A self-paced reading study of language processing and retention comparing guided induction and deductive instruction

Abstract

The present study measured the effects of guided-inductive (GI) versus deductive computer-delivered instruction on the processing and retention of the Spanish true passive using a self-paced reading design. Fifty-four foreign language learners of Spanish participated in the study, which operationalised guided-inductive and deductive approaches using an adaptation of the PACE model and processing instruction (PI), respectively. Results revealed that each experimental group significantly improved after the pedagogical intervention, and that the GI group outperformed the PI group in terms of accuracy on an immediate post-test. Differences between the groups, however, were not durative; at the delayed post-test, each group performed the same. Additional analyses revealed that the GI group spent over twice as much time on task during instruction than the PI group, with no long-term advantages on processing, calling into question the pedagogical justification for implementing GI at a curricular level.

The offline and online effects of processing instruction

“…It is also important to note that these studies have used a variety of methodological approaches. For example, many studies employ eye-tracking (e.g., Issa & Morgan-Short, 2019;Ito & Wong, 2019;Wong & Ito, 2018), but some use SPR (Dracos & Henry, 2021;Malovrh et al, 2020;McManus & Marsden, 2017). Further, some studies measure online processing during the training task itself (e.g., Benati, 2020c;Issa et al, 2015;Wong & Ito, 2018), meaning that reported changes in processing could be related directly to either the task itself or the provision of feedback during these tasks (or both).…”

What Does Explicit Knowledge Look Like? An Analysis of Information Structure in Rule Formation by L2 Learners and Its Relationship With Guided Inductive Learning

“…(2016) demonstrated the effectiveness of video games on learning outcomes. Previous research has demonstrated the effectiveness of sentence–picture matching tasks on learning outcomes (Lee et al., 2020; Malovrh et al., 2020). These studies also show that learning takes place in groups as well as in individual (isolated) settings.…”

“…One aspect of the information structure we analyzed was how much information the rule included or the rule's completeness. Previous quantitative research has linked longer processing times with greater DoP during GI instruction (Adrada–Rafael, 2017; Malovrh et al., 2020) and deductive instruction (Lee & Doherty, 2019a; Lee et al., 2020). The results of the present qualitative study suggest a possible link between longer processing times and DoP as reflected by rule completeness.…”

“…We presented linguistic input via self‐paced (moving‐windows) reading, which allows us to examine word‐by‐word processing and determine which words in a sentence require the most cognitive effort (Lee et al., 2020; Malovrh, et al. 2020). We used the laboratory setting to create the learning environment.…”

“…Specifically, by delivering instruction via computers and/or games, the researchers created uniformity in instruction across multiple participants, thus allowing for analyses of the inductive process on an individual basis. Malovrh et al.’s (2020) use of a moving‐window self‐paced reading design, programmed using E‐Prime and delivered via individual computer stations, created a GI lesson of the Spanish true passive, inspired by the PACE model though not the same. They provided exemplars to learners at individual computer stations, prompted them to focus on specific linguistic structures, and then asked them to write a rule regarding the target item.…”