Evaluating the Relative Effectiveness of Structured-Input and Output-Based Instruction in Foreign Language Learning

Abstract

This paper reviews studies that have contrasted the effectiveness of structured-input instruction with output-based instruction. It then presents results from a study comparing the relative effects of structured-input and output-based instruction on students' ability to comprehend and produce direct object pronouns in second language French. Three classes of students (N = 70) were assigned to three groups: structured-input instruction, output-based instruction, and control. Students were assessed on listening comprehension, reading comprehension, written production, and oral production tasks. All but one of these language measures required a pressured response. Overall, the results showed greater gains for the outputbased instruction group.

Comparing the Effectiveness of Processing Instruction and Production-Based Instruction on L2 Grammar Learning: The Role of Explicit Information

“…Not all studies in the literature, however, have found advantages of PI compared to other instructional types; this is the case for Spanish direct object pronouns and the conditional (DeKeyser & Sokalski, 1996), Spanish direct object pronouns (Keating & Farley, 2008;Morgan-Short & Bowden, 2006;Salaberry, 1997), Japanese honorifics (Nagata, 1998), French causative instruction (Allen, 2000), French direct object pronouns (Erlam, 2003), Spanish anticausative clitic se (Toth, 2006), and English present subjunctive (Farley & Aslan, 2012). All these studies, contrary to earlier PI studies, found that on the interpretation task, either the PBI and PI groups scored equally, or PBI performed better than PI; additionally, on the production task, the PBI group performed much better than PI.…”

PROCESSING INSTRUCTION AND MEANINGFUL OUTPUT-BASED INSTRUCTION:: Effects on Second Language Development

“…Another strand of research~Allen, 2000; Collentine, 1998;DeKeyser & Sokalski, 1996;Erlam, 2003;Nagata, 1998;Salaberry, 1997! focused on the exploration of any differential effects of input-based as compared to output-based instructional conditions+ Accordingly, much of this research has made attempts to methodologically isolate the variable of output+ Specifically, these studies have compared the effects of some type of input practice~often labeled PI!…”

“…they did not provide explicit information designed to alter any learner processing strategy~DeKeyser & Sokalski, 1996;Erlam, 2003;Nagata 1998!,~b! they~either intentionally or unintentionally!…”

“…recently asserted that "output may play a number of important roles in language development" and that, in fact, it plays a facilitative role in acquisition~VanPatten, 2004b!, he did not agree with the claim that "using a form in one's output is a direct path to acquisition"~VanPatten, 2004b, p+ 27! and suggested instead, on the basis of current evidence, that acquisition does not appear to be dependent on output~VanPatten, 2004a!+ There are at least two perspectives, however, that ascribe a more fundamental role to output in SLA+ One perspective has suggested that both input and output develop corresponding comprehension and production skills DeKeyser, 1997DeKeyser, , 2001DeKeyser & Sokalski, 1996!+ From a second perspective, the output hypothesis~Swain, 1993hypothesis~Swain, , 1995hypothesis~Swain, , 1998Swain & Lapkin, 1995! holds that although input is essential to SLA, output might also bring about mental processes that both directly and indirectly affect acquisition+ Research motivated by this hypothesis has supported a positive role for output practice in conjunction with input~e+g+, Izumi, 2002;Izumi & Bigelow, 2000;Izumi, Bigelow, Fujiwara, & Fearnow, 1999;Swain, 1995; Swain & Lapkin!+ Following the idea that both input-and output-based instruction can be effective for SLA, many studies have attempted to compare the two under a variety of research designs~Allen, 2000; Collentine, 1998;DeKeyser & Sokalski;Erlam, 2003;Nagata, 1998;Salaberry, 1997!+ Few studies have specifically addressed whether output-based instruction can be as effective as PI when it is matched to PI on all variables other than practice mode+ Recent studies by Benati~2005! and Farley~2001a, 2001b!…”

Bisogni Linguistici specifici e apprendimento della grammatica

“…La ricerca sembra indicare che gli effetti delle structured input activities non riguardano solo la comprensione delle LE, 6, 3, 2017, 363-384 e-ISSN 2280-6792 costruzioni linguistiche target, ma hanno anche un riflesso nella produzione linguistica degli apprendenti a cui vengono somministrate (Cadierno 2010). Inoltre, sembra accertato che le cosiddette structured output activities (Lee, VanPatten 1995;VanPatten 1996), cioè le attività mirate alla produzione controllata dell'output degli studenti e complementari a quelle centrate nel passaggio dell'input all'intake, abbiano una ricaduta positiva nella capacità degli studenti di produrre le costruzioni linguistiche (Erlam 2003;Morgan-Short, Wood-Bowden 2006). Bisogna tener presente che l'uso autonomo delle costruzioni linguistiche diventa particolarmente difficile nel caso di chi presenta limitazioni nell'elaborazione rapida ed efficiente delle informazioni.…”