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

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. This study investigated whether teaching English learners in China using processing instruction (PI) could help them learn the third-person singular present tense and transfer to other linguistic items. The present study has two experimental classes: one that got PI and another that got Traditional Instruction (TI). A third class was the control group. The experiment lasted three class hours and included pre-tests, immediate post-tests, and delayed post-tests. The present study compared the results and found that both methods worked, but PI was better. PI could help teach specific grammar rules and transfer knowledge to other grammar rules as evidenced by the cumulative TOT effects observed in this study. Basically, the study only had 106 students, which is not a lot compared to other studies. This might be because the school is linked to a university and is smaller in size. Also, the teaching time for both PI and TI was only 2 hours, which might not have been long enough for students to really learn the grammar well. To get better results in future studies, more students and more teaching time should be considered.