A Comparative Study of Effects of Input-Based, Meaning-Based Output, and Traditional Instructions on EFL Learners’ Grammar Learning

Document Type : Research Article


1 Isfahan (Khorasgan) Branch, Islamic Azad University

2 Ahvaz Branch, Islamic Azad University


This quasi-experimental study examined the effects of input-based, meaning-based output (MO) and traditional instruction (TI) on EFL learners’ grammar learning. To this end, 120 junior high school students were selected from 4 intact classes. Each class was assigned to an instructional condition, that is, textual enhancement (TE), input flood (IF), MO, and TI. Before the treatment, a multiple-choice grammar test (MCGT) and a written production test (WPT) were administered to assess the participants’ knowledge of the L2 structures (i.e., past simple and future simple tense). One week after the last treatment session, the MCGT and WPT were administered again. Scores were analyzed through one-way ANCOVA and Fisher’s LSD post-hoc tests. Results revealed that the participants in the input-based instruction groups (TE and IF) outperformed those in the MO and TI groups. Implications arising from these findings are also explained.


Benati, A. (2005). The effects of processing instruction, traditional instruction, and meaning-output instruction on the acquisition of the English past simple tense. Language Teaching Research, 9(1), 67-93
Cohen, J. (1988). Statistical power analysis for the behavioral sciences (2nd ed.). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Doughty, C., & Williams, J. (1998). Focus on form in second language acquisition. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Ellis, R. (2012). Language teaching research and language pedagogy. Oxford: Wiley Blackwell.
Farley, A. (2001). Authentic processing instruction and the Spanish subjunctive. Hispania, 84(2), 289-299.
Gass, S. (1997). Input, interaction, and the second language learner. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Hernandez, T. (2008). The effect of explicit instruction and input flood on students’ use of Spanish discourse markers on a simulated oral proficiency interview. Hispania, 91(3), 665-675.
Hill, L. A. (1980). Introductory steps to understanding: Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Hulstijn, J. H. (1989). Implicit and incidental second language learning: Experiments in the processing of natural and partly artificial input. In H.W. Dechert & M. Raupach (Eds.), Interlingual processes (pp. 49-73). Tübingen: Gunter Narr.
IBM Corp. Released. (2012). IBM SPSS statistics for Windows (version 21.0). Armonk, NY: IBM Corp.
Izumi, S. (2002). Output, input enhancement, and the noticing hypothesis. Studies inSecond Language Acquisition, 24(4), 541-577.
Laufer, B. (2006). Comparing focus on form and focus on forms in second language vocabulary learning. TheCanadian Modern Language Review, 63(1), 149-166.
Lee, J., & VanPatten, B. (1995). Making communicative language teaching happen. New York: McGraw-Hill.
Lee, S. K. (2007). Effects of textual enhancement and topic familiarity on Korean EFL students’ reading comprehension and learning of passive form. Language learning, 57(1), 87-118.
Lee, S. K., & Huang, H. T. (2008). Visual input enhancement and grammar learning: A meta-analytic review. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 30(3), 307-331.
Loewen, S., Erlam, R., & Ellis, R. (2009). The incidental acquisition of third person -s as implicit and explicit knowledge. In R. Ellis, S. Loewen, C. Elder, R. Erlam, J. Philp, & H. Reinders (Eds.), Implicit and explicit knowledge in second language learning and teaching (pp. 262-280). Bristol, England: Multilingual Matters.
Mackey, A., & Gass, S. (2000). Stimulated recall methodology in second language research. Mahwah, New Jersey: Lawrence Erlbaum.
Morgan‐Short, K., & Bowden, H. W. (2006). Processing instruction and meaningful output‐based instruction. StudiesinSecondLanguageAcquisition,28(1), 31‐65.
Nunan, D. (1992). Research methods in language learning. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Rassaei, E. (2012). The effects of input-based and output-based instruction on L2 development. TESL-EJ, 16(3).
Rassaei, E. (2015). Effects of textual enhancement and input enrichment on l2 development. TESOL Journal, 6(2), 281-301.
Reinders, H., & Ellis, R. (2009). The effects of two types of input on intake and the acquisition of implicit and explicit knowledge. In R. Ellis et al. (Eds.), Implicit and explicit knowledge in second language learning testing and teaching (pp. 282‐302). Bristol: Multilingual Matters.
Richards, J. C., & Schmidt, R. W. (2013). Longman dictionary of language teaching and applied linguistics (4th ed.). USA: Routledge.
Robinson, P. (1997). Generalizability and automaticity of second language learning under implicit, incidental, enhanced, and instructed conditions. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 19(2), 223-247.
Schmidt, R. (1990). The role of consciousness in second language learning. Applied Linguistics, 11(2), 129-158.
Schmidt, R. (1993). Awareness and second language acquisition. Annual Review of Applied Linguistics, 13, 206-226.
Schmidt, R. (1995). Consciousness and foreign language learning: A tutorial on the role of attention and awareness in language learning. In R. Schmidt (Ed.), Attention and awarenessin foreign language learning (pp. 1-63). Honolulu, HI: University of Hawaii Press.
Schmidt, R. (2001). Attention. In P. Robinson (Ed.), Cognition and second language instruction (pp. 3-32). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Shintani, N. (2015). The effectiveness of processing instruction and production-based instruction on L2 grammar acquisition: A meta-analysis. Applied Linguistics, 36(3), 306-325.
Smith, M. S. (1991). Speaking to many minds: On the relevance of different types of language information for the L2 learner. Second Language Research, 7(2), 118-132.
Smith, M. S. (1993). Input enhancement in instructed SLA: Theoretical bases. Studies in Second language Acquisition, 15(2), 165-179.
Swain, M. (1995). Three functions of output in second language learning. In G. Cook & B. Seidlhofer (Eds.), Principle and practice in applied linguistics: Studies in honor of H. G. Widdowson (pp. 125-144). Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Swain, M. (2000). The output hypothesis and beyond: Mediating acquisition through collaborative dialogue. In Lantolf (Ed.), Sociocultural theory and second language learning (pp. 97‐114). Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Swain, M. (2005). The output hypothesis: Theory and research. In E. Hinkel (Ed.), Handbook of research in second language teaching and learning (pp. 471‐483). Mahwa, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
Toth, B. (2006). Processing instruction and a role for output in second language acquisition. Language learning, 56(2), 319‐385.
VanPatten, B. (1996). Input processing and grammar instruction. Norwood, NJ: Ablex.
VanPatten, B. (2000). Processing instruction as form-meaning connections: issues in theory and research. In J.F. Lee & A. Valdman (Eds.), Form and meaning in language teaching (pp. 43-68). Boston: Heinle & Heinle.
VanPatten, B., & Cadierno, T. (1993). Explicit instruction and input processing. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 15(2), 225-243.
White, J. (1998). Getting the learners’ attention: A typographical input enhancement study. In C. Doughty & J. Williams (Eds.), Focus on form in classroom second language acquisition (pp. 85-113). New York: Cambridge University Press.
Williams, J., & Evans, J. (1998). What kind of focus and on which forms? In C. J. Doughty & J. Williams (Eds.), Focus on form in classroom second language acquisition (pp. 139-155). New York: Cambridge University Press.
Wong, W. (2005). Input enhancement: From theory and research to the classroom. Boston: McGraw-Hill.
Younesi, H., & Tajeddin, Z. (2014). Effects of structured input and meaningful output on EFL learners’ acquisition of nominal clauses. Iranian Journal of Applied Linguistics, 17(2), 145-167.