The Effects of a Combined Output and Input-Oriented Approach in Teaching Reported Speech
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:
1. 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?
2. 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.
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.
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.
Blend, S.K. 2003. Grammar sense 3. Oxford: OUP.
Cadierno, T. 1995. Formal instruction from a processing perspective: An investigation into the Spanish past tense. The Modern Language Journal 79: 179-93.
Carroll, S. 1999. Putting ‘input’ in its proper place. Second Language Research 15: 337-388.
Carroll, S. 2000. Input and evidence: The raw material of second language acquisition. Philadelphia: John Benjamins.
Chaudron, C. 1985. Intake: On methods and models for discovering learners' processing of input. Studies in Second Language Acquisition 7: 1-14.
Cheng, A. 2002. The effects of processing instruction on the acquisition of ser and estar. Hispania 85: 308-323.
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.
Corder, S. P. 1967. The significance of learners' errors. IRAL 5: 161-170.
Ellis, R. 1994. The study of second language acquisition. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Farley, A. 2001a. The effects of processing instruction and meaning-based output instruction. Spanish Applied Linguistics 5: 57-94.
Farley, A. 2001b. Authentic processing instruction and the Spanish subjunctive. Hispania 84: 289-299.
Gass, S. M. 1997. Input, interaction, and the second language learner. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Elrbaum.
Gass, S. and C. Madden,. (eds). 1985. Input in second language acquisition. Rowley, MA: Newbury House.
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.
Krashen, S. 1985. The input hypothesis. London: Longman.
Larsen-Freeman, D. and M.H. Long. 1991. An introduction to second language acquisition research. London: Longman.
Lee, J. 1987. Comprehending the Spanish subjunctive: An information processing perspective. Modern Language Journal 71: 50-57.
Lee, J. and A.G Benati,. 2007. Delivering processing instruction in classrooms and in virtual contexts. Research and practice. London: Equinox.
Lee, J. and B. Van Patten. 1995. Making communicative language teaching happen. New York: McGraw-Hill.
Lee, J., Van Patten, B. 2003. Making communicative language teaching happen, 2nd ed. New York: McGraw-Hill.
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.
Paulston, C. B. 1976. Pronouns of Address in Swedish: Social class Semantics and a Changing System, Language in Society 5(3): 359-386.
Schwarts, B. 1993. On explicit and negative data affecting and effecting competence and linguistic behavior. Studies in Second Language Acquisition 15: 147-164.
Sharwood-Smith, M. 1986. Comprehension vs. acquisition: Two ways of processing input. Applied Linguistics 7: 239-256.
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.
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.
VanPatten, B. 1996. Input processing and grammar instruction. Norwood, NJ: Albex Publishing Corporation.
VanPatten, B. 2002. Processing instruction: An update. Language Learning 52: 755-803.
VanPatten, B. (ed.). 2004a. Processing instruction. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
VanPatten, B. (ed.). 2004b. Input processing in second language acquisition. In B. VanPatten (ed.) Processing instruction. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates. 5-31.
VanPatten, B., Cadierno, T. 1993. "Explicit instruction and input processing". Studies in Second Language Acquisition 15. 225-243.
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.
Wong, W. 2004. The nature of processing instruction. In B. VanPatten (ed.) Processing instruction. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates. 33-63.