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

Abstract

The present study explores the effects of structured input and traditional instruction on the acquisition of English causative passive forms using online measurements (eye-tracking). Previous empirical research investigating the effects of processing instruction through offline measurements (sentence and discourse) has overall shown positive results for this pedagogical intervention. Research investigating the main factor responsible for the effectiveness of processing instruction has confirmed that it is the structured input component that is the causative factor for the positive effects of processing instruction. The main questions of this study are: (1) what are the effects of structured input and traditional instruction on accuracy when measured by an eye-tracking picture selection task? (2) would possible difference in accuracy between structured input and traditional instruction be accompanied by changes in eye-movement patterns? To provide answers to the two questions formulated in this study, one eye-tracking study was carried out. Fifty-two adult learners (aged 19–21 years) participated and were assigned to one of two groups: structured input ( n = 26) or traditional instruction ( n = 26). Neither instructional groups received explicit information. A pre and post-training design was adopted and the two groups received two different instructional treatments (structured input vs. traditional instruction). Participants were assessed through a picture selection eye-tracking task to measure accuracy and eye-movement patterns while they were processing auditory sentences. Results of the eye-tracking task indicated that the structured input group achieved significantly higher accuracy scores compared to the group receiving traditional instruction. The main findings from the present study reveal that structured input training causes a change in learners’ eye-movement patterns.

The offline and online effects of processing instruction

“…For example, an eye-tracking study by Wong and Ito (2018) found that PI led learners to reject a first-noun interpretation of causative faire constructions in French. Similarly, Benati (2020c) found that, after PI, learners' eye movements showed smaller first noun bias and faster picture selection while they processed English causative passive sentences. 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.…”

“…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;.…”

“…While research on (PI) has shown that it helps learners process morphosyntactic forms more accurately, much previous research has relied primarily on offline measures, which may not tap implicit knowledge and do not provide a moment-by-moment window into learners' processing behaviors. Recent research (e.g., Benati, 2020aBenati, , 2020cLee & Doherty, 2019;Wong & Ito, 2018; see Benati, 2020b) has begun to investigate the effects of PI on learners' processing system using online measures such as eye-tracking and self-paced reading (SPR), which is necessary to make strong claims about PI's impact on L2 learners' processing strategies. These studies have, however, used varying approaches and produced mixed results.…”

Cognitive discourse analysis: An introduction. ThoraTenbrink, Cambridge, Cambridge University Press, 2020, x+271 pp., ISBN: 978‐1‐108‐42266‐6

“…Benati points out that more research is needed to measure implicit knowledge adopting psycholinguistic and neurolinguistic research tools (online tests). He illustrates this with an example of a focus on form study adopting eyetracking measurement (Benati, 2020). The final section summarizes the key points in this part.…”

Focus on form. AlessandroBenati. Cambridge University Press, 2021, 78 pp., ISBN 978‐1‐108‐70834‐0 Paperback.

“…Benati points out that more research is needed to measure implicit knowledge adopting psycholinguistic and neurolinguistic research tools (online tests). He illustrates this with an example of a focus on form study adopting eye‐tracking measurement (Benati, 2020). The final section summarizes the key points in this part.…”