Research has underscored the separate role of output to promote processing instruction (PI) effects in language learning. Yet, there is a need to scrutinize the interplay between structured output (SO) and unstructured output (USO) within PI to understand how innovative combinations may enhance ultimate educational attainment. The present quasi-experimental study investigated the possible effects of PI with/without SO and USO on learners’ short-term and long-term automatic and non-automatic explicit knowledge of English passive structure. A homogeneous sample of 115 Intermediate learners of English as a foreign language (EFL) in intact groups was selected and randomly assigned to four experimental groups (PI, PI+SO, PI+USO, and PI+SO+USO). We administered parallel timed and untimed grammaticality judgment tests (GJT) to measure learning. Kruskal–Wallis, Mann–Whitney, Friedman, and Wilcoxon Signed Rank Tests revealed that the PI+SO+USO group outperformed the other groups. The findings underscore the significance of adding SO and USO to PI in promoting grammar knowledge and offer several pedagogical implications.
BenatiA.G. (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.
2.
BenatiA.G. (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.
3.
BenatiA.G. (2016). Input manipulation, enhancement and processing: Theoretical views and empirical research. Studies in Second Language Learning and Teaching, 6, 65–88.
4.
BenatiA.GBatziouM. (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, 1–23.
5.
BenatiA.G.BatziouM. (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, 1–20.
6.
BenatiA.G.LeeJ.McNultyE. (2010). Exploring the effects of processing instruction on a discourse-level guided composition with the Spanish subjunctive after the adverb Cuando. In BenatiA.G.LeeJ. (Eds.), Processing instruction and discourse (pp. 97–147). Continuum.
7.
BialystokE. (1979). Explicit and implicit judgements of L2 grammaticality. Language Learning, 29, 81–103.
8.
BowlesM. (2011). Measuring implicit and explicit linguistic knowledge: What can heritage language learners contribute?Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 33, 247–271.
9.
DabiriA. (2018). Comparing two modes of instruction in English passive structures (processing and meaning-based output instruction). Journal of English Educators Society, 3, 67–84.
DeKeyserR. (1998). Beyond focus on form: Cognitive perspectives on learning and practicing second language grammar. In DoughtyC.WilliamsJ. (Eds.), Focus on form in classroom second language acquisition (pp. 422–463). Cambridge University Press.
12.
DeKeyserR. (2007). Skill acquisition theory. In VanPattenB.WilliamsJ. (Eds.), Theories in second language acquisition: An introduction (pp. 97–113). Erlbaum.
13.
DeKeyserR.BotanaG.P. (2015). The effectiveness of processing instruction in L2 grammar acquisition: A narrative review. Applied Linguistics, 36, 290–305.
14.
DoughtyC. (2003). Instructed SLA: Constraints, compensation, and enhancement. In DoughtyC.LongM.H. (Eds.), The handbook of second language acquisition (pp. 256–310). Blackwell.
15.
EllisR. (1998). Teaching and research: Options in grammar teaching. TESOL Quarterly, 32, 40–61.
16.
EllisR. (2003). Task-based language learning and teaching. Oxford University Press.
17.
EllisR. (2004). The definition and measurement of explicit knowledge. Language Learning, 54, 227–275.
18.
EllisR. (2005). Measuring implicit and explicit knowledge of a second language: A psychometric study. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 27, 141–172.
19.
EllisR. (2008). Explicit knowledge and second language learning and pedagogy. In HornbergerN.H. (Ed.), Encyclopedia of language and education (pp. 1901–1911). Springer.
20.
EllisR. (2009). Implicit and Explicit Learning, Knowledge and Instruction. In Implicit and Explicit Knowledge in Second Language Learning, Testing and Teaching (pp. 3–26). Multilingual Matters. https://doi.org/10.21832/9781847691767-003
21.
EllisR. (2012). Language teaching research and pedagogy. Wiley-Blackwell.
22.
EllisR.RoeverC. (2018). The measurement of implicit and explicit knowledge. The Language Learning Journal, 49, 160–175.
23.
FarleyA.P. (2000). The relative effects of processing instruction and meaning-based output instruction on L2 acquisition of the Spanish subjunctive. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign, Urbana, IL, USA.
24.
FarleyA.P. (2001a). Authentic processing instruction and the Spanish subjunctive. Hispania, 84, 289–299.
25.
FarleyA.P. (2001b). Processing instruction and meaning-based output instruction: A comparative study. Studies in Applied Linguistics, 5, 57–93.
26.
FarleyA.P. (2004). The relative effects of processing instruction and meaning-based output instruction. In VanPattenB. (Ed.), Processing instruction: Theory, research, and commentary (pp. 143–168). Erlbaum.
27.
FarleyA.P. (2005). Structured input: Grammar instruction for the acquisition-oriented classroom. McGraw-Hill.
28.
FarleyA.P.AslanE. (2012). The relative effects of processing instruction and meaning-based output instruction on L2 acquisition of the English subjunctive. ELT Research Journal, 1, 120–141.
29.
FaulF.ErdfelderE.LangA.G.BuchnerA. (2007). G*Power 3: A flexible statistical power analysis program for the social, behavioral, and biomedical sciences. Behavior Research Methods, 39, 175–191.
30.
GodfroidA. (2021). Implicit and explicit learning and knowledge. In MohebbiH.CoombeC. (Eds.), Research questions in language education and applied linguistics: A reference guide (pp. 823–829). Springer.
31.
GutiérrezX. (2012). Implicit knowledge, explicit knowledge, and achievement in second language (L2) Spanish. Canadian Journal of Applied Linguistics, 15, 20–41.
32.
GutiérrezX. (2013). The construct validity of grammaticality judgment tests as measures of implicit and explicit knowledge. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 35, 423–449.
33.
HanY. (2000). Grammaticality judgment tests: How reliable and valid are they?Applied Language Learning, 11, 177–204.
34.
HanY.EllisR. (1998). Implicit knowledge, explicit knowledge and general language proficiency. Language Teaching Research, 2, 1–23.
35.
IsabelliC.A. (2008). First noun principle or L1 transfer principle in SLA?Hispania, 91, 465–478.
36.
IzumiS. (2002). Output, input enhancement, and the noticing hypothesis. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 24, 541–577.
37.
KimJ.NamH. (2016). Measures of implicit knowledge revisited: Processing modes, time pressure, and modality. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 39, 431–457.
38.
KirkR. (2013). The effects of processing instruction with and without output: Acquisition of the Spanish subjunctive in three conjunctional phrases. Hispania, 96, 153–169.
39.
LeeJ.F.BenatiA.G. (2007). Second language processing: An analysis of theory, problems and possible solutions. London.
40.
LeeJ.F.VanPattenB. (1995). Making communicative language teaching happen. McGraw-Hill.
41.
LeeJ.F.VanPattenB. (2003). Making communicative language teaching happen. 2nd edition.McGraw-Hill.
42.
MandellP.B. (1999). On the reliability of grammaticallity judgement tests in second language acquisition research. Second Language Research, 15(1), 73–99. https://doi.org/10.1191/026765899667538959
43.
Morgan-ShortK.BowdenH.W. (2006). Processing instruction and meaningful output-based instruction. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 28, 31–65.
44.
NassajiH.FotosS. (2004). Current developments in research on the teaching of grammar. Annual Review of Applied Linguistics, 24, 126–145.
45.
NassajiH.FotosS. (2011). Teaching grammar in second language classrooms: Integrating form-focused instruction in a communicative context. Routledge.
46.
QinJ. (2008). The effect of processing instruction and dictogloss tasks on acquisition of the English passive voice. Language Teaching Research, 12, 61–82.
47.
SándorK. (2016). Grammaticality judgment tests as measures of explicit knowledge. Argumentum, 12, 216–230.
48.
Seibert HansonA.E. (2012) How second language learners process argument structure: The effects of first language and individual differences. Unpublished PhD thesis, Penn State University, University Park, PA, USA.
49.
SeyednejadH.GholamiH. (2017). The effect of structured input, meaningful output and traditional instruction on EFL learners’ productive use of passive voice. Theory and Practice in Language Studies, 7, 737–747.
50.
ShintaniN.LiS.EllisR. (2013). Comprehension-based versus production-based grammar instruction: A meta-analysis of comparative studies. Language Learning, 63, 296–329.
51.
SmithG. (2015). Combining input- and output-based instruction in second language learning. Unpublished master’s thesis, Concordia University, Montréal, Québec, Canada.
52.
SwainM. (1985). Communicative competence: Some roles of comprehensible input and comprehensible output in its development. In GassS.MaddenC. (Eds.), Input in second language acquisition (pp. 235–253). Newbury House.
53.
SwainM. (1995). Three functions of output in second language learning. In CookG.SeidlhoferB. (Eds.), Principle and practice in applied linguistics: Studies in honor of H.G. Widdowson (pp. 125–144). Oxford University Press.
54.
SwainM. (2000). The output hypothesis and beyond: Mediating acquisition through collaborative dialogue. In LantolfJ. (Ed.), Sociocultural theory and second language learning (pp. 97–114). Oxford University Press.
55.
SwainM. (2005). The output hypothesis: Theory and research. In HinkelE. (Ed.). Handbook of research in second language teaching and learning (pp. 471–483). Erlbaum.
56.
TanakaT. (1999). The effect of combination of comprehension and production practice in grammar instruction. JACET Bulletin, 30, 119–133.
57.
TanakaT. (2001). Comprehension and production practice in grammar instruction: Does their combined use facilitate second language acquisition?JALT Journal, 23, 6–30.
58.
TothB. (2006). Processing instruction and a role for output in second language acquisition. Language Learning, 56, 319–385.
59.
UludagO.VanPattenB. (2012). The comparative effects of processing instruction and dictogloss on the acquisition of the English passive by speakers of Turkish. International Review of Applied Linguistics in Language Teaching, 50, 189–212.
60.
VanPattenB. (1990). Attending to form and content in the input: An experiment in consciousness. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 12, 287–301.
61.
VanPattenB. (1996). Input processing and grammar instruction: Theory and research. Ablex.
62.
VanPattenB. (2002). Processing instruction: An update. Language Learning, 52, 755–803.
63.
VanPattenB. (2004). Input processing in second language acquisition. In VanPattenB. (Ed.), Processing instruction: Theory, research, and commentary (pp. 5–31). Erlbaum.
64.
VanPattenB. (2007a). Input processing in adult second language acquisition. In VanPattenB.WilliamsJ. (Eds.), Theories in second language acquisition: An introduction (pp. 115–135). Routledge.
65.
VanPattenB. (2007b). Processing instruction. In SanzC. (Ed.), Mind and context in adult second language acquisition (pp. 267–281). Georgetown University Press.
66.
VanPattenB. (2015a). Input processing in adult SLA. In VanPattenB.WilliamsJ. (Eds.), Theories in second language acquisition (pp. 113–135). 2nd edition.Routledge.
67.
VanPattenB. (2015b). Foundations of processing instruction. International Review of Applied Linguistics, 53, 91–109.
68.
VanPattenB.CadiernoT. (1993). Explicit instruction and input processing. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 12, 225–243.
69.
VanPattenB.FernándezC. (2004). The long-term effects of processing instruction. In VanPattenB. (Ed.), Processing instruction: Theory, research, and commentary (pp. 273–289). Erlbaum.
70.
VanPattenB.FarmerJ.L.ClardyC.L. (2009). Processing instruction and meaning-based output instruction: A response to Keating and Farley (2008). Hispania, 92, 116–126.
71.
WongW. (2004). The nature of processing instruction. In VanPattenB. (Ed.), Processing instruction: Theory, research, and commentary (pp. 33–65). Erlbaum.
72.
WongW.ItoK. (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.
73.
YamashitaT.IizukaT. (2017). The effectiveness of structured input and structured output on the acquisition of Japanese comparative sentences. Foreign Language Annals, 50, 387–397.
74.
YounesiH.TajeddinZ. (2014). Effects of structured input and meaningful output on EFL learners’ acquisition of nominal clauses. IJAL, 17, 145–167.
75.
ZereshkiF.RezaeiG. (2018). The impact of structured input and consciousness-raising tasks on the acquisition of implicit and explicit knowledge of EFL learners. International Journal of English Linguistics, 8, 55–64.
Supplementary Material
Please find the following supplemental material available below.
For Open Access articles published under a Creative Commons License, all supplemental material carries the same license as the article it is associated with.
For non-Open Access articles published, all supplemental material carries a non-exclusive license, and permission requests for re-use of supplemental material or any part of supplemental material shall be sent directly to the copyright owner as specified in the copyright notice associated with the article.
