Textual input enhancement

The importance of input has been a broadly documented concept in the field of second or foreign language acquisition. However, kinds of input and ways of its presentation are among the controversial issues in L2 classroom research. Therefore, this study was designed to compare the effects of three kinds of input-based instruction on intake and acquisition of the English causative structures by Iranian EFL learners. A total of 105 university students in four intact classes were randomly assigned to four different conditions: processing instruction (PI), textual input enhancement (TE), consciousness-raising (C-R), and control (CO). A pretest/posttest (immediate and delayed) design was used, where participants’ ability to interpret and produce the target structure was assessed through administering a multiple choice interpretation test and a sentence-level production test. Moreover, a grammaticality judgment test was run to assess the amount of intake. Results revealed that learners in the PI group significantly outperformed learners in the other groups on both immediate/delayed production posttests. The findings also indicated that, C-R group could not retain the significant effect of instruction on delayed production posttest and TE tasks were not effective in improving the learners’ production of the target structure. Moreover, the PI group outperformed the other groups on grammaticality judgment test too. Based on these findings, we can conclude that PI which encompasses the most outstanding features of both focus on form and meaning instruction might be a more effective approach in helping EFL learners to acquire the target grammatical forms.

Long’s Interactional Input Hypothesis and Smith’s Input Enhancement Hypothesis hold both foci on Zellig Harris's (1976) formalist approach. Accordingly, the pivotal role of learner’s attention as one of the subcomponents of focus-on-form approach may have confused instruction types. However, whether such learning theories on drawing learners' attention on target language forms suit all types of learners, has not been adequately investigated. Of interest were to explore the significant effect of the two input types as interactionally modified input (IM) and textual input enhancement (TIE) and the interactional effect of learning styles of either visual, auditory, or kinesthetic (VAK) style on knowledge gain of causative constructions. A hundred and twenty female subjects were selected as a homogenous sample out of the 300-member population based on the TOEFL test. A pretest and two posttests were conducted immediately and about one month after the instructional interventions based on either IM technique or TIE technique. To address research questions, two paired samples t-tests and a two-way ANOVA were conducted. Considering the learner’s VAK learning style, the results revealed TIE and IM techniques positively facilitated the development of knowledge of the target features immediately after the instructional interventions. The results, however, failed to indicate the merging effect of the two input types of the study with the leaner’s VAK learning style and the learner’s gain of target grammar knowledge marginally decreased over time. The findings may contribute to the understanding of the integration of learning styles and input-based instructional programs in foreign language education policy.

The present study aims at investigating the differential effects of two types of instruction (explicit versus implicit) on the learning of English articles by Iranian EFL learners. To achieve this aim, 90 intermediate undergraduate students at Islamic Azad University, Shahreza Branch, whose major was English Translation were selected for the experiment. Then, they were divided into three groups namely, explicit group (EG), implicit group (IG), and control group (CG). The EG received instruction on English articles through two popular grammar books-- namely ‘Essential Grammar in Use’ by Murphy (1998) and ‘Oxford Practice Grammar’ by Eastwood (1999). The second group received instruction on English articles by employing the technique of textual input enhancement. The third group received similar instruction like IG except that English articles were not enhanced for this group. After analyzing the data on pre- and posttests, the results showed that the three groups of EG, IG, and CG improved significantly from pretest to posttests. Moreover, on the posttest, the EG learners significantly outweighed the IG learners, who were in turn found to be significantly better than their counterparts in the CG. The results of this study have several important implications for the classroom practice concerning the controversial issue of teaching English articles.