Using Processing Instruction for the Acquisition of English Present Perfect of Filipinos

Jonathan P. Erfe*, 0**
* Instructor, University of the City of Manila.
** Assistant Professor, University of Santo Tomas.
Periodicity:January - March'2012
DOI : https://doi.org/10.26634/jelt.2.1.1618

Abstract

This is an experimental study on the relative effects of Van Patten’s Processing Instruction (PI) (1996, 2002), a “psycholinguistically-motivated” intervention in teaching second-language (L2) grammar, on young-adult Filipino learners of English. A growing body of research on this methodological alternative, which establishes form-meaning connection via processing of linguistic input leading to the L2 learner’s developing system, has shown its superiority over the precedent long-held approach to grammar teaching. Traditionally, grammar instruction is “output-oriented”, that is, students are instantly tasked to produce morpho-syntactic and/or lexical items through language drills. However, the use of the present perfect aspect in English, for one, is still a persistent error among Filipinos, even at the tertiary level, as evidenced in the results of college entrance examinations and teachers’ formative and summative assessments.  Two groups of sophomore students — a Processing Instruction (PI) group (experimental) and a traditional instruction (TI) group (control) — enrolled in a coeducational private university in Manila, Philippines, served as subjects of the study. These groups were pre-tested prior to the instructional treatment of the English present perfect: PI to the experimental group and production-based lessons to the TI group. A post test was administered, from which the scores obtained by the subjects were then statistically analyzed using Paired-Samples and Independent Samples T tests. Results reveal significant gains in post production and delayed production tests for both the TI and PI groups and in delayed interpretation for PI group only.  Furthermore, results indicate that the PI group performed better than the TI group in all the three tasks mentioned. These results suggest the superiority of PI over TI.

Keywords

Input, Intake, Processing Instruction, Traditional Instruction, Grammar Teaching, Second Language Acquisition (SLA), Input Processing, Second Language (L2) Grammar, Present Perfect Aspect.

How to Cite this Article?

Erfe, P. J., and Lintao, B. R. (2012). Using Processing Instruction For The Acquisition Of English Present Perfect Of Filipinos. i-manager’s Journal on English Language Teaching, 2(1), 33-48. https://doi.org/10.26634/jelt.2.1.1618

References

[1]. Alanen, R. (1995). Input enhancement and rule presentation in second language acquisition. In R. Schmidt (Ed.), Attention and awareness in foreign language learning (pp. 259-302). Honolulu: University of Hawai'i Press.
[2]. Allen, L. Q. (2000). Form-meaning connection and the French causative: An experiment in processing instruction. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 22, 63-84.
[3]. Benati, A. (2001). A comparative study of the effects of processing instruction and output-based instruction on the acquisition of Italian future tense. Language Teaching Research, 5, 95-127. http://ltr.sagepub.com/ content/9 /1/ 67.abstract.
[4]. Benati, A. (2004). The effects of structured input activities and explicit information on the acquisition of the Italian future tense. In B. VanPatten (Ed.), Processing instruction, Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
[5]. Braidi, S. (1999). The acquisition of second-language syntax. London: Arnold.
[6]. Brown, H. D. (1994). An interactive approach to language pedagogy. NJ: Prentice Hall.
[7]. Cadierno, T. (1995). Formal instruction from a processing perspective: An investigation into the Spanish past tense. Modern Language Journal, 79, 179-193.
[8]. Carroll, S. (2001). Input and evidence: The raw material of second language acquisition. Philadelphia: John Benjamins.
[9]. Celce-Murcia, M. (1991). Grammar pedagogy in second and foreign language teaching. TESOL Quarterly, 25, 459-480.
[10]. Celce-Murcia, M., Dörnyei, Z., & Thurrell, S. (1997). Direct approaches in L2 instruction: A turning point in communicative language teaching? TESOL Quarterly, 31(1), 141-152.
[11]. Chaudron, C. (1985). Intake: On models and methods for discovering learners' processing input. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 7, 1-14.
[12]. Collentine, J. (1998). Processing instruction and the s u b j u n c t i v e . H i s p a n i a , 8 1 , 5 7 6 - 5 8 7 . .
[13]. Corder, S. P. (1967). The significance of learners' errors. International Review of Applied Linguistics, 5. 161-170. [Reprinted in S. P. Corder. (1981). Error analysis and inter language. Oxford: Oxford.
[14]. De Keyser, R. M., & Sokalski, K. J. (1996). The differential role of comprehension and production practice. Language Learning, 46 (4), 613-642.
[15]. Doughty, C., & Williams, J. (Eds). (1998). Focus on form in classroom second language acquisition. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
[16]. Ellis, N. C., & Laporte, N. (1997). Contexts of acquisition: Effects of formal instruction and naturalistic exposure on second language acquisition. In A. M. B. De Groot & J. F. Kroll (Eds.), Tutorials in bilingualism: Psycholinguistic perspectives (pp. 53-83). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
[17]. Ellis, R. (1993). Naturally simplified input, comprehension and second language acquisition. In M. L. Tickoo (Ed.), Simplification: Theory and application, 31, 55.
[18]. Ellis, R. (1994). The study of second language acquisition. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
[19]. Ellis, R. (1997). SLA research and language teaching. Oxford: Oxford University Press..
[20]. Ellis, R. (1998a). Making an impact: teaching grammar through awareness-raising. Impact grammar. Hong Kong: Longman.
[21]. Ellis, R. (1998b). Teaching and research: Options in grammar teaching. TESOL Quarterly, 32, 39-60.
[22]. Erfe, J. P. (2006). Suggested structured input activities in English grammar instruction for college freshmen. Unpublished seminar paper, Philippine Normal University, Manila.
[23]. Fotos, S. (1994). Integrating grammar instruction and communicative language use through grammar consciousness-raising tasks. TESOL Quarterly, 28, 323-351.
[24]. Fotos, S., & Ellis, R. (1991). Communicating about grammar: A task-based approach. TESOL Quarterly, 25, 605-628.
[25]. Gass, S. M. (1982). From theory to practice. In M. Hines & B. Rutherford (Eds.), On TESOL '81 (pp. 129-139). Washington, DC: TESOL.
[26]. Gass, S. M. (1997). Input, interaction, and the second language learner. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum & Associates.
[27]. Gass, S. M. & Madden, C. G. (Eds.). (1985). Input in second language acquisition. Rowley, MA: Newbury House.
[28]. Gregg, K. (2001). Learnability and second language acquisition theory. In P. Robinson (Ed.), Cognition and second language instruction. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 152-178.
[29]. Kondo-Brown, K. (2001). Effects of three types of practice after explicit explanation. University of Hawaii Working Papers in Second Language Studies, 19, 99-27. < http://www.hawaii.edu/sls/uhwpesl/19(1)/Kondo.pdf>
[30]. Krashen, S. D. (1981). Second language acquisition and second language learning. New York: Prentice-Hall.
[31]. Krashen, S. D. (1982). Principles and practice in second language acquisition. New York: Prentice-Hall.
[32]. Krashen, S. D. (1985). The input hypothesis: Issues and applications. New York: Longman.
[33]. Krashen, S. D. (1989). The input hypothesis: An update. In J. E. Alatis (Ed.), Georgetown university roundtable on languages and linguistics 1991 (pp. 409-431). Washington, D. C.: Georgetown University Press.
[34]. Krashen, S. D. (1993). The effect of formal grammar teaching: Still peripheral. TESOL Quarterly, 26, 409-411.
[35]. Larsen-Freeman, D., & Long, M. H. (1991). An introduction to second language acquisition research. London: Longman.
[36]. Lee, J., & VanPatten, B. (1995). Making communicative language teaching happen. New York: Mc Graw-Hill.
[37]. Leow, R. (1997). The effects of input enhancement and text length on adult L2 readers' comprehension and intake in second language acquisition. Applied Language Learning, 8, 151-182.
[38]. Leow, R. (1998a). The effects of amount and type of exposure on adult learners' L2 development in SLA. The Modern Language Journal, 82, 49-68.
[39]. Leow, R. (1998b). Toward operationalizing the process of attention in SLA: Evidence for Tomlin and Villa's (1994) fine-grained analysis of attention. Applied Linguistics, 19, 133-159.
[40]. Lightbown, P. M., Spada, N., & White, L. (1993). The role of instruction in SLA: Introduction. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 15, 143-145.
[41]. Long, M. H. (1991). Focus on form: A design feature in language teaching. In K. deBot, R. B. Ginsberg, & C. Kramsch (Eds.), Foreign language research in cross-cultural perspective (pp. 123-167). Clevedon, UK: Multilingual Matters.
[42]. Long, M., & Crookes, G. (1992). Three approaches to task-based syllabus design. TESOL Quarterly, 27, 91-113.
[43]. Loschky, L., & Bley-Vroman, R. (1993). Grammar and task-based methodology. In G. Crookes and S. M. Gass (Eds.), Tasks and language learning: Integrating theory and practice (pp. 123-167). Clevedon, UK: Multilingual Matters.
[44]. Magnan, S. S. (1991). Social attitudes: The key to directing the evolution of grammar teaching. In J. E. Alatis (Ed.), Georgetown university roundtable on languages and linguistics 1991. Washington, D. C.: Georgetown University Press, 323-334.
[45]. Morgan-Short, K. & Bowden, H. W. (2006). Processing instruction and meaningful output-based instruction: Effects on second language development. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 28, 31-65.
[46]. Nagata, N. (1998). Input vs. output practice in educational software for second language acquisition. Language Learning & Technology, 1(2), 23-40.
[47]. Nunan, D. (1989). Designing tasks for the communicative classroom. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
[48]. Rosa, E. & O' Neill, M. D. (1999). Explicitness, intake, and the issue of awareness. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 21, 511-556.
[49]. Salaberry, R. M. (1997). The role of input and output practice in second language acquisition. The Canadian Modern Language Review, 53, 422-451. http://utpjournals. metapress.com/content/k17468w25ql61895/
[50]. Salaberry, R. M. (1998). On input processing, true language competence, and pedagogical bandwagons: A reply to Sanz and VanPatten. The Canadian Modern Language Review, 54, 274-285.
[51]. Sanz, C. & VanPatten, B. (1998). On input processing, processing instruction, and the nature of replication tasks: A response to Salaberry. Canadian Modern Language Review, 54, 2.
[52]. Savignon, S. J. (1991).. Communicative language teaching: State of the art. TESOL Quarterly, 25(2), 261-277.
[53]. Schmidt, R. (1990). The role of consciousness in L2 learning. Applied Linguistics, 11, 129-158.
[54]. Schmidt, R. (1993). Awareness and second language acquisition. Annual Review of Applied Linguistics, 1, 205- 225.
[55]. Schmidt, R. (1994). Deconstructing consciousness in search of useful definitions for applied linguistics. AILA Review, 11, 11-26.
[56]. Schmidt, R. (Ed.). (1995). Attention and awareness in foreign language learning. Honolulu: University of Hawai'i Press.
[57]. Schmidt, R. (2001). Attention. In P. Robinson (Ed.), Cognition and second language instruction. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 3-31.
[58]. Schwartz, B. D. (1993). On explicit and negative data effecting and affecting competence and linguistic behavior. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 15, 147-163.
[59]. Sharwood Smith, M. (1988). Consciousness raising and the second language student. In M. Sharwood Smith (Ed.), Grammar and second language teaching (pp. 51- 60).
[60]. Sharwood Smith, M. (1993). Input enhancement and instructed and instructed SLA: Theoretical bases. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 15, 165-179.
[61]. Shook, D. J. (1994). FL2/L2 reading, grammatical information, and the input-to-intake phenomenon. Applied Language Learning, 5, 57-93.
[62]. Simard, D. & Wong, W. (2001). Alertness, orientation, and detection: The conceptualization of attentional functions in SLA. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 23, 103-124.
[63]. Slobin, D. J. (1985). Crosslinguistic evidence for the language-making capacity. In D. J. Slobin (Ed.), The crosslinguistic study of language acquisition: Vol. 2. Theoretical issues (pp. 1157-1256). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlabum.
[64]. Spada, N. (1997). Form-focused instruction and second language acquisition: A review of classroom and laboratory research. Language Teaching, 29, 1-15.
[65]. Swain, M. (1985). Communicative competence: Some roles of comprehensible input and comprehensible output in its development. In S. M. Gass & C. G. Madden (Eds.), Input in second language acquisition (pp. 235-253). Rowley, MA: Newbury House.
[66]. Terrell. T. (1991). The role of grammar instruction in a communicative approach. Modern Language Journal, 75, 52-63.
[67]. Thornbury, S. (1999). How to teach grammar. London: Longman.
[68]. Tomlin, R.S., & Villa, V. (1994). Attention in cognitive science and second language acquisition. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 16, 183-203.
[69]. VanPatten, B. (1990). Attending to content and form in the input: An experiment in consciousness. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 12, 287-301.
[70]. VanPatten, B. (1994). Evaluating the role of consciousness in second language acquisition: Terms, linguistic features, and research methodology. AILA Review, 11, 27-36.
[71]. VanPatten, B. (1996). Input processing and grammar instruction: Theory and research. Norwood, NJ: Ablex.
[72]. VanPatten, B. (2002). Processing instruction: An update. Language Learning, 52, 805-823.
[73]. VanPatten, B. (2004). Input and output in establishing form-meaning connections. In B. VanPatten, J. Williams, S. Rott, & Overstreet (Eds.), Form-meaning connections in second language acquisition (pp. 29-48). New Jersey: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Publishers.
[74]. VanPatten, B., & Cadierno, T. (1993a). Explicit instruction and input processing. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 15, 225-243.
[75]. VanPatten, B., & Cadierno, T. (1993b). Input processing and second language acquisition: A role for instruction. The Modern Language Journal, 77, 45-57.
[76]. VanPatten, B., & Oikennon, S. (1996). Explanation vs. structured input in processing instruction. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 18, 495-510.
[77]. VanPatten, B., & Sanz, C. (1995). From input to output: Processing instruction and communicative tasks. In F. R. Eckman, D. Highland, P. W. Lee, J. Milehan, & R. R. Weber (Eds.), Second Language Acquisition theory and pedagogy (pp. 169-185). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
[78]. VanPatten, B., & Wong, W. (2004). Processing instruction vs. traditional instruction (again): A replication with the French causative. In B. VanPatten (Ed.), Processing instruction. Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
[79]. White, L. (1989). Universal Grammar and Second Language Acquisition. Amsterdam: Benjamins.
[80]. White, J. (1998). Getting the learners' attention: A typographical input enhancement study. In C. Doughty & J. Williams (Eds.), Focus on form in second language classroom acquisition (pp. 91-128), New York: New York: Cambridge University Press.
[81]. Williams, J. (1995). Focus on form in Communicative language teaching: Research findings and the classroom teacher. TESOL Journal, 4, 12-16.
[82]. Wong, W. (2001). Modality and attention to meaning and form in the input. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 23, 345-368.
[83]. Young, R. (1989). Input and interaction. Annual Review of Applied Linguistics, 9,122-134.
If you have access to this article please login to view the article or kindly login to purchase the article

Purchase Instant Access

Single Article

North Americas,UK,
Middle East,Europe
India Rest of world
USD EUR INR USD-ROW
Pdf 35 35 200 20
Online 35 35 200 15
Pdf & Online 35 35 400 25

Options for accessing this content:
  • If you would like institutional access to this content, please recommend the title to your librarian.
    Library Recommendation Form
  • If you already have i-manager's user account: Login above and proceed to purchase the article.
  • New Users: Please register, then proceed to purchase the article.