Input and output grammar instruction in tutorial CALL with a complex grammatical structure
Issue: Vol 32 No. 2 (2015) Thematic Issue on Replication in CALL
Journal: CALICO Journal
Subject Areas:
Abstract:
Conceptual replication within a computer-assisted language learning (CALL) environment provides an understanding of the generalizability of second language acquisition (SLA) research (Porte, 2013; Smith & Schulze, 2013). The present study replicates Collentine (1998a), a classroom-based experiment framed within a larger discussion on the relative benefits of input- and output based instruction. Collentine (1998a) compared the benefits of Processing Instruction (VanPatten, 2004) and output-based instruction, both of which elevated the Spanish subjunctive’s communicative value. The results showed that input- or output-oriented instruction informed by how learners process grammatical information can affect the acquisition of complex grammatical phenomena. This conceptual replication not only seeks to corroborate the original study’s findings in a new learning context. It also tests the finding’s generalizability to a tutorial CALL environment built on 3D simulations and emerging web-app technologies. The participants were foreign-language learners of Spanish in a classroom-based curriculum (N = 50). The results indicate that, in the classroom and in a CALL environment, both input- and output-oriented approaches can promote the acquisition of a complex grammatical structure if practice is meaningful (informed by psycholinguistic processing principles) and deliberate, and if feedback is provided.
Author: Joseph Collentine, Karina Collentine
References :
Akaike, H. (1974). A new look at the statistical model identification. IEEE Transactions on Automatic Control, 19 (6), 716–723. http://dx.doi.org/10.1109/TAC.1974.1100705
Beatty, K. (2012). Teaching and researching: Computer-assisted language learning. New York: Pearson Education.
Cerezo Ceballos, L. (2010). Talking to avatars: The computer as a tutor and the incidence of learner's agency, feedback, and grammatical form in SLA (Unpublished doctoral dissertation). Georgetown University. Washington, DC.
Chapelle, C. (2001). Computer applications in second language acquisition: Foundations for teaching, testing, and research. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. http://dx.doi.org/10.1017/CBO9781139524681
Chun, D. (2012). Replication studies in CALL research. CALICO Journal, 29 (4), 591–600. http://dx.doi.org/10.11139/cj.29.4.591-600
Collentine, J. (1998a). Processing instruction and the subjunctive. Hispania, 81 (3), 576–587. http://dx.doi.org/10.2307/345673
Collentine, J. (1998b). Cognitive principles and CALL grammar instruction: A mind-centered, input approach. CALICO Journal, 15 (1), 1–18.
Collentine, J. (2002). On the acquisition of the subjunctive and authentic processing instruction: A response to Farley. Hispania, 85 (4), 879–888. http://dx.doi.org/10.2307/4141255
Collentine, J. (2010). The acquisition and teaching of the Spanish subjunctive: An update on current findings. Hispania, 93 (1), 39–51.
Collentine, J. (2013). Subjunctive in second language Spanish. In Kimberly Geeslin (Ed.), The handbook of Spanish second language acquisition, 270–286. New York: Wiley and Sons. http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/9781118584347.ch16
Collentine, K. (2013). Using tracking technologies to study the effects of linguistic complexity in CALL input and SCMC output. In P. Hubbard, M. Schulze, & B. Smith (Eds), Learner-computer interaction in language education: A Festschrift in honor of Robert Fischer, 46–65. San Marcos, TX: CALICO.
DeKeyser, R. (2007). Skill acquisition theory. In B. VanPatten & J. Williams (Eds), Theories in second language acquisition: An introduction, 97–113. New York: Routledge.
DeKeyser, R. & Prieto Botana, G. (2013) The acquisition of grammar by instructed learners. In K. Geeslin (Ed.), The handbook of Spanish second language acquisition, 449–465. New York: Wiley and Sons.
DeKeyser, R., Salaberry, R., Robinson, P., & Harrington, M. (2002). What gets processed in processing instruction? A commentary on Bill VanPatten's ‘Processing Instruction: An update’. Language Learning, 52 (4), 805–823. http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/1467-9922.00204
Doughty, C. & Long, H. M. (2003). Optimal psycholinguistic environments for distance foreign language learning. Language Learning & Technology, 7 (3), 50–80.
Ellis, N. (2002). Frequency effects in language acquisition: A review with implications for theories of implicit and explicit language acquisition. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 24 (2), 143–188.
Farley, A. P. (2001). Authentic processing instruction and the Spanish subjunctive. Hispania, 84 (2), 289–299. http://dx.doi.org/10.2307/3657760
Fischer, R. (2007). How do we know what students are actually doing? Monitoring students’ behavior in CALL. Computer Assisted Language Learning, 20 (5), 409–442. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/09588220701746013
Gass, S. (2010). The relationship between L2 input and L2 output. In E. Macaro (Ed.) Continuum companion to second language acquisition, 194–219. London: Continuum International Publishing.
Gass, S., Behney, J., & Plonsky, L. (2013). Second language acquisition: An introductory course (4th ed.). New York: Routledge.
Godwin-Jones, R. (2014). Towards transparent computing: Content authoring using open standards. Language Learning & Technology, 18 (1), 1–10.
Hubbard, P. & Siskin, C. B. (2004). Another look at tutorial CALL. ReCALL, 16 (2), 448–461. http://dx.doi.org/10.1017/S0958344004001326
Kim, S., Lee, J., & Thomas, M. (2012). Between purpose and method: A review of educational research on 3D virtual worlds. Journal of Virtual Worlds Research, 5 (1), 1–18.
Krashen, S. (1982). Principles and practice in second language acquisition. Oxford: Pergamon.
Larson-Hall, J. (2009). A guide to doing statistics in second language research using SPSS. New York: Routledge.
Leow, R. (2007). Input in the L2 classroom: An attentional perspective on receptive practice. In R. DeKeyser (Ed.), Practice in a second language: Perspectives from applied linguistics and cognitive psychology, 21–50. New York: Cambridge University Press.
Lyster, R. & Saito, K. (2010). Oral feedback in classroom SLA: A meta-analysis. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 32 (2), 265–302. http://dx.doi.org/10.1017/S0272263109990520
Mackey, A. (2012). Why (or why not), when and how to replicate research. In G. Porte (Ed.), Replication research in applied linguistics, 21–46. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Porte, G. (2013). Who needs replication? CALICO Journal, 30 (1), 10–15. http://dx.doi.org/10.11139/cj.30.1.10-15
Ranta, L. & Lyster, R. (2007). A cognitive approach to improving immersion students' oral language abilities: The awareness-practice-feedback sequence. In R. DeKeyser (Ed.), Practice in a second language: Perspectives from applied linguistics and cognitive psychology, 141–160. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Russell, V. (2012). Learning complex grammar in the virtual classroom: A comparison of processing instruction, structured input, computerized visual input enhancement, and traditional instruction. Foreign Language Annals, 45 (1), 42–71.
Russell, V. (2014). A closer look at the output hypothesis: The effect of pushed output on noticing and inductive learning of the Spanish future tense. Foreign Language Annals, 47 (1), 25–47. http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/flan.12077
Schulze, M. (2008). AI in CALL: Artificially inflated or almost imminent? CALICO Journal, 25 (3), 510–527.
Skehan P. (2009). Modeling second language performance: Integrating complexity, accuracy, fluency and lexis. Applied Linguistics, 30 (4), 510–532. http://dx.doi.org/10.1093/applin/amp047
Smith, B. & Schulze, M. (2013). Thirty years of the CALICO Journal – replicate, replicate, replicate. CALICO Journal, 30 (1), i–iv. http://dx.doi.org/10.11139/cj.30.1.i-iv
Swain, M. (1985). Communicative competence: Some roles of comprehensible input and comprehensible output in its development. In S. Gass & C. Madden (Eds), Input in second language acquisition, 235–253. Rowley, MA: Newbury House.
Swain, M. (1995). Three functions of output in second language learning. In G. Cook & B. Seildhofer (Eds), Principles and practice in the study of language, 125–144. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Toth, P. D. (2006). Processing instruction and a role for output in second language acquisition. Language Learning, 56 (2), 319–385. http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.0023-8333.2006.00349.x
VanPatten, B. (1993). Grammar teaching for the acquisition rich classroom. Foreign Language Annals, 26 (4), 435–450. http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1944-9720.1993.tb01179.x
VanPatten, B. (2002). Processing instruction: An update. Language Learning, 52 (4), 755–803. http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/1467-9922.00203
VanPatten, B. (2004). Input processing in SLA. In B. VanPatten (Ed.), Processing instruction: Theory, research, and commentary, 5–31. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
VanPatten, B. (2012). Input processing. In S. Gass & A. Mackey (Eds) The Routledge handbook of second language acquisition, 440–464. New York: Routledge.
VanPatten, B. & Benati, A. (2010). Key terms in second language acquisition. London: Continuum.