Comparative Effectiveness of Input-based Instructions on L2 Grammar Knowledge: Textual Enhancement and Processing Instruction

Yıl: 2017 Cilt: 7 Sayı: 1 Sayfa Aralığı: 195 - 208 Metin Dili: Türkçe

Comparative Effectiveness of Input-based Instructions on L2 Grammar Knowledge: Textual Enhancement and Processing Instruction

Öz:
Bu çalışma, metinsel girdi geliştirme ve yapılandırılmış girdi alıştırmalarının İngilizce geniş zaman 3. tekil şahıs ekinin edinimine etkisini araştırmıştır. Deneysel çalışma, toplamda iki deney grubundan oluşmaktadır. Her bir deney grubuna bahsedilen alıştırma çeşitlerine ilişkin ayrı ayrı ikişer ders saati (toplamda 80 dakika) eğitim verilmiştir. Gruplara eğitimden bir hafta önce ön test, eğitimden bir gün sonra son test ve edinimin kalıcılığını ölçmek için dört hafta sonra geciktirilmiş son test uygulanmıştır. Katılımcılar ortaokul düzeyinde İngilizce'yi yabancı dil olarak öğrenen öğrenciler arasından seçilmiştir (n = 43). Testler hedef yapıyı kavramaya ve üretmeye yönelik iki farklı türde hazırlanmıştır. Araştırmanın sonuçlarına göre, her iki girditemelli öğretim yönteminin öğrenci başarısını hedef yapıyı kavrama düzeyinde olumlu yönde etkilediği, ancak üretme düzeyinde benzer etkiyi göstermediği bulunmuştur. Makale sonunda, sonuçlara yönelik genelde İngilizce öğretmenleri, özelde Türkiye'deki İngilizce öğretmenleri için bir dizi pedagojik önerilerde bulunulmaktadır. Bu çalışma sınırlı sayıda öğrenciyle yürütülmesine rağmen, sonuçlar İngilizce öğretmenlerinin girdi-temelli öğretim yöntemlerinin öğrenilmesi güç yapıların öğrenimini kolaylaştırmak amacıyla özellikle de çocuklara yabancı dil öğretiminde kullanabileceklerini önermektedir.
Anahtar Kelime:

Girdi-temelli İki Farklı Öğretim Yönteminin İngilizce Dilbilgisi Öğretimine Etkileri: Metinsel Girdi Geliştirme ve Yapılandırılmış Girdi

Öz:
This study investigated comparative effectiveness of Textual Enhancement(TE) and Processing Instruction (PI) on the acquisition of English simple present tensethird person singular form by elementary level EFL young learners. To this end, 43seventh grade secondary school learners were conveniently selected for the studyand randomly distributed into two experimental groups: TE (n = 21), PI (n = 22). Eachgroup received different instructions (namely TE or PI) during two consecutive regularclassroom hours (80 minutes in total). The learners took a pretest one week beforethe instructions, an immediate posttest one day after the instructions, and finally adelayed posttest after four weeks. According to the results of an interpretation taskand two production tasks, both types of instructions helped the participants toincrease their performance on the interpretation task. However, the results fromproduction tasks showed that both input groups could not improve their productionscores as much as expected from the literature. Although the study was conductedwith limited number of students and without a control group, its results still suggestthat English language teachers can use input-based instruction to help especiallyyoung learners to comprehend notoriously difficult structures as in this study.
Anahtar Kelime:

Belge Türü: Makale Makale Türü: Araştırma Makalesi Erişim Türü: Erişime Açık
  • Agiasophiti, Z. (2011). An Empirical Psycholinguistic Investigation of Input Processing and Input Enhancement in L1 English. Doctoral dissertation. Newcastle University.
  • Alanen, R. (1995). Input Enhancement and Rule Presentation in Second Language Acquisition. Attention and Awareness in Foreign Language Learning, 259-302. Honolulu: University of Hawaii Press.
  • Benati, A. (2004a). The Effects of Structured Input Activities and Explicit Information on the Acquisition of the Italian Future Tense. Processing Instruction: Theory, Research, and Commentary, 207-225. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
  • Benati, A. (2004b). The Effects of Processing Instruction and its Components on the Acquisition of Gender Agreement in Italian. Language Awareness, 13(2), 67-80.
  • 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.
  • Cheng, A. C. (2002). The Effects of Processing Instruction on the Acquisition of ser and estar. Hispania, 85(2), 308-323.
  • Dekeyser, R. and Botana, G. P. (2015). The Effectiveness of Processing Instruction in L2 Grammar Acquisition: A Narrative Review. Applied Linguistics, 36(3), 290-305.
  • Doughty, C. (1991). Second Language Instruction Does Make a Difference. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 13(4), 431-469.
  • Ellis, R. (1991). Instructed Second Language Acquisition: Learning in the Classroom. Wiley-Blackwell.
  • Farley, A. P. (2001). Authentic Processing Instruction and the Spanish Subjunctive. Hispania, 84(2), 289- 299.
  • Farley, A. and Aslan, E. (2012). The Relative Effects of Processing Instruction and Meaning-based Output Instruction on L2 Acquisition of the English Subjunctive. ELT Research Journal, 1(2), 120-141.
  • Izumi, S. (2002). Output, Input Enhancement, and the Noticing Hypothesis. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 24(4), 541-577.
  • Jahan, A. and Kormos, J. (2015). The Impact of Textual Enhancement on EFL Learners' Grammatical Awareness of Future Plans and Intentions. International Journal of Applied Linguistics, 25(1), 46-66.
  • Jiang, N. (2004). Morphological Insensitivity in Second Language Processing. Applied Psycholinguistics, 25(4), 603-634.
  • Jourdenais, R., Ota, M., Stauffer, S., Boyson, B. and Doughty, C. (1995). Does Textual Enhancement Promote Noticing? A think-aloud Protocol Analysis. Attention and Awareness in Foreign Language Learning, 183-216. Honolulu: University of Hawaii Press.
  • Krashen, S. (1982). Principles and Practice in Second Language Acquisition. Oxford: Pergamon.
  • Krashen, S. D. (1985). The Input Hypothesis: Issues and Implications. London: Longman
  • Lee, J. F. ve Benati, A. (2007). Second Language Processing: An Analysis of Theory, Problems and Possible Solutions. London: Continuum.
  • Lee, J. F. and Benati, A. G. (2009). Research and Perspectives on Processing Instruction (Vol. 36). Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.
  • Lee, S. K. (2007). Effects of Textual Enhancement and Topic Familiarity on Korean EFL Students' Reading Comprehension and Learning of Passive Form. Language learning, 57(1), 87-118.
  • Leow, R. P. (2001). Do Learners Notice Enhanced Forms While Interacting with the L2?: An Online and Offline Study of the Role of Written Input Enhancement in L2 Reading. Hispania, 84(3), 496-509.
  • Long, M. H. (1983). Native Speaker/Non-native Speaker Conversation and the Negotiation of Comprehensible Input. Applied linguistics, 4(2), 126-141.
  • Long, M. H. and Larsen-Freeman, D. (1991). An Introduction to Second Language Acquisition Research. Longman.
  • Lynch, B. K. (1996). Language Program Evaluation: Theory and Practice. New York: Cambridge University Press.
  • Nassaji, H., & Fotos, S. (2011). Teaching Grammar in Second Language Classrooms. New York and London: Routledge.
  • Park, E. S. and Nassif, L. (2014). Textual Enhancement of two L2 Arabic Forms: A Classroom-based Study. Language Awareness, 23(4), 334-352.
  • Schmidt, R. W. (1990). The Role of Consciousness in Second Language Learning. Applied Linguistics, 11(2), 129-158.
  • 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. and Ellis, R. (2013). Comprehension‐Based versus Production‐Based Grammar Instruction: A Meta‐Analysis of Comparative Studies. Language Learning, 63(2), 296-329.
  • Shook, D. J. (1994) FL/L2 Reading, Grammatical Information, and the Input-to-intake Phenomenon. Applied Language Learning, 5(2), 57-93.
  • Smith, M. S. (1991). Speaking to Many Minds: On the Relevance of Different Types of Language Information for the L2 Learner. Second Language Research, 7(2), 118-132.
  • Smith, M. S. (1993). Input Enhancement in Instructed SLA. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 15(2), 165-179.
  • Soruç, A. (2015). Comparing the Effects of Processing Instruction and Production-based Instruction on the Regular Verb Form of English Simple Past Tense: The Role of Explicit Information. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Yeditepe University.
  • Swain, M. (1995). Three Functions of Output in Second Language Learning. Principle and Practice in Applied Linguistics: Studies in Honour of HG Widdowson, 2(3), 125-144.
  • Swain, M. (2000). The Output Hypothesis and Beyond: Mediating Acquisition through Collaborative Dialogue. Sociocultural Theory and Second Language Learning, 97, 114.
  • VanPatten, B. (2002). Processing Instruction: An Update. Language Learning, 52(4), 755-803.
  • VanPatten, B. (Ed.). (2004). Processing Instruction: Theory, Research, and Commentary. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates: Routledge.
  • VanPatten, B. (2015). Foundations of Processing Instruction. International Review of Applied Linguistics in Language Teaching, 53(2), 91-109.
  • VanPatten, B. and Cadierno, T. (1993). Explicit Instruction and Input Processing. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 15(2), 225-243.
  • VanPatten, B. and Oikkenon, S. (1996). Explanation versus Structured Input in Processing Instruction. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 18(4), 495-510.
  • VanPatten, B. ve Benati, A. G. (2010). Key Terms in Second Language Acquisition. New York: Bloomsbury Publishing.
  • VanPatten, B. and Uludag, O. (2011). Transfer of Training and Processing Instruction: From Input to Output. System, 39(1), 44-53.
  • Wong, W. (2003). Textual Enhancement and Simplified Input: Effects on L2 Comprehension and Acquisition of Non-Meaningful Grammatical Form. Applied Language Learning, 13(2), 17-46.
  • Wong, W. (2004a). The Nature of Processing Instruction. Processing Instruction: Theory, Research, and Commentary, 33-63. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates: Routledge.
  • Wong, W. (2004b). Processing Instruction in French: The Roles of Explicit Information and Structured Input. Processing Instruction: Theory, Research, and Commentary, 187-205. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates: Routledge.
  • Wong, W. (2005). Input Enhancement: From Theory and Research to the Classroom. New York: McGraw-Hill.
  • Zanotto, M. (2015). The Effects of Textual Enhancement and Structured Input Activities on the Acquisition of the Italian Noun-adjective agreement. Italiano LinguaDue, 6(2), 67-109.
APA BAYRAK S, SORUÇ A (2017). Comparative Effectiveness of Input-based Instructions on L2 Grammar Knowledge: Textual Enhancement and Processing Instruction. Sakarya University Journal of Education, 7(1), 195 - 208.
Chicago BAYRAK SEVAL,SORUÇ Adem Comparative Effectiveness of Input-based Instructions on L2 Grammar Knowledge: Textual Enhancement and Processing Instruction. Sakarya University Journal of Education 7, no.1 (2017): 195 - 208.
MLA BAYRAK SEVAL,SORUÇ Adem Comparative Effectiveness of Input-based Instructions on L2 Grammar Knowledge: Textual Enhancement and Processing Instruction. Sakarya University Journal of Education, vol.7, no.1, 2017, ss.195 - 208.
AMA BAYRAK S,SORUÇ A Comparative Effectiveness of Input-based Instructions on L2 Grammar Knowledge: Textual Enhancement and Processing Instruction. Sakarya University Journal of Education. 2017; 7(1): 195 - 208.
Vancouver BAYRAK S,SORUÇ A Comparative Effectiveness of Input-based Instructions on L2 Grammar Knowledge: Textual Enhancement and Processing Instruction. Sakarya University Journal of Education. 2017; 7(1): 195 - 208.
IEEE BAYRAK S,SORUÇ A "Comparative Effectiveness of Input-based Instructions on L2 Grammar Knowledge: Textual Enhancement and Processing Instruction." Sakarya University Journal of Education, 7, ss.195 - 208, 2017.
ISNAD BAYRAK, SEVAL - SORUÇ, Adem. "Comparative Effectiveness of Input-based Instructions on L2 Grammar Knowledge: Textual Enhancement and Processing Instruction". Sakarya University Journal of Education 7/1 (2017), 195-208.