Comparing the Effectiveness of Processing Instruction and Production-Based Instruction on L2 Grammar Learning: The Role of Explicit Information
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This article reports on a study that investigated whether processing instruction (PI) or production-based instruction (PBI) is more effective for the teaching of regular past simple verb forms in English. In addition, this study examined whether explicit grammatical information (EI) mediates the effectiveness of PI or PBI. A total of 194 Turkish EFL students were randomly assigned to one of the four experimental groups—PI+EI, PI–EI; PBI+EI, PBI–EI—or a control group and then completed interpretation and production tasks. The results demonstrated that (a) the PI–EI group and PBI–EI group performed equally well on both interpretation and production tasks; (b) when EI was a factor, the PI+EI group outperformed the PBI+EI group on only the interpretation task, while no significant difference was found on the production task; (c) no significant differences were found between the PI+EI or –EI groups, and the PBI+EI or –EI groups. Pedagogical implications of these findings are discussed, and suggestions made for future research.Cet article porte sur une étude qui a voulu déterminer quelle méthode – l’instruction basée sur la compréhension et impliquant une réflexion sur le sens des formes (PI) ou l’instruction basée sur la production (PBI) – est plus efficace pour l’enseignement des formes verbales du passé en anglais. De plus, cette étude a examiné le rôle de l’information grammaticale explicite (EI) sur l’efficacité de l’instruction PI et de l’instruction PBI. Nous avons réparti, de façon aléatoire, 194 étudiants d’ALE d’origine turque à un de quatre groupes expérimentaux - PI+EI, PI–EI; PBI+EI, PBI–EI – ou à un groupe témoin. Par la suite, les étudiants ont complété des tâches d’interprétation et de production. Les résultats indiquent que : (a) le rendement du groupe PI–EI aux tâches d’interprétation et de production était aussi bon que celui du groupe PBI–EI; (b) quand l’information grammaticale explicite (EI) jouait un rôle, le rendement du groupe PI+EI aux tâches d’interprétation était supérieur à celui du groupe PBI+EI mais aucune différence significative n’a été constatée pour la tâche de production; (c) aucune différence significative n’a été constatée entre les groupes PI+EI et les groupes –EI, ni entre les groupes PBI+EI et les groupes –EI. Nous discutons des implications pédagogiques de ces résultats et offrons des suggestions de recherche complémentaire.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.003 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".