The Effects of a Combined Output and Input-Oriented Approach in Teaching Reported Speech

Anna Mystkowska-Wiertelak

doi:10.2478/v10015-011-0020-2

Authors

Anna Mystkowska-Wiertelak UAM Poznań WPA Kalisz, Zakład Filologii Angielskiej

DOI:

https://doi.org/10.2478/v10015-011-0020-2

Abstract

The author of the present study investigates the effects of output and input-oriented treatment on the acquisition of English reported speech, a complex phenomenon posing considerable difficulty even to more advanced learners of the language. The study focuses on two research questions:

Will there be any differences in how learners exposed to reception-oriented, production-oriented and a combined type instructional treatments interpret and produce sentences containing reported speech?
Is the effect durable, as measured on immediate and delayed post-tests?

The participants of the study are 74 first year students of the English philology who were divided into four groups: 3 treatment groups and a control one. The study results do not mirror those reported in the vast majority of relevant literature and points that although input manipulation appears to have more beneficial effect on the development of the interlanguage than the analysis of output, a combination of the two approaches turns out to be the most beneficial and economical.

References

Benati, A. 2001. A comparative study of the effects of processing instruction and output-based instruction on the acquisition of the Italian future tense. Language Teaching Research 5: 95-127.
Google Scholar

Benati, A. 2005. The effect of processing instruction, traditional instruction and meaning-output instruction on the acquisition of the English past simple tense. Language Teaching Research 9: 67-93.
Google Scholar

Blend, S.K. 2003. Grammar sense 3. Oxford: OUP.
Google Scholar

Cadierno, T. 1995. Formal instruction from a processing perspective: An investigation into the Spanish past tense. The Modern Language Journal 79: 179-93.
Google Scholar

Carroll, S. 1999. Putting ‘input’ in its proper place. Second Language Research 15: 337-388.
Google Scholar

Carroll, S. 2000. Input and evidence: The raw material of second language acquisition. Philadelphia: John Benjamins.
Google Scholar

Chaudron, C. 1985. Intake: On methods and models for discovering learners' processing of input. Studies in Second Language Acquisition 7: 1-14.
Google Scholar

Cheng, A. 2002. The effects of processing instruction on the acquisition of ser and estar. Hispania 85: 308-323.
Google Scholar

Cheng, A. 2004. Processing instruction and Spanish ser and estar: Forms with semantic-aspectual value. In B. VanPatten, (ed.) Processing instruction. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates: 119-142.
Google Scholar

Corder, S. P. 1967. The significance of learners' errors. IRAL 5: 161-170.
Google Scholar

Ellis, R. 1994. The study of second language acquisition. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Google Scholar

Farley, A. 2001a. The effects of processing instruction and meaning-based output instruction. Spanish Applied Linguistics 5: 57-94.
Google Scholar

Farley, A. 2001b. Authentic processing instruction and the Spanish subjunctive. Hispania 84: 289-299.
Google Scholar

Gass, S. M. 1997. Input, interaction, and the second language learner. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Elrbaum.
Google Scholar

Gass, S. and C. Madden,. (eds). 1985. Input in second language acquisition. Rowley, MA: Newbury House.
Google Scholar

Gely, A. 2005. Output-Based Instruction versus Processing Instruction on the Acquisition of the French imperfect tense. Unpublished Master's thesis, University of Greenwich, London.
Google Scholar

Krashen, S. 1985. The input hypothesis. London: Longman.
Google Scholar

Larsen-Freeman, D. and M.H. Long. 1991. An introduction to second language acquisition research. London: Longman.
Google Scholar

Lee, J. 1987. Comprehending the Spanish subjunctive: An information processing perspective. Modern Language Journal 71: 50-57.
Google Scholar

Lee, J. and A.G Benati,. 2007. Delivering processing instruction in classrooms and in virtual contexts. Research and practice. London: Equinox.
Google Scholar

Lee, J. and B. Van Patten. 1995. Making communicative language teaching happen. New York: McGraw-Hill.
Google Scholar

Lee, J., Van Patten, B. 2003. Making communicative language teaching happen, 2nd ed. New York: McGraw-Hill.
Google Scholar

LoCoco, V. 1987. Learner comprehension of oral and written sentences. In B. Van Patten, T.R. Dvorak and J. Lee (eds.), Foreign language learning: A research perspective. Cambridge, MA: Newbury House.
Google Scholar

Paulston, C. B. 1976. Pronouns of Address in Swedish: Social class Semantics and a Changing System, Language in Society 5(3): 359-386.
Google Scholar

Schwarts, B. 1993. On explicit and negative data affecting and effecting competence and linguistic behavior. Studies in Second Language Acquisition 15: 147-164.
Google Scholar

Sharwood-Smith, M. 1986. Comprehension vs. acquisition: Two ways of processing input. Applied Linguistics 7: 239-256.
Google Scholar

Slobin, D. 1973. Cognitive prerequisites for the development of grammar. In: C. Ferguson D., Slobin (eds.), Studies of child language development. NewYork: Holt, Rinehart, Winston.
Google Scholar

Sun, Y.A. 2008. Input Processing in Second Language Acquisition: A Discussion of Four Input Processing Models. In: Teachers College, Columbia University, Working Papers in TESOL & Applied Linguistics 8/1. 1-10.
Google Scholar

VanPatten, B. 1996. Input processing and grammar instruction. Norwood, NJ: Albex Publishing Corporation.
Google Scholar

VanPatten, B. 2002. Processing instruction: An update. Language Learning 52: 755-803.
Google Scholar

VanPatten, B. (ed.). 2004a. Processing instruction. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Google Scholar

VanPatten, B. (ed.). 2004b. Input processing in second language acquisition. In B. VanPatten (ed.) Processing instruction. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates. 5-31.
Google Scholar

VanPatten, B., Cadierno, T. 1993. "Explicit instruction and input processing". Studies in Second Language Acquisition 15. 225-243.
Google Scholar

VanPatten, B. and W. Wong. 2004. Processing instruction and the French causative: Another replication. In B. VanPatten (ed.) Processing instruction. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates. 97-118.
Google Scholar

Wong, W. 2004. The nature of processing instruction. In B. VanPatten (ed.) Processing instruction. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates. 33-63.
Google Scholar