The effects of input-based approaches on the development of Japanese learners' pragmatic proficiency

Abstract

The present study was motivated by theoretical considerations concerning the effectiveness of structured input tasks (e.g., VanPatten & Oikkenon, 1996), consciousness-raising tasks (e.g., Fotos & Ellis, 1991), and explicit feedback (Samuda, 2001) in developing Japanese learners' pragmatic proficiency. It evaluates the relative effectiveness of three types of input-based instruction, comprehension-based instruction (proactive explicit information + the structured input task + reactive feedback), structured input instruction (the structured input task + reactive feedback), and consciousness-raising instruction (the consciousness-raising task + reactive feedback) for teaching English polite requestive forms, involving 60 Japanese learners of English. Treatment group performance was compared to that of a control group on the pre-tests, post-tests, and follow-up tests: a planned discourse completion test, a planned role-play test, an unplanned listening judgment test, and a planned acceptability judgment test. The results of data analysis indicate: (a) The three treatment groups performed significantly better than the control group, but the comprehension-based instruction group did not maintain the positive effects of the treatment between the post-test and follow-up test in the listening test, and (b) there was a significant main effect for Test and for the highly imposed situation items, the listening test scores were the lowest for the three treatment groups, while the control group did not vary according to the testing methods. Regarding the treatment effects, the results indicate that proactive explicit information may not be as effective as reactive feedback. There are three non-exclusive reasons for the effectiveness of the structured input instruction and consciousness-raising instruction: (a) Both treatments induced attention to form in the input that the participants received; (b) both treatments produced the deeper processing of the target features that arises where meaning is involved; and (c) reactive feedback enabled the participants to make new form/meaning connections. There are two possible explanations for the test effects: (a) The complexity of the judgment-type test, and (b) time pressure. Results, pedagogical implications, limitations, and areas for future research are further discussed.