Login | Register

Combining Input- and Output-Based Instruction in Second Language Learning


Combining Input- and Output-Based Instruction in Second Language Learning

Smith, George (2015) Combining Input- and Output-Based Instruction in Second Language Learning. Masters thesis, Concordia University.

Text (application/pdf)
Smith_MA_F2015.pdf - Accepted Version


The view of some theorists in the field of SLA is that comprehension practice is essential for establishing strong form-meaning links in the underlying linguistic system and that language production will invariably result from these representations, entailing that output need not be the focus of grammar instruction (VanPatten, 2004). Others hold that language production is a skill which must be developed separate from comprehension (DeKeyser, 1997) and that output can actually directly contribute to the grammar learning process (Swain, 1985; 1995). These opposing views have resulted in several studies contrasting the effects of comprehension and production practice for the initial learning of different language features (e.g., VanPatten & Cadierno, 1993; DeKeyser & Sokalski, 1996). However, Shintani, Li, & Ellis’ (2013) meta-analysis on the relative benefits of comprehension and production practice concluded that both are effective in promoting the development of receptive and productive abilities. The question has thus moved beyond which type of practice is more beneficial for acquisition to how the benefits of each type of practice can be exploited in different learning contexts. Of particular interest is the potential of combining comprehension and production practice in an instructional sequence. Based on theories of skill acquisition (DeKeyser, 2007), the output hypothesis (Swain, 1985; Izumi, 2003) and attention (Gass, 1997), as well as the results of prior research (Tanaka, 1999, 2001; Izumi, 2002), the present study hypothesized that combining the two types practice would lead to learning gains over an instructional sequence, and that alternating the two practice types would be more effective than delaying production for the development of both receptive and productive grammar knowledge. Fourteen12-15 year old Japanese learners of English received instruction on the regular simple past (e.g., walked, cleaned) in four one-hour lessons. The delayed group (n=7) received two session of comprehension practice followed by two sessions of production practice; the alternating group (n=7) received alternating comprehension and production practice sessions. In a time series design, gains in perception and production of the –ed past were measured at three points in time. Repeated measures ANOVAs demonstrated that both groups improved significantly over the course of the treatment and that both early and delayed production practice were equally effective (no interaction between Time and Group). The results thus point to the benefits of using both comprehension and production practice to promote the learning of second language grammar. The discussion of the findings includes pedagogical implications as well as research design modifications for future investigations of optimal combinations of input-based and output-based instruction to best benefit L2 grammar acquisition.

Divisions:Concordia University > Faculty of Arts and Science > Education
Item Type:Thesis (Masters)
Authors:Smith, George
Institution:Concordia University
Degree Name:M.A.
Program:Applied Linguistics
Date:June 2015
Thesis Supervisor(s):Collins, Laura
Keywords:input-based practice, output-based practice, comprehension practice, production practice, receptive and productive knowledge, combined practice, skill acquisition theory, output hypothesis, L2 learning/teaching, simple past acquisition, instructed SLA.
ID Code:980204
Deposited By: GEORGE SMITH
Deposited On:31 Jul 2015 13:41
Last Modified:18 Jan 2018 17:50


Allen, L. Q. (2000). Form-meaning connections and the French causative. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 22(1), 69-84.
Anderson, R. W. (1983). Transfer to somewhere. In S.M. Gass & L. Selinker (Eds.), Language learning (pp. 177-201). Rowley, MA: Newbury House
Asher, J. (1977). Learning another language through actions: The complete teacher's guidebook. Los Gatos, CA: Sky Oaks Productions.
Bell, P., Trofimovich, P, & Collins, L. (2015). Kick the ball or kicked the ball? Perception of the past morpheme –ed by second language learners. The Canadian Modern Language Journal, 71(1), 26-51.
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(2), 95-127.
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, 67–93.
Benati, A., Lee, J. F., & Houghton, S. D. (2008). From processing instruction on the acquisition of English past tense to secondary transfer-of-training effects on English third person singular present tense verb morphology. In A. Benati & J. F. Lee (Eds.), Grammar acquisition and processing instruction: Secondary and cumulative effects (pp. 88–120). Clevedon, UK: Multilingual Matters.
Cadierno, T. (1995). Formal instruction from a processing perspective: An Investigation into the Spanish Past Tense. The Modern Language Journal, 79, 179-193.
Collins, L. (2004). The particulars on universals: A comparison of the acquisition of tense-aspect morphology among Japanese- and French-speaking learners of English. The Canadian Modern Language Review, 61(2), 251-274.
Collins, L., Halter, R., Lightbown, P. M., &Spada, N. (1999). Time and the distribution of time in L2 instruction. TESOL Quarterly, 33(3), 655-680.
Collins, L., Trofimovich, P., White, J., & Horst, M. (2009). Some input on the easy/difficult grammar question. The Modern Language Journal, 93, 336-353.
Collins, L., White, J., Trofimovich, P., Cardoso, W., &Horst, M. (2012a). When comprehensible input is not comprehensive input: A multi-dimensional analysis of instructional input in intensive English as a foreign language. In C. Munoz (Eds.), Intensive exposure experiences in second language learning (pp. 66-87). Ontario, CA: Multilingual Matters.
Collins, L., Trofimovich, P., & Bell, P. (2012b). The impact of perception practice on the learning of grammatical morphology. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the American Association for Applied Linguistics (AAAL), Boston, MA.
Cummins, J. (1979). Cognitive/academic language proficiency, linguistic interdependence, the optimum age question and some other matters. Working Papers on Bilingualism, 19, 121-129.
DeKeyser, R. M., & Sokalski, K. J. (1996). The differential role of comprehension and production practice. Language Learning, 46, 613–642.
DeKeyser, R. (1997). Beyond explicit rule learning: Automatizing second language morphosyntax. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 19, 195-221.
DeKeyser (2007). Skill acquisition theory. In B. VanPatten & J. Williams (Ed.), Theories in second language acquisition: An introduction (pp. 97-113). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
Dempster, F. N. (1996). Distributing and managing the conditions of encoding and practice. In E. L. Bjork & R. A. Bjork (Eds.), Memory (pp. 317-344). San Diego: Academic Press.
Ellis, N. (2008). Implicit and explicit knowledge about language. In J. Cenoz and N. H. Hornberger (Eds.), Encyclopedia of language and education (2nd ed.), Volume 6: Knowledge about language (pp. 1-13). New York: Springer.
Ellis, R. (2001). Investigating form-focused instruction. Language Learning, 51(Suppl. 1), 1–46.
Ellis, R. (2002). Methodological options in grammar teaching materials. In E. Hinkel & S. Fotos (Eds.), New perspectives on grammar teaching in second language classrooms (pp.155-179). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
Ellis, R. (2003). Task-based language learning and teaching. Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.
Ellis, R. (2006). Current issues in the teaching of grammar: An SLA perspective. TESOL Quarterly, 40(1), 83-107.
Ellis, R., & Shintani, N. (2014). Exploring language pedagogy through second language acquisition research. NY: Routledge.
Erlam, R., Loewen, S., & Philp, J. (2009). The roles of output-based and input-based instruction in the acquisition of L2 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, testing and teaching (pp. 241-261). Bristol: Multilingual matters.
Farley, A. P. (2001). Processing instruction and meaning-based output instruction: A comparative study. Spanish Applied Linguistics, 5(2), 57–94.
Farley, A. P. (2004). The relative effects of processing instruction and meaning-based output instruction. In B. VanPatten (Ed.), Processing instruction: Theory, research, and commentary (pp. 143–168). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
Foster, P., & Skehan, P (1996). The influence of planning and task type on second language performance. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 18(3), 299-323.
Fotos, S. (1998). Shifting the focus from formsto form in the EFL classroom. ELT Journal, 52(4), 301-307.
Gardner, R. C. & Lambert, W. E. (1972). Attitudes and motivation in second language learning. Newbury House: Rowley, MA
Gass, S. (1997). Input, interaction, and the second language learner. Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
Gass, S., & Torres, M. J. A. (2005). Attention when: An investigation of the ordering effect of input and interaction. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 27, 1–31.
Gass, S., & Mackey, A. (2007). Input, Interaction, and Output in Second Language Acquisition. In B. VanPatten & J. Williams, Theories in Second Language Acquisition: An introduction (pp. 175-199). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
Glenburg, A. (1979). Component-levels theory of the effects of spacing of repetitions on recall and recognition. Memory & Cognition, 7(2), 95-112.
Hanaoka, O. (2007). Output, noticing, and learning: An investigation into the role of spontaneous attention to form in a four-stage writing task. Language Teaching Research, 11, 459-479.
Hawkins, E. (1978). Intensive Language Teaching in Schools. London: Centre for Information on Language Teaching.
Izumi, S., Bigelow, M., Fujiwara, M., & Fearnow, S. (1999). Testing the output hypothesis: Effects of output on noticing and second language acquisition. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 21, 421–452.
Izumi, S., & Bigelow, M. (2000). Does output promote noticing and second language acquisition? TESOL Quarterly, 34, 239–278.
Izumi, S. (2002). Output, input enhancement, and the noticing hypothesis: An experimental study on ESL relativization. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 24(4), 541-577.
Izumi, S. (2003). Comprehension and production processes in second language learning: In search of the psycholinguistic rationale of the Output Hypothesis. Applied Linguistics, 24(2), 168-196.
Kirk, R. (2013). The Effects of Processing Instruction with and without Output: Acquisition of the Spanish Subjunctive in Three Conjunctional Phrases. Hispania, 96(1), 153-169.
Kowal, M. & Swain, M. (1997). From semantic to syntactic processing: How can we promote it in the immersion classroom? In R. Johnson & M. Swain (Eds.), Immersion education: International perspectives (pp. 284-309). NY: Cambridge University Press.
Krashen, S. (1982). Principles and practice in second language acquisition. Oxford: Pergamon.
Krashen, S. (1983). Second Language Acquisition Theory and the preparation of teachers. In J. Alatis, H. Stern, P. Strevens (Eds.) Applied Linguistics and the Preparation of Teachers: Toward a Rationale. Washington D.C.: Georgetown University Press.
Krashen, S. (1984). Immersion: Why it works and what it has taught us. Language and Society, 12, 61-64 (Special issue, Winter 1984).
Krashen, S. (1985). The input hypothesis: Issues and implications. New York: Longman.
Krashen, S. & Terrell, T. (1983). The natural approach: Language acquisition in the classroom. Hayward: Alemany Press
Larsen-Freeman, D. (1997). Chaos/complexity science and second language acquisition. Applied Linguistics, 18(2), 141–65.
Larsen-Freeman, D. (2001). Teaching grammar. In M. Celce-Murcia (Ed.), Teaching English as a second or foreign language, Third Edition (pp. 251-266). Boston: Heinle & Heinle.
Lee, J., & VanPatten, B. (1995). Making communicative language teaching happen. New York: McGraw-Hill.
Lee, J. F., & VanPatten, B. (2003). Making communicative language teaching happen (2nded.). NY: McGraw-Hill.
Leeser, M. (2004). Learner proficiency and focus on form during collaborative dialogue. Language Teaching Research, 8, 55–81.
Leeser, M. (2008). Pushed output, noticing, and development of past tense morphology in content-based instruction. The Canadian Modern Language Review, 65, 195-220.
Lightbown, P. M. (1992). Can they do it themselves? A comprehension-based ESL course for young children. In R. Courchene, J. St. John, C. Therien, & J. Glidden (Eds.), Comprehension-based language teaching: Current trends (pp. 353-370). Ottawa: University of Ottawa Press.
Lightbown, P. M. (2000). Classroom SLA research and second language teaching. Applied Linguistics, 21, 431–462.
Lightbown, P. (2007). Transfer appropriate processing as a model for classroom second language acquisition. In Han, Z. (Ed.), Understanding second language process (pp. 27-44). Clevedon: Multilingual Matters.
Lightbown, P. M. (2014). Making the minutes count in L2 teaching. Language Awareness, 23(1), 3-23.
Lightbown, P. M., & Segalowitz, N. (1999). Psycholinguistic approaches to SLA. Annual Review of Applied Linguistics, 19, 43-63.
Lightbown, P. M., Halter, R., White, J., & Horst, M. (2002). Comprehension-based learning: The limits of ‘Do It Yourself’. The Canadian Modern Language Review, 58(3), 427-464.
Long, M. H. (1991). Focus on Form: A design feature in language teaching methodology in K. de Bot, R. Ginsberg, and C. Kramsch (Eds.). Foreign Language Research in Cross-cultural perspective. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
Long, M. H. (1996). The role of the linguistic environment in second language acquisition. In W. Ritchie and T. Bhatia (Eds.), Handbook of Second Language Acquisition (pp.413-68). San Diego: Academic Press.
Loschky, L., & Bley-Vroman, R. (1993). Grammar and task-based methodology. In G. Crookes & S. Gass (Eds.), Tasks and language learning: Integrating theory and practice (pp. 123–163). Clevedon, UK: Multilingual Matters..
Lyster, R. (2004). Differential effects of prompts and recasts in form-focused instruction. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 26, 399-432.
Major, R. C. (2008). Transfer in second language phonology: A review. In J. G. Hansen Edwards and M. L. Zampini (Eds.), Phonology and Second Language Acquisition (pp. 63-94). Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
Marsden, E., & Chen, H. Y. (2011). The roles of structured input activities in processing instruction and the kinds of knowledge they promote. Language Learning, 61(4), 1058-1098.
Morgan-Short, K., & Bowden, H. W. (2006). Processing instruction and meaningful output-based instruction: Effects on second language development. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 28, 31-65.
Morris, C. D., Bransford, J. D.,& Franks, J. J. (1977). Levels of processing versus transfer appropriate processing. Journal of Verbal Learning and Verbal Behavior, 16, 519–533.
Norris, J. M., & Ortega, L. (2000). Effectiveness of L2 instruction: A research synthesis and quantitative meta-analysis. Language Learning, 50(3), 417-528.
Ortega, L. (2009). Understanding second language acquisition. NY: Routledge.
Qin, J. (2008). The effect of processing instruction and dictogloss tasks on acquisition of the English passive voice. Language Teaching Research,12(1), 61-82.
Rassaei, E. (2012). The effects of input-based and output-based instruction on L2 development. TESL-EJ, 16(3), 1-25.
Riley, P. (2008). Reform in English language teaching in Japan. MERA, 9, 105-111.
Robinson, P. (1995). Attention, memory, and the “noticing” hypothesis. Language Learning, 45, 283–331.
Schmidt, R. (1990). The role of consciousness in second language learning. Applied Linguistics,
11, 206–226.
Schmidt, R. (1995). Consciousness and foreign language learning: A tutorial on the role of attention and awareness in learning. In R. Schmidt (Ed.), Attention and awareness in foreign language learning (pp. 1–63). Honolulu: University of Hawai‘i Press.
Sharwood-Smith, M. (1986). Comprehension versus acquisition: Two ways of processing input. Applied Linguistics, 7, 239-256.
Shintani, N. (2012). Input-based tasks and the acquisition of vocabulary and grammar: A process-product study. Language Teaching Research, 16(2), 253-279.
Shintani, N. (2015). The effectiveness of processing Instruction and production-based instruction on L2 grammar acquisition: A meta-analysis. Applied Linguistics, 36(3).
Shintani, N., Li, S., & Ellis, R. (2013). Comprehension-based versus production-based grammar instruction: A meta-analysis of comparative studies. Language Learning, 63(2), 296-329.
Skehan, P. (1998). A cognitive approach to language learning. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Smith, B. (2012). Eye tracking as a measure of noticing: A study of explicit recasts in SCMC. Language Learning & Technology, 16(3), 53-81.
Spada, N., & Tomita, Y. (2010). Interactions between type of instruction and type of language feature: A meta-analysis. Language Learning, 60(2), 263-308.
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. 235–256). Rowley, MA: Newbury House.
Swain, M. (1995). Three functions of output in second language learning. In G. Cook & B. Seildlhofer (Eds.), Principles and practice in applied linguistics: Studies in honour of H. G. Widdowson (pp.125–144). 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., & Lapkin, S. (1982). Evaluating Bilingual Education: A Canadian Case Study. Clevedon: Multilingual Matters.
Swain, M., & Lapkin, S. (1995). Problems in output and the cognitive processes they generate: A step towards second language learning. Applied Linguistics, 16(3), 371-391.
Swain, M., & Lapkin, S. (1998). Interaction and second language learning: Two adolescent French immersion students working together. The Modern Language Journal, 82, 320 – 337.
Tanaka, T. (1999). The effect of combination of comprehension and production practice in grammar instruction. JACET Bulletin, 30, 119-133.
Tanaka, T. (2001). Comprehension and production practice in grammar instruction: Does their combined use facilitate second language acquisition? JALT Journal, 23,6–30.
Toth, P. D. (2006). Processing instruction and a role for output in second language acquisition. Language Learning, 56, 319–385.
Trahey, M., & White, L. (1993). Positive evidence and preemption in the second language classroom. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 5, 181-204.
Uludag, O., & Vanpatten, B. (2012). The comparative effects of processing instruction and dictogloss on the acquisition of the English passive by speakers of Turkish. IRAL, 50(3), 189-212.
VanPatten, B. (1991). Grammar instruction and input processing. Paper presented at the special colloquium on the Role of Grammar Instruction in Communicative Language Teaching, Concordia University and McGill University, Montreal, July, 1991.
VanPatten, B. (2002). Processing instruction: An update. Language Learning, 52, 755–803.
VanPatten, B. (2004). Input processing in second language acquisition. In B. VanPatten (Ed.), Processing Instruction: Theory, research, and commentary (pp. 5–32). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
VanPatten, B., & Cadierno, T. (1993). Input processing and second language acquisition: A role for instruction. Modern Language Journal, 77, 45–57.
VanPatten, B., & Wong, W. (2004). Processing instruction and the French causative:
All items in Spectrum are protected by copyright, with all rights reserved. The use of items is governed by Spectrum's terms of access.

Repository Staff Only: item control page

Downloads per month over past year

Back to top Back to top