IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/sae/sagope/v14y2024i1p21582440241231037.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Processing Instruction Versus Traditional Instruction: The Transfer-of-Training Effects on Chinese EFL Learners

Author

Listed:
  • Tao Zeng
  • Chang Xu
  • Jia Hu
  • Xiuzhi Fu

Abstract

This research investigated the impact of processing instruction (PI) on the acquisition of the English third-person singular present tense by Chinese English-as-a-foreign-language (EFL) learners and whether this effect would extend to the acquisition of other language components. This study featured the pretest-immediate-posttest design and participants were required to participate in all tests (pretest, immediate posttest, delayed posttest). Two classes were assigned to receive PI and Traditional Instruction (TI) respectively, while another class served as the control group. A language background check was conducted 2 weeks before the main experiment. And after three consecutive class hours, there is an immediate posttest and a delayed posttest in 2 weeks. By comparing the results of the three tests, the study measured and compared the primary effects, secondary transfer-of-training (TOT) effects, and cumulative TOT effects of PI and TI. The findings showed that both PI and TI had significant effects, although they differed in the extent and duration of improvement in acquisition effectiveness. PI was found to be superior to TI, which could be reflected in primary and two TOT effects except the interpretation tasks related to passive voice. This study suggests that PI can be utilized in grammar teaching due to its efficacy in teaching specific linguistic structures and its transfer-of-training effects on other grammar rules.

Suggested Citation

  • Tao Zeng & Chang Xu & Jia Hu & Xiuzhi Fu, 2024. "Processing Instruction Versus Traditional Instruction: The Transfer-of-Training Effects on Chinese EFL Learners," SAGE Open, , vol. 14(1), pages 21582440241, March.
  • Handle: RePEc:sae:sagope:v:14:y:2024:i:1:p:21582440241231037
    DOI: 10.1177/21582440241231037
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/10.1177/21582440241231037
    Download Restriction: no

    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1177/21582440241231037?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:sae:sagope:v:14:y:2024:i:1:p:21582440241231037. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    We have no bibliographic references for this item. You can help adding them by using this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: SAGE Publications (email available below). General contact details of provider: .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.