The Online Effects of Processing Instruction and Structured Input on the Acquisition of the English Passive Constructions: The Role of Input Modality in Testing

IF 4.7 1区 文学 Q1 EDUCATION & EDUCATIONAL RESEARCH
Amin Pouresmaeil, Xin Wang, Alessandro Benati
{"title":"The Online Effects of Processing Instruction and Structured Input on the Acquisition of the English Passive Constructions: The Role of Input Modality in Testing","authors":"Amin Pouresmaeil, Xin Wang, Alessandro Benati","doi":"10.1177/13621688261480080","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"This research examined both the short-term and long-term effects of processing instruction (PI) and its main element, structured input (SI), on learners’ acquisition of English passive forms. A total of 70 English as a second language (ESL) learners participated in the study and were randomly divided into three groups: a PI group ( <jats:italic toggle=\"yes\">n</jats:italic> = 24), an SI group ( <jats:italic toggle=\"yes\">n</jats:italic> = 25), and a control group ( <jats:italic toggle=\"yes\">n</jats:italic> = 21). Participants in the PI and SI groups completed 1 hr of computer-based instructional activities, whereas the control group received no instructional treatment. Learners’ performance was evaluated using self-paced reading (SPR) and self-paced listening (SPL) tasks, which assessed response accuracy, picture selection response time, and reading or listening time at three points: before instruction, immediately after instruction, and after a delay. Findings showed that both the PI and SI groups achieved significant gains in accuracy on the SPR and SPL tasks at the immediate and delayed post-tests, while no improvement was observed in the control group. However, none of the groups demonstrated significant improvement in response time or reading time on the SPR task. In contrast, results from the SPL task indicated that the PI group showed significant reductions in both response time and listening time at both post-tests, whereas the SI group showed improvement in response time only at the immediate post-test. Despite these differences, no statistically significant differences were found between the PI and SI groups overall.","PeriodicalId":47852,"journal":{"name":"Language Teaching Research","volume":"76 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":4.7000,"publicationDate":"2026-09-19","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Language Teaching Research","FirstCategoryId":"98","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1177/13621688261480080","RegionNum":1,"RegionCategory":"文学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"EDUCATION & EDUCATIONAL RESEARCH","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

This research examined both the short-term and long-term effects of processing instruction (PI) and its main element, structured input (SI), on learners’ acquisition of English passive forms. A total of 70 English as a second language (ESL) learners participated in the study and were randomly divided into three groups: a PI group ( n = 24), an SI group ( n = 25), and a control group ( n = 21). Participants in the PI and SI groups completed 1 hr of computer-based instructional activities, whereas the control group received no instructional treatment. Learners’ performance was evaluated using self-paced reading (SPR) and self-paced listening (SPL) tasks, which assessed response accuracy, picture selection response time, and reading or listening time at three points: before instruction, immediately after instruction, and after a delay. Findings showed that both the PI and SI groups achieved significant gains in accuracy on the SPR and SPL tasks at the immediate and delayed post-tests, while no improvement was observed in the control group. However, none of the groups demonstrated significant improvement in response time or reading time on the SPR task. In contrast, results from the SPL task indicated that the PI group showed significant reductions in both response time and listening time at both post-tests, whereas the SI group showed improvement in response time only at the immediate post-test. Despite these differences, no statistically significant differences were found between the PI and SI groups overall.
加工教学和结构化输入对英语被动句习得的在线影响:输入方式在测试中的作用
本研究考察了加工教学(PI)及其主要成分结构化输入(SI)对英语被动语态习得的短期和长期影响。共有70名英语作为第二语言(ESL)学习者参与了这项研究,并被随机分为三组:PI组(n = 24), SI组(n = 25)和对照组(n = 21)。PI组和SI组的参与者完成了1小时的计算机教学活动,而对照组没有接受任何教学治疗。使用自定节奏阅读(SPR)和自定节奏听力(SPL)任务来评估学习者的表现,这些任务在三个点评估反应准确性、图片选择反应时间、阅读或听力时间:教学前、教学后立即和延迟后。研究结果显示,PI组和SI组在即时和延迟后测试中SPR和SPL任务的准确性都有显着提高,而对照组没有观察到任何改善。然而,没有一个小组在SPR任务的反应时间或阅读时间上表现出显著的改善。相比之下,SPL任务的结果表明,PI组在两次后测的反应时间和听力时间都有显著的减少,而SI组只在立即后测的反应时间有改善。尽管存在这些差异,但在PI组和SI组之间总体上没有发现统计学上的显著差异。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
CiteScore
13.20
自引率
7.10%
发文量
116
期刊介绍: Language Teaching Research is a peer-reviewed journal that publishes research within the area of second or foreign language teaching. Although articles are written in English, the journal welcomes studies dealing with the teaching of languages other than English as well. The journal is a venue for studies that demonstrate sound research methods and which report findings that have clear pedagogical implications. A wide range of topics in the area of language teaching is covered, including: -Programme -Syllabus -Materials design -Methodology -The teaching of specific skills and language for specific purposes Thorough investigation and research ensures this journal is: -International in focus, publishing work from countries worldwide -Interdisciplinary, encouraging work which seeks to break down barriers that have isolated language teaching professionals from others concerned with pedagogy -Innovative, seeking to stimulate new avenues of enquiry, including ''action'' research
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:604180095
Book学术官方微信
小红书