تأثیر آموزش پردازش محور و برونداد محور بر فراگیری زمان حال ساده زبان‌آموزان انگلیسی

نوع مقاله : مقاله پژوهشی

نویسندگان

1 استادیار زبان‌شناسی کاربردی، دانشگاه صنعتی خاتم الانبیاء بهبهان، بهبهان، ایران

2 گروه زبان دانشگاه شهید چمران اهواز، اهواز، ایران

چکیده

پژوهش حاضر با هدف بررسی دقیق تأثیر آموزش پردازش محور و برونداد محور بر رشد فراگیران زبان انگلیسی در درک و تولید زبان حال ساده انگلیسی انجام شد. نتایج حاصل از این مطالعه به بحث پایان‌ناپذیر در مورد تأثیرات آموزش پردازش محور (PI) در مقایسه با آموزش برونداد محور (OI) کمک کرده است. به منظور مطالعه حاضر از بین 70 زبان‌آموز زبان انگلیسی در یک مرکز زبان خصوصی در ایران 40 زبان آموز پیش از متوسط ​​زبان انگلیسی در گروه PI و 20 شرکت‌کننده در گروه OI قرار گرفتند. شرکت‌کنندگان در گروه آموزشی پردازش محور، فعالیت‌های ورودی پردازشی را دریافت کردند، در حالی‌که شرکت‌کنندگان در گروه آموزشی مبتنی بر خروجی، فعالیت‌های خروجی ساختار یافته را دریافت کردند. نتایج آمار توصیفی و تحلیلی نشان داد که اگرچه شرکت‌کنندگان در گروه آموزش پردازش محور از نظر دانش دریافتی در ساختار مورد نظر، یعنی زمان حال ساده، به‌طور قابل‌توجهی از شرکت‌کنندگان در گروه آموزش مبتنی بر خروجی بهتر عمل کردند، اما هر دو نوع دستورالعمل به‌طور قابل‌توجهی تأثیر مثبتی بر دانش تولید جملات زبان حال ساده شرکت‌کنندگان داشتند و تفاوت بین اثربخشی این دو نوع آموزش بر دانش مولد شرکت‌کنندگان معنی‌دار نبود.

کلیدواژه‌ها

موضوعات


عنوان مقاله [English]

The effect of processing-based and output-based instruction on the acquisition of present simple tense of EFL learners

نویسندگان [English]

  • mahdi mardani 1
  • Alireza khoram 2
1 Assistant Professor of Applied Linguistics, Behbahan Khatam Alanbia University of Technology, Behbahan, Iran.
2 Department of English Language and Literature, Faculty of Letters and Humanities, Shahid Chamran University of Ahvaz, Ahvaz, Iran
چکیده [English]

This study investigated the effects of processing-based instruction (PI) and output-based instruction (OI) on learners’ development in comprehension and production of the English present simple tense. The findings contribute to the ongoing debate on the effects of PI versus OI. Among 70 EFL learners at a private language center in Iran, 40 pre-intermediate learners were assigned to the PI group, and 20 learners were assigned to the OI group (n=20). The PI group received structured processing input activities, while the OI group engaged in structured output activities. Descriptive and analytical statistics revealed that participants in the PI group significantly outperformed the participants in the OI group in receptive knowledge of the target structure. However, both instructional methods affected the participants’ productive understanding of the present simple tense, and the difference between the efficacy of these two types of instruction on participants’ productive knowledge was not significant.
 

کلیدواژه‌ها [English]

  • processing instruction
  • output-based instruction
  • productive knowledge
  • present simple tense
Benati, A. (2005). The effects of processing instruction, traditional instruction and meaning-output instruction on the acquisition of the English past simple tense. Language Teaching Research, 9, 67-93.
                https://doi.org/10.1191/1362168805lr154oa
Benati, A., & Lee, J. (Eds.). (2015). Processing instruction: New insights after twenty years of theory, research and application [Special issue]. International Review of Applied Linguistics, 53(2), 87-90.
Dekeyser, R., & Botana, G. P. (2014). The effectiveness of processing instruction in     L2 grammar acquisition: A narrative review. Applied Linguistics, 36(3), 290-305. http://dx.doi.org/10.1093/applin/amu071
Ellis, R. (2016). Focus on form: A critical review. Language Teaching Research, 20(3), 1-26. https://doi.org/10.1177/1362168816628627
Farahian, M., & Avarzamani, F. (2018). Processing instruction revisited: Does it lead tosuperior performance in interpretation and production? Eurasian Journal of Applied Linguistics, 5(1), 89–111. http://dx.doi.org/10.32601/ejal.543783
Farley, A. P. (2004). Processing instruction and the Spanish subjunctive: is explicitinformation needed? In B. VanPatten (Ed.) Processing instruction: theory, research, and commentary (pp. 227-239). Lawrence Erlbaum. https://doi.org/10.4324/9781410610195
Farley, A., & Aslan, E. (2012). The relative effects of processing instruction andmeaning  based output instruction on L2 acquisition of the English subjunctive. ELT Research Journal, 1, 120-141.
Izumi, S. (2002). Output, input enhancement, and the noticing hypothesis: Anexperimental      study on ESL relativization. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 24, 541–577. http://dx.doi.org/10.1017/S0272263102004023
Morgan-Short, K., & Bowden, W. (2006). Processing instruction and meaningfuloutput based  instruction: Effects on second language development. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 28, 31-65.
                https://doi.org/10.1017/S0272263106060025
Nassaji, H., & Fotos, S. (2011). Teaching grammar in second language classrooms: Integrating form-focused instruction in communicative context. Routledge. https://doi.org/10.4324/9780203850961
Patra, I., Suwondo, T., Mohammed, M., Alghazali, T., Mohameed, D., Hula, I., & Kargar Behbahani, H. (2022). The Effects of processing instruction and output-based activities on grammar learning: The mediating role of working memory. Educational Research Journal. 1-11. https://doi.org/10.1155/2022/3704876
Haghani, M., & Rashtchi, M. (2023). Re-examining the effectiveness of processing instruction components for teaching the present subjunctive: Do learning styles make a difference?. Asian-Pacific Journal of Second and Foreign Language Education, 8, 3. https://doi.org/10.1186/s40862-022-00181-2
Rassaei, E. (2012). The Effects of Input-based and Output-based Instruction on L2 Development. TESL-EJ, 16(3).
Rasuki, M. (2017). Processing instruction: A review of issues. International Journal of Education & Literacy Studies. 5(3), 1-7.  
                https://doi.org/10.7575/aiac.ijels.v.5n.3p.1
Swain, M., & Lapkin, S. (1995). Problems in output and the cognitive processes theygenerate: A step towards second language learning. Applied Linguistics, 16, 371-391. http://dx.doi.org/10.1093/applin/16.3.371
Swain, M., & Lapkin, S. (2001). Focus on form through collaborative dialogue: Exploring task effects. In M. Bygate, P. Skehan and M. Swain (Eds.),    Researching pedagogic tasks: Second-language learning, teaching, and testing             (pp. 99–118). Longman. https://doi.org/10.4324/9781315838267
Tran, M. U. (2023). An Investigation of the Effects of Processing Instruction in the Online Learning of the Past Perfect Tense: A Case at a University. International Journal of TESOL & Education, 3, 3. https://orcid.org/0009-0007-3463-6671
VanPatten, B. (2004). Input processing in SLA. In B. VanPatten (Ed.) Processinginstruction: theory, research, and commentary (pp. 5-31). Erlbaum. https://doi.org/10.4324/9781410610195
VanPatten, B. (2015). Input processing in adult SLA. In B. VanPatten & J. Williams, (Eds.), Theories in second language acquisition (2nd ed.) (pp. 113- 135).     Routledge. https://doi.org/10.4324/9780203628942
VanPatten, B., & Sanz, C. (1995). From input to output: Processing instruction and communicative tasks. In F. Eckman, D. Highland, P. Lee, J. Mileham, & R. Rutkowski Wber (Eds.), Second language acquisition: Theory and pedagogy (pp. 169-186). Erlbaum. https://doi.org/10.4324/9781315044903
Younesi, H., & Tajeddin, Z. (2014). Effects of structured input and meaningful output onEFL learners’ acquisition of nominal clauses. Iranian Journal of AppliedLinguistics, 17, 145-167. http://ijal.khu.ac.ir/article-1-2250-fa.html