The Interplay between Heritage Learners’ Prior Knowledge and Instruction on a Linguistically Complex Structure

2021 ◽  
Vol 18 (3) ◽  
pp. 1-29
Author(s):  
Melissa A. Bowles
Keyword(s):  
Complex Structure ◽  
Learning Gains ◽  
Processing Instruction ◽  
Focus On Form ◽  
Structured Input ◽  
Instruction Condition ◽  
Think Alouds ◽  
Adverbial Clauses ◽  
Rule Presentation ◽  
Initial Knowledge

Abstract Current HL pedagogy recommends focus on form approaches (Beaudrie, Ducar, & Potowski, 2014; Kisselev, Dubinina, & Polinsky, 2020) but within this broad category there are many techniques. To date only a few studies have compared HL learning gains on explicit and implicit focus on form instruction, and these have found explicit instruction to be more beneficial. The present study isolated the role of rule presentation on learning gains by comparing Spanish HL learners in a Processing Instruction condition (n = 26) who received rule presentation and explicit information about the target structure (indicative and subjunctive in adverbial clauses of time) prior to structured input, to HL learners in a Structured Input condition (n = 16) who received only structured input. Pretest/posttest/delayed posttest comparisons revealed that both PI and SI resulted in lasting learning gains, as well as a complex interplay between learners’ initial knowledge of the structure and the type of instruction, such that learners with little or no initial knowledge benefited from rule presentation, whereas learners with greater initial knowledge did not. Furthermore, data from think-alouds and retrospective interviews shows that all learners did not process the instruction similarly, and pedagogical implications are discussed.

How effective are affective activities? Relative benefits of two types of structured input activities as part of a computer-delivered lesson on the Spanish subjunctive

2012 ◽  
Vol 16 (3) ◽  
pp. 393-414 ◽  
Author(s):  
Florencia Henshaw
Keyword(s):  
Learning Gains ◽  
Processing Instruction ◽  
Structured Input ◽  
Spanish Subjunctive ◽  
Over Time

Proponents of Processing Instruction (VanPatten, 2005) claim that learners benefit most when presented with both referential and affective structured input activities. Following a classic pretest–posttest design, the present study investigates the role of these two types of activities on the learning of the Spanish subjunctive. Groups differed only with respect to the types of activities completed during practice: (1) affective activities only, (2) referential activities only, or (3) referential activities followed by affective activities. All groups showed a significant improvement in performance on recognition and interpretation tasks, suggesting that both types of activities, either in isolation or combined, may be equally beneficial to learners. All practice conditions experienced a decline in performance over the span of two weeks, but delayed posttest scores were still significantly higher than pretest scores, indicating that some of the gains from instruction were maintained over time. Additionally, in the case of interpretation items, results revealed that the two groups that engaged in affective activities were able to better maintain learning gains over the span of two weeks than the group that completed only referential activities. Findings are discussed in relation to the role of task-essentialness in structured input practice.

The use of blocking and inhibition training in processing instruction

2021 ◽  
Vol 0 (0) ◽  
Author(s):  
Nick Henry
Keyword(s):  
Word Order ◽  
Training Session ◽  
Processing Instruction ◽  
Learner Performance ◽  
Structured Input ◽  
Targeted Instruction ◽  
Processing Strategies ◽  
Sentence Level ◽  
Case Markers ◽  
Slight Advantage

Abstract Previous research has suggested that L2 learners often use non-target processing strategies to understand sentences, but that these strategies can be changed through targeted instruction that directs their attention to different linguistic forms or structures. The present study explores the effects of pretraining ‘blocking’ practice—a novel type of training designed to help learners inhibit the application of a strict word-order based processing strategy—prior to receiving a traditional Structured Input (SI) training focused on OVS word order and accusative case markers in German. The study compares three groups of third-semester German learners who completed three different activities in one training session: (1) SI with blocking practice (+BP), (2) SI preceded by explicit information (+EI), and (3) SI without EI or blocking practice (−EI). The effects of training were measured by sentence-level interpretation and production tasks administered as a pretest, posttest, and four-week delayed posttest. Learner performance was also assessed during training. Results in all assessment measures indicated that EI was most effective, but that blocking practice lent a slight advantage over −EI groups during and after training. These results are discussed in the context of studies on processing instruction and learned attention.

Morphosyntactic accuracy in the written compositions of advanced university level students of French

1999 ◽  
Vol 22 (1) ◽  
pp. 61-80 ◽  
Author(s):  
Eugene Mogilevski ◽  
Jack L. Burston
Keyword(s):  
Processing Instruction ◽  
Focus On Form ◽  
Advanced Level ◽  
University Level ◽  
Second Year ◽  
Error Classification ◽  
Linguistic Categories ◽  
French Grammar ◽  
Written Compositions ◽  
Classroom Use

This article investigates the morphosyntactic accuracy of second year examination compositions written by advanced level students of French. The study provides a detailed error analysis of 212 compositions done on the basis of an error classification system consisting of twenty-two linguistic categories. The findings derived from this data highlight areas where students’ linguistic competence is at its weakest, and the rate of progress made by students from one semester to another. More specifically, they present the problem of linguistic accuracy, or rather lack thereof, as widespread, deeply engrained, and worthy of serious attention. The outcome of this investigation leads to a discussion of practical and theoretical explanations for our students’ lack of morphosyntactic accuracy and to a consideration of ways of reducing orthographic and grammatical imprecision. The effectiveness of focus on form is examined, with particular reference to processing instruction linked to the classroom use of the French grammar checker Le Correcteur 101.

Primary and secondary effects of processing instruction on Spanish clitic pronouns

2015 ◽  
Vol 53 (2) ◽  
Author(s):  
Justin White
Keyword(s):  
Adult Learners ◽  
Future Research ◽  
Secondary Effects ◽  
Processing Instruction ◽  
Secondary Target ◽  
Structured Input ◽  
Target Form ◽  
Secondary Form ◽  
Primary And Secondary Effects ◽  
Primary Form

AbstractThis study investigates the effects of token item frequency in Structured Input activities on both a primary target form (Spanish accusative clitics) and a secondary target form (Spanish dative clitics). Participants included 460 adult learners enrolled in a beginning-level Spanish language course and they were exposed to either 40, 60, 80, 100, 120, or 140 target form tokens. This study included a pretest, immediate posttest, and a delayed posttest measuring interpretation and production of both primary and secondary target forms. Findings reveal that primary form interpretation effects across all frequencies, however, production findings present themselves with the 60 and 80 token groups only. Secondary form interpretation findings reveal themselves across all frequency levels with the exception of the lowest frequency investigated (40 tokens) and secondary form production mirror those found in previous studies on the same forms. As such, we discuss the theoretical and methodological ramifications of these findings as well as directions for future research.

scholarly journals Processing instruction: Learning complex grammar and writing accuracy through structured input activities

2018 ◽  
Vol 8 (1) ◽  
Author(s):  
Sima Modirkhamene ◽  
Aram Pouyan ◽  
Parviz Alavinia
Keyword(s):  
Processing Instruction ◽  
Attitude Survey ◽  
Efl Learners ◽  
Structured Input ◽  
Second Language Development ◽  
Long Run ◽  
Deductive Method ◽  
Post Test ◽  
Effective Role

Aimed to change the way input is perceived and processed, processing instruction (PI) tends to help learners focus on particular grammatical forms and alter their inappropriate processing problems so that they make a better form-meaning connection. As an attempt to extend the existing research on the use of PI, the present study was carried out to examine 40 elementary EFL learners’ grammatical achievement having been exposed to PI-based structured input activities. Two groups of learners, namely, PI (n = 20) and traditional instruction (TI, n= 20) were instructed the simple past tense –ed using PI-guided structured input activities and the conventional deductive method, respectively. Findings obtained from a set of interpretation and production tasks in pre- and post-test stages (immediate and delayed) revealed the superiority of the PI group both in the short term and the long run when compared to their peers instructed through the conventional deductive approach. Furthermore, within-group comparisons revealed some variation in participants’ performance in interpretation vs. production tasks. The discrepant findings in the production against interpretation tasks were also confirmed by what we obtained from the attitude survey; indicating that although the learners appreciated the effective role of PI in their results of attitude survey, confirming learners’ appreciation of the effective role of PI in their comprehension of the target structure, they were not very positive to the production tasks. It is concluded that different stages of comprehension and production in second language development, reflected as the general proficiency of the learners, potentially differ in terms of drawing learners’ attention to target structures more specifically when the tasks (e.g., production) are more cognitively demanding.

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

2019 ◽  
Vol 57 (3) ◽  
pp. 265-287 ◽  
Author(s):  
Alessandro Benati ◽  
Maria Batziou
Keyword(s):  
Control Group ◽  
Production Task ◽  
Processing Instruction ◽  
Structured Input ◽  
Sentence Level ◽  
Post Test ◽  
Structured Output ◽  
Causative Structure ◽  
Based Instruction ◽  
Output Only

AbstractThe 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.

The pedagogical relevance of processing instruction in second language idiom acquisition

2017 ◽  
Vol 55 (2) ◽  
Author(s):  
Jeong-eun Kim ◽  
Hosung Nam
Keyword(s):  
Second Language ◽  
Beneficial Effect ◽  
English Speakers ◽  
Control Group ◽  
Processing Instruction ◽  
Structured Input ◽  
Explicit Information

AbstractThis study explores the relevance and effectiveness of processing instruction in second language (L2) idiom learning by examining (1) whether structured input (SI) is more effective than non-SI, comprehension-based activities and (2) whether explicit information (EI) in addition to SI can facilitate L2 idiom learning. One hundred adult L2 English speakers were randomly assigned to one of six conditions: four groups who participated in SI activities in one of four EI conditions (i. e., no EI; EI before SI, EI during SI, or EI both before and during SI), a non-SI group, and a control group. Results from three types of tasks (translation, interpretation, and production) showed that (1) SI is more effective than comprehension-based activities in developing learners’ L2 idiom production ability and (2) EI can facilitate learners’ accurate L2 idiom translation, particularly when it is provided before the SI activities. No beneficial effect was observed from EI provided during the SI activities.

scholarly journals Dictogloss or Processing Instruction: Which Works Better on EFL Learners’ Writing Accuracy?

2021 ◽  
pp. 263-277
Author(s):  
Yasaman Azmoon
Keyword(s):  
Teaching Writing ◽  
Elementary Level ◽  
Instructional Interventions ◽  
Approaches To Teaching ◽  
Processing Instruction ◽  
Focus On Form ◽  
Efl Learners ◽  
The Mean ◽  
Writing Accuracy ◽  
Writing Task

Although many investigations have been carried out into the consequence of applying different approaches to teaching writing, there is still a lack of the empirical comparing research into two influential focus-on-form methods of generating writing accuracy. This study is therefore significant as it is the very first study that compares the relative effects of the two instructional interventions of dictogloss and processing instruction on EFL learners’ writing accuracy. To achieve the abovementioned aim, 56 teenage Iranian participants with elementary level English were homogenized and selected out of 90 learners at a language school, using the results of a piloted sample Key English Test (KET). These participants were randomly divided into two experimental groups with 28 participants in each to practice in one group dictogloss tasks and in the other processing instruction tasks after a pretest. A picture sequence writing task was administered as a posttest at the end of the treatments to both groups. Finally the mean scores of both groups on the posttest were compared through an independent samples t-test. The result rejected the null hypothesis demonstrating that dictogloss could significantly motivate the participants who outperformed the processing instruction group regarding their writing accuracy.

scholarly journals Negation in Musgum

2021 ◽  
Vol 4 (3) ◽  
pp. 141-149
Author(s):  
Brahim Adam
Keyword(s):  
Relative Clauses ◽  
Complex Structure ◽  
Main Clause ◽  
Complex Structures ◽  
Adverbial Clauses ◽  
Split Cp ◽  
Adverbial Clause

This paper studies the negation construction in musgum language.We collect the musgum data on negation from native users and analyse them in terms of Kayne’s (1994) antisymmetry and Rizzi’s (1997) split CP approaches. We identify the free negation element (á:à) and several negation markers (kài, kirkài, kài tiŋ and kirkài tiŋ) that close independent and complex clauses. In complex structures with completive and relative clauses, the main clause cannot contain a negation marker. In complex structure with adverbial clause, negation marker can be present in main and adverbial clauses. We discover that Negation Phrase is the highest projection, higher than Force Phrase, rejecting the split‐CP projections order of Rizzi (1997). When the negation head is generated, Inflexion Phrase is subject to heavy pied‐piping. It occupies the specifier of Negation Phrase.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document