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