The effectiveness of Processing Instruction and the Delft Method for teaching Dutch verbal morphology

Nel de Jong, Sonja van Boxtel, Christa Hemerik

Research output: Contribution to ConferencePaperAcademic

Abstract

Input is generally considered a crucial component of the acquisition of L2 morphosyntax (Gass & Mackey, 2006). Processing Instruction (PI) aims to advance acquisition by drawing learners’ attention to form-meaning connections in the input (e.g. VanPatten, 2002). PI has been shown to lead to better acquisition compared to traditional and output-based instruction (e.g. Wong, 2002).The present study investigates whether PI can also enhance acquisition in learners of the Delft Method (Sciarone, Blom & Wesdijk, 2013). In this teaching approach, which centers on input, forms are practiced in rich contexts. 65 students enrolled in elementary Dutch courses at Delft University of Technology participated in the experiment. All participants performed pre- and posttests assessing knowledge of the target forms. The control group followed the regular curriculum, while the experimental group also performed two PI exercises for each of the three target forms: singular/plural, past simple vs present simple and the present vs past tense of the passive. Because previous studies have shown an effect of memory on processing (e.g. Morgan-Short et al., 2015), we also examined the learners’ declarative and procedural memory, by means of the LLAMA-B test (Meara, 2005) and a Serial Reaction Time test (SRT test; Nissen & Bullemer, 1987).Preliminary results of part of the data showed that the experimental group made larger gains than the control group, but not for all forms. Furthermore, the relationship between scores on the language tests and those on the memory tests were different than one might expect based on previous studies.
Original languageEnglish
Publication statusPublished - 1 Jun 2018
EventAnéla 2018 Conferentie Toegepaste Taalwetenschap - Egmond aan Zee, Netherlands
Duration: 1 Jun 20182 Jun 2018
http://anela.nl/activiteiten/anela-conferentie/

Conference

ConferenceAnéla 2018 Conferentie Toegepaste Taalwetenschap
CountryNetherlands
CityEgmond aan Zee
Period1/06/182/06/18
Internet address

Fingerprint

instruction
Teaching
Group
curriculum
present
experiment
language
student

Cite this

de Jong, N., van Boxtel, S., & Hemerik, C. (2018). The effectiveness of Processing Instruction and the Delft Method for teaching Dutch verbal morphology. Paper presented at Anéla 2018 Conferentie Toegepaste Taalwetenschap, Egmond aan Zee, Netherlands.
de Jong, Nel ; van Boxtel, Sonja ; Hemerik, Christa. / The effectiveness of Processing Instruction and the Delft Method for teaching Dutch verbal morphology. Paper presented at Anéla 2018 Conferentie Toegepaste Taalwetenschap, Egmond aan Zee, Netherlands.
@conference{1716c922d2e24d81976d854d10b5dac0,
title = "The effectiveness of Processing Instruction and the Delft Method for teaching Dutch verbal morphology",
abstract = "Input is generally considered a crucial component of the acquisition of L2 morphosyntax (Gass & Mackey, 2006). Processing Instruction (PI) aims to advance acquisition by drawing learners’ attention to form-meaning connections in the input (e.g. VanPatten, 2002). PI has been shown to lead to better acquisition compared to traditional and output-based instruction (e.g. Wong, 2002).The present study investigates whether PI can also enhance acquisition in learners of the Delft Method (Sciarone, Blom & Wesdijk, 2013). In this teaching approach, which centers on input, forms are practiced in rich contexts. 65 students enrolled in elementary Dutch courses at Delft University of Technology participated in the experiment. All participants performed pre- and posttests assessing knowledge of the target forms. The control group followed the regular curriculum, while the experimental group also performed two PI exercises for each of the three target forms: singular/plural, past simple vs present simple and the present vs past tense of the passive. Because previous studies have shown an effect of memory on processing (e.g. Morgan-Short et al., 2015), we also examined the learners’ declarative and procedural memory, by means of the LLAMA-B test (Meara, 2005) and a Serial Reaction Time test (SRT test; Nissen & Bullemer, 1987).Preliminary results of part of the data showed that the experimental group made larger gains than the control group, but not for all forms. Furthermore, the relationship between scores on the language tests and those on the memory tests were different than one might expect based on previous studies.",
author = "{de Jong}, Nel and {van Boxtel}, Sonja and Christa Hemerik",
year = "2018",
month = "6",
day = "1",
language = "English",
note = "An{\'e}la 2018 Conferentie Toegepaste Taalwetenschap ; Conference date: 01-06-2018 Through 02-06-2018",
url = "http://anela.nl/activiteiten/anela-conferentie/",

}

de Jong, N, van Boxtel, S & Hemerik, C 2018, 'The effectiveness of Processing Instruction and the Delft Method for teaching Dutch verbal morphology' Paper presented at Anéla 2018 Conferentie Toegepaste Taalwetenschap, Egmond aan Zee, Netherlands, 1/06/18 - 2/06/18, .

The effectiveness of Processing Instruction and the Delft Method for teaching Dutch verbal morphology. / de Jong, Nel; van Boxtel, Sonja; Hemerik, Christa.

2018. Paper presented at Anéla 2018 Conferentie Toegepaste Taalwetenschap, Egmond aan Zee, Netherlands.

Research output: Contribution to ConferencePaperAcademic

TY - CONF

T1 - The effectiveness of Processing Instruction and the Delft Method for teaching Dutch verbal morphology

AU - de Jong, Nel

AU - van Boxtel, Sonja

AU - Hemerik, Christa

PY - 2018/6/1

Y1 - 2018/6/1

N2 - Input is generally considered a crucial component of the acquisition of L2 morphosyntax (Gass & Mackey, 2006). Processing Instruction (PI) aims to advance acquisition by drawing learners’ attention to form-meaning connections in the input (e.g. VanPatten, 2002). PI has been shown to lead to better acquisition compared to traditional and output-based instruction (e.g. Wong, 2002).The present study investigates whether PI can also enhance acquisition in learners of the Delft Method (Sciarone, Blom & Wesdijk, 2013). In this teaching approach, which centers on input, forms are practiced in rich contexts. 65 students enrolled in elementary Dutch courses at Delft University of Technology participated in the experiment. All participants performed pre- and posttests assessing knowledge of the target forms. The control group followed the regular curriculum, while the experimental group also performed two PI exercises for each of the three target forms: singular/plural, past simple vs present simple and the present vs past tense of the passive. Because previous studies have shown an effect of memory on processing (e.g. Morgan-Short et al., 2015), we also examined the learners’ declarative and procedural memory, by means of the LLAMA-B test (Meara, 2005) and a Serial Reaction Time test (SRT test; Nissen & Bullemer, 1987).Preliminary results of part of the data showed that the experimental group made larger gains than the control group, but not for all forms. Furthermore, the relationship between scores on the language tests and those on the memory tests were different than one might expect based on previous studies.

AB - Input is generally considered a crucial component of the acquisition of L2 morphosyntax (Gass & Mackey, 2006). Processing Instruction (PI) aims to advance acquisition by drawing learners’ attention to form-meaning connections in the input (e.g. VanPatten, 2002). PI has been shown to lead to better acquisition compared to traditional and output-based instruction (e.g. Wong, 2002).The present study investigates whether PI can also enhance acquisition in learners of the Delft Method (Sciarone, Blom & Wesdijk, 2013). In this teaching approach, which centers on input, forms are practiced in rich contexts. 65 students enrolled in elementary Dutch courses at Delft University of Technology participated in the experiment. All participants performed pre- and posttests assessing knowledge of the target forms. The control group followed the regular curriculum, while the experimental group also performed two PI exercises for each of the three target forms: singular/plural, past simple vs present simple and the present vs past tense of the passive. Because previous studies have shown an effect of memory on processing (e.g. Morgan-Short et al., 2015), we also examined the learners’ declarative and procedural memory, by means of the LLAMA-B test (Meara, 2005) and a Serial Reaction Time test (SRT test; Nissen & Bullemer, 1987).Preliminary results of part of the data showed that the experimental group made larger gains than the control group, but not for all forms. Furthermore, the relationship between scores on the language tests and those on the memory tests were different than one might expect based on previous studies.

M3 - Paper

ER -

de Jong N, van Boxtel S, Hemerik C. The effectiveness of Processing Instruction and the Delft Method for teaching Dutch verbal morphology. 2018. Paper presented at Anéla 2018 Conferentie Toegepaste Taalwetenschap, Egmond aan Zee, Netherlands.