The present study evaluates the relative effectiveness of two types of input-based
instruction, structured input instruction (a structured input task only) and
structured input instruction with feedback (the structured input task + reactive
explicit feedback) for teaching English polite requestive forms, involving 45
Japanese learners of English. Treatment group performance was compared to that of a
control group on the pre-tests, post-tests, and follow-up tests: a discourse
completion test, a role-play test, a listening judgement test, and an acceptability
judgement test. The results of data analysis indicate that the two treatment groups
performed better than the control group, and that the explicit reactive feedback was
not always indispensable in the structured input task.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
Allen, L.2000:
Form-meaning connections and the French causative: an experiment in
processing instruction
. Studies in Second Language Acquisition22:
69-84
.
2.
Bardovi-Harlig, K.
and
Dörnyei, Z.1998:
Do language learners recognize pragmatic violations? Pragmatic vs.
grammatical awareness in instructed L2 learning
. TESOL Quarterly32:
233-259
.
3.
Bardovi-Harlig, K.
and
Hartford, B.1996:
Input in an institutional setting
, Studies in Second Language Acquisition17:
171-188
.
4.
Beebe, L.
,
Takahashi, T.
and
Uliss-Weltz, R.1990: Pragmatic transfer in ESL refusals. In
Scarcella, R.
,
Anderson, E.
and
Krashen S.
, editors, Developing communicative competence in a second
language.
Newbury House
, 55-73.
5.
Blum-Kulka, S.
,
House, J.
and
Kasper, G.1989: Cross-cultural pragmatics, requests and apologies.
Ablex
.
6.
Carroll, S.
and
Swain, M.1993:
Explicit and implicit negative feedback: an empirical study of the learning
of linguistic generalizations
. Studies in Second Language Acquisition15:
357-366
.
7.
Craik, F.
and
Lockhart, R.1972:
Levels of processing: a framework for memory research
. Journal of Verbal Learning and Verbal Behavior11:
671-684
.
8.
Doughty, C.2004: Commentary: When PI is focus on form it is very, very good,
but when it is focus on forms... In
VanPatten, B.
editor, Processing instruction.
Erlbaum
, 257-270.
9.
Ellis, R.1992:
Learning to communicate in the classroom
. Studies in Second Language Acquisition14:
1-23
.
10.
Ellis, R.1997: SLA research and language teaching.
Oxford University Press
.
11.
Ellis, R.2003: Task-based language learning and teaching.
Oxford University Press
.
12.
Erlam, R.2003:
Evaluating the relative effectiveness of structured input and output-based
instruction in foreign language learning: results from an experimental study
. Studies in Second Language Acquisition25(4):
559-582
.
13.
Faerch, C.
and
Kasper, G.1989: Internal and external modification in interlanguage request
realization. In
Blum-Kulka, S.
,
House, J.
and
Kasper, G.
, editors, Cross-cultural pragmatics, requests and apologies.
Albex
, 221-247.
14.
Hatch, E.
and
Lazaraton, A.1991: The research manual, design and statistics for applied
linguistics.
Heinle & Heinle
.
15.
Hill, T. 1997: The development of pragmatic competence in an EFL
context. PhD thesis. Temple University, Japan.
16.
House, J.1996:
Developing pragmatic fluency in English as a foreign language: Routines and
metapragmatic awareness
. Studies in Second Language Acquisition18:
225-252
.
17.
House, J.
and
Kasper, L.1981:
Zur rolle der kognition in kommunikationskursen [The role of cognition in
communication courses]
. Die Neueren Sprachen80:
42-55
.
18.
House, J.
and
Kasper, L.1987: Interlanguage pragmatics: requesting in a foreign
language. In
Loerscher, W.
and
Schulze, R.
, editors, Perspectives on language in performance.
Narr
, 1250-1288.
19.
Hudson, T.
,
Detmer, E.
and
Brown, J.1992: A framework for testing cross-cultural pragmatics
(Technical Report no. 2).
University of Hawai’i Press
.
20.
Hudson, T.
,
Detmer, E.
and
Brown, J.1995: Developing prototypic measures of cross-cultural
pragmatics (Technical Report no. 7).
University of Hawai’i Press
.
21.
International Communication Incorporated1996: TOEIC Friends2:
37-41
.
22.
Jaccard, J.
and
Wan, C.1996: Lisrel approaches to interaction effects in multiple
regression.
Sage
.
23.
Kim, S. 2001: Structured input and production practice in foreign/second
language learning. PhD thesis. Temple University, Japan.
24.
Kubota, M.1995:
Teachability of conversational implicature to Japanese EFL learners
. IRLT Bulletin9:
35-67
.
25.
Nagata, N.1997:
The effectiveness of computer-assisted metalinguistic instruction: a case
study in Japanese
. Foreign Language Annals30(2):
187-200
.
26.
Pearson, L.
1998, October:
Spanish L2 pragmatics, the effects of metapragmatic discussion
. Paper presented at the Second Language Research Forum,
University of Hawai’i, Manoa.
27.
Rosa, E. 1999: A cognitive approach to task-based research: explicitness,
awareness and L2 development. PhD thesis. Georgetown University,
Washington, DC.
28.
Samuda, V.2001: Guiding relationships between form and meaning during task
performance: the role of the teacher. In
Bygate, M.
,
Skehan, P.
and
Swain, M.
, editors, Researching pedagogic tasks, second language learning,
teaching and testing.
Longman
, 119-140.
29.
Sanz, C.2004: Computer delivered implicit versus explicit feedback in
processing instruction. In
VanPatten, B.
, editor, Processing instruction.
Erlbaum
, 241-255.
30.
Sharwood Smith, M.1993:
Input enhancement in instructed SLA: Theoretical bases
. Studies in Second Language Acquisition15:
165-179
.
31.
Spada, N.
and
Lightbown, P.1993:
Instruction and the development of questions in L2 classroom
. Studies in Second Language Acquisition15:
205-224
.
32.
Statistical Package for the Social Sciences (Version 10.0) [Computer
software] 1998: SPSS.
33.
Tabachnick, B.
and
Fidell, L.1996: Using multivariate statistics, third edition.
New York: HarperCollins
.
34.
Takahashi, S.1998:
Quantifying requestive imposition: validation and selection of situation
for L2 pragmatic research
. Studies in Languages and Cultures9:
135-159
.
Institute of language and cultures, Kyushu University
.
35.
Takahashi, S.2001: The role of input enhancement in developing interlanguage
pragmatic competence. In
Rose K.
and
Kasper, G.
editors, Pragmatics in language teaching.
Cambridge University Press
, 171-199.
36.
Tanaka, T.2001:
Comprehension and production practice in grammar instruction: does their
combined use facilitate second language acquisition?JALT Journal23:
6-30
.
37.
Tateyama, Y.
,
Kasper, G.
,
Mui, L.
,
Tay, H.
and
Thananart, O.1997:
Explicit and implicit teaching of pragmatic routines
. In Bouton, L., editor, Pragmatics and language learning, monograph series8:
163-178
.
Division of English as an International Language, University of
Illinois, Urbana-Champaign
.
38.
Trahey, M.
and
White, L.1993:
Positive evidence and preemption in the second language classroom
. Studies in Second Language Acquisition15:
181-204
.
39.
VanPatten, B.
1991, July:
Grammar instruction and input processing. Paper presented
at the special colloquium on the Role of Grammar Instruction in
Communicative Language Teaching, Concordia University and
McGill University, Montreal.
40.
VanPatten, B.1996: Input processing and grammar instruction in second language
acquisition.
Ablex
.
