input processing

Input is a very significant factor in second language acquisition (SLA), and language learning. Moreover, without the input, the output or the production is not meaningful that is without the input of some sort, the learner cannot communicate effectively. Input processing model is originally proposed by Bill VanPatten, and he explained his model with two main principles, and some sub-principles. While it is believed that input processing theory is not a very comprehensive model in language acquisition in order to explain all of the aspects of second language acquisition, it can provide a better understanding of acquiring any language in any context. it is needed to mention that the basis of the model is according to Krashen. The principles, misunderstandings, claims, and implications of the input processing theory are provided in detail. Afterward, input processing theory is viewed from a dynamic system lens, and further details are discussed in the paper. Discussion and conclusions are provided in the paper.

Second language acquisition (SLA) research suggests that learners differ in the extent to which they can direct their attention to the meaning and form of the input. Among various factors responsible for this discrepancy, learning style by itself or along with other factors might influence the process, yet its impact has rarely been addressed in empirical studies. The present study aimed to investigate how learners with different learning styles allocate their attention to form and content when exposed to different input modalities. For this purpose, 73 male and female university students from three intact groups, participated in the research. First, the Ehrman & Leaver (E& L) Construct Questionnaire was implemented to determine the participants' learning styles. Then, the reconstructive Elicited Imitation (REI) Tests comprising a reading and a listening section were administered to specify how learning styles might allocate their attention if exposed to different modalities. Moreover, to obtain further evidence regarding how they would attend to the form and content, a structured interview was employed. The analysis of Chi-square showed that the atomistic learners processed the linguistic features more effectively while the holistic learners focused more on the content. The results further indicated that both types of learners had difficulty processing oral input, although the atomistic learners outperformed the holistic learners in attending to the formal features. Finally it was revealed that learning style is a crucial factor, directing the EFL learners how to divide their attention between form and meaning, but input modalities can only influence the process.

This research study explored the impact of learning styles and input modalities on the second language (L2) learner's input processing (IP). This study also sought to appraise the usefulness of Processing Instruction (PI) and its components in relation to the learner's 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 learner's 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.

This study sought to investigate the effect of output processing on subsequent input processing. To this end, a recall task was used to measure the effect of output on subsequent input processing. The participants were selected from learners of English as a foreign language (EFL). They were homogeneous in terms of their language proficiency. The participants were assigned to two treatment groups: one output and one non-output. The output group went through three phases beginning with writing a story in English based on four cartoon pictures. Then, they read a model story describing these cartoon pictures. Finally, they were asked to recall the story in as much detail as possible. While the non-output group went through only the last two steps (input and recall). The results showed that when the participants produced the output and then received the input, they could recall the subsequent input better.

The importance of input has been a broadly documented concept in the field of second or foreign language acquisition. However, kinds of input and ways of its presentation are among the controversial issues in L2 classroom research. Therefore, this study was designed to compare the effects of three kinds of input-based instruction on intake and acquisition of the English causative structures by Iranian EFL learners. A total of 105 university students in four intact classes were randomly assigned to four different conditions: processing instruction (PI), textual input enhancement (TE), consciousness-raising (C-R), and control (CO). A pretest/posttest (immediate and delayed) design was used, where participants’ ability to interpret and produce the target structure was assessed through administering a multiple choice interpretation test and a sentence-level production test. Moreover, a grammaticality judgment test was run to assess the amount of intake. Results revealed that learners in the PI group significantly outperformed learners in the other groups on both immediate/delayed production posttests. The findings also indicated that, C-R group could not retain the significant effect of instruction on delayed production posttest and TE tasks were not effective in improving the learners’ production of the target structure. Moreover, the PI group outperformed the other groups on grammaticality judgment test too. Based on these findings, we can conclude that PI which encompasses the most outstanding features of both focus on form and meaning instruction might be a more effective approach in helping EFL learners to acquire the target grammatical forms.