Effects of Input-based and Output-based Instructions on Iranian EFL Learners’ Productive Knowledge of Collocations

Nawal Gholami, Mohammad Taghi Farvardin

Abstract


Few studies have investigated the effects of input-based and output-based instructions on collocational knowledge of EFL learners. Therefore, this study aimed to examine the effects of these instructional approaches on Iranian EFL learners’ productive knowledge of collocations. To this end, 80 senior high school students from three intact classes at Tali-e High School in Ahvaz, Iran, were selected. Each class was assigned to a control group (n = 28) and two experimental groups including the input group (n = 27) and the output group (n = 25). Twenty collocations were selected as the target collocations. Then, a pretest was administered to all groups. Two days after the last treatment session, an immediate posttest was given to the participants. A delayed posttest was also administered two weeks later. The results of Mixed-ANOVA, one-way ANOVA, and Tukey post hoc tests revealed that both input and output groups outperformed the control group on the immediate and delayed posttests. However, there were no significant differences between the input and output groups on the posttests. The implications and suggestions for future research are also presented.

 


Keywords


Input-based instruction, output-based instruction, productive knowledge, collocations, EFL learners

Full Text:

PDF

References


Allan, D. (2004). Oxford Placement Test. Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.

Asaei, R., & Rezvani, E. (2015). The effect of explicit vs. implicit instruction on Iranian EFL learners’ use of collocations in L2 writing. Journal of Applied Linguistics and Language Research, 2(3), 1-22.

Benson, M. (1985). Collocations and idioms. In R. Ilson (Ed.), Dictionaries, Lexicography and Language Learning (pp. 61-68). Oxford: Pergamon Press.

Ellis, R. (2003). Task-based language learning and teaching. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Ellis, R. (2012). Language teaching research and language pedagogy. Oxford: Wiley Blackwell.

Fahim, M., & Vaezi, R. (2011). Investigating the effect of visually-enhanced input on the acquisition of lexical collocations by Iranian intermediate EFL learners: A case of verb-noun lexical collocations. Journal of Language Teaching and Research, 2(3), 552-560.

Hill, J. (2000). Revising priorities: From grammatical failure to collocational success. In M. Lewis (Ed.), Teaching collocation: Further developments in the lexical approach. London: Heinle Cengage Learning.

Laufer, B., & Nation, P. (1999). A vocabulary-size test of controlled productive ability, Language Testing, 16(1), 33-51.

Laufer, B., & Waldman, T. (2011). Verb‐noun collocations in second language writing: A corpus analysis of learners’ English. Language Learning, 61(2), 647-672.

Lewis, M. (ed.) (2000). Teaching collocation. Hove: Language Teaching Publications.

McCarthy, M., & O’Dell, F. (2006). English collocations in use: How words work together for fluent and natural English; self-study and classroom use. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Milton, J. (2009). Measuring second language vocabulary acquisition. Bristol, England: Multilingual Matters.

Moradi, M., & Farvardin, M. T. (2016). A comparative study of effects of input-based, meaning-based output, and traditional instructions on EFL learners’ grammar learning. Research in Applied Linguistics, 7(2), 99-119.

Nesselhauf, N. (2005). Collocations in a learner corpus. Amsterdam: John Benjamin’s Publishing.

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.

Schmidt, R. (2001). Attention. In P. Robinson (Ed.), Cognition and second language instruction (pp. 3-32). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Shintani, N. (2015). The effectiveness of processing instruction and production-based instruction on L2 grammar acquisition: A meta-analysis. Applied Linguistics, 36(3), 306-325.

Smith, M. S. (1991). Speaking to many minds: On the relevance of different types of language information for the L2 learner. Second Language Research, 7(2), 118-132.

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 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 (Ed.), Handbook of research in second language teaching and learning (pp. 471-483). Mahwa, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.

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.

Szudarski, P., & Carter, R. (2016). The role of input flood and input enhancement in EFL learners’ acquisition of collocations. International Journal of Applied Linguistics, 26(2), 245-265.

Toth, B. (2006). Processing instruction and a role for output in second language acquisition. Language learning, 56(2), 319-385.

White, J. (1998). Getting the learners’ attention: A typographical input enhancement study. In C. Doughty & J. Williams (Eds.), Focus on form in classroom second language acquisition (pp. 85-113). New York: Cambridge University Press.




DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.7575/aiac.ijalel.v.6n.3p.123

Refbacks

  • There are currently no refbacks.




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

2012-2020 (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.