The Effect of Input-based and Output-based Focus on Form Instruction on Learning Grammar by Iranian EFL Learners
الموضوعات :سمیرا بوستان سعدی 1 , مهناز سعیدی 2
1 - Department of English, Tabriz Branch, Islamic Azad University, Tabriz, Iran
2 - Department of English, Tabriz Branch, Islamic Azad University, Tabriz, Iran
الکلمات المفتاحية: Focus on Form, grammar, Input-enhancement, output-based instruction,
ملخص المقالة :
This quasi-experimental study investigated the effects of input-enhancement and production of sentences, containing the target structures, on learning grammar by Iranian Intermediate EFL learners. Sixty male students in three input, output, and control groups participated in the study. After checking the homogeneity of the participants with a proficiency test, the researchers administered a pretest. Input-based group received input enhancement within reading texts in which the target structures were highlighted with different techniques such as bolding and underlying. The output-based group were required to produce some sentences including target structures based on reading texts. The control group received traditional grammar instruction. The results of ANCOVA revealed that both experimental groups learned the target structures better than the control group; however, the input-based group outperformed output-based group in learning target grammatical structures. The findings of the study suggest the widespread use of input-enhancement, as one of the techniques of focus on form, plays a significant role in enhancing grammatical accuracy.
References
Amizadeh, N. (2014). The effects of concept-based instruction and processing instruction on the recognition, production, and retention of grammatical structures among Iranian EFL learners. UnpublishedDoctoral Dissertation,Islamic Azad University, Tabriz Branch, Tabriz.
Benati, A. (2001). A comparative study of the effects of processing instruction and output-based instruction on the acquisition of the Italian future tense. Language Teaching Research, 5, 95-127.
Birjandi, Norouzi, Mohamadi. (2010). English teaching course book: Third grade of Iranian high school. Tehran: Ministry of Education.
Cunningham, S., & Moor, P. (2007). American cutting edge. Upper River, United States: Pearson Education (US).
Dekeyser, R.M., & Sokaski, K.J., (2005). The differential role of comprehension and production practice. Retrieved 20 April, 2017 from: http//onlinelibrary.wileg.com/
Doughty, C., & Williams, J. (1998). Pedagogical choices in focus on form. In Doughty, C. and Williams, J. (Eds.). Focus on form in classroom second language acquisition, (pp. 197-261). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Ellis, R. (1990). Instructed second language acquisition. Oxford: Basil Blackwell.
Ellis, R. (2004). The definition and measurement of explicit knowledge. Language Learning, 54, 227-275.
Ellis, R. (2006). Current issues in the teaching of grammar: An SLA perspective. TESOL Quarterly, 40 (1), 83-107.
Ellis, R. (2012). Language teaching research and pedagogy. West Sussex: Wiley-Blackwell.
Farahani, A. K, & Sarkhosh, M. (2012). Do different textual enhancement formats have differential effects on the intake of English subjunctive mood? Theory and Practice in Language Studies, 2, 687-697.
Izumi, S. (2002). Output, input enhancement, and the noticing hypothesis. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 24, 541–577.
Izumi, S., & Bigelow, M. (2000). Does output promote noticing and second language acquisition? TESOL Quarterly, 34, 239-278.
Javadi. L., & Baghri, B. (2017). The Effect of Textual Types on EFL Learners’ Grammatical Awareness of Simple and Complex Structures. Journal of Language and Translation, (7)3, pp.55-63.
Krashen, S. (1985). The input hypothesis: Issues and implications. New York: Longman.
Lee, J. F., & Benati, A. (2009). Research and perspectives on processing instruction. Berlin: Walter de Gruyter.
Larsen-Freeman, D. (2002). Language acquisition and language use from a chaos/complexity theory perspective. In C. Kramsch (Ed.), Language acquisition and language socialization (pp. 155-175). London: Continuum.
Loewen, Erlam, & Ellis. (2009). Foreign Language Learners' Beliefs about Grammar. Retrieved 2016 from www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1877042811008536
Long, M. (1991). Focus on form: A design feature in language teaching methodology. In K. de Bot, R. Ginsberg, & C. Kramsch (Eds), Foreign language research in cross-cultural perspective (pp. 39-52). Amsterdam: Benjamins.
Prabhu. N. (1987). Second language pedagogy. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Quarterly, 40(1), 83-107.
Mackey, A. (2012). Input, interaction and corrective feedback in L2 classrooms. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Nation, I.S.P. (2011) Second language speaking. In E. Hinkel (Ed.), Handbook of research in second language teaching and learning (pp.444-454). New York: Routledge.
Rassaei, E. (2012). The effects of input-based and output-based instruction on L2 development. ESL-Ej, 16 (3).
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.
Salimi, A. & Shams, K. (2016). The effect of input-based and output-based instruction on EFL learners’ autonomy in writing. Theory and Practice in Language Studies, (6)3, 525-533.
Schmidt, R. (2001). Attention. In Robinson, P. (Ed.), Cognition and second language instruction (pp. 5-11). Cambridge: Cambridge University press.
Sharwood Smith, M. (1993). Input enhancement in instrument in instructed SLA: Theoretical bases. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 15, 165-179.
Simard, D. (2009). Differential effects of textual enhancement formats on intake. System, 37, 124-135.
Soleimani, H, & Khandan, M, (2013). The effect of telling short stories on learning grammar among EFL high school student in Iran. International Journal of Language Learning & Applied Linguistic World, 4(2), 110-122.
Swain, M. (1985). Communicative competence: Some roles for comprehensible input and comprehensible output in its development. In Gass, S, & Madden, C. (Eds.). Input in second language acquisition (pp. 235-253). Rowley, MA: Newbury House.
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 J. 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 (Eds.). 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, 319-385.
VanPatten, B. (2004). Processing instruction: Theory, research and commentary. NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
VanPatten, B., & Cadiero, T. (1993). Explicit instruction and input processing. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 15,225-244.
Wong, W. & Vanpatten, B. (2003). The evidence is in: Drills are out. Foreign Language Annals. 36, 403-423.
Yazici, C.I. (2007). A study of the effects of processing instruction on the development of English wh-questions used by Turkish EFL learners. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, University of Cukurava, Adana-Terkey.
