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

Abstract

The present study explores the effects of structured input and traditional instruction on the acquisition of English causative passive forms using online measurements (eye-tracking). Previous empirical research investigating the effects of processing instruction through offline measurements (sentence and discourse) has overall shown positive results for this 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 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 difference in accuracy between structured input and traditional instruction be accompanied by changes in eye-movement patterns? To provide answers to the two questions formulated in this study, one eye-tracking study was carried out. Fifty-two adult learners (aged 19–21 years) participated and were assigned to one of two groups: structured input (n = 26) or traditional instruction (n = 26). Neither instructional groups 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 to the group receiving traditional instruction. The main findings from the present study reveal that structured input training causes a change in learners’ eye-movement patterns.

Keywords

Accuracy English causative passive forms eye movement patterns input processing processing instruction structured input

Get full access to this article

View all access options for this article.

References

Altmann

G.T.M.

Kamide

(1999). Incremental interpretation at verbs: Restricting the domain of subsequent reference. Cognition, 73, 247–264.

Benati

(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

(2004a). The effects of structured input and explicit information on the acquisition of Italian future tense. In VanPatten

(Ed.), Processing instruction: Theory, research, and commentary (pp. 207–255). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.

Benati

(2004b). The effects of processing instruction and its components on the acquisition of gender agreement in Italian. Language Awareness, 13, 67–80.

Benati

(2005). The effects of PI, TI and MOI in the acquisition of English simple past tense. Language Teaching Research, 9, 67–113.

Benati

(2013a). The input processing theory. In Garcia Mayo

. (Ed.), Contemporary approaches to second language acquisition (pp. 93–110). Amsterdam: John Benjamins.

Benati

(2013b). Age and the effects of processing instruction on the acquisition of English passive constructions among school children and adult native speakers of Turkish. In Lee

J.F.

Benati

(Eds.), Individual differences and processing instruction (pp. 83–104). Sheffield: Equinox.

Benati

(2017). Classroom-oriented research: Processing instruction. Language Teaching, 52, 343–359.

Benati

(forthcoming). Input processing and processing instruction: The acquisition of Italian and Modern Standard Arabic. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.

10.

Benati

Batziou

(2017). The effects of structured-input and structured-output tasks on the acquisition of English causative. International Review of Applied Linguistics in Language Teaching, 57, 265–287.

11.

Benati

Batziou

(2019). Discourse and long-term effects of structured-input and structured-output tasks in combination and isolation on the acquisition of passive English causative forms. Language Awareness, 28, 77–96.

12.

Benati

Lee

(2008). Grammar acquisition and processing instruction: Secondary and cumulative effects. Bristol: Multilingual Matters.

13.

Benati

Lee

(2015). Processing instruction: New insights after twenty years of theory, research and application. Special Issue in International Review of Applied Linguistics in Language Teaching, 53, 87–90.

14.

Cadierno

(1995). Formal instruction from a processing perspective: An investigation into the Spanish past tense. The Modern Language Journal, 79, 179–193.

15.

Cheng

A.C.

(2004). Processing instruction and Spanish ser and estar: Forms with semantic-aspectual value. In VanPatten

(Ed.), Processing instruction: Theory, research, and commentary (pp. 119–141). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.

16.

Farley

(2004). Processing instruction and the Spanish subjunctive: Is explicit information needed? In VanPatten

(Ed.), Processing instruction: Theory, research, and commentary (pp. 227–239). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.

17.

Farley

(2005). Structured input: Grammar instruction for the acquisition-oriented classroom. New York: McGraw-Hill.

18.

Issa

Morgan-Short

(2019). Effects of internal and external attentional manipulations on second language grammar development: An eye-tracking study. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 42, 389–417.

19.

Ito

Wong

(2019). Processing instruction and the effects of input modality and voice familiarity on the acquisition of the French causative construction. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 41, 443–468.

20.

Lee

(2004). On the generalizability, limits, and potential future directions of processing instruction research. In VanPatten

(Ed.), Processing instruction: Theory, research, and commentary (pp. 311–323). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.

21.

Lee

(2015). The milestones in twenty years of processing instruction research. International Review of Applied Linguistics in Language Teaching, 53, 111–126.

22.

Lee

Benati

(2007a). Delivering processing instruction in classrooms and virtual contexts: Research and practice. London: Equinox.

23.

Lee

Benati

(2007b). Second language processing: An analysis of theory, problems and possible solutions. London: Continuum.

24.

Lee

Benati

(2009). Research and perspectives on processing instruction. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.

25.

Lee

Doherty

(2019). Native and nonnative processing of active and passive sentence: The effects of processing instruction on the allocation of visual attention. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 41, 853–879.

26.

Lee

VanPatten

(2003). Making communicative language teaching happen. New York: McGraw-Hill.

27.

Marsden

(2006). Exploring input processing in the classroom: An experimental comparison of processing instruction and enriched input. Language Learning, 56, 507–566.

28.

Morgan-Short

Bowden

H.W.

(2006). Processing instruction and meaningful output-based instruction: Effects on second language development. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 28, 31–65.

29.

Sanz

(2004). Computer delivered implicit versus explicit feedback in processing instruction. In VanPatten

(Ed.), Processing instruction: Theory, research, and commentary (pp. 241–255). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.

30.

Stromswold

Eisenband

Norland

Ratzan

(2002). Tracking the acquisition and processing of English passives: Using acoustic cues to disambiguate actives and passives. Unpublished paper presented at the CUNY Conference on Sentence Processing, New York, USA.

31.

Trueswell

J.C.

Tanenhaus

(2005). Approaches to studying world-situated language use: Bridging the language-as-product and the language-as-action traditions. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.

32.

VanPatten

(1996). Input processing and grammar instruction: Theory and research. Norwood, NJ: Ablex.

33.

VanPatten

(Ed.) (2004). Processing instruction: Theory, research, and commentary. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.

34.

VanPatten

(2015a). Input processing in adult SLA. In VanPatten

Williams

(Eds.), Theories in second language acquisition (pp. 113–135). New York: Routledge.

35.

VanPatten

(2015b). Foundations of processing instruction. IRAL, 53, 91–109.

36.

VanPatten

Cadierno

(1993). Explicit instruction and input processing. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 15, 225–243.

37.

VanPatten

Oikkenon

(1996). Explanation vs. structured input in processing instruction. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 18, 495–510.

38.

VanPatten

Wong

(2004). Processing instruction and the French causative: Another replication. In VanPatten

(Ed.), Processing instruction: Theory, research, and commentary (pp. 97–118). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.

39.

VanPatten

Farmer

Clardy

(2009). Processing instruction and meaning-based output instruction: A response to Keating and Farley (2008). Hispania, 92, 116–126.

40.

Wong

(2004). The nature of processing instruction. In VanPatten

(Ed.), Processing instruction: Theory, research, and commentary (pp. 33–65). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.

41.

Wong

Ito

(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, 241–268.