Asset Details
Do you wish to reserve the book?
Processing Instruction Revisited: Does it Lead to Superior Performance in Interpretation and Production?
Hey, we have placed the reservation for you!
By the way, why not check out events that you can attend while you pick your title.
Oops! Something went wrong.
Looks like we were not able to place the reservation. Kindly try again later.
Are you sure you want to remove the book from the shelf?
Processing Instruction Revisited: Does it Lead to Superior Performance in Interpretation and Production?
Do you wish to request the book?
Processing Instruction Revisited: Does it Lead to Superior Performance in Interpretation and Production?
Please be aware that the book you have requested cannot be checked out. If you would like to checkout this book, you can reserve another copy
We have requested the book for you!
Your request is successful and it will be processed during the Library working hours. Please check the status of your request in My Requests.
Oops! Something went wrong.
Looks like we were not able to place your request. Kindly try again later.
Journal Article
Processing Instruction Revisited: Does it Lead to Superior Performance in Interpretation and Production?
2019
Overview
There have been plenty of research studies which have demonstrated the efficacy of focus on form (FonF) approach in language teaching. However, processing instruction as a kind of FonF approach has not been given due attention. As such, the present study is an attempt to shed more lights upon the effects of the processing instruction (PI) on EFL (English as a Foreign Language) learners’ acquisition of passive voice by comparing PI to dictogloss and an output instruction. The participants recruited for the study were 51 pre-intermediate level EFL students. The pretest revealed that there was no significant difference between the groups regarding passive voice knowledge. As to the treatment, the first group (n=17) received processing instruction, the second group (n=17) was exposed to dictogloss tasks, and the third (n=17) was given meaningful output instruction. In the immediate posttest, two types of tasks (interpretation and production) were used to assess the participants’ English passive voice comprehension and production. The findings indicated that the processing instruction group outperformed dictogloss and meaningful output instruction in both tasks, and thus it had a significantly positive effect on the comprehension and production of the English passive voice.
Publisher
Hacettepe University,Eurasian Journal of Applied Linguistics
