Mixed Effects of Input Enhancement, Explicit Instruction, Corrective Feedback, and Pushed Output in an Input-Output Mapping Practice

Document Type : Research Article


1 Department of TEFL and English Literature, Payame Noor University, Iran

2 Department of Applied Linguistics, Ferdowsi University of Mashhad, Iran

3 5Department of TEFL and English Literature, Payame Noor University, Iran


This investigation examined the mixed effects of visual input enhancement, explicit instruction, pushed output, and corrective feedback on noticing and intake of English conjunctive adverbs. Participants included 83 intermediate EFL students enrolled in a grammar and writing course. They were assigned to a control group (n = 22), explicit instruction + pushed output + explicit corrective feedback group (n = 25), visual input enhancement + pushed output + implicit corrective feedback group (n = 17), and visual input enhancement + enriched input group (n = 19). Design was a pretest, immediate posttest, and delayed posttest type. To assess the participants’ intake of the targeted structures, 3 tests were developed. One-way ANOVA and a series of post-hoc Scheffe tests were performed on the results. Taken together, the results indicated that all the combined procedures had both positive and lasting effects on the noticing and subsequent intake of the discourse markers (conjunctive adverbs) at issue. Results, further, revealed that the effects of the mixed procedures on the rate and durability of intake of the targeted forms was differential.


Anderson, J. (1983). The architecture of cognition. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
Balcom, P., & Bouffard, P. (2015). The effect of input flooding and explicit instruction on learning adverb placement in L3 French. The Canadian Journal of Applied Linguistics, 2(18), 1-27.
Balcom, P., & Lee. S. H. (2009). The effect of extensive instruction on learning the passive voice in intermediate SLA. International Journal of Applied Linguistics, 157, 45-74.
Benati, A. (2004). The effects of structured input activities and explicit information on the acquisition of Italian tense. In B. van Patten (Ed.), Processing instruction: Theory, research, and commentary (pp. 207-225). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
Carrol, S., Swain, M., & Rodger, Y. (1992). The role of feedback in adult second language acquisition: Error correction and morphological generalizations. Applied Psycholinguistics, 13, 173-198.
Carrol, S., & Swain, M. (1993). Explicit and implicit negative feedback: An empirical study of the learning of linguistic generalizations. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 15, 357-366.
Corbeil, G. (2005). Effectiveness of focus-on-form instruction. The Canadian Journal of Applied Linguistics, 8, 27-46.
Cruttenden, A. (1981). Item-learning and system-learning. Journal of Psycholinguistic Research, 10(1), 79-88.
De la Fuente, M. (2009). The role of pedagogical tasks and focus on form in acquisition of discourse markers by advanced learners. Little words: Their history, phonology, syntax, semantics, pragmatics, and acquisition. Washington, DC: Georgetown University Press.
Doughty, C., & Varela, E. (1998). Communicative focus on form.In C. Doughty & J. Williams (Eds.), Focus on form in classroom second language acquisition (pp.114-138). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Doughty, C., & Williams, J. (1998). Pedagogical choices in focus on form. In C. Doughty & J. Williams (Eds.), Focus on form in classroom second language acquisition (pp.114-138). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Ellis, R. (1997). SLA research and language teaching. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Ellis, R. (2005). Instructed second language acquisition: A literature review. Auckland: Auckland University Press.
Ellis, R. (2012). Language teaching research and language pedagogy. Malden, MA: Wily-Blackwell.
Hernandez, T. A. (2008). The effect of explicit instruction and input flood on students’ use of discourse markers on a simulated oral proficiency interview. Hispania, 91, 11-20.
Hernandez, T. A. (2011). Re-examining the role of explicit instruction and input flood on the acquisition of Spanish discourse markers. Language Teaching Research, 15(2), 159-182.
Izumi, S. (2002). Output, input enhancement, and the noticing hypothesis: An experimental study on ESL relativization. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 24(4), 541-77.
Izumi, S. (2003). Visual input enhancement as focus on form. Sophia Linguistica, 51, 1-30.
Jafarigohar, M., & Jalali, L. (2014). The effects of processing instruction, consciousness-raising tasks, and textual input enhancement on intake and acquisition of the English causative structures. Iranian Journal of Applied Linguistics, 17(1), 93-118.
Jourdenais, R. M. (1998).The effects of textual enhancement on the acquisition of the Spanish preterit and imperfect. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Georgetown University: Washington, DC.
Jourdenais, R. O. M., Stauffer, S., Boyson, B., & Doughty, C. (1995). Does textual enhancement promote noticing? A think-aloud protocol analysis. In R. Schmidt (Ed.), Attention and awareness in foreign language learning (pp. 183-216). Manoa: Second Language Teaching Curriculum Center, University of Hawaii.
Krashen, S. (1982). Principles and practice in second language acquisition. Oxford: Pergamon.
Krashen, S. (1985). The input hypothesis: Issues and implications. London: Longman Press.
Larsen-Freeman, D., & Long, M. (1991). An introduction to second language research. London: Longman Press.
Lee, S. k. (2007). Effects of textual enhancement and topic familiarity on Korean EFL students reading comprehension and learning of passive voice. 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, 307-331.
Leow, R. (2001). Do learners notice enhanced forms while interacting with the L2? An online and offline study of the role of written input enhancement in L2 reading. Hispania, 84, 496-509.
Leow, R. (2007). Input in the L2 classroom: An attentional perspective on receptive practice. In R. DeKeyser (Ed.), Practice in a second language: Perspectives from applied linguistics and cognitive psychology (pp. 21-50) Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Levenson, E. (1979). Second language lexical acquisition: Issues and problems. Interlanguage Studies Bulletin, 4, 147-60.
Long, M. (1991). Focus on form: A design feature in language teaching methodology. In K. de Bot Ginsberg & C. Kramsch (Eds.), Foreign language research in cross-cultural perspective (pp. 39-52). Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
Nahavandi, N., & Mukundan, J. (2013). The impact of textual input enhancement and explicit rule presentation on Iranian EFL learners' intake of simple past tense. English Language Teaching, 6(1), 92-102.
Norris, J. M., & Ortega, L. (2000). Effectiveness of L2 instruction: A research synthesis and quantitative meta‐analysis. Language Learning, 50(3), 417-528.
Norris, J., & Ortega, L. (2001). Effectiveness of L2 instruction: A research synthesis and quantitative meta-analysis. Language Learning, 50, 417-528.
Reinders, H. (2012). Towards a definition of intake in second language acquisition. Applied Research in English, 1(2), 15-36.
Reinders, H., & R. Ellis. (2009). Effects of two types of positive enhanced input on intake and L2 acquisition. In T. Ellis, R. S. Loewen, R. Erlm, J. Philp, C. Elder, & H. Reinders (Eds.), Intake in second language acquisition (pp. 27-41).Clevedon: Multilingual Matters.
Rosa, E. E., & O'Neil, M. (1999). Explicitness, intake, and the issue of awareness: Another piece to the puzzle. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 21, 511-566.
Sanz, C., & Morgan-Short, K. (2004). Positive evidence vs. explicit rule presentation and explicit negative feedback: A computer-assisted study. Language Learning, 54, 35-78.
Sarkhosh, M., Taghipour, B., & Sarkhosh, H. (2013). Differential effect of different textual enhancement formats on intake. Proceedia: Social and Behavioral Sciences, 70, 544-559.
Schmidt, R. (1993). Consciousness, learning, and interlanguage pragmatics. Interlanguage Pragmatics, 21, 42- 53.
Schmidt, R. (1994). Deconstructing consciousness in search of useful definitions for applied linguistics. ALLA Review, 11, 11-26.
Schmidt, R. (1995). Consciousness and foreign language learning. Honolulu: University of Hawaii.
Schmidt, R. (2001). Attention. In P. Robinson (Ed.), Cognition and second language instruction. Cambridge: Cambridge University press.
Sharwood Smith, M. (1993). Input enhancement in instructed SLA. Theoretical bases. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 15, 165-179.
Shegar, C., Zhang, J. L., & Ling Low, E. (2013). Effects of an input-output mapping practice task on EFL learners’ acquisition of two grammatical structures. System, 17, 1-19.
Shook, D. J. (1994). FL/L2 reading, grammatical information, and the input to intake phenomenon. Applied Language Learning, 5, 57-93.
Simard, D. (2009). Differential effects of textual enhancement formats on intake. System, 37, 124-135.
Spada, N. (1997). Form-focused instruction and second language acquisition. A review of classroom and laboratory research. Language Teaching, 30, 73-87.
Spada, N., & Lightbown, P. (2008). Form-focused instruction: Isolated or integrated? TESOL Quarterly, 42, 181-247.
Stern, H. (1990). Analysis and experience as a variable in second language pedagogy. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Swain, M. (1985). Communicative competence: Some roles of comprehensible input and comprehensible output in its development. In S. Gass & C. Madden (Eds.), Input in second language acquisition (pp. 90-118). Rowley, MA: Newbury House.
Swain, M. (1993). The output hypothesis: Just speaking and writing are not enough. Canadian Modern Language Review, 50, 158-164.
Swain, M. (1995). Three functions of output in second language learning. In G. Cook & B. Seildhofer (Eds.), Principles and practice in the study of language (pp. 125-1440). Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Swain, M. (1998). Focus on form through conscious reflection. In C. Doughty & J. Williams (Eds.), Focus on form in classroom second language acquisition (pp. 64-81). New York: Cambridge University Press.
Swain, M. (2000). The output hypothesis and beyond: Mediating acquisition through collaborative dialogue. In J. Lantolf (Ed), Sociocultural theory and second language learning. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Swain, M. (2005). The output hypothesis: Theory and research. Handbook of Research in Second Language Teaching and Learning, 1, 471-483.
van Patten, B. (2004). Processing instruction. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associate.
Williams, J., & Evans, J. (1998). What kind of focus and on which forms? In C. Doughty & J. Williams (Eds.), Focus on form in classroom second language acquisition (pp. 139-55). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Williams, J. (2005). Form-focused instruction. In E. Hinkel (Ed.), Handbook of research in second language teaching (pp. 671-691). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associate.
Wong, W. (2003). Textual enhancement and simplified input: Effects on L2 comprehension and acquisition of nonmeaningful grammatical form. Applied Language Learning, 13, 17-45.
Wong, W. (2004). Processing instruction in French: The role of explicit information and structured input. In B. van Patten (Ed.), Processing instruction: Theory, research, and commentary (pp. 185-205). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
Wong, W. (2005). Input enhancement: From theory and research to the classroom. NY: McGraw Hill.
Yoshimi, D. R. (2001). Explicit instruction and EFL learners' use of interactional discourse markers. In K. Rose & G. Kasper (Eds.), Pragmatics in language teaching (pp. 223-244). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.