Dear Colleagues : Heed the role of input flooding in teaching grammar. . It is deeply related to Vision.
Input-based instruction
Ellis (2012) defines input-based instruction as an instruction that “involves the manipulation of the input that learners are exposed to or are required to process” (p. 285). There are different forms of input-based instruction. One form of input-based instruction takes the form of VanPatten’s model of input processing and its pedagogical spinoff Processing Instruction (PI) (e.g., Lee & VanPatten, 2003; VanPatten, 1993, 1996, 2002). In this type of instruction learners are pushed to process input by being asked to show that they have understood the meaning of a target feature in input by providing a non-verbal or minimally verbal response such as choosing between two pictures while listening to a sentence that describes one of the pictures (Ellis, 2012). PI is composed of two main stages:
Explicit information stage providing an explanation regarding target structure
Structured input activities aimed at pushing learners away from inefficient and incorrect processing strategies (VanPatten, 1996, 2004. For a detailed description of PI see Wong, 2004a, 2004b.)
Another way to implement input-based instruction more pertinent to the study is to manipulate the input in some way in order to make some target features more noticeable to learners. This type of input-based instruction usually takes the form of textual enhancement or input enrichment, also addressed in this study. Both techniques can be considered as focus on form instruction because they aim at drawing learners’ attention to linguistic targets while they are primarily engaged in meaning comprehension. Long (1991) conceptualized focus on form as a kind of instruction that “overtly draws students’ attention to linguistic elements as they arise incidentally in lessons whose overriding focus is on meaning or communication” (pp. 4-5). The interest in focus on form instruction (also known as form-focused instruction) was raised in 1990s as a result of research findings that suggested that exposure to input alone though necessary is not enough and some kind of formal intervention is needed for learners to reach advanced levels of targetlike competence.
Textual enhancement versus input enrichment
As a kind of focus on form instruction, textual enhancement, also known as visual enhancement, is commonly operationalized by underlining, boldfacing, italicizing, or CAPITALIZING (etc.) target input features under the assumption that learners are more likely to pay attention and as a result acquire those aspects of input that are more noticeable and salient. Input enrichment or input flood, on the other hand, refers to the process of seeding input with extra tokens of the target structure (Trahey, 1996; Trahey & White, 1993). In other words, in enriched input the target feature appears with high frequency but with no textual manipulation. It is believed that the increased tokens of input target forms attract learners’ attention (Reinders & Ellis, 2009). Input enrichment also caters to the notion of incidental learning, defined as learning that results from learners being provided L2 input including a target feature. This is done without informing that they will be subsequently tested (Hulstijn, 2003).
A key question in the studies of textual enhancement or input enrichment is whether learners notice target input features. According to Schmidt’s (1990) noticing hypothesis, noticing is “the necessary and sufficient condition for the conversion of input into intake” (p. 209). Schmidt (2001) also stated “people learn about the things that they attend to and do not learn much about the things they do not attend to” (p. 30).
A number of empirical studies investigated the effects of textual enhancement on reading comprehension (e.g., Lee, 2007; Loew, et al., 2003; Overstreet, 1998), noticing of target forms (Shook, 1999; Izumi, 2002) and also development of L2 knowledge (Allanen, 1995; Jourdandenais et al., 1995; Lee, 2007; Simard, 2009). While some of these studies provided evidence for the favorable effects of textual enhancement on L2 development (e.g., Lee, 2007; Jourdandenais et al., 1995; Simard, 2009; Shook, 1999), others found no significant effect for textual enhancement (e.g., Allanen; Overstreet, 1998; Loew et al., 2003). Furthermore, several studies reported unfavorable effects of textual enhancement on learners’ reading comprehension scores (e.g., Lee, 2007; Loew, et al., 2003; Overstreet, 1998).
In a meta-analytic review of 16 previous textual enhancement studies, Lee and Huang (2008) explored the overall magnitude of textual enhancement on grammar learning. The very small effect size found (d = -0.26), compelled the researchers to conclude that L2 learners in their database barely outperformed other learners who were exposed to the same unenhanced input. However, as Lee and Huang (2008) pointed out, the very small effect size found for textual enhancement should be interpreted with care. The authors argue that such a small effect size can be the result of divergent methodological options that previous studies utilized. Thus, they called for more empirical research in future in order to draw more valid and confident conclusions on textual enhancement efficacy.
A number of other studies also investigated the effects of enriched input on L2 development (e.g., Trahey & White, 1993; Loewen, Erlam, & Ellis, 2009; Reinders & Ellis, 2009). The results of these studies are also mixed and inconclusive. For example, while Reinders and Ellis (2009) reported beneficial effects of input enrichment on the intake and acquisition of English negative adverbs by adult ESL learners of English (exposed to 36 tokens of target form), Loewen et al.’s (2009) study indicated no evidence for the acquisition of English third person –s by adult ESL learners (exposed to 51 tokens of this target form in written input and 23 instances in aural input). Trahey (1996) also found that the effects of input enrichment on the acquisition of L2 English are limited.
One limitation of these textual enhancement and input enrichment studies is that previous research conflated the effects of enhanced and enriched input. In other words, they failed to distinguish the effects of textually enhanced and enriched input. Some prior studies failed to establish two different treatment conditions, each catering to one type of input. As a result, it isn’t clear whether any positive effect of textual enhancement is the result of textual manipulation of the input or the recurrence of target forms as input enrichment.
Output-based instruction and L2 development
In contrast to input-oriented approaches to L2 acquisition, there are some researchers who allocate more positive and causal role to output in developing L2 system. These researchers do not deny the essential role of input in L2 acquisition. They do, however, reject the view that input alone is sufficient for language acquisition and gives rise to the development of linguistic system (e.g., Krashen, 1985; Schwartz, 1993, Izumi, 2002; Izumi & Bigelow, 2000; Izumi et al., 1999; Swain, 1995; Swain & Lapkin, 1995; Toth, 2006).
Swain (1985, 1995, 2000, 2005), outlining her output hypothesis, states that output is as essential as input in developing L2 knowledge to high levels of target-like precision. Swain (1985) claims that output “pushed” learners from the “semantic processing” required for comprehending input to the “syntactic processing” needed for encoding meaning (p. 249). Furthermore, Swain (1985) argues that producing the target language may serve as “the trigger that forces the learner to pay attention to the means of expression needed in order to successfully convey his or her own intended meaning” (p. 249). One important function of output, among others, according to Swain (1995, 2005) is helping learners notice the gap between their linguistic resources and the target language system.
The debate over the role of output in L2 acquisition revolves around whether it plays a primary or secondary role. There are empirical studies that shed some light on the issue. Most of these have compared the effects of some type of input practice (often within VanPatten’s PI framework) to output-based instruction requiring learners to produce meaningful output. However, the results of these empirical studies are divergent and inconclusive. Most of these studies provided evidence that both input-based and output-based instruction lead to L2 development. Nonetheless, it is possible to classify these studies into three categories, namely studies that:
Indicate input-based and output-based instructions are equally effective in promoting L2 knowledge (e.g., Farley, 2001b; Erlam, Loewen, and Philp, 2009)
Provide evidence for the advantage of input-based over output-based instruction (e.g., Benati, 2005; Farley, 2001a; Lee and Benati, 2006)
Suggest the superiority of output-based over input-based instruction (e.g., Allen, 2000; Toth, 2006; Morgan-Short and Bowden, 2006)
Erlam et al. (2009) explored the effects of input-based and output-based instruction on the acquisition of implicit and explicit knowledge of English indefinite article ‘a’. Output-based instruction was operationalized via a meaning-focused presentation/practice/production (PPP) format. During the presentation stage, the learners were provided with explicit instruction about the target form. During the presentation stage, learners practiced the use of target form in a controlled meaningful context. Finally, during the production stage, learners produced the target forms in a free written task. Input-based instruction was operationalized based on PI model. The results indicated that both instructional groups significantly outperformed the control group that received no instruction and improved their implicit and explicit knowledge of the target form. Similarly, Toth (2006) examined the role of input and output in the acquisition of L2 Spanish morphosyntax by comparing PI (as a form of input-based instruction) to instruction where input and output occurred in a communicative, teacher-led classroom setting. The target grammar item was Spanish anti-causative se. The results indicated that while both groups progressed equally on a grammaticality judgment task, the output group outperformed the input group in a controlled production task.
In contrast, Benati (2001) investigated the effects of PI and output-based grammar instruction on the acquisition of a morphological feature of Italian future tense and indicated that the PI group outperformed the output-based group in an interpretation task while both groups made equal gains in a production task. In a laboratory study, Morgan-Short and Bowden (2006) explored the effects of input-based instruction in the form of PI and meaningful output-based instruction on the interpretation and production of Spanish preverbal direct object pronouns. Participants received treatments in two instructional groups designated as input-based and output-based instruction and were compared with a control group. While input-based instruction group had to interpret the target structure to complete the activities, the participants that received output-based instruction were required to produce direct object pronouns to complete the activities. The results indicated that both groups had measurable gains above the control group from pre-tests to post-tests. The researchers thus concluded, “[N]ot only input-based but also output-based instruction can lead to linguistic development” (p. 31).
