Despite previous research having demonstrated the comparative effects of processing instruction and output-based instruction, further investigation is required to examine the relationships between individual differences in cognitive abilities and these instructional types. This study investigated the associations among three instructional approaches and learners’ language aptitude and working memory in acquiring four Chinese classifiers. Eighty-six second language (L2) Chinese learners from one Chinese university were divided into three experimental groups – processing instruction (PI), meaning-based output instruction (MOI), combined instruction (CI) – and a control group. Tests measuring treatment effects included an untimed grammatical judgment test and an oral elicited imitation test. The LLAMA test and a counting span task were employed to assess learners’ language aptitude and working memory respectively. Multiple regression analysis suggested that phonetic coding ability was significantly predictive of the effects of PI and CI groups. Language analytic ability and working memory were not predictive of the effects of any experimental groups. The findings suggest that providing metalinguistic explanations followed by output-based language activities may mitigate learners’ cognitive differences in language analytic ability and working memory.
AbrahamssonN.HyltenstamK. (2008). The robustness of aptitude effects in near-native second language acquisition. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 30, 481–509.
2.
BaddeleyA. (2000). The episodic buffer: A new component of working memory?Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 4, 417–423.
3.
BaddeleyA. (2003). Working memory: Looking back and looking forward. Nature Reviews Neuroscience, 4, 829–839.
4.
BaddeleyA.D.HitchG. (1974). Working memory. Psychology of Learning and Motivation, 8, 47–89.
5.
BenatiA. (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.
6.
BenatiA. (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.
7.
BenatiA. (2009). Japanese language teaching: A communicative approach. Bloomsbury.
8.
BenatiA. (2019). Classroom-oriented research: Processing instruction (findings and implications). Language Teaching, 52, 343–359.
9.
BenatiA.BatziouM. (2019a). 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, 77–96.
10.
BenatiA.BatziouM. (2019b). 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, 265–287.
11.
BokanderL.BylundE. (2020). Probing the internal validity of the LLAMA language aptitude tests. Language Learning, 70, 11–47.
12.
CadiernoT. (1995). Formal instruction from a processing perspective: An investigation into the Spanish past tense. The Modern Language Journal, 79, 179–193.
13.
CarrollJ.B. (1981). Twenty-five years of research on foreign language aptitude. Individual Differences and Universals in Language Learning Aptitude, 83, 867–873.
14.
CarrollJ.B.SaponS. (2002). Modern Language Aptitude Test MLAT: Manual 2002 edition. Second Language Testing.
15.
ConwayA.R.KaneM.J.BuntingM.F., et al. (2005). Working memory span tasks: A methodological review and user’s guide. Psychonomic Bulletin and Review, 12, 769–786.
16.
De GraaffR. (1997). The experanto experiment: Effects of explicit instruction on second language acquisition. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 19, 249–276.
17.
EllisR. (2004). The definition and measurement of L2 explicit knowledge. Language Learning, 54, 227–275.
18.
EllisR. (2009). Implicit and explicit learning, knowledge and instruction. In EllisR.LoewenS.ElderC.ReindersH.ErlamR.PhilpJ. (Eds.), Implicit and explicit knowledge in second language learning, testing and teaching (pp. 3–26). Multilingual Matters.
19.
EngleR.W.LaughlinJ.E.TuholskiS.W.ConwayA.R.A. (1999). Working memory, short-term memory, and general fluid intelligence: A latent-variable approach. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 128, 309–331.
20.
ErlamR. (2005). Language aptitude and its relationship to instructional effectiveness in second language acquisition. Language Teaching Research, 9, 147–171.
21.
ErlamR.LoewenS.PhilpJ., et al. (2009). The roles of output-based and input-based instruction in the acquisition of L2 implicit and explicit knowledge. In EllisR.LoewenS.ElderC., et al. (Eds.), Implicit and explicit knowledge in second language learning, testing and teaching (pp. 241–261). Multilingual Matters.
22.
FarhatA.BenatiA. (2018). The effects of motivation on processing instruction in the acquisition of Modern Standard Arabic gender agreement. Instructed Second Language Acquisition, 2, 61–82.
23.
FarleyA. (2001a). Authentic processing instruction and the Spanish subjunctive. Hispania, 84, 289–299.
24.
FarleyA. (2001b). Processing instruction and meaning-based output instruction: A comparative study. Spanish Applied Linguistics, 5, 57–94.
25.
FarleyA. (2004). The relative effects of processing instruction and meaning-based output instruction. In VanPattenB. (Ed.), Processing instruction: Theory, research, and commentary (pp. 143–168). Routledge.
26.
FarleyA.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.
27.
FieldA. (2018). Discovering statistics using IBM SPSS statistics (5th ed.). Sage.
28.
ForsbergL.SandgrenM. (2013). High-level proficiency in late L2 acquisition: Relationships between collocational production, language aptitude and personality. In GranenaG.LongM. (Eds.), Sensitive periods, language aptitude, and ultimate L2 attainment (pp. 231–256). John Benjamins.
29.
GranenaG. (2013a). Cognitive aptitudes for second language learning and the LLAMA language aptitude test. In GranenaG.LongM. (Eds.), Sensitive periods, language aptitude, and ultimate L2 attainment (pp. 105–130). John Benjamins.
30.
GranenaG. (2013b). Individual differences in sequence learning ability and second language acquisition in early childhood and adulthood. Language Learning, 63, 665–703.
31.
GranenaG. (2014). Language aptitude and long-term achievement in early childhood L2 learners. Applied Linguistics, 35, 483–503.
32.
GranenaG. (2019). Cognitive aptitude and L2 speaking proficiency: Links between LLAMA and Hi-Lab. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 41, 313–336.
33.
GranenaG.LongM. (2013). Sensitive periods, language aptitude, and ultimate L2 attainment. John Benjamins.
34.
HwuF.PanW.SunS. (2014). Aptitude-treatment interaction effects on explicit rule learning: A latent growth curve analysis. Language Teaching Research, 18, 294–319.
35.
HwuF.SunS. (2012). The aptitude-treatment interaction effects on the learning of grammar rules. System, 40, 505–521.
36.
KeatingG.D.FarleyA.P. (2008). Processing instruction, meaning-based output instruction, and meaning-based drills: Impacts on classroom L2 acquisition of Spanish object pronouns. Hispania, 91, 639–650.
37.
KirkR.W. (2013). The effects of processing instruction with and without output: Acquisition of the Spanish subjunctive in three conjunctional phrases. Hispania, 96, 153–169.
38.
LeeJ.F.VanPattenB. (2003). Making communicative language teaching happen (2nd ed.). McGraw-Hill.
39.
LiS. (2015). The associations between language aptitude and second language grammar acquisition: A meta-analytic review of five decades of research. Applied Linguistics, 36, 385–408.
40.
LiS. (2016). The construct validity of language aptitude: A meta-analysis. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 38, 801–842.
41.
LiS. (2017). The effects of cognitive aptitudes on the process and product of L2 interaction: A synthetic review. In Gurzynski-WeissL. (Ed.), AILA Applied Linguistics Series: Volume 16 (pp. 42–70). John Benjamins.
42.
LiS. (2022). Quantitative research methods in ISLA. In Gurzynski-WeissL.KimY. (Eds.), Research methods in applied linguistics: Volume 3 (pp. 31–54). John Benjamins.
43.
LiS.EllisR.ZhuY. (2019). The associations between cognitive ability and L2 development under five different instructional conditions. Applied Psycholinguistics, 40, 693–722.
44.
LiS.ZhaoH. (2021). The methodology of the research on language aptitude: A systematic review. Annual Review of Applied Linguistics, 41, 25–54.
45.
LinckJ.A.OsthusP.KoethJ.T.BuntingM.F. (2014). Working memory and second language comprehension and production: A meta-analysis. Psychonomic Bulletin and Review, 21, 861–883.
46.
MackeyA.GassS. (2015). Second language research: methodology and design (2nd ed.). Erlbaum.
47.
MarsdenE.ChenH.-Y. (2011). The roles of structured input activities in processing instruction and the kinds of knowledge they promote. Language Learning, 61, 1058–1098.
48.
MearaP. (2005). LLAMA language aptitude tests: The manual. Lognostics.
49.
Morgan-ShortK.BowdenH.W. (2006). Processing instruction and meaningful output-based instruction: Effects on second language development. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 28, 31–65.
50.
Mystkowska-WiertelakA. (2011). The effects of a combined output and input-oriented approach in teaching reported speech. Research in Language, 9, 111–126.
51.
QinJ. (2008). The effect of processing instruction and dictogloss tasks on acquisition of the English passive voice. Language Teaching Research, 12, 61–82.
52.
RobinsonP. (1997). Individual differences and the fundamental similarity of implicit and explicit adult second language learning. Language Learning, 47, 45–99.
53.
RobinsonP. (2002). Effects of individual differences in intelligence, aptitude and working memory on adult incidental SLA. In RobinsonP. (Ed.), Individual differences and instructed language learning (pp. 211–266). John Benjamins.
54.
RobinsonP. (2005). Cognitive complexity and task sequencing: Studies in a componential framework for second language task design. International Review of Applied Linguistics in Language Teaching, 43, 1–32.
55.
RogersV.MearaP.Barnett-LeghT.CurryC.DavieE. (2017). Examining the LLAMA aptitude tests. Journal of the European Second Language Association, 1, 49–60.
56.
SantamariaK.SundermanG. (2015). Working memory in processing instruction: The acquisition of L2 French clitics. In WenZ.MotaM.B.McNeillA. (Eds.), Working memory in second language acquisition and processing (pp. 205–223). Multilingual Matters.
57.
SanzC.LinH.-J.LadoB.StaffordC.A.BowdenH.W. (2016). One size fits all? Learning conditions and working memory capacity in ab initio language development. Applied Linguistics, 37, 669–692.
58.
ShintaniN. (2015). The effectiveness of processing instruction and production-based instruction on L2 grammar acquisition: A meta-analysis. Applied Linguistics, 36, 306–325.
59.
SkehanP. (1998). A cognitive approach to language learning. Oxford University Press.
60.
SkehanP. (2015). Foreign language aptitude and its relationship with grammar: A critical overview. Applied Linguistics, 36, 367–384.
61.
TagarelliK.M.MotaM.B.RebuschatP. (2015). Working memory, learning conditions and the acquisition of L2 syntax. In WenZ.MotaM.B.McNeillA. (Eds.), Working memory in second language acquisition and processing (pp. 224–247). Multilingual Matters.
62.
TothP.D. (2006). Processing instruction and a role for output in second language acquisition. Language Learning, 56, 319–385.
63.
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.
64.
VanPattenB. (2004). Processing instruction: Theory, research, and commentary. Routledge.
65.
VanPattenB.BorstS. (2012a). The roles of explicit information and grammatical sensitivity in processing instruction: Nominative–accusative case marking and word order in German L2. Foreign Language Annals, 45, 92–109.
66.
VanPattenB.BorstS. (2012b). The roles of explicit information and grammatical sensitivity in the processing of clitic direct object pronouns and word order in Spanish L2. Hispania, 95, 270–284.
67.
VanPattenB.CadiernoT. (1993). Explicit instruction and input processing. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 15, 225–243.
68.
VanPattenB.CollopyE.PriceJ.E.BorstS.QualinA. (2013). Explicit information, grammatical sensitivity, and the first-noun principle: A cross-linguistic study in processing instruction. The Modern Language Journal, 97, 506–527.
69.
VanPattenB.InclezanD.SalazarH.FarleyA.P. (2009). Processing instruction and dictogloss: A study on object pronouns and word order in Spanish. Foreign Language Annals, 42, 557–575.
70.
VanPattenB.WongW. (2004). Processing instruction and the French causative: Another replication. In VanPattenB. (Ed.), Processing instruction: Theory, research, and commentary (pp. 97–118). Routledge.
71.
YalçınŞ.SpadaN. (2016). Language aptitude and grammatical difficulty: An EFL classroom-based study. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 38, 239–263.
72.
YilmazY. (2013). Relative effects of explicit and implicit feedback: The role of working memory capacity and language analytic ability. Applied Linguistics, 34, 344–368.
73.
YilmazY.GranenaG. (2016). The role of cognitive aptitudes for explicit language learning in the relative effects of explicit and implicit feedback. Bilingualism: Language and Cognition, 19, 147–161.
74.
WongW. (2004). The nature of processing instruction. In VanPattenB. (Ed.), Processing instruction: Theory, research, and commentary (pp. 33–63). Routledge.
