Transcript Processing instructi..

Processing instruction and a Role for Output
in Second Language Acquisition
Annie
Hazel
Linda
Wayne
Instruction
Wayne
Processing Instruction
• Processing instruction is an approach to
comprehension-based learning.
• In PI, learners are put in situations where they
cannot comprehend a sentence by depending
on context, prior knowledge, or other clues.
They must focus on the language itself.
• Through a variety of focused listening and
reading exercises, learners had to pay
attention to how the target forms were used in
order to comprehend the meaning.
Researcher of PI
• Van Pattern is convinced that language
acquisition can be fostered as long as
classes and materials are meaningbased instruction with a form focus.
How does PI form?
• According to Van Pattern, first it is important to identify a
processing difficulty related to the target grammar item.
Then providing learners with explicit information about both
the item itself and the processing strategies that lead to
error.
• Learners engage in structured input activities in which they
must make meaning-based decisions about sentences
given the use or omission of the target form in the input. For
instance, the example allows learners, particularly English
native speakers to work out whether the first noun phrase
was a subject or a direct object by matching the sentence to
either drawing or English translation.
Example.
Me llaman los padres.
Me call the parents.
' My parents call me.' (not 'I call my parents.')
• In short, PI emphasizes the fact that form-meaning
relationships more likely to become intake for the
developing system. In addition, Van Pattern also
believes that system development can occur in
speaking situations when these push learners to
become better processors, and lead them to notice
structures fill gaps in their L2 linguistic system.
• In fact, the benefit of PI is not only focus on input
processing but also proves a chance for learners to
enhance their out, while engaging in activities with
the interlocutors.
Contribution for Output to L2
Acquisition?
• To talk about the possibility of building a
case for output in terms of linguistic
system. A scholar called Swain who
thinks output pushes learners away
from the semantic processing that
comprehending input entails to the
syntactic processing required to encode
meaning.
• Swain indicates that output helps acquisition
by the following processes:
1. pushing learners to notice the gap
between what they want to say and what
they can say.
2. providing opportunities to formulate,
test and get feedback on hypothesis about
encoding L2 meaning.
3. automatizing encoding procedures.
4. allowing learners to develop a personal
voice in extended discourse.
5. generating metatalk about language that
deepens awareness of form-meaning
relationships.
• Within this framework, output practice leads
to L2 acquisition by automatizing and
restructuring the cognitive procedures
involved in communicative task performance.
• Moreover, another extraordinary discovery
from Ellis revealed that new linguistic
knowledge can come from output by forcing
the analysis, separation, and creative
recombination of remembered language
chunks. By working on remembered
language systematically, learners' creative
experimentation might allow them to build
their way to syntactical rules.
• Lastly, in 2005 McDonough found that
learners engaging in self-corrected or
modified output in response to negative
feedback more often showed
outstanding progress in development of
their target language structure than
those who were simply exposed to input
with no opportunity to self-correct.
The Present Study
• The study is the assessment of output in the acquisition of
L2 morphosyntax in comparison with PI and other
instructions where input and output occur in classroom
interaction.
• Production and grammaticality judgement tasks are
assessed only. The dependent variable 'acquisition' will
refer to development of the linguistic system, and will be
operationalized as performance on the two tasks.
• The GJ was chosen because it has been argued that
superior PI outcomes on interpretation merely reflect the
type of practise that learners received.
• It was an experiment between PI and CO groups.
The Present Study
Hazel
Method
• Participants
Processing instruction (PI)-27 students
Communicative output (CO)-28 students
Control group (C)-25 students
Comparison group
- 30 Spanish native speakers
• Spanish Anticausative se’s Compatibility
With Processing Instruction
Spanish se is to derive variations in
sentences meaning by “absorbing” one of
the noun phrase (NP) arguments that are
normally possible for a given verb.
Se derives a number of possible meaning in
Spanish that depend on the subtle semantic
properties of verbs and their accompanying
NPs.
EX
a. Ellos lavaron la ropa. → Ello se lavaron.
AGENT
PATIENT AGENT
“They washed the clothes.” “They washed themselves/
each others.”
b. Ellos lavaron la ropa. → Se lavó la ropa.
AGENT
PATIENT
PATIENT
“They washed “The clothes were
the clothes”
washed/One washed
clothes”
c. Ellos secaron la ropa. → Se secó la ropa.
AGENT
PATIENT
PATIENT
“They dried the clothing.”
“The clothes Ø dried/ were
dried/ One dried clothes.”
• Treatment Procedures
• The treatment period lasted 7 days, with
25 out of 50 min taken on day1 and
day7 for testing.
• The contrast between treatment groups
would be confined to the presence or
absence of learner output during class
activities.
• All PI activities as whole-group, teacher-led
interaction with immediate error correction.
• Activities provided high concentrations of se in
the input while requiring learners to make a
truth judgment about the teacher’s sentences.
EX
Teacher instructions: Read the following sentences to your
students and have them raise their hands if they think they
are true.
¿Cuálde estas oraciones describe los buenos modales en
clase?
(Which of these sentences describes good classroom
manners?)
1. Se levanta la mano antes de hablar.
(You raise your hands before speaking.)
2. Se puede hablar durante los exámenes.
(You can talk during exams.)
• The CO group experienced whole-class
activities that required language
production in response to open-ended
teacher questions and communicative
task instructions.
• A discourse pattern emerge that could
be characterized as repeated cycles
through initiation, response, and
evaluation (IRE).
• Teacher-initiated questions in the CO
group focused on achieving specific
communicative tasks.
• Data Gathering and Assessment
Assessment consisted of written production
and grammaticality judgment tasks
administered immediately prior (pretest),
immediately following (posttest), and 24
days after instruction (delay posttest).
• Production task
consisted of different drawings accompanied
by a verb and an NP. Learners were asked
to write a description for each picture using
the word given.
EX:
Scoring and Coding Procedures
for the Production
Answers that correctly used se in an
intransitive sentence with the given verb and
NP were awarded one point.
EX
Se cocinó el pescado.
(The fish cooked.)
• GJ task
asked learners to rate the grammatical
acceptability of sentences on a Likert Scale.
EX:
Sample items from the GJ task
Se entra por la puerta.
-3 -2 -1 0 +1 +2 +3
Se descompusieron las máquinas. -3 -2 -1 0 +1 +2 +3
Se trae cerveza a todas las fiestas. -3 -2 -1 0 +1 +2 +3
(One enters through the door.)
(The machine broke down.)
(Beer is brought to all the parties)
Scoring and Coding Procedures
for GJ Tasks
Learners to indicate their judgments
were entered as raw scores into
individual means calculations for the
eight grammatically correct items.
EX:
Se entra por la puerta.
-3 -2 -1 0 +1 +2 +3
(One enters through the door.)
Result
Linda
• Quantitative data
→ negative response to Q1 and 2
CO learners outperform PI learners
on the GJ and production tasks
• Qualitative data
→ negative response to Q3 and 4
Evident independent role for output
which is exist in acquisition.
Discussion
Annie
Discussion
Focus
→ primarily output as a major component
of CO group interactions that was
absent from the PI group’s classroom
activities.
Output and Task Demands
• If output need not entail an onerous task burden,
→ poorer results for TI in other studies came less
from production requirements than from the
nonmeaningful nature of the interactions.
EX:
TI(drills)→ either mechanical, meaningful or communicative
*None-task-oriented interactions
→ often force learners to process a gap between
the literal and intended meaning of instructor
utterances.
Output and Acquisition
The best explanation for the CO results
would appear to lie beyond the linguistic
features of the ambient input.
(not just focus on structure)
Attention to L2 Form
• input alone
→ provide learners with evidence of L2
form-meaning connections that lead to
initial hypotheses about L2 structure,
• further attention to form driven forward
by the ability to control one’s own
message as output.
• Meta-linguistic Intervention
further investigation
→ is needed to more definitively characterize
the relationship between metalinguistic
knowledge & the L2 system,
→ including more precise assessments of
explicit and implicit knowledge, a larger
number of target items on assessment tasks,
and the longitudinal gathering of both
quantitative and qualitative data.
Limitations of the Study
• suggestive of a link among
→ output, metalinguistic analysis, and
acquisition,
→ the precise nature of their
interrelationship, and the learning
mechanisms they engage, remains
unclear and would require substantial
further research to determine
concretely.
Summarize
By providing quantitative evidence
communicative output
• can yield group results on par or better than
those of PI..
• transcript data from each treatment, this study
has questioned an account of output’s role in
L2 acquisition → limited to accuracy and
fluency in accessing the implicit system,
• assertions that system development occurs
only via input processing.
Thank you