Advanced Search

Journal Navigation

Journal Home

Subscriptions

Archive

Contact Us

Table of Contents

Click here to sign up for SAGE Journal Email Alerts today!

Sign In to gain access to subscriptions and/or personal tools.
Language Teaching Research
This Article
Right arrow Full Text (PDF)
Right arrow References
Right arrow Alert me when this article is cited
Right arrow Alert me if a correction is posted
Services
Right arrow Email this article to a friend
Right arrow Similar articles in this journal
Right arrow Alert me to new issues of the journal
Right arrow Add to Saved Citations
Right arrow Download to citation manager
Right arrowRequest Permissions
Right arrow Request Reprints
Right arrow Add to My Marked Citations
Citing Articles
Right arrow Citing Articles via Google Scholar
Right arrow Citing Articles via Scopus
Google Scholar
Right arrow Articles by Qin, J.
Right arrow Search for Related Content
Social Bookmarking
Add to CiteULike   Add to Connotea   Add to Del.icio.us   Add to Digg   Add to Reddit   Add to Technorati  
What's this?

The effect of processing instruction and dictogloss tasks on acquisition of the English passive voice

Jingjing Qin

Northern Arizona University, USA, jingjing.qin{at}nau.edu

This study was intended to compare processing instruction (VanPatten, 1993, 1996, 2000), an input-based focus on form technique, to dictogloss tasks, an output-oriented focus-on-form type of instruction to assess their effects in helping beginning-EFL (English as a Foreign Language) learners acquire the simple English passive voice. Two intact classes of Grade 7 beginning EFL learners (n = 110) in China were randomly assigned to each type of instruction: Group A (n = 55) to processing instruction (PI), and Group B (n = 55) to dictogloss tasks (DG). A pretest and posttest (immediate and delayed) design was used, where participants' ability to comprehend and produce the target feature was assessed. Results showed that the PI group performed significantly better than the DG group in comprehension, and as well as the DG group in production on the immediate posttest. One month later, the two groups' performances were similar in terms of both comprehension and production on the delayed posttest. Both groups improved significantly from the pretest to the two posttests in comprehension and production. One reasonable pedagogical implication is that both PI and DG are effective pedagogical tools to help beginning-EFL learners to acquire target grammatical forms.

Key Words: beginning-EFL learners • dictogloss tasks • English passive voice • processing instruction

Language Teaching Research, Vol. 12, No. 1, 61-82 (2008)
DOI: 10.1177/1362168807084494
Add to CiteULike CiteULike   Add to Connotea Connotea   Add to Del.icio.us Del.icio.us   Add to Digg Digg   Add to Reddit Reddit   Add to Technorati Technorati    What's this?