Re-examining the effectiveness of processing instruction components for teaching the present subjunctive: Do learning styles make a difference?

• Published in: Asian-Pacific Journal of Second and Foreign Language Education Vol. 8; no. 1; pp. 3 - 18
• Main Authors: Haghani, Mastaneh, Rashtchi, Mojgan
• Format: Journal Article
• Language: English
• Published: Berlin/Heidelberg Springer Berlin Heidelberg 01.12.2023; Springer; Springer Nature B.V; SpringerOpen
• Subjects: Achievement Tests; Applied Linguistics; Classification; Cognitive Style; Comparative Analysis; Control Groups; Education; English (Second Language); English as a second language instruction; English as a second language teaching methods; English as a second language tests; English Language Learners; Explicit information; Grammar; Instructional Effectiveness; Language Education; Language Processing; Language Proficiency; Language Tests; Learning Activities; Learning Processes; Learning styles; Linguistic Input; Processing instruction; Second Language Instruction; Second Language Learning; Structured input activities; Subjunctive; Teaching and Teacher Education; Teaching Methods; Structured input activities; Explicit information; Processing instruction; Learning styles
• ISSN: 2363-5169; 2363-5169
• DOI: 10.1186/s40862-022-00181-2

The present quasi-experimental study investigated which component of processing instruction (PI) is responsible for its beneficial effects and whether EFL learners with different learning styles similarly benefit from PI components. In doing so, a sample of 67 first-year students took part in a study with a non-equivalent control group pretest–posttest design. The participants were randomly divided into three groups: one receiving explicit information without further exercises (EI group), another receiving structured input activities comprising both referential and affective activities without explicit information (SI group), and the third group receiving processing instruction containing both explicit information and structured input activities (PI group). First, Ehrman and Leaver’s (E & L) Construct questionnaire was employed to categorize the participants into ectenic and synoptic learners in each group. Afterward, a General Language Proficiency Test (GLPT) and a Target Structure Test were administered. After the treatment, the learners took a posttest modeling the pretest. The independent samples t-tests run in each group revealed no significant differences between the ectenic and synoptic learners’ performance regarding the components of PI. However, the findings suggested that the ectenic learners benefited least from the SI activities, and the advantageous effect of PI was mainly related to EI. Pedagogical implications of the study for opposing learning styles are discussed, and suggestions are provided for further research.