Textual Enhancement, Input Processing and Presentation-Practice-Production in College English Grammar Teaching in China

Main Article Content

Guang Shi

Abstract

Based on the input processing theory and output hypothesis in Second Language Acquisition, and employing quantitative and qualitative methods, this study investigates the effects of Textual Enhancement (TE), Input Processing Instruction (PI) and Presentation-Practice-Production (3P), and tries to compare the initial learning and retention effect on the acquisition of unreal conditionals in Chinese college English classrooms. The research findings are as follows: 1) Both PI and 3P are effective. TE is effective in initial learning but falls short for retention effect. There is significant difference between the TE, PI and 3P groups. 2) In initial learning, 3P has the best effect based on learners’ mean score, followed by PI and TE, but there is no significant difference between PI and 3P. There is significant difference between 3P and TE, PI and 3P. 3) With regard to the retention effect, 3P and PI work better than TE. And there is no significant difference between 3P and PI. The research findings indicate that explicit explanation about language structures plays an effective and necessary role in English learning in the Chinese context. English teachers are suggested to involve the learners with grammar through meaningful activities such as structured input activities.

Article Details

How to Cite
Shi, G. (2017, October 31). Textual Enhancement, Input Processing and Presentation-Practice-Production in College English Grammar Teaching in China. International Journal for Innovation Education and Research, 5(10), 177-193. Retrieved from http://ijier.net/ijier/article/view/839
Section
Articles

References

Alanen, R. (1995). Input Enhancement and Rule Presentation in Second Language Acquisition [A]. In R. Schmidt (eds.). Attention and Awareness in Foreign Language Acquisition [C]. Honolulu: University of Hawaii. 259-302.
Benati, A. (2001). A Comparative Study of the Effects of Processing Instruction and Output-based Instruction on the Acquisition of the Italian Future Tense [J]. Language Teaching Research 11(5): 95-127.
Benati, A. (2005). The Effects of Processing Instruction, Traditional Instruction and Meaning-output Instruction on the Acquisition of the English Past Simple Tense [J]. Language Teaching Research 9(1): 67-93.
Benati, A. (2009). Japanese Language Teaching: A Communicative Approach [M]. New York: Continuum.
Buck, M. (2006). The Effects of Processing Instruction on the Acquisition of English Progressive Aspect [J].Estudios de Lingu¨ ı´stica Aplicada 4 (43): 77-95.
Doughty, C. (1991). Second Language Instruction does Make a Difference: Evidence from an empirical Study of SLA Relativization [J]. Studies in Second Language Acquisition6 (13): 431-469.
Doughty, C. (1998). The Effect of Instruction on the Acquisition of Relativization in English as a Second Language [D]. Doctoral Dissertation, University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, USA.
Doughty, C. and J. Williams. (1998). Pedagogical Choices in Focus on Form [A]. In C. Doughty & J. Williams (eds.). Focus on Form in Classroom Second Language Acquisition [C]. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. 197-261.
Ellis, R. (1994). The Study of Second Language Acquisition [M]. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Ellis, R. (2001). Introduction: Investigating Form-focused Instruction [J]. Language Learning18 (51): 35-46.
Ellis, R. (2002). Does Form-Focused Instruction Affect the Acquisition of Implicit Knowledge? A Review of the Research [J]. Studies in Second Language Acquisition 13(9):223-236.
Ellis, R. (2006). Modelling Learning Difficulty and Second Language Proficiency: The Differential Contributions of Implicit and Explicit Knowledge [J]. Applied Linguistics 27 (3): 431-463.
Farley, A. (2001a). Authentic Processing Instruction and the Spanish Subjunctive [J]. Hispania 13 (2): 289-299.
Farley, A. (2001b). Processing Instruction and Meaning-based Output Instruction: a Comparative Study [J]. Spanish Applied Linguistics 8 (2): 57-93.
Farley, A. (2004). The Relative Effects of Processing Instruction and Meaning-based Output Instruction [A]. In B. VanPatten, (ed.). Processing Instruction: Theory, Research, and Commentary [C]. Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
Izumi, S. (2002). Output, Input Enhancement, and the Noticing Hypothesis: An Experimental Study on ESL Relativisation [J]. Studies in Second Language Acquisition (24): 541-577.
Jahan, A. and J. Kormos. (2015). The Impact of Textual Enhancement on EFL Learners’ Grammatical Awareness of Future Plans and Intentions [J]. International Journal of Applied Linguistics 3 (1): 115-121.
Jourdenais, R. (1998). The Effects of Textual Enhancement on the Acquisition of the Spanish Preterit and Imperfect [D]. Unpublished Doctoral Dissertation, Georgetown University, Washington, DC., USA.
Jourdenais, R. et al. (1995). Does Textual Enhancement Promote Noticing? A Think Aloud Protocol Analysis [A]. In R.Schmidt (ed.). Attention and Awareness in Foreign Language Learning [C]. Honolulu: University of Hawaii Press. 183-216.
Keating, G. and Farley, A. (2008). Processing Instruction, Meaning-based Output Instruction, and Meaning-based Drills: Impacts on ClassroomL2 Acquisition of Spanish Object Pronouns [J]. Hispania 91(3): 639-650.
Krashen, S. (1982). Principles and Practice in Second Language Acquisition [M]. Oxford: Pergamon.
Lee, J. (2004). On the Generalizability, Limits and Potential Future Directions of Processing Instruction Research [A]. In B. VanPatten (ed.). Processing Instruction: Theory, Research, and Commentary[C]. Mahwah: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Lee, J. and Benati, A. (2007a). Second Language Processing. An analysis of Theory, Problems, and Possible Solutions [M]. New York: Continuum.
Lee, J. and Benati, A. (2007b). Comparing Modes of Delivering Processing Instruction and Meaning-based Output Instruction on Italian and French Subjunctive [A].In J. Lee and A. Benati (eds.).Delivering Processing Instruction in Classrooms and in Virtual Contexts [C]. London: Equinox. 99-136.
Leow, R. (1997). The Effects of Input Enhancement and Text Length on Adult L2 Readers’ Comprehension and Intake in Second Language Acquisition [J]. Applied Language Learning 10 (8): 151-182.
Leow, R. (2001). Do Learners Notice Enhanced Forms While Interacting with the L2? An Online and Offline Study of the Role of Written Input Enhancement in L2 Reading [J]. Hispania7 (84): 496-509.
Leow, R., T. Egi, A. Nuevo and Y. Tsai. (2003). The Roles of Textual Enhancement and Type of Linguistic Item in Adult L2 Learners’ Comprehension and Intake [J]. Applied Language Learning 21(13): 1-16.
Long, M. (1991). Focus on Form: A Design Feature in Language Teaching Methodology [A]. In K. DeBot, R. Ginsberg, and C. Kramsch, (eds.). Foreign Language Research in Cross-cultural Perspective [C]. Amsterdam: Benjamins.39-52.
Long, M. and P. Robinson (1998). “Focus on form: Theory, research and practice”. In Doughty, C. and Williams, J. Focus on form in classroom second language acquisition. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. pp. 15-41.
Nie, H. H. (2012). The Effects of Input-based Practice and output based practice: A Quasi-experimental Study with English L2 Present Perfect as Target Grammar. [D]. MA Thesis, Nanjing Normal University, China.
Overstreet, M. (1998). Text Enhancement and Content Familiarity: The Focus of
Learner Attention [J]. Spanish Applied Linguistics 9 (2): 15-23.
Overstreet, M. (2002). The Effects of Textual Enhancement on Second Language Learner Reading Comprehension and Form Recognition [D]. Doctoral Dissertation, University of Illinois, Urbana-Champaign.
Pan, C. Y. (2015). A Study on the Effects of Input Enhancement and Output in Facilitating the Noticing and Acquisition of Hypothetical Conditional Clause [D]. MA Thesis, Shanghai Normal University, China.
Qin, J. (2008). The Effect of Processing Instruction and Dictogloss Tasks on Acquisition of the English Passive Voice [J]. Language Teaching Research 6(1): 61-82.
Schmidt, R. (1990). The Role of Consciousness in Second Language Learning [J]. Applied Linguistics 9 (11): 17-46.
Schmidt, R. (2001). Attention [A]. In P. Robinson (ed.). Cognition and Second language Instruction [C]. New York: Cambridge University Press. 3-32.
Sharwood-Smith, M. (1993). Input Enhancement in Instructed SLA: Theoretical Bases [J]. Studies in Second Language Acquisition 5 (15): 165-179.
Shook, J. (1994). FL/L2 Reading, Grammatical Information, and the Input to Intake Phenomenon [J]. Applied Language Learning 9 (5): 77-88.
Swain, M. (1995). Three Functions of Output in Second Language Learning [A]. In G. Cook & B. Seidlhofer (eds.). Principle and Practice in Applied Linguistics: Studies in Honour of H. G. Widdowson [C]. Oxford: Oxford University Press. 125-144.
Toth, P. (2006). Processing Instruction and a Role for Output in Second Language Acquisition [J]. Language Learning 56 (2): 319-385.
VanPatten, B. (1993). Grammar Teaching for the Acquisition-rich Classroom [J]. Foreign Language Annals 21(26): 435-450.
VanPatten, B. (1996). Input Processing and Grammar Instruction [M]. New York: Ablex.
VanPatten, B. (2000). Processing Instruction as Form-meaning Connections: Issues in Theory and Research [A]. In J. Lee and A. Valdman (eds.). Form and Meaning: Multiple Perspectives [C]. Boston: Heinle and Heinle. 43-68.
VanPatten, B. (2002). Processing Instruction: An Update [J]. Language Learning 26 (52): 755-803.
VanPatten, B. (2003). From Input to Output: A Teacher’s Guide to Second Language Acquisition [M]. New York: McGraw-Hill.
VanPatten, B. and Cadierno, T. (1993a). Explicit Instruction and Input Processing [J]. Studies in Second Language Acquisition 11 (15): 225-244.
VanPatten, B. and Cadierno, T. (1993b). Input Processing and Second Language Acquisition: A Role for Instruction [J]. Modern Language Journal 32 (77): 45-57.
VanPatten, B. and Wong, W. (2004). Processing Instruction and the French Causative: Another Replication [A]. In B. VanPatten (ed.). Processing Instruction: Theory, Research, and Commentary[C]. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum and Associates. 97-118.
Wang, D. (2015). A Comparative Study of PPP Instruction and Input Processing Instruction in Acquiring the English Subjunctive Mood [D]. MA Thesis, Hebei Normal University, China.
Wang, L. (2011). The Effect of Textual Enhancement on Chinese EFL Learners' Learning of the English Passive [D]. MA Thesis, Chongqing University, China.
Wang, T. N. (2013). The Effects of Textual Enhancement on Chinese English Learners’ Noticing and Acquisition on the Target Linguistic Form [D]. MA Thesis, Ocean University of China, China.
Wang, X. R. (2009). A Comparative Study of Traditional instruction and Input Processing Instruction in SLA: An Empirical Study on Relative Clause Acquisition. [D]. MA Thesis, Southwest Jiaotong University, China.
White, J. (1998). Getting the Learners’ Attention: A Typographical Input Enhancement Study [A]. In C. Doughty and J. Williams (eds.). Focus on Form in Classroom Second Language Acquisition [C]. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. 85-113.
Wong, W. (2002). Decreasing Attentional Demands in Input Processing [J]. Applied Language Learning 9 (5): 21-27.
Wong, W. (2003). Textual Enhancement and Simplified Input: Effects on L2 Comprehension and Acquisition of Non-meaningful Grammatical Form [J]. Applied Language Learning 6 (13): 17-45.
Wong, W. (2004). Processing Instruction in French: The Roles of Explicit Information and Structured Input [A]. In B. VanPatten (ed.). Processing Instruction: Theory, Research, and Commentary[C]. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum and Associates. 187-205.
Wu, Q. (2008). A Comparative study of the Effects of Processing Instruction and Traditional Instruction on the Acquisition of English Unreal If-Conditionals [D]. MA Thesis, Beijing Language and Culture University, China.