An Investigation of the Effects of Processing Instruction in the Online Learning of the Past Perfect Tense: A Case at a University
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.54855/ijte.23331Keywords:
Processing Instruction, Traditional Instruction, virtual learningAbstract
Vietnamese learners and teachers experienced enormous difficulty in online learning during COVID-19 due to their previous limited exposure to virtual learning. The primary purpose of the study is to develop an appropriate and effective grammar instruction approach for virtual learning. To achieve that purpose, this study compared the relative effects of two types of grammar instruction (Traditional Instruction and Processing Instruction) on online learning of the Past Perfect Tense. More than 160 learners from two elementary classes at a university in Ho Chi Minh City participated in the study with two treatment groups: Traditional Instruction (TI) and Processing Instruction (PI). All the lessons were conducted in a virtual classroom. Pre-test and post-test involving comprehension and production tasks were measured. Overall, the learners who experienced PI gained significantly better results than the TI group in comprehension tasks, while both groups performed similarly in production tasks. Moreover, many features of Processing Instruction are well-suited for the nature of online learning, which benefits learners while they are struggling with virtual classrooms.
References
Allen, L. Q. (2000), Form-meaning connections and the French causative. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 22, 69–84.
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, 95–127.
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, 67–93.
Benati, A. and Lee, J. F., with Houghton, S. D. (2008), Chapter 4: From processing instruction on the acquisition of past tense to secondary transfer-of-training effects on English third person singular present tense. In A. Benati and J. F. Lee, Grammar Acquisition and Processing Instruction: Secondary and Cumulative Effects. Bristol, UK: Multilingual Matters, pp. 88–120.
Benati, A. G., & Lee, J. F. (2010). Processing instruction and discourse. Continuum.
Cadierno, T. (1995). Formal instruction from a processing perspective: an investigation into the Spanish past tense. The Modern Language Journal, 79(2), 179–193.
Chan, M. (2018). Processing instruction in helping map forms and meaning in second language acquisition of English simple past. The Journal of Educational Research, 111(6), 720–732. https://doi.org/10.1080/00220671.2017.1411879
Chan, M. (2019). The role of classroom input: Processing instruction, Traditional instruction, and Implicit instruction in the acquisition of the English simple past by Cantonese ESL learners in Hong Kong. System, 80, 246–256. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.system.2018.12.003
Cheng, A. C. (2002). The effects of processing instruction on the acquisition of "ser" and "estar.". Hispania, 85(2), 308–23.
Farley, A. P. (2001). Authentic processing instruction and the Spanish subjunctive. Hispania, 84, 289–299.
Henry, N. (2022). The offline and online effects of processing instruction. Applied Psycholinguistics, 43(4), 945-971. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0142716422000200
Lee, J. G., & VanPatten, B. (1995). Making communicative language teaching happen. New York: McGraw-Hill.
Long, M. (1991). Focus on form: A design feature in language teaching methodology. In K. de Bot, R. Ginsberg, & C. Kramsch (Eds.), Foreign language research in cross-cultural perspective (pp. 39-52). Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
Morgan-Short, K., & Bowden, H. W. (2006). Processing instruction and meaningful output-based instruction: effects on second language development. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 28(1), 31–65.
Nassaji, H., & Fotos, S. (2011). Teaching Grammar in second language classrooms: Integrating form-focused instruction in a communicative context. New York: Routledge.
Patra, I., Suwondo, T., Mohammed, A., Alghazali, T., Doaa Abd AL-Hadi Mohameed, Ibnu Rawandhy, N. H., & Hossein, K. B. (2022). The Effects of Processing Instruction and Output-Based Activities on Grammar Learning: The Mediating Role of Working Memory. Education Research International, 2022https://doi.org/10.1155/2022/3704876
Pham, M. T., Luu, T. T. U., Mai, T. H. U., Thai, T. T. T., & Ngo, T. C. T. (2022). EFL Students’ Challenges of Online Courses at Van Lang University during the COVID-19 Pandemic. International Journal of TESOL & Education, 2(2), 1–26. https://doi.org/10.54855/ijte.22221
Pham, N. S. (2022). The Effectiveness of Teaching and Learning Online: A Study on HUFI’s English-majored Students. International Journal of TESOL & Education, 2(3), 1–12. https://doi.org/10.54855/ijte.22231
Qin, J. (2008). The effect of processing instruction and dictogloss tasks on acquisition of the English passive voice. Language Teaching Research, 12, 61–82.
Uyen, K. T. M. (2021). The Attitudes towards Distance Learning of Ton Duc Thang University Students and Teachers. 17th AsiaCALL 2021 Proceedings. https://doi.org/10.2991/assehr.k.210226.020
VanPatten, B. (1993). Grammar teaching for the acquisition-rich classroom. Foreign Language Annals, 26(4), 435–50.
Vanpatten, B., & Cadierno, T. (1993). Input processing and second language acquisition: a role for instruction. Modern Language Journal, 77(1), 45–57.
VanPatten, B. (2004). Processing instruction: Theory, research, and commentary. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Wong, W., & Ito, K. (2018). The Effects of Processing Instruction and Traditional Instruction On L2 Online Processing of the Causative Construction in French: An Eye-Tracking Study. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 40(2), 241-268. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0272263117000274
Downloads
Published
Issue
Section
License
Copyright (c) 2023 Ky Tran Minh Uyen
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.
The copyright of all articles published in the International Journal of TESOL & Education (ijte) remains with the Authors, i.e. Authors retain full ownership of their article. Permitted third-party reuse of the open access articles is defined by the applicable Creative Commons (CC) end-user license which is accepted by the Authors upon submission of their paper. All articles in the ijte are published under the CC BY-NC 4.0 license, meaning that end users can freely share an article (i.e. copy and redistribute the material in any medium or format) and adapt it (i.e. remix, transform and build upon the material) on the condition that proper attribution is given (i.e. appropriate credit, a link to the applicable license and an indication if any changes were made; all in such a way that does not suggest that the licensor endorses the user or the use) and the material is only used for non-commercial purposes.
Authors retain copyright and grant the journal the right of first publication with the work simultaneously licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License that allows others to share the work with an acknowledgment of the work's authorship and initial publication in this journal.
Authors are able to enter into separate, additional contractual arrangements for the non-exclusive distribution of the journal's published version of the work (e.g., post it to an institutional repository, in a journal or publish it in a book), with an acknowledgment of its initial publication in this journal.
