Font Size: a A A

The role of linguistic input in language acquisition: A listening comprehension-based study considering the input limitations of the E.F.L. environment

Posted on:2003-06-30Degree:Ph.DType:Dissertation
University:Indiana UniversityCandidate:Blanco, Bernardo GerardoFull Text:PDF
GTID:1465390011984019Subject:Language
Abstract/Summary:
In the acquisition of English as a foreign language under formal circumstances, input limitations along with mode of exposure to and level of interaction with input sources, mark a difference in rate and quality of acquisition, both receptively and productively. Three groups of 12 students each, at the University of Costa Rica, were experimentally observed to substantiate these claims: (1) A listening-comprehension-based approach in which authentic materials are used and in which students directly interact with input sources, leads to better results in terms of overall language proficiency than those observed in formal, conventional (oral production-based) instruction. (2) Length of exposure per se (i.e., untutored instruction) is not an indicator of acquisition. (3) Rate and quality of acquisition are improved when input reflects students' interests. (4) At early stages, E.F.L. students understand interlanguage, either from peers or from a NNS teacher, better than Standard English. (5) At early stages, spontaneous writing represents, to some extent, the learner's oral performance.; Subjects were controlled for previous L2 instruction, time spent in an English-speaking country, motivation (instrumental and/or integrative), and age, and were placed in 1 control and 2 experimental groups. Control was exposed to simplified input following formal, conventional instruction; experimental 1 was exposed to and directly interacted with authentic input emphasizing listening comprehension; experimental 2 was exposed to input as in the control, and was indirectly exposed to (i.e., did not overtly interact with) authentic input. Analyses of covariance (ANCOVA) and post-hoc comparisons for pre and post-test results in a TOEFL exam, a listening-comprehension task of isolated sentences, and an interview, showed a significant difference between Experimental 1 and the other two groups, but not between the control and Experimental 2.
Keywords/Search Tags:Input, Acquisition, Language, Experimental
Related items