An eye-tracking study on the effects of structured input and traditional instruction on the acquisition of English passive forms
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.1558/isla.40642Keywords:
input processing, processing instruction, structured input, English causative passive forms, accuracy, eye-movement patternsAbstract
The present study explores the effects of structured input and traditional instruction on the acquisition of English passive forms using online measurements (eye-tracking). Previous empirical research investigating the effects of processing instruction through offline measurements (sentence and discourse-level) has overall shown that it is an effective pedagogical intervention. Research investigating the main factor responsible for the effectiveness of processing instruction has confirmed that it is the structured input component that is the causative factor for the positive effects of processing instruction. The two main questions of this study are: (1) What are the effects of structured input and traditional instruction on accuracy when measured by an eye-tracking picture selection task? (2) Would possible differences in accuracy between structured input and traditional instruction be accompanied by changes in eye-movement patterns? To provide answers to the questions formulated in this study, one eye-tracking study was carried out. Sixty-four school-age learners (15–16 years old) participated and were assigned to one of two groups: structured input (n = 32 or traditional instruction (n = 32). Neither instructional group received explicit information. A pre- and post-training design was adopted and the two groups received two different instructional treatments (structured input vs traditional instruction). Participants were assessed through a picture selection eye-tracking task to measure accuracy and eye-movement patterns while they were processing auditory sentences. Results of the eye-tracking task indicated that the structured input group achieved significantly higher accuracy scores compared with the group receiving traditional instruction. The main findings from the present study reveal that structured input training might cause a change in learners’ eye-movement patterns.
References
Altmann, G. T. M. and Kamide, Y. (1999) Incremental interpretation at verbs: restricting the domain of subsequent reference. Cognition 73: 247–64. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0010-0277(99)00059-1
Benati, A. (2004a) The effects of structured input and explicit information on the acquisition of Italian future tense. In B. VanPatten (ed.) Processing Instruction: Theory, Research, and Commentary 207–55. Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
Benati, A. (2004b) The effects of processing instruction and its components on the acquisition of gender agreement in Italian. Language Awareness 13: 67–80. https://doi.org/10.1080/09658410408667087
Benati, A. (2019) Classroom-oriented research: processing instruction. Language Teaching 52(3): 343–59. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0261444817000386
Benati, A. (2020) The effects of structured input and traditional instruction on the acquisition of the English causative passive forms: an eye-tracking study measuring accuracy in responses and processing patterns. Language Teaching Research. https://doi.org/10.1177/1362168820928577
Benati, A. and Batziou, M. (2017) The relative effects of isolated and combined structured input and structured output on the acquisition of the English causative forms. International Review of Applied Linguistics in Language Teaching 57(3): 265–88. https://doi.org/10.1515/iral-2016-0038
Benati, A. and Batziou, M. (2019) Discourse and long-term effects of isolated and combined structured input and structured output on the acquisition of the English causative form. Language Awareness 28(2): 1–18. https://doi.org/10.1080/09658416.2019.1604721
Benati, A. and Lee, J. (2015) Introduction to the special issue – Processing instruction: twenty years of theory, research and application. International Review of Applied Linguistics in Language Teaching 53(2): 87–90. https://doi.org/10.1515/iral-2015-0004
Benati, A. and Schwieter, J. (2017) Input processing and processing instruction: pedagogical and cognitive considerations for L3 acquisition. In T. Angelovska and A. Hahn (eds) L3 Syntactic Transfer: Models, New Developments and Implications 195–223. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. https://doi.org/10.1075/bpa.5.12ben
Farley, A. (2004) Processing instruction and the Spanish subjunctive: is explicit information needed? In B. VanPatten (ed.) Processing Instruction: Theory, Research, and Commentary 227–39. Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
Farley, A. (2005) Structured Input: Grammar Instruction for the Acquisition-oriented Classroom. New York: McGraw-Hill.
Lee, J. (2015) The milestones in twenty years of processing instruction research. International Review of Applied Linguistics in Language Teaching 53(2): 111–26. https://doi.org/10.1515/iral-2015-0006
Lee, J. and Benati, A. (2007) Second Language Processing: An Analysis of Theory, Problems and Possible Solutions. Continuum: London.
Lee, J. and Benati, A. (2009) Research and Perspectives on Processing Instruction. Berlin: De Gruyter Mouton. https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110215335
Meyer, A. M., Mack, J. E. and Thompson, C. K. (2012) Tracking passive sentence comprehension in agrammatic aphasia. Journal of Neurolinguistics 25(1): 31–43. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jneuroling.2011.08.001
Morgan-Short, K. and 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. https://doi.org/10.1017/
S0272263106060025
Stromswold, K., Eisenband, J., Norland, E. and Ratzan, J. (2002) Tracking the acquisition and processing of English passives: using acoustic cues to disambiguate actives and passives. Paper presented at the CUNY Conference on Sentence Processing, New York.
Trueswell, J. C. and Tanenhaus, M. (2005) Approaches to Studying World-situated Language Use: Bridging the Language-as-product and the Language-as-action Traditions. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
VanPatten, B. (1996) Input Processing and Grammar Instruction: Theory and Research. Norwood, NJ: Ablex.
VanPatten, B. (2015a) Input processing in adult SLA. In B. VanPatten and J. Williams (eds) Theories in Second Language Acquisition 113–35. New York: Routledge.
VanPatten, B. (2015b) Foundations of processing instruction. International Review of Applied Linguistics in Language Teaching 53(2): 91–109. https://doi.org/10.1515/iral-2015-0005
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. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0272263100015394
VanPatten, B. and Wong, W. (2004) Processing instruction and the French causative: another replication. In B. VanPatten (ed.) Processing Instruction: Theory, Research, and Commentary 97–118. Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum. https://doi.org/10.4324/9781410610195
Wong, W. (2004) The nature of processing instruction. In B. VanPatten (ed.) Processing Instruction: Theory, Research, and Commentary 33–65. Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
Wong, W. and Ito, K. (2018) The effects of processing instruction and traditional instruction on L2 online processing of the causative construction in French: an eyetracking study. Studies in Second Language Acquisition 40(2): 241–68. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0272263117000274
