Input or Output Oriented Tasks? A Question of Teaching Vocabulary in EFL Context

Behnaz Gholinezhad Khameneh, Natasha Pourdana


This research aimed at comparing the effectiveness of Output-oriented and Input-oriented tasks on improving EFL learners’ vocabulary achievement. To reach their objective, the researchers ran a quasi-experimental pre-test posttest design with 64 Iranian EFL learners. After eliminating the initial differences among the participants, the Input-oriented group (IOG) received glossing tasks followed by selected reading passages, while the Output-oriented group (OOG) received gap-filling and composing/discussing tasks. Actively participating in 15 sessions of task-based vocabulary learning, both IOG and OOG performed on a vocabulary achievement test constructed and validated by the researchers (Cronbach α=.732). Despite the considerable improvement of the participants’ vocabulary knowledge, statistical findings failed to support the superiority of neither input nor output oriented tasks to make a meaningful difference in improving the Iranian EFL learners’ vocabulary achievement. Some implications and suggestions provided for further research.



EFL, Input-Oriented, Output-Oriented, Task, Vocabulary, Glossing, Gap-Filling

Full Text:



Corder, P. (1967). The significance of learner's errors. International Review of Applied Linguistics 20 (1), pp. 161-170.

Ellis, R. (2008). The study of second language acquisition (2nd Ed). Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Ellis, R. & Xien, H. (1999). The Roles of Modified Input and Output in the Incidental Acquisition of Word Meanings. Studies in Second Language Acquisition 21(2). pp. 28-48.

Khabiri, Z. & Pakzad, N. (2012). Effects of input and output-oriented tasks with different involvement loads on the receptive vocabulary knowledge of Iranian EFL learners. Iranian Journal of Research in English Language Teaching, 1 (1), pp. 65-88.

Krashen, S. D. (1981). The input hypothesis: Issues and implications. London: Longman.

Laufer, B. & Hulstijn, J. (2001). Incidental Vocabulary Acquisition in a Second Language: The Construct of Task-Induced Involvement. Applied Linguistics, 22 (1), pp.1-26.

Lightbown, P. M. & Spada, N. (2005). How languages are learned. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Pierce, S., Yost, C., Britton, J. S., Loo, L.W.M., Flynn, E.M., Edgar, B.A., Eisenman, R.N. (2004). Self-esteem and in-role performance. Journal of Occupational and Organizational Psychology, 77(3), pp. 207-238.

Saeidi, M., Zaferanieh, E. & Shatery, H. (2012). On the Effects of Focus on Form, Focus on Meaning, and Focus on Forms on Learners’ Vocabulary Learning in ESP Context. English Language Teaching, 5(10), pp. 112-130.

Saslow, L. (2012). Topnotch Series. New York: Longman.

Song, M. J., & Sordegna, B. R. (2014). The effects of output task type on noticing and learning of the English past counterfactual conditional. System, 36, pp. 295-312.

Swain, M. (1985).Communicative competence: some roles of comprehensible input and comprehensible output in its development. In S. Gass and C. Madden (Eds.), Input and Second Language Acquisition (pp. 235-253). New York: Newbury House.

Swain, M. (1995). Three Functions of Output in Second Language Learning. In G. Cook and B. Seidlhover (Eds.), principles and practice in the Study of Language. Studies in Honor of H.G. Widdowson (pp. 125-144). Oxford: Oxford University Press.



  • There are currently no refbacks.

Creative Commons License
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.

2012-2022 (CC-BY) Australian International Academic Centre PTY.LTD

International Journal of Applied Linguistics and English Literature

To make sure that you can receive messages from us, please add the journal emails into your e-mail 'safe list'. If you do not receive e-mail in your 'inbox', check your 'bulk mail' or 'junk mail' folders.