Processing Instruction and the Effects of Input Modality and Voice Familiarity on the Acquisition of the French Causative Construction

Abstract

Two eye-tracking experiments tested (a) whether L2 learners benefit from the consistency of input modality (auditory instead of written processing instruction [PI] training) and (b) whether they benefit from training using the same voice as the test voice. Results confirmed a robust effect of PI training on picture-selection accuracy, yet the improvement did not differ between training modalities. Eye-tracking data revealed resilient looks to the incorrect (first noun = agent) picture even after training, demonstrating the challenge in tuning to the grammatical forms while processing auditory L2 input. The effect of voice familiarity was larger for the male voice, which had longer duration for the later cue (à Marie/Pierre) than the female voice. Auditory PI training can be as effective as written PI training, but it does not immediately enhance learners’ sensitivity to grammatical cues. However, learners may benefit from hearing a salient grammatical cue toward the end of the sentence.

The effects of structured input and traditional instruction on the acquisition of the English causative passive forms: An eye-tracking study measuring accuracy in responses and processing patterns

“…Second, this study provides further online evidence (Ito & Wong, 2019; Lee & Doherty, 2019; Wong & Ito, 2018) of the effectiveness of structured input practice compared to traditional instruction. Structured input training is an effective pedagogical intervention for grammar instruction designed to alter a number of processing principles.…”

“…In a pair of follow-up experiments, Ito and Wong (2019) tested whether consistency in input modality (i.e. auditory PI training prior to the visual world task) might lead to an earlier shift in looks to the correct picture.…”

The offline and online effects of processing instruction

“…Lee and Doherty (2019) found that PI directed learners' attention to grammatical information on Spanish verbs marked for the passive voice and noted that learners' processing became more native-like after instruction. However, other studies have found mixed results or shown that training had no effect on online processing (Dracos & Henry, 2021;Ito & Wong, 2019;McManus & Marsden, 2017). For example, Dracos & Henry (2021) found that a PI-like training did not increase sensitivity to grammatical violations for Spanish subject and tense morphology.…”

“…Studies on PI and related instructional trainings that employ online processing measures are still relatively few (see Benati, 2020b), but several recent studies have used these methods given the detail they provide. As discuss, these studies have investigated a diverse range of questions, including the effects of PI (or related trainings) versus other types of instruction or no-training controls (Benati, 2020c(Benati, , 2020aChiuchiù & Benati, 2020;Issa & Morgan-Short, 2019;McManus & Marsden, 2017Wong & Ito, 2018); EI and feedback (Dracos & Henry, 2018;Wong & Ito, 2018), input enhancement (Issa & Morgan-Short, 2019), the modality of training (Ito & Wong, 2019), and the role of individual differences such as working memory (Dracos & Henry, 2021;Issa, 2019;.…”

“…It is also important to note that these studies have used a variety of methodological approaches. For example, many studies employ eye-tracking (e.g., Issa & Morgan-Short, 2019;Ito & Wong, 2019;Wong & Ito, 2018), but some use SPR (Dracos & Henry, 2021;Malovrh et al, 2020;McManus & Marsden, 2017). Further, some studies measure online processing during the training task itself (e.g., Benati, 2020c;Issa et al, 2015;Wong & Ito, 2018), meaning that reported changes in processing could be related directly to either the task itself or the provision of feedback during these tasks (or both).…”