Investigating the effectiveness of input-based techniques on the acquisition of English passive: A comparative study of explicit instruction and input-based techniques

Dogan Can Akçin

doi:10.54475/jlt.2024.018

Authors

Dogan Can Akçin University College London https://orcid.org/0000-0002-0981-0515

DOI:

https://doi.org/10.54475/jlt.2024.018

Keywords:

implicit instruction, explicit instruction, grammar teaching, input flood, textual enhancement, rule-based instruction

Abstract

This study investigates the efficacy of various grammar instruction techniques, namely focus-on-form (FonF) and focus-on-forms (FonFs), on the acquisition and production of the English passive voice. A quasi-experimental pre-test and post-test design was employed across four treatment groups without a control group, involving 62 Turkish learners of English, enrolled in preparatory classes at a public university in Turkey, with a B1 (intermediate) proficiency level. The study assessed the effectiveness of input flood (IF), input flood coupled with textual enhancement (IF + TE), input flood with explicit grammar teaching (IF + EGT), and rule-based instruction (RBI). Authentic texts on global warming and climate change were used as materials, with passive sentences underlined for the IF + TE group and explicit grammar explanations provided to the IF + EGT group. Findings point to a clear superiority of RBI in the learners’ grammatical acquisition and production, supporting the idea that explicit instruction, followed by controlled practice, significantly enhances learning outcomes. Contrary to RBI's success, the IF only approach did not yield a substantial impact, questioning the effectiveness of implicit teaching methods for complex grammatical structures. The study also examined the relationship between explicit knowledge and communicative practice, finding that explicit instruction is critical even within communicative frameworks. These outcomes align with the Noticing Hypothesis, emphasizing that conscious recognition of grammatical forms is necessary for effective language acquisition. The study contributes to the ongoing debate on the efficacy of explicit grammar instruction versus implicit learning, suggesting that a combination of instruction focusing on form within a communicative context can be beneficial for EFL learners.

Author Biography

Dogan Can Akçin, University College London

Dogan Can Akçin is a PhD candidate in Applied Linguistics at University College London, currently in the final stages of completing his doctoral thesis. His research interests include second language acquisition, the role of different language aptitude profiles on the acquisition of syntactic structures, and task-based language teaching, which also form the core focus of his thesis. He received a bachelor’s degree in English Language Teaching from Yildiz Technical University in Istanbul, Turkey and a master’s degree in TESOL (Teaching of English to the Speakers of Other Languages) from University College London. In his dissertation, he focused on the effectiveness of several input-based techniques coupled with rule-based instruction on the acquisition and production of the English passive. The study was nominated by University College London to British Council ELT Master’s Dissertation Awards in 2018 for its potential for impact on English language teaching. In his doctoral research, Dogan Can investigates the role of cognitive differences on the effectiveness of explicit and implicit modes of instructions, aiming to contribute to our understanding of language aptitude. His work builds upon previous research and employs innovative methodologies, to explore the mediating role of language aptitude in instructional effectiveness, especially in task-based language teaching.
Email: dtnvdak@ucl.ac.uk

References

Alanen, R. (1995). Input enhancement and rule presentation in second language acquisition. In R. Schmidt (Ed.), Attention and awareness in foreign language learning (Technical Report #9) (pp. 259–302). University of Hawaii, Second Language Teaching & Curriculum Center.

Alsadoon, R., & Heift, T. (2015). Textual input enhancement for vowel blindness: A study with Arabic ESL learners. The Modern Language Journal, 99(1), 57-79. https://doi.org/10.1111/modl.12188 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1111/modl.12188

Balcom, P., & Bouffard, P. (2015). The effect of input flooding and explicit instruction on learning adverb placement in L3 French. Canadian Journal of Applied Linguistics, 18(2), 1-27. https://journals.lib.unb.ca/index.php/CJAL/article/view/20186

Basturkmen, H., Loewen, S., & Ellis, R. (2002). Metalanguage in focus on form in the communicative classroom. Language Awareness, 11(1), 1–13. https://doi.org/10.1080/09658410208667042 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1080/09658410208667042

Benati, A. (2016). Input manipulation, enhancement and processing: Theoretical views and empirical research. Studies in Second Language Learning and Teaching, 6(1), 65-88. https://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/EJ1134494.pdf DOI: https://doi.org/10.14746/ssllt.2016.6.1.4

Boers, F., Demecheleer, M., He, L., Deconinck, J., Stengers, H., Eyckmans, J. (2017). Typographic enhancement of multiword units in second language text. Language Learning, 27(2), 448–69. https://doi.org/10.1111/ijal.12141 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1111/ijal.12141

Carroll, S., & Swain, M. (1993). Explicit and implicit negative feedback: An empirical study of the learning of linguistic generalization. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 15(3), 357-386. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0272263100012158 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1017/S0272263100012158

De la Fuente, M. J. (2009). The role of pedagogical tasks and focus on form in acquisition of discourse markers by advanced language learners. In R. P. Leow, H. Campos, & D. Lardiere (Eds.), Little words: Their History, Phonology, Syntax, Semantics, Pragmatics, and Acquisition (pp.211-221). https://repository.library.georgetown.edu/bitstream/handle/10822/709193/978-1-58901-254-7.pdf;seq#page=223

Della Putta, P. (2016). The effects of textual enhancement on the acquisition of two nonparallel grammatical features by Spanish-speaking learners of Italian. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 38(2), 217-238. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0272263116000073 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1017/S0272263116000073

DeKeyser, R. M. (1995). Learning second language grammar rules: An experiment with a miniature linguistic system. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 17(3), 379-410. https://doi.org/10.1017/S027226310001425X DOI: https://doi.org/10.1017/S027226310001425X

Doughty, C. (1991). Second language instruction does make a difference: Evidence from an empirical study of relativization. Studies in Second Language Acquisition. 13(4), 431-469. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0272263100010287 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1017/S0272263100010287

Doughty, C., & Williams, J. (1998). Issues and terminology. In C. Doughty & J. Williams (Eds.), Focus on form in classroom second language acquisition (pp. 1–12). Cambridge University Press.

Ellis, R. (1994). The study of second language acquisition. Oxford University Press.

Hinkel, E. (2004). Tense, aspect and the passive voice in L1 and L2 academic texts. Language Teaching Research, 8(1), 5-29. https://doi.org/10.1191/1362168804lr132oa DOI: https://doi.org/10.1191/1362168804lr132oa

Indrarathne, B., & Kormos, J. (2017). Attentional processing of input in explicit and implicit conditions: An eye-tracking study. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 39(3), 401-430. https://doi.org/10.1017/S027226311600019X DOI: https://doi.org/10.1017/S027226311600019X

Izumi, S. (2002). Output, input enhancement, and the noticing hypothesis: An experimental study on ESL relativization. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 24(4), 541-577. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0272263102004023 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1017/S0272263102004023

Heatley, A., Nation, I. S. P., & Coxhead, A. (2002). Range and frequency programs. http://www.victoria.ac.nz/lals/staff/paul-nation.aspx

Hernández, T. (2008). The effect of explicit instruction and input flood on students' use of Spanish discourse markers on a simulated oral proficiency interview. Hispania, 91(3), 665-675. https://www.jstor.org/stable/40648169

Hernández, T. A. (2011). Re-examining the role of explicit instruction and input flood on the acquisition of Spanish discourse markers. Language Teaching Research, 15(2), 159-182. https://doi.org/10.1177/1362168810388694 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1177/1362168810388694

Jahan, A., & Kormos, J. (2015). The impact of textual enhancement on EFL learners' grammatical awareness of future plans and intentions. International Journal of Applied Linguistics, 25(1), 46-66. https://doi.org/10.1111/ijal.12049 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1111/ijal.12049

Just, M. A., & Carpenter, P. A. (1976). Eye fixations and cognitive processes. Cognitive Psychology, 8(4), 441–480. https://doi.org/10.1016/0010-0285(76)90015-3 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/0010-0285(76)90015-3

Kirby, S. (2010). Passives in first language acquisition: What causes the delay? University of Pennsylvania Working Papers in Linguistics, 16(1), 109-117. https://core.ac.uk/download/pdf/214138053.pdf

LaBrozzi, R. M. (2016). The effects of textual enhancement type on L2 form recognition and reading comprehension in Spanish. Language Teaching Research, 20(1), 75-91. https://doi.org/10.1177/1362168814561903 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1177/1362168814561903

Lee, S. (2007). Effects of textual enhancement and topic familiarity on Korean EFL students’ reading comprehension and learning of passive form. Language Learning, 57(1), 87-118. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-9922.2007.00400.x DOI: https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-9922.2007.00400.x

Lee, M., Révész, A. (2020). Promoting grammatical development through captions and textual enhancement in multimodal input-based tasks. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 42(3), 625-651. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0272263120000108 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1017/S0272263120000108

Lee, S.K., & Huang, H.T. (2008). Visual input enhancement and grammar learning: A meta-analytic review. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 30(3), 307-331. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0272263108080479 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1017/S0272263108080479

Leow, R. P. (1997). The effects of input enhancement and text length on adult L2 readers' comprehension and intake in second language acquisition. Applied Language Learning, 8(2), 151-82.

Leow, R. (2001). Do learners notice enhanced forms while interacting with the L2? An online and offline study of the role of written input enhancement in L2 reading. Hispania, 84(3), 496-509. https://doi.org/10.2307/3657810 DOI: https://doi.org/10.2307/3657810

Leow, R., Egi, T., Nuevo, A., & Tsai, Y. (2003). The roles of textual enhancement and type of linguistic item in adult L2 learners’ comprehension and intake. Applied Language Learning, 13(2), 1–16. https://www.researchgate.net/publication/273460025_The_Roles_of_Textual_Enhancement_and_Type_of_Linguistic_Item_in_Adult_L2_Learners'_Comprehension_and_Intake

Loewen, S., & Inceoglu, S. (2016). The effectiveness of visual input enhancement on the noticing and L2 development of the Spanish past tense. Studies in Second Language Learning and Teaching, 6(1), 89-110. https://www.ceeol.com/search/article-detail?id=329853 DOI: https://doi.org/10.14746/ssllt.2016.6.1.5

Long, M. (1991). Focus on form: A design feature in language teaching methodology. In K. De Bot, R. Ginsberg, & C. Kramsch (Eds.), Foreign language research in cross-cultural perspective (pp. 39-52). John Benjamins. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1075/sibil.2.07lon

Mackey, A., & Goo, J. (2007). Interaction research in SLA: A meta-analysis and research synthesis. In A. Mackey (Ed.), Conversational interaction in second language acquisition: a series of empirical studies (pp. 407–453). Oxford University Press.

Meguro, Y. (2019). Textual enhancement, grammar learning, reading comprehension, and tag questions. Language Teaching Research, 23(1), 58-77. https://doi.org/10.1177/1362168817714277 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1177/1362168817714277

Nassaji, H., & Fotos, S. (2004). Current developments in research on the teaching of grammar. Annual review of applied linguistics, 24, 126-145. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0267190504000066 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1017/S0267190504000066

Nassaji, H., & Simard, D. (2010). Introduction: Current developments in form-focused interaction and L2 acquisition. Canadian Modern Language Review, 66(6), 773-778. https://doi.org/10.3138/cmlr.66.6.773 DOI: https://doi.org/10.3138/cmlr.66.6.773

Norris, J.M., & Ortega, L. (2000), Effectiveness of L2 instruction: A research synthesis and quantitative meta-analysis. Language Learning, 50(3), 417-528. https://doi.org/10.1111/0023-8333.00136 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1111/0023-8333.00136

Overstreet, M. (1998). Text enhancement and content familiarity: The focus of learner attention. Spanish Applied Linguistics, 2, 229-258

Park, E. S., & Nassif, L. (2014). Textual enhancement of two L2 Arabic forms: A classroom-based study. Language Awareness, 23(4), 334-352. https://doi.org/10.1080/09658416.2013.808645 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1080/09658416.2013.808645

Qin, J. (2008). The effect of processing instruction and dictogloss tasks on acquisition of the English passive voice. Language Teaching Research, 12(1), 61-82. https://doi.org/10.1177/1362168807084494 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1177/1362168807084494

Rassaei, E. (2012). The effects of input-based and output-based instruction on L2 development. Tesl-Ej, 16(3), 1-26. https://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/EJ995737.pdf

Rassaei, E. (2015), Effects of textual enhancement and input enrichment on L2 development. TESOL Journal, 6(2), 281-301. https://doi.org/10.1002/tesj.149 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1002/tesj.149

Reinders, H. & Ellis, R. (2009). The effects of two types of input on intake and the acquisition of implicit and explicit knowledge. In R. Ellis, S. Loewen, C. Elder, H. Reinders, R. Erlam, & J. Philp (Eds.), Implicit and Explicit Knowledge in Second Language Learning, Testing and Teaching (pp. 281-302). Multilingual Matters. https://doi.org/10.21832/9781847691767-014 DOI: https://doi.org/10.21832/9781847691767-014

Révész, A., Bunting, L., Florea, A., Gilabert, R., Hård af Segerstad, Y., Mihu, I. P., Parry, C., Benton, L., & Vasalou, A. (2021). The effects of multiple‐exposure textual enhancement on child L2 learners’ development in derivational morphology: A multi‐site study. TESOL Quarterly, 55(3), 901-930. https://doi.org/10.1002/tesq.3036 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1002/tesq.3036

Robinson, P. (1996). Learning simple and complex second language rules under implicit, incidental, rule-search, and instructed conditions. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 18(1), 27-67. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0272263100014674 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1017/S0272263100014674

Schmidt, R. (1990). The role of consciousness in second language learning. Applied Linguistics, 11(2), 129-158. https://doi.org/10.1093/applin/11.2.129 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1093/applin/11.2.129

Schmidt, R. (1995). Consciousness and foreign language learning: A tutorial on the role of attention and awareness in learning. In R. Schmidt (Ed.), Attention and awareness in foreign language learning. University of Hawai'i Press.

Schmidt, R. (2001). Attention. In P. Robinson (Ed.), Cognition and second language instruction (pp. 3-32). Cambridge University Press. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9781139524780.003

Schmidt, R. (2012). Attention, awareness, and individual differences in language learning. In W. Chan, K. Chin, S. Bhatt & I. Walker (Eds.), Perspectives on Individual Characteristics and Foreign Language Education (pp. 27-50). De Gruyter Mouton. https://doi.org/10.1515/9781614510932.27 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1515/9781614510932.27

Sharwood Smith, M. (1991). Speaking to many minds: On the relevance of different types of language information for the L2 learner. Interlanguage Studies Bulletin (Utrecht), 7(2), 118-132. https://doi.org/10.1177/026765839100700204 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1177/026765839100700204

Sharwood Smith, M. (1993). Input enhancement in instructed SLA: Theoretical bases. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 15(2), 165-179. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0272263100011943 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1017/S0272263100011943

Shook, D. J. (1994). What foreign language reading recalls reveal about the input-to-intake phenomenon. Applied Language Learning, 10, 39-76.

Simard, D. (2009). Differential effects of textual enhancement formats on intake. System, 37(1), 124-135. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.system.2008.06.005 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.system.2008.06.005

Spada, N., & Tomita, Y. (2010). Interactions between type of instruction and type of language feature: A meta-analysis. Language Learning, 60(2), 263–308. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-9922.2010.00562.x DOI: https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-9922.2010.00562.x

VanPatten, B. (2002). Processing instruction: An update. Language Learning, 52(4), 755-803. https://doi.org/10.1111/1467-9922.00203 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1111/1467-9922.00203

VanPatten, B., & Benati, A. G. (2010). Key terms in second language acquisition. Continuum International Publishing Group.

White, J. (1998). Getting the learners’ attention: A typographical input enhancement study. In: C. Doughty, & J. Williams (Eds.), Focus on form in classroom second language acquisition (pp. 85-113). Cambridge University Press.

Winke, P. (2013). The effects of input enhancement on grammar learning and comprehension: A modified replication of Lee, 2007, with eye-movement data. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 35(2), 323-352. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0272263112000903 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1017/S0272263112000903

Wong, W. (2003). Textual enhancement and simplified input: Effects on L2 comprehension and acquisition of non-meaningful grammatical form. Applied Language Learning, 13, 17-45.

Yalçın, Ş., & Spada, N. (2016). Language aptitude and grammatical difficulty: An EFL classroom-based study. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 38(2), 239–263. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0272263115000509 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1017/S0272263115000509

Zyzik, E., & Marqués Pascual, L. (2012). Spanish differential object marking: An empirical study of implicit and explicit instruction. Studies in Hispanic and Lusophone Linguistics, 5(2), 387-422. https://doi.org/10.1515/shll-2012-1135 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1515/shll-2012-1135