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

Pub Date : 2019-03-24 DOI:10.32601/EJAL.543783
Majid Farahian, Farnaz Avarzamani
{"title":"Processing Instruction Revisited: Does it Lead to Superior Performance in Interpretation and Production?","authors":"Majid Farahian, Farnaz Avarzamani","doi":"10.32601/EJAL.543783","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"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 been given due attention. As such, the present study is an attempt to shed more lights upon the effects of the processing instruction (PI) on EFL (English as a Foreign Language) learners’ acquisition of passive voice by comparing PI to dictogloss and an output instruction. The participants recruited for the study were 51 pre-intermediate level EFL students. The pretest revealed that there was no significant difference between 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 voice comprehension and production. The findings indicated that the processing instruction group outperformed dictogloss and meaningful output instruction in both tasks, and thus it had a significantly positive effect on the comprehension and production of the English passive voice.","PeriodicalId":0,"journal":{"name":"","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2019-03-24","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"1","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.32601/EJAL.543783","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 1

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 been given due attention. As such, the present study is an attempt to shed more lights upon the effects of the processing instruction (PI) on EFL (English as a Foreign Language) learners’ acquisition of passive voice by comparing PI to dictogloss and an output instruction. The participants recruited for the study were 51 pre-intermediate level EFL students. The pretest revealed that there was no significant difference between 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 voice comprehension and production. The findings indicated that the processing instruction group outperformed dictogloss and meaningful output instruction in both tasks, and thus it had a significantly positive effect on the comprehension and production of the English passive voice.
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
重新审视加工指令:它会导致解释和生产的卓越表现吗?
大量的研究已经证明了注重形式教学法在语言教学中的有效性。然而,处理指令作为一种FonF方法并没有得到应有的重视。因此,本研究试图通过将加工指令与听写和输出指令进行比较,进一步揭示加工指令对EFL(英语作为外语)学习者被动语态习得的影响。该研究招募的参与者是51名中级前EFL学生。预测试显示,两组在被动语态知识方面没有显著差异。关于治疗,第一组(n=17)接受处理指令,第二组(n=19)接受听写缺失任务,第三组(n=18)接受有意义的输出指令。在直接后测中,使用两种类型的任务(口译和产出)来评估参与者的英语被动语态理解和产出。研究结果表明,加工指令组在两项任务中都优于听写和有意义输出指令组,因此它对英语被动语态的理解和产生有显著的积极影响。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1