1. The study investigated the effectiveness of different components of processing instruction (PI) for teaching the present subjunctive and whether learners with different learning styles benefit from PI components.
2. The study found that explicit information (EI) was the most effective component of PI, and ectenic learners benefited least from structured input activities (SI).
3. The study suggests that pedagogical implications should be considered for opposing learning styles, and further research is needed in this area.
The article "Re-examining the effectiveness of processing instruction components for teaching the present subjunctive: Do learning styles make a difference?" by Mastaneh Haghani and Mojgan Rashtchi explores the effectiveness of different components of processing instruction (PI) for teaching the present subjunctive to English as a foreign language (EFL) learners. The study uses a quasi-experimental design with three groups receiving different types of instruction: explicit information without exercises, structured input activities without explicit information, and processing instruction containing both explicit information and structured input activities.
The authors argue that while some scholars believe that instruction has a limited role in language acquisition, others emphasize its necessity. They also discuss the shift from a paradigmatic approach to grammar instruction known as Focus on FormS (FonFS) to FonF, which draws students' attention to linguistic elements incidentally in lessons focused on meaning or communication. Processing Instruction (PI) is an input-based grammar instruction method inspired by VanPatten's Input Processing (IP) Model, which aims to rectify erroneous comprehension strategies employed by L2 learners.
The study finds that there were no significant differences between ectenic and synoptic learners' performance regarding the components of PI. However, ectenic learners benefited least from structured input activities, and the advantageous effect of PI was mainly related to explicit information. The authors suggest pedagogical implications for opposing learning styles and provide suggestions for further research.
Overall, the article provides a thorough exploration of PI's effectiveness for teaching the present subjunctive to EFL learners. However, there are some potential biases and missing points of consideration. For example, while the authors acknowledge that some scholars believe that instruction has a limited role in language acquisition, they do not fully explore this perspective or provide evidence supporting it. Additionally, they do not consider potential risks associated with using PI or explore counterarguments against its use.
Furthermore, while the study finds that explicit information is the most effective component of PI for teaching the present subjunctive, it does not explore why this might be the case or provide evidence supporting this claim. The authors also do not fully consider potential biases in their study design or acknowledge limitations in their sample size and composition.
In conclusion, while the article provides valuable insights into PI's effectiveness for teaching the present subjunctive to EFL learners, there are potential biases and missing points of consideration that should be addressed in future research.