage in the output tasks, but received the same target exposure. The result showed that there were no statistical differences between groups on any measures, so, they concluded the lack of differences between groups was attributed to the task demands rather than learning conditions.
In Farley (2001) study 29 participants who were university students enrolled in a fourth-semester Spanish course were assigned to one of two treatments: PI and meaning-based output instruction (MOI). The results of the analysis of the interpretation data suggest that both PI and MOI resulted in some type of knowledge gain. Both PI and MOI had a positive effect on the participants’ interpretation of the Spanish subjunctive of doubt, and the effects of both PI and MOI were retained over time.
Recast
One type of implicit reformulation move that has received increasing attention in both L1 and L2 context is the recast – a well formed reformulation of learner`s non target utterance with the original meaning intact. Doughty (2001) and Long (1997) have argued about recast that juxtaposition of the learner`s ungrammatical utterance with the teacher`s reformulation provides the learner with an ideal opportunity to make cognitive comparison and to notice the gap between target like and non target like forms, especially because meaning is held constant and so learner`s processing resources are freed up to focus on form. Long (2007) asserted that a recast is a discourse move that is by definition implicit, whereas Lyster (1998a) referred to implicit function of recast in providing a reformulation.
Prompt
Lyster (1998a)described an immersion teacher, who provided feedback to learners without breaking the follow of communication, could effectively pushed them to be more accurate and precise in their output. A type of implicit feedback in which teacher provides students with signal to fascinate self correction than immediately correcting the non-target like form is defined as prompts. Prompts are open-ended signals which enable L2 learners to respond with modified version of their prior utterances. Lyster and Ranta (1997) identified prompt as four interactional moves that teachers used to improve the accuracy of their non-target output as (a) clarification request : are phrases such as “pardon me” and “I do not understand” used to indicate that the students’ message has either been misunderstood or ill formed, (b) repetition: replicate the students’ error verbatim, usually with rising intonation and stress to highlight the error, (c) meta-linguistic clues : clues provide comments, information , or questions related to the well-formedness of the student ‘s utterance, and (d) elicitation: entails direct question such as “ How do we say shoe in French” or pause that allow students to complete the teacher ‘s utterance.
Recast and Prompt in Communicative Oriented Classroom
Some researchers have found that recasts (or negotiation of meaning) provide learners with implicit negative evidence and thus serve to benefit second language development.
Ammar and Spada’s (2006) quasi-experimental study investigated the potential benefits of recasts and prompts on the acquisition of a different structure: possessive determiners for French speakers in ESL contexts. Results revealed that all three groups benefited from the treatment, but the feedback groups showed superior performance than the control group. Furthermore, while the group receiving prompts significantly outperformed the recast group on written and oral post-tests, the- effect of recasts depended on learners’ proficiency levels. In particular, high-proficiency learners benefited equally from both prompts and recasts, whereas low-proficiency learners benefited more from prompts than from recasts.
In Ellis (2006), the effect of metalinguistic feedback and recasts on the acquisition of regular past tense in English -ed was examined. Participants were 34 low intermediate level ESL students in a private language school in New Zealand. Results showed that the explicit feedback (i.e., metalinguistic infomiation) was overall more effective than implicit feedback (i.e., recasts). However, the effect was found mostly in the delayed posttest rather than the immediate posttest.
Research Questions
This study aims at investigating the impact of prompt and recast in processing instruction and meaningful output based instruction on Iranian EFL learners’ writing accuracy. To achieve this, the present study addresses the following research questions:
1. Do recasts and prompts in processing instruction have any significant impact on the writing accuracy of EFL learners?
2. DO recasts and prompts in meaningful output-based instruction have any significant impact on the writing accuracy of EFL learners?
3. Is there any significant difference between writing accuracy of EFL learners who are exposed to prompts and recasts in processing instruction compared to meaningful output-based instruction?
Method
Participants
The participants consisted of 60 intermediate students .They were all Iranian female and male intermediate students at Takhtejamshid language school of Tehran. Participants’ ages ranged from 15- 21 years, with an average of 17.5 years. The classes were held twice a week at 5 p.m. Each session lasted 2 hours and the whole semester lasted 20 sessions. The participants were homogenized on the basis of the scores they obtained on the piloted language proficiency PET test. It should be mentioned that the PET test was piloted with 30 students with the same characteristics of the target sample before being used as homogenizing test.
Research Methods
The instruments used in the present study were:
PET Test (2006) as Homogeneity Test
A 54- item standard PET test, released by Cambridge ESOL exam, (copy right 2006) was administered to measure the participants’ general English proficiency level. The proficiency test PET (Preliminary English Test, 2006) is a second level Cambridge ESOL exam for the intermediate level learners .The reliability and item facility of the test were checked in the piloting phase of the study .The test consisted of four sections. The first section was a test of reading with 35 items. The second section included a test of writing with 8 questions. The listening section included four parts.
Free Writing as a pre test
A test of free writing was administrated at the beginning phase of instruction as a pre test. Pretest required subjects to use three English tenses (simple present, simple past, future) while writing in 60 seconds.
Free Writing as a Post Test
A test of free writing was administrated at the final phase of instruction as a post test. A post test requiring subjects to use three English tenses (simple present, simple past, future) while writing in 60 seconds.
Unit of Analysis
T –unit was selected as a unit of analysis. A t-unit stem from Hunt’s definition is as “one independent clause plus any number of subordinate clauses that are attached to or embedded in it”. So, clause connected with coordinators like ‘and’ were considered two t-units (I like baseball and she likes basketball), while ( I like baseball although she doesn’t) was regarded as one t-unit, where ‘although she doesn’t’ is embedded in main clause.
Procedure
A sample of 74 undergraduate students of accountancy, who were selected through intact group random sampling random method, sat for a piloted standardized sample of PET English Testing (PET). On the basis of the result, 60 students whose score fell one standard deviation above and below the mean were selected for the actual study. They were then randomly assigned to two equal groups. One group was meaningful output based-instruction (MOBI) and another group was processing instruction (PI). Both of them received prompt and recast as corrective feedback on writing accuracy to draw learners’ attention to form-meaning links in writing scripts. Based on the results of the PET test, it could be concluded that there was not any significant difference between the mean scores of the two groups on the PET test. Also, a test of free writing was taken from the participants of the both groups to ensure the homogeneity of the both groups in writing accuracy. After coming up with the conclusion that the two groups were homogeneous the researcher went through the following method to gather the data from PI and MOBI groups.
There were two instructional packets for the treatment. Each packet was designed to reflect a different approach to teaching the English tense. The PI packet consisted of nine structured- input activities, and the MOBI packet consisted of fifteen meaningful output-based activities. Both instructional packets contained identical subject matter. So subjects were encouraged to pay attention to the simple present verb and third-person singular verb, past verb, future verb. The target form used in this study was English tense (simple present, simple past, and futures). According to researcher experience, as an instructor, through child and adult studies, the L2 learners are likely to have problem with simple present and incorrectly process third person singular and in simple past they have problem with regular versus irregular verb. So researcher was interested to conduct the research study on these tenses. It is worth mentioning that instructional techniques, tasks and activities used in the present study were informed by Van Patten (2008) works and Morgan-short and Bowden (2006) research study.
The strutting of the PI activity involved a deliberate attempt to alter the learners’ inefficient strategy that EFL used, practice was structured so that tense structure had to be interpreted during input processing in order to learners practice the tasks. Teacher explained some of Input processing strategies in every session, then she started to discuss with subjects on these rules while providing input through examples. Afterward, subjects were engaged to structure based activities to push them award from their inefficient strategies. Subjects enjoyed from prompt and recast in written form on all these activities. In addition to practicing Input Processing strategies, simultaneously PI group practiced the three English tenses (simple present, simple past, future). All the activities needed interpretation of intended tense instead of production.
In meaningful output-based instruction (MOBI) the teacher explained intended grammatical tense. Then students have been asked to do the exercises which were in written form and were prepared for MOBI group. Subjects have received prompt and recast on these written activities. MOBI were adopted directly from the study’s PI activities and modified to require production (rather than interpretation) of tense structure in order to compete each activity. Also the MOBI activities required participants to produce writing scripts about intended grammatical tense. In both experimental groups working on each grammatical tense lasted six sessions. Totally eighteen sessions MOBI and PI groups received treatment.
After completing each activity, the participants were given feedback as to what the right answers were. These feedbacks was given in order to ensure that participants made early connections between form and meaning and so that treatment might better reflect a typical language classroom in which learners response were not left unanswered by the instructor. No feedback or justification was supplied when the correct answers to the activities were given. Prompt and recast were not design to be comparable between PI and MOBI groups. In PI and MOBI, for prompt the participants’ error were not immediately corrected or even reformulated. The participants were required to correct themselves as far as they could, base on the elicitation processes created by the teacher. On the other hand, in case of recast, the teacher reformulated the participants’ sentences immediately and there was no chance for participants to reconsider their erroneous sentence by themselves.
Finally, after completing the treatment sessions participants of the both groups took part in post test free writing. They were asked to use simple present, simple past and future tense while writing about the sport. The witting scripts of both groups, in pre test and post test writing, were scored by the same rater .It is worth mentioning that In order to lower the degree of subjectivity of writing’s score, scripts were scored by two raters throughout this study including the researcher and an instructor
Results
| Table 1.Descriptive Statistics of language Proficiency Test (PET) in the homogenizing Phase | ||||
|
N |
Mean |
Std. Deviation |
Variance |
|
| PET test scores (homogenizing phase) |
74 |
62.16 |
5.940 |
35.288 |
| Valid N (listwise) |
74 |
|||
Figure1. Shows the histogram of the piloted PET test that lower limit was 56.22 and the upper limit was 68.1
Table 2. Groups Statistics for PET Test in the Homogenizing Phase
| grouping | N | Mean | Std. Deviation | Variance | |
| PET score on Homogenizing phase | PI Group | 30 | 62.13 | 4.208 | 17.706 |
| MOBI Group | 30 | 61.83 | 2.925 | 8.557 |
According table 3, mean score of PI and MOBI were 62.13 and 61.83. So, there is no significant difference between the mean scores of PI and MOB group. The ratios of the skewness were between the normality range of -1.96 to +1.96. Hence, the distribution of the scores obtained by PI and MOBI groups was normal. Therefore, a t-test was legitimized.
Table 3.Descriptive Statistics of the PET Test in the Homogenizing Phase by PI and MOBI groups
|
N |
Mean |
Skewness |
Kurtosis |
|||
|
Statistic |
Statistic |
Statistic |
Std. Error |
Statistic |
Std. Error |
|
| PET scores PI group |
30 |
62.13 |
-.049 |
.427 |
-1.422 |
.833 |
| PET scores MOB group |
30 |
61.83 |
-.001 |
.427 |
-.145 |
.833 |
| Valid N (list wise) |
30 |
|||||
A t-test was run to compare the results of PI and MOBI groups obtained in piloting. The results indicate (M=.300, SD=.936) at p > 0.05. Table 10 shows that p=.75which is larger than 0 .05 so two experimental groups were homogeneous regarding their language proficiency at the beginning of the study prior to the administration of the treatments.
| Table 4.Independent Samples t-Test for the PET Test on Homogenizing Phase | ||||||||||
|
Levene’s Test for Equality of Variances |
t-test for Equality of Means |
|||||||||
|
F |
Sig. |
t |
df |
Sig. (2-tailed) |
Mean Difference |
Std. Error Difference |
95% Confidence Interval of the Difference |
|||
|
Lower |
Upper |
|||||||||
| pet | Equal variances assumed |
8.494 |
.005 |
.321 |
58 |
.750 |
.300 |
.936 |
-1.573 |
2.173 |
| Equal variances not assumed |
.321 |
51.724 |
.750 |
.300 |
.936 |
-1.578 |
2.178 |
|||
| Following the homogenizing the two groups, pretest writing was administered to both groups (PI and MOBI).
Table 5.Descriptive Statistics of PI group on pretest writing |
||||||||
|
N |
Mean |
Std. Deviation |
Skewness |
Kurtosis |
||||
|
Statistic |
Statistic |
Std. Error |
Statistic |
Statistic |
Std. Error |
Statistic |
Std. Error |
|
| Pretest PI group |
30 |
14.7000 |
.57765 |
3.16391 |
.078 |
.427 |
-1.066 |
.833 |
| Valid N (listwise) |
30 |
|||||||
| Table 6.Descriptive Statistics of MOBI group in pretest writing | ||||||||
|
N |
Mean |
Std. Deviation |
Skewness |
Kurtosis |
||||
|
Statistic |
Statistic |
Std. Error |
Statistic |
Statistic |
Std. Error |
Statistic |
Std. Error |
|
| Pretest MOBI group |
30 |
14.4333 |
.58069 |
3.18058 |
.125 |
.427 |
-1.221 |
.833 |
| Valid N (listwise) |
30 |
|||||||
In order to lower the degree of subjectivity of writing scoring, writing was scored by two raters throughout this study. Inter rater reliability for PI group was .82 and for MOBI group was .94.
Table7.The reliability statistics of pretest writing
| rater1 |
rater2 |
||
| pre test rater1 | Pearson Correlation |
1 |
.823(**) |
| Sig. (2-tailed) |
.000 |
||
| N |
30 |
30 |
|
| pre test rater2 | Pearson Correlation |
.943(**) |
1 |
| Sig. (2-tailed) |
.000 |
||
| N |
30 |
30 |
Figure 2.Histogram of PI group in pretest phase
Figure 3. Histogram of MOBI on pretest phase
| A t-test was run to compare the results of PI and MOBI groups obtained in pretest phase. The results indicate (M=.26, SD=.81) at p > 0.05. Table 14shows that p=.74 which is larger than 0.05. So they were homogeneous regarding their accuracy of writing at the beginning of the studyTable.8 Independent Samples Test of pretest phase | ||||||||||
|
Levene’s Test for Equality of Variances |
t-test for Equality of Means |
|||||||||
|
F |
Sig. |
t |
df |
Sig. (2-tailed) |
Mean Difference |
Std. Error Difference |
95% Confidence Interval of the Difference |
|||
|
Lower |
Upper |
|||||||||
| pretest | Equal variances assumed |
.106 |
.746 |
.326 |
58 |
.746 |
.26667 |
.81907 |
-1.37289 |
1.90622 |
| Equal variances not assumed |
.326 |
57.998 |
.746 |
.26667 |
.81907 |
-1.37289 |
1.90622 |
|||
A free writing test was administrated at the end of the instructional period to both groups (PI and MOBI). Prior to the administration of the t-test, normality of the distribution of scores obtained by each group and homogeneity of variances as the two assumptions for t-test had to be checked.
| Table9.Descriptive Statistics of PI group in posttest phase | ||||||||
|
N |
Mean |
Std. Deviation |
Skewness |
Kurtosis |
||||
|
Statistic |
Statistic |
Std. Error |
Statistic |
Statistic |
Std. Error |
Statistic |
Std. Error |
|
| Posttest PI group |
30 |
17.974 |
.26819 |
1.46892 |
-.350 |
.427 |
2.065 |
.833 |
| Valid N (listwise) |
30 |
|||||||
| Table10.Descriptive Statistics of MOBI group in posttest phase | ||||||||
|
N |
Mean |
Std. Deviation |
Skewness |
Kurtosis |
||||
|
Statistic |
Statistic |
Std. Error |
Statistic |
Statistic |
Std. Error |
Statistic |
Std. Error |
|
| Posttest MOBI group |
30 |
17.2390 |
.28394 |
1.55518 |
-.505 |
.427 |
1.449 |
.833 |
| Valid N (listwise) |
30 |
|||||||
In order to lower the degree of subjectivity of writing scoring, writing was scored by two raters throughout final phase. Inter rater reliability for both groups were: .87.
Table 11.The reliability statistics in posttest phase
|
TWE test Rater 1 |
TWE test Rater2 |
||
| Post test rater1 | Pearson Correlation |
1 |
.871(**) |
| Sig. (2-tailed) |
.000 |
||
| N |
30 |
30 |
|
| Post test rater2 | Pearson Correlation |
.871(**) |
1 |
| Sig. (2-tailed) |
.000 |
||
| N |
30 |
30 |
Figure4. Histogram of PI on posttest phase
Figure5. Histogram of MOBI on posttest phase
| A t-test was run to compare the results of PI and MOBI groups obtained in post test phase. The results indicate (M=.74, SD=.39) at p < 0.05. Table 4.25 shows that p =.042 which is smaller than 0 .05 The difference in the means obtained by the two groups indicated the superiority of the PI group in their writing accuracy posttest
Table.12 Independent Samples Test
|
||||||||||
|
|
Levene’s Test for Equality of Variances |
t-test for Equality of Means |
||||||||
|
F |
Sig. |
t |
df |
Sig. (2-tailed) |
Mean Difference |
Std. Error Difference |
95% Confidence Interval of the Difference |
|||
|
Lower |
Upper |
|||||||||
| Post test | Equal variances assumed |
.001 |
.975 |
2.907 |
58 |
.042 |
.74500 |
.39057 |
-.03681 |
1.52681 |
| Equal variances not assumed |
|
|
2.907 |
57.812 |
.061 |
.74500 |
.39057 |
-.03686 |
1.52686 |
|
Also a match t-test was run to compare the results of PI and MOBI groups obtained in pre test and post test phase.
The difference in the means obtained by PI as reported in the table below indicated the progress of the PI group in their writing accuracy from the pretest to post test.
Table.13
PI group pair statistic
|
Mean |
N |
Std |
Std. Error |
|||
|
PI pair |
Writing (Pre) |
14.7 |
30 |
3.16 |
0.577 |
|
| Writing (Post) |
17.97 |
30 |
1.46 |
0.268 |
||
Table.14
PI group statistic
|
N |
Correlation |
Sig. |
|||
|
PI pair |
Writing (Pre) & Writing (Post) |
30 |
0.978 |
0.97 |
|
Table.15
PI group pair statistic
|
Paired Differences |
t |
Df sig(2 tailed) |
Sig |
|||||
|
Mean |
Std. |
Std Error |
95% Confidence |
|||||
|
Lower |
Upper |
|||||||
|
0.74 |
2.6 |
0.39 |
0.036 |
1.52 |
2.97 |
58 0.043 |
0.042 |
|
Also match t-test was run to compare the results of MOBI group obtained in pre test and post test phase. The difference in the means obtained by PI as reported in the table below indicated the progress of the MOBI group in their writing accuracy from the pretest to post test.
Table.16
MOBI pair statistic
Mean
N
Std
Deviation
Std. Error
Mean
MOBI pair
Writing (Pre)
14.43
30
3.18
0.427
Writing (Post)
17.23
30
1.55
0.427
Table.17 MOBI statistic
N
Correlation
Sig.
MOBI pair
Writing (Pre) & Writing (Post)
30
0.982
0.97
Table.18 MOBI statistic
|
Paired Differences |
t |
df |
Sig |
||||||||
|
Mean |
Std. |
Std Error |
95% Confidence |
||||||||
|
Lower |
Upper |
||||||||||
|
0.76 |
1.9 |
0.42 |
0.028 |
1.56 |
2.93 |
58 |
0.045 |
||||
Discussion
The present study investigated the comparative effect of PI and MOBI on EFL learners’ writing accuracy while using prompt and recast in both instructions. The study’s first research question was: Do recast and prompt in processing instruction have any significant impact on the writing accuracy of EFL learners? Results of the t -test in the post-test phase indicated that PI group, significantly has done better than pre-test on writing accuracy. Thus, the response to first research question is affirmative: PI lead to improved performance for tense accuracy (simple present, simple past, future tense) in writing. The second research question was: DO recast and prompt in meaningful output-based instruction have any significant impact on the writing accuracy of EFL learners? Results show MOBI performance on the post test was significantly higher than the pretest. So, writing accuracy of MOBI group was improved during treatment sessions. Therefore, both instruction conditional conditions lead to improved performance. The third research question was: Is there any significant difference between writing accuracy of EFL learners who are exposed to prompt and recast in processing instruction compared to meaningful output-based instruction? Post test results indicate that PI out performed MOBI. The answer to the last research question is that: there is significant difference between writing accuracy of EFL learners who are exposed to prompt and recast in processing instruction compared to meaningful output-based instruction . In fact, the results of this experiment show that PI is significantly effective on how learners produced past tense, simple present, and future in writing. Three characteristics of PI: explicit information about the target structure, explicit information about processing strategies, and, structured input activities, led PI group to perform significantly better than MOBI group.
It is valuable to compare results of the present study with those of previous PI and out-put based instruction researches. Morgan -short and Bowden (2006) investigated the effect of PI compared to MOBI on Spanish direct object pronouns. Their results showed that both PI and MOBI lead to improved production of Spanish direct object pronouns. Furthermore, for production of intended target structure, only MOBI outperform control group and there was no difference between PI and MOBI and both experimental groups performed similarly in the posttest. So, results of the present study which are related to first and second research questions are consistent with results of Morgan-Short and Bowden (2006); in both studies, both PI and MOBI have significant effect on linguistic performance. On the other hand, results related to the third research question of the present study are partially inconsistent with those found in their research. In Benati’s (2005) study, the analysis reported that both group were statistically equivalent on production. Although in all studies (the present study; Morgan -short and Bowden ,2006; Benati,2005) there are several factors that introduce differences (e.g., age of participants, target structure, first language-L2 pairings, amount of practice, classroom vs. computer administrated instruction), there is no apparent underlying theoretical explanation that might account for these differences. Nevertheless, the five study designs are similar and the results are fairly consistent: the common finding for all studies is that both PI and MOI/MOBI groups made significant gains for production the intended target structure.
Also it is valuable to mention, such a comparison indicate that results which obtained in pervious PI vs. traditional instruction (TI) was not due merely to the fact that PI is completely meaning based while TI is not. So, the answer of third research question in the present study could be regarded as an answer to Farley (2001). He proposed that: Do the results of VanPatten and Cadierno (1993) as well as Cadierno (1995) obtain when a meaning-based output approach is the comparative treatment to that of PI? Based on the answer of the third research question in present study (there is significant difference between using prompt and recast in PI vs. MOBI on EFL learners in writing accuracy), it could be concluded that the results of VanPatten and Cadierno (1993) as well as Cadierno (1995) could obtain when a meaning-based output approach is the comparative treatment to that of PI.
As VanPatten and Wong (in press) pointed out, it is clear that any comparative study involving different researcher is bound to lead to either subtle or perhaps profound differences in the operationalization of treatment and assessments that could affect the outcome of a study.
What merits further discussion is that what mechanisms best account is for improved of PI, including greater benefits on production of writing accuracy, as compared to MOBI? Discussion of these mechanisms will be based on two perspectives: (a) one in which input accompany with processing strategies directly lead to acquisition but output might only affect acquisition indirectly or lead to skill or specific knowledge and (b) one in which both input and output can directly affect acquisition
Under position that input and processing strategies – but not output- directly affect acquisition, a conservation stance might be better that input and processing strategies alone lead to linguistic development. Also Farely’s (2001b) interpretation of findings indicated that input is an effective factor in which leads to equivalent benefits obtained for his PI and MOI groups. Farley argued that because the target form in the initial position in output produced by students and teachers, this might have served as structure input, an element similar to PI in which the target form is more salient and more likely to be processed. In the present research participants received similar input through prompt and recast, which might have been effectively equivalent to structured input. So, this structured input alone can account for the results of the present study.
The second broad perspective from which these results might be understood is one in which output and input lead directly to acquisition. Two of the function posited by Swain’s output hypothesis (1993, 1995, 1998) seem to allow for a direct effect of output on the developing system.
If one were to interpret the current study’s findings from this perspective that both PI group and MOBI group performed significantly well in writing tense accuracy, so from this perspective both input and output can directly affect the acquisition of tense accuracy in writing through the establishment of form-meaning connections, the analysis of our result is straightforward: in PI, processing instruction and input-based practice leads to form-meaning connection , whereas in MOBI, learners might have been able to establish or strengthen form-meaning connections via both out-based practice and the input they received in instruction and feedback. This account would explain why the MOBI group performed as well as the PI group on writing tense accuracy.
Conclusion
To measure the homogeneity of participants of the two groups; i.e. processing instruction and meaningful output-based instruction, in term of their general language proficiency in one hand and writing accuracy in another hand, a piloted PET test (2006) was administered among the participants of both groups, based on the results, it was concluded that the two groups were homogenous in term of both general English language proficiency and writing accuracy prior to the administration of any treatment.
Finally, at the end of instruction period, both groups took part in the writing test at the post test. An independent t-test was run to compare the mean scores of the processing instruction and meaningful output based instruction on the post test of witting test. Based on the result, it could be concluded that there was significant difference the mean scores of the two groups on the post test of the writing test. The processing instruction group outperforms the meaningful output based instruction on the writing test. Thus, it could be concluded that the null-hypothesis which was ‘there is not any significant difference in the effect of using processing instruction and meaningful output based instruction on the EFL learners’ writing accuracy’ was rejected.
To sum up, the finding of this study can be summarized as follows:
As pointed out by many researchers (e.g., Gass, 1997: VanPatten, 2002), it is clear that input is essential to SLA .The present study indicated that there is difference in the effect of using processing instruction and meaningful output based instruction on the EFL learners’ writing accuracy. Both Processing instruction activities and meaningful output based instruction activities are effective. As evidenced by the findings that both groups made significant gains on posttests as compare to pretest, it could be concluded that MOBI like PI lead to linguistic development, at least when practice is meaningful and leads learners to make form-meaning connections. Pedagogically, the results of this study seem to support the use of meaningful input practice as well as meaningful output practice in L2 classroom environment as means for building writing accuracy.
Implications of the study
The results from this study contribute to the field’s understanding of how input and output affect learners’ production of L2 target forms and structures .So, the result of this study has some hints for English instructors to pay attention to while teaching target structure and witting accuracy. They can benefit from processing instruction strategy to improve their students’ witting accuracy.
Also, the result of this study could also have significant implication for syllabus designer, material developers, and those preparing witting textbooks. They can achieve a better result by carful inclusion of appropriate processing instruction activities in designing syllabuses, developing materials, and preparing witting textbook.
Considering the results of current study along with those of PI studies, output studies, and studies examining the relative effects of input and output, this conclusion can be drawn that is significant to SLA theory: This study contributes to growing body of literature that suggests that output as well as input can promote linguistic development and might constitute a direct path to acquisition via the establishment and strengthening of form –meaning connection. The current study is particularly important to this body literature, given the various methodological developments as part of the research design.
Retraces
Allen, L. Q. (2000). Form- meaning connections and the French causative: An Experiment in processing instruction. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 22, 69-84.
Ammar, A., & Spada, N. (2006). One size fit all? Recasts, prompts, and L2 learning, Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 28, 543-574.
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,
Benati, A. (2005). The effects of processing instruction, traditional instruction, and meaningful-based output instruction on the acquisition of the English past simple tense. Language Teaching Research, 9, 67-93.95-127.
Cadierno, T. (1995). Formal Instruction from a processing perspective: An Investigation into the Spanish past tense. The Modern Language Journal, 79,179-193.
Collentine, J. (1998). Processing instruction and subjunctive. Hospania, 81,576-587.
Cheng, A. (1995). Grammar instruction and input processing: The acquisition of Spanish Ser and Estar. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, University of Illinois, Urbana-Champaign.
Cheng , A.C.(2002). The effect of processing instruction on the acquisition of Ser and estar. Hispania, 85, 308-323.
Dekeyser, R.M (2001). Automaticity and automatization. In P.Robinson (Ed.), Cognition and Second Language Instruction (pp. 125-151). New York: Cambridge University Press.
Dekeyser, R.M. & Sokalski, K. (1996).The differential role of Comprehension and production practice. Language Learning, 46 (4), 613-642.
DeKeyser, R.,Salaberry, R., Robinson, P ., & Harrington, M ( 2002). What gets processed in processing instruction: An update. Language Learning 52,805-223.
Doughty, C. (2001). Cognitive underpinnings of focus on form. In P. Robinson (Ed.), Cognition and second language instruction (pp. 206–257). New York: Cambridge University Press.
Doughty, C., & Verla, E. (1998). Communicative focus on form. In C. Doughty & J. Williams (Eds.0, focus on form in classroom second Language acquisition (pp. 114-138). New York: Cambridge University Press.
Doughty, C., & Williams, J. (1998a). Focus on form in classroom second Language acquisition (pp.114-138). New York: Cambridge University press.
Ellis, N. (2002).Frequency effects in language processing: A review with Commentaries. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 24.
Ellis, R. (2006). Modeling learning difficulty and second language Proficiency: The differential contributions of implicit and explicit knowledge, Applied Linguistics 27(3), 431-463.
Ellis, R. & Sheen, Y. (2006). Re-examining the role of recast in second Language acquisition. Studies in Second Language Language Acquisition. 28, 575-600.
Farley, A. P. (2001). Authentic processing instruction and the Spanish subjunctive. Hispania, 84,289-299.
Farely, A. (2001a). The effects of processing instruction and meaning based output instruction. Spanish Applied Linguistic, 5, 57-94.
Farely.A. P. (2001b). Processing instruction and meaning-based output instruction: A comparative study. Study in Applied Linguistics.5, 57-93.
Farley, A. (2008). Processing instruction and Spanish subjunctive: Is explicit information needed? In B. VanPatten. (Ed). Processing instruction: Theory, research, and commentary. (pp.231-244). Lawrence Erlbaum Association, Inc., Publishers.
Gass, S.M. (1997).Input, interaction, and the second language learner.Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Elrbaum Associates.
Harely, B. (1993). Instructional strategies SLA in early French immersion. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 15,245-259.
Harley, B., & Swain, M. (1984). The interlanguage of immersion students and its implications for second language teaching. In A. Davis, C.Cripper, & A. Howatt (Eds.), Interlanguage (pp. 291-311).
Harris, D. (1965). Testing English as a second language. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Han, Z. (2002). A study of the impact of recast on tense consistency in L2 output. TESOL Quarterly,36,542-572.
Izumi, S. (2002). Output, input enhancement, and the noticing hypothesis: an experimental study on ESL relativization. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 24(4), 541-577.
Izumi, S. (2003). Comprehension and production in second language learning: IN search of the psycholinguistic rationale of the output Hypothesis. Applied Linguistics, 24, 168-196.
Izumi, S., & Bigelow, M. (2000). Does output promote noticing and second language acquisition? TESOL Quarterly, 34, 239–278.
Krashen, S. (1982). Principles and practice in second language acquisition. New York: Pergamon Press.
Krashen, S. (1985). The Input Hypothesis: Issues and Implications. New York: Longman.
Lee, J., & VanPatten, B. (1995). Making communicative language teaching happen. New York: McGraw-Hill.
Lee, J. (1987). Comprehending the Spanish subjunctive: An information Processing perspective. The Modern Language Journal. 71, 50-57.
Lightbown, P., & spade, n. (1990). Focus on form and corrective feedback in communicative language teaching: Effect on second language learning. Studies in Second Language Acquisition.
Long, M. (1996). The role of linguistic environment in second language Acquisition. In W.c. Ritchie & T.K. Bhatia (Eds.), Handbook of Language acquisition (pp.413-468). New York: Academic press.
Long, M. H. (2007). Problems in SLA. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
Long, M. Inagaki, s. & Ortega, L. (1998). The role of implicit negative evidence in SLA: Models and recast in Japanese and Spanish. The Modern Language Journal. 82, (3), 357-371.
Long, M.H. & Robinson, P. (1998). Focus on form: Theory, research, and practice. In C. Doughty & J. Williams (Eds.), Focus on form in classroom Second Language Acquisition (pp. 15-41). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Lyster, R. (1998a). Recasts, repetition, and ambiguity in L2 classroom discourse. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 20, 55-85.
Lyster, R. (1998b). Negotiation of form, recasts, and explicit correction in Relation to error types and learners repair in immersion classrooms. Language Learning, 48, 183-218.
Lyster, R. (2002). Negotiation in immersion teacher- student interaction. Interactional Journal of Educational Research, 37, 237-253.
Lyster, R. (2004a). Differential effects of prompts and recasts in form-focused instruction. Studies in Second Language Acquisition. 26, 399-432.
Lyster, R. (2004b). Research in form focused instruction in immersion classrooms: Implication for theory and practice. French Language Studies, 14, 321-341.
Lyster, R., Rnta, L. (1997). Corrective feedback and learner uptake. Study in Second Language Acquisition, 19, 37-66.
Lyster, R. & Mori, H. (2006). Interactional feedback and instruction counterbalance. Studies in Second Language Language Acquisition, 28, 269,300.
Morgan-Short., K & Bowden, H.W, (2006). Processing instruction and meaningful Output-based instruction: Effects on second language development. Study in Second Language Acquisition, 28, 31-65.
Sheen, Y. (2004). Corrective feedback and learner uptake in communicative classrooms across instructional setting. Language Teaching and Research, 8, 263-300.
Sheen, Y. (2007). The effect of corrective feedback, language aptitude, and learners attitudes on the acquisition of English articles. In A. Mackey (Ed.), conversational interaction and second language acquisition (pp.301-3220). Oxford University Press.
Swain, M. (1985). Communicative competence: Some roles of comprehensible input and comprehensible output in its development. In S. Gass & C. Madden (Eds.), Input in Second Language Acquisition (pp. 235-253). Rowley. MA: Newbury House.
Swain, M. (1993). The Output Hypothesis: Just speaking and writing aren’t enough. The Canadian Modern Language Review, 50, 158-164.
Swain, M. (1995). Three function of output in second language learning. In G. Cook & B. Seidlhofer (Eds.), Principle and practice in applied Linguistics (pp. 125-144). Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Swain, M. (1998). Focus on form through conscious reflection. In C. Swain & Lapkin, (1995). Problems in output and the cognitive processes. They generate: A step toward second language learning. Applied Linguistics, 16, 370-391.
Swain, M., & Lapkin, S. (1995). Problems in output and the cognitive processes they generate: A step towards second language learning. Applied Linguistics, 16, 371–391.
VanPatten, B. (1984). Learners’ comprehension of clitic pronouns: More Evidence for a word order strategy. Hispanic Linguistic1, 57-67.
VanPatten, B. (1993). Grammar instruction for the acquisition rich classroom. Foreign Language Annals, 26, 433-450.
VanPatten, B. (1995). Cognitive aspects of input processing in second language acquisition. In P. Hashemipour, R. Maldonado, & M. van Naerssen (Eds.), Studies in second language learning and Spanish linguistics in honor of Tracy D. Terrell (pp. 170-183). New York: McGraw Hill.
VanPatten, B. (1996). Input processing and grammar instruction: Theory and Research. Norwood. NJ: Albex.
Vanpatten, B. (1997). On the relevance of input processing to second language Aqusition theory and second language instruction. In A.T.Perez-Leroux & W.R.Glass (Eds.), Contemporary perspectives on the acquisition of Spanish: Vol.2 Production, Processing, and Comprehension (pp.93-108). Somerville, MA: Cascadilla Press.
VanPatten, B. (2002). Processing instruction: An update. Language Learning, 52, 755-803.
VanPatten, B. (2004b). Input processing in second language acquisition. In B.VanPatten (Ed.). Processing instruction: Theory, research, commentary (pp.5-32). Mahwah,NJ:Erlbaum.
VanPatten, B. (2008). Processing instruction: Theory, research, and commentary. Second Language Acquisition Research, Lawrence Erlbaum Association, Inc., Publishers.
VanPatten, B., & Cadierno, T. (1993a). Explicit instruction and input processing. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 15(2), 225-243.
VanPatten, B., & Cadierno, T. (1993b). Input processing and second language acquisition: a role for instruction. The Modern Language Journal, 77, 45-57.
VanPatten , B., & Oikkenon, S.( 1996). Explanation vs. structured input in Processing instruction. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 18, 495- 510.
VanPatten, B., & Wong, W. (2008). The evidence is IN: drills are OUT. Foreign Language Annals.
Van Patten, B., &Sanz, C. (1995). From input to output: Processing instruction & communicative tasks. In F. R. Eckman, D.Highlanad, P.W.Lee, J. Mileham & R.R.Weber (Eds.). Second language acquisition theory and pedagogy (pp. 169-185). Mahwa, NJ: Larwence Earlbaum Associaties.
Wong, W. (2002b). decreasing intentional demands in input processing: A textual enhancement study. Paper presented at the meeting of the Second Language Research Forum, Toronto, Canada.
Wong, W. (2008). Processing instruction in French: The roles of explicit information and structured input. In B. VanPatten. (Ed). Processing instruction: Theory, research, and commentary. (pp.191-210). Lawrence Erlbaum Association, Inc., Publishers.
1 comment