Re-Examining the Effectiveness of Processing Instruction Components for Teaching the Present Subjunctive: Do Learning Styles Make a Difference?

Autor/inn/en	Haghani, Mastaneh; Rashtchi, Mojgan
Titel	Re-Examining the Effectiveness of Processing Instruction Components for Teaching the Present Subjunctive: Do Learning Styles Make a Difference?
Quelle	In: Asian-Pacific Journal of Second and Foreign Language Education, 8 (2023), Artikel 3 (18 Seiten) PDF als Volltext Verfügbarkeit
Sprache	englisch
Dokumenttyp	gedruckt; online; Zeitschriftenaufsatz
DOI	10.1186/s40862-022-00181-2
Schlagwörter	Second Language Learning; Second Language Instruction; Grammar; Teaching Methods; Learning Processes; Linguistic Input; Language Processing; Comparative Analysis; Language Tests; Classification; English (Second Language); Learning Activities; Cognitive Style; Instructional Effectiveness + Suchen Sie Ihr Suchwort? Zweitsprachenerwerb; Fremdsprachenunterricht; Grammatik; Teaching method; Lehrmethode; Unterrichtsmethode; Learning process; Lernprozess; Sprachbildung; Sprachverarbeitung; Language test; Sprachtest; Classification system; Klassifikation; Klassifikationssystem; English as second language; English; Second Language; Englisch als Zweitsprache; Lernaktivität; Cognitive styles; Kognitiver Stil; Unterrichtserfolg
Abstract	The present quasi-experimental study investigated which component of processing instruction (PI) is responsible for its beneficial effects and whether EFL learners with different learning styles similarly benefit from PI components. In doing so, a sample of 67 first-year students took part in a study with a non-equivalent control group pretest--posttest design. The participants were randomly divided into three groups: one receiving explicit information without further exercises (EI group), another receiving structured input activities comprising both referential and affective activities without explicit information (SI group), and the third group receiving processing instruction containing both explicit information and structured input activities (PI group). First, Ehrman and Leaver's (E & L) Construct questionnaire was employed to categorize the participants into ectenic and synoptic learners in each group. Afterward, a General Language Proficiency Test (GLPT) and a Target Structure Test were administered. After the treatment, the learners took a posttest modeling the pretest. The independent samples t-tests run in each group revealed no significant differences between the ectenic and synoptic learners' performance regarding the components of PI. However, the findings suggested that the ectenic learners benefited least from the SI activities, and the advantageous effect of PI was mainly related to EI. Pedagogical implications of the study for opposing learning styles are discussed, and suggestions are provided for further research. (As Provided).
Anmerkungen	Springer. Available from: Springer Nature. One New York Plaza, Suite 4600, New York, NY 10004. Tel: 800-777-4643; Tel: 212-460-1500; Fax: 212-460-1700; e-mail: customerservice@springernature.com; Web site: https://link.springer.com/
Erfasst von	ERIC (Education Resources Information Center), Washington, DC
Update	2024/1/01