The Impact of Learning Styles on the Iranian EFL Learners' Input Processing

Subject Areas : All areas of language and translation

Mastaneh Haghani ¹ , Parviz Maftoon ²

1 - Department of Foreign languages, Islamic Azad University, Science and Research Branch, Tehran, Iran
2 - Department of Foreign languages, Islamic Azad University, Science and Research Branch, Tehran, Iran

Received: 2017-02-22 Accepted : 2017-02-22 Published : 2016-12-01

Keywords: learning styles, Input processing, Processing instruction, Structured input activities,

Abstract :

This research study explored the impact of learning styles and input modalities on the second language (L2) learners' input processing (IP). This study also sought to appraise the usefulness of Processing Instruction (PI) and its components in relation to the learners' learning styles and input modalities. To this end, 73 male and female Iranian EFL learners from Islamic Azad University, North Tehran Branch participated in the study. The participants from four intact classes were exposed to PI. The data were collected through a pre- test and two parallel posttests on the target structure, reconstructive elicited imitation tasks in both aural and written modes, and a structured interview. The data were analyzed using MANOVA. The findings revealed that the ectenic learners had a more form-based rather than a meaning-based approach towards IP. Input modality was also revealed to be an influential factor in L2 learners' IP. Furthermore, the Explicit Infor- mation (EI) turned out to be more of use to the ectenic learners while the synoptic group largely benefited from the Structured Input (SI) activities.

References:

Benati, A. (2004). The effects of structured input and explicit information on the acquisition            of Italian future tense. In B. VanPatten. (Ed.), Processing instruction: Theory,            research, and commentary (pp. 207-55). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.

Ehrman, M. E. (1996). Understanding second language learning difficulties. California: SAGE Publications.

Ehrman, M., & Leaver, B. L. (2003). Cognitive styles in the service of language learning. System, 31, 393-415.

Ellis, R. (2005). Measuring implicit and explicit knowledge of a second language: A psychometric study. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 27(2), 141-72.

Ellis, R. (2008). The study of second language acquisition (2^nd ed.). Oxford: OUP.

Erlam, R. (2006). Elicited imitation as ameasure of l2 implicit knowledge: An empirical validation study. Applied Linguistics 27(3), 464-491.

Frank, M. (1993). Modern English: A practical reference guide (2^nd ed.). Englewood            Cliffs, NJ: Regents/Prentice Hall.

Gass, S. M. (2010). The relationship between L2 input and L2 output. In E. Macaro (Ed.), Continuum companion to second language acquisition (pp. 194-219). London:             Continuum International Publishing Group.

Han, Z-H., & Liu, Z. (2013). Input processing of Chinese by ab initio learners. Second         Language Research, 29(2) 145-164.

Han, Z-H. & Peverly, S. (2007). Input processing: A study of ab initio learners with multilingual backgrounds. The International Journal of Multilin-gualism, 4, 17-37.

Han, Z-H. & Sun, YY. (2009). Input processing: A replication of Han and Peverly   (2007). Unpublished paper presented at Georgetown University Round Table       (GURT) colloquium on learner spontaneous processing of input, Washington,       DC.

Johnson, J. S. (1992). Critical period effects in second language acquisition: The effect of written versus auditory materials on the assessment of grammatical competence. Language Learning, 42, 217-248.

Kondo-Brown, K. (2000). Effects of three types of practice after explicit explanation.          Second Language Studies, 99-125.

Krashen, D. S. (1982). Principles and practice in second language acquisition. Oxford: Pergamon.

Leaver, B. L., Ehrman, M., & Shekhtman, B. (2005). Achieving success at second language acquisition. Cambridge: CUP.

Lee, J. F., & McNulty, E. M. (2013). The effects of language background on the results of processing instruction on the Spanish subjunctive/indicative contrast after the adverb cuando. In J. F. Lee & A. Benati (Eds.), Individual differences and processing instruction (pp.49-81). Sheffield: Equinox publishing Ltd.

Lund, R. (1991). A comparison of second language listening and reading comprehension.    The Modern Language Journal, 75, 196-204.

Mitchell, R., & Myles, F. (2004). Second language learning theories (2^nd ed.). London:        Hodder Arnold.

Oxford, R. (2001). Language learning styles and strategies. In M. Celce-Murcia (Ed.), Teaching English as a second or foreign language (3^rd ed., pp.359-       366). Boston,   MA: Heinle & Heinle.

Park E. S. (2011). Learner-generated noticing of written L2 input: What do learners notice and why? Language Learning, 61,146-86.

Robinson, P. (1995). Attention, Memory, and the Noticing Hypothesis. Language Learning,             45, 283-331.

Santamaria, K. D. (2007). Making form-meaning connections: The Influence of instruction and working memory on L2 clitic acquisition. Doctoral dissertation. Florida State   University, College of Arts and Sciences. Retrieved from http://diginole.lib.fsu.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=4168&context=etd.

Sanz, C., & Morgan-Short, K. (2004). Positive evidence versus explicit rule   presentation and explicit negative feedback: A computer-assisted study. Languag Learning, 54, 35-78.

Schmidt, R. W. (1990). The role of consciousness in second language learning. Applied        Linguistics, 11(2), 129-58.

Schmidt, R. W. (1993). Awareness and second language acquisition. Annual Review of         Applied Linguistics, 13, 206-26.

Tomlin, R. S., & Villa, V. (1994). Attention incognitive science and second language            acquisition. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 16, 183-203.

VanPatten, B. (1990): Attending to content and form in the input: An experiment in consciousness. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 12, 287-301.

VanPatten, B. (1996). Input processing and grammar instruction: Theory and research. Norwood, NJ: Ablex publishing corporation.

VanPatten, B. (2002). Processing instruction: An update. Language Learning, 52(4),            755-803.

VanPatten, B. (2003). From input to output: A teacher’s guide to second language   acquisition. Boston: The McGraw-Hill Higher Education.

VanPatten, B. (2004). Input processing in SLA. In B. VanPatten (Ed.), Processing     instruction: Theory, research and commentary (pp.5-32). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence          Erlbaum Associates.

VanPatten, B. (2007). Input processing in adult second language acquisition. In B.    VanPatten & J. Williams (Ed.), Theories in second language acquisition (pp.             115-135). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.

VanPatten, B., & Oikkenon, S. (1996). Explanation versus structured input in processing      instruction. SSLA, 18, 495-510.

Wong, W. (2001). Modality and attention to meaning and form in the input. Studies in          Second Language Acquisition, 23, 345-368.

Wong, W. (2004). The nature of processing instruction. In B. VanPatten (Ed.), Processintruction: Theory, research and commentary (pp. 33-67).         Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.

Wong, W. (2005). Input Enhancement: From theory and research to the classroom.             NY: McGraw-Hill Companies.