The Effect of Input-Based and Output-Based Tasks on the Intermediate Iranian EFL Learners’ Writing Achievement in Terms of Coherent Writing

Negin Malekshahi, Mohadeseh Amini Harsini


The present study investigated the effect of form-focused (FoF) tasks on enhancement of Iranian EFL learners’ coherent writing. In this regard, the researchers compared the effectiveness of dictogloss (DIG) task as an output-based task and consciousness raising (CR) task as an input-based task on teaching writing coherent text. Prior to the experiment, the researchers divided 60 Iranian Intermediate EFL learners based on their scores on the Preliminary English Test (PET) into two groups. Throughout the research a pretest and a posttest which had the same format but different topics were run. The instructional treatment continued for 10 sessions which each session lasted 15 minutes. The required texts which consisted of some cohesive devices were taken from "Elementary Steps to Understanding" book, while the method of teaching, as the name of each group is revealed, was different. After analyzing the gathered data via independent sample t-test, findings revealed that significant, though, the treatment of each group on writing was, there were no significant different between the posttest of these two groups. So there were not any significant difference between the performance of CR group and DIG group on producing cohesive devices in a text.


Form-Focused Tasks, Input-based Tasks, Output-based Tasks, Coherent Writing

Full Text:



Cadierno, T. (1995). Formal instruction from a processing perspective: An investigation into the Spanish past tense. The Modern Language Journal, 79(2), 179-193.

Doughty, C., & William, J. (1998). Pedagogical choices on focus on form. In C. Doughty & J. Williams (Eds.), Focus on form in second language acquisition (pp. 114-139). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Dublin, F., Olshtain, T. (1980). The interface of reading and writing. TESOL Quarterly 14:353-363.

Elley, W., Barham, I., Lmb, H., & Wyllie, M. (1976). The role of grammar in a secondary school curriculum. Research in the Teaching of English, 10,5-21.

Ellis, R. (1997). SLA research and language teaching. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

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

Erlam, R (2003).The effects of deductive and inductive instruction on the acquisition of direct object pronouns in

French as a second language. The Modern Language Journal, 87, 242-260.

Fotos, S. (1994). Integrating grammar instruction and communicative language use through grammar consciousness-raising tasks. TESOL Quarterly, 28(2), 323-351.

Fotos, S., & Ellis, R. (1991). Communicating about grammar: A task based approach. TESOL Quarterly, 25(4), 605-628.

Ghafoori, N (2009). A Comparative Study of the Effect of Homogeneous and Heterogeneous Dyadic Interaction on the Development of EFL Learners’ Writing Skill. Islamic Azad University, Science and Research Campus. Ghoroghi, S (2006). The Role of Focus on Form on the EFL Learners’ Writing Ability. Islamic Azad University, Tehran.

Grice, P.H. (1975). Logic and Conversation. In Syntax and Semantics: Vol. 3 Speech acts, edited by P. Cole and

J.L. Morgan. New York: Academic Press.

Hill, L. A. (1980). Intermediate steps to understanding. Oxford University Press.

Kim, Y. (2008). The role of task‐induced involvement and learner proficiency in L2 vocabulary

acquisition. Language learning, 58(2), 285-325.

Kooshafar, M., Youhanaee, M., & Amirian, Z. (2012). The effect of dictogloss technique on learner’s writing improvement in terms of writing coherent text. Journal of Language Teaching and Research, 3(4), 716-721.

Kowal, M., & Swain, M. (1994). Using collaborative language production tasks to promote students’ language awareness. Language Awareness, 3(2), 73-93.

Krashen, S. (1981). Second Language acquisition and second language learning. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Krashen, S (1985). The Input Hypothesis: Issues and Implications. London: Longman.

Krashen, S. (1989). We acquire vocabulary and spelling by reading: Additional evidence for the input hypothesis. Modern Language Journal, 73, 440-464.

Kuiken, F. & Vedder, I. (2002a). The effect of interaction in acquiring the grammar of a second language. International Journal of Educational Research, 37(3-4), 343-358.

Lee, J. F., & VanPatten, B. (2003). Making communicative language teaching happen, 2nd edition. New York, NY: McGraw-Hill.

Mohamed, N. (2001). Teaching grammar through consciousness raising tasks (Unpublished master’s thesis). University of Auckland, Auckland.

Nabei, T. (1996). Dictogloss: Is It an Effective Language Learning Task?. Working Papers in Educational Linguistics, 12(1), 59 74.

Nagata, N. (1998a). Input vs., output practice in educational software for second language acquisition, Language

Learning and Technology, 1 (2), 23-40.

Namazi, E (2007). The Comparison between Task-Based Assessment and Traditional Assessment of the Writing Assessment of Iranian EFL Learners. Islamic Azad University, Tehran.

Pishghadam. R., & Ghadiri, S. (2001). Symmetrical or asymmetrical scaffolding: Piagetianvs. Vygostkian views to reading comprehension. Journal of Language and Literacy Education [online], 7(1), 49-64.

Shintani, N. (2011). A comparative study of the effects of input-based and production-based instruction on vocabulary acquisition by young EFL learners. Language Teaching Research, 15(2), 137-158.

Shook, D. J. (1994). FL/L2 Reading, Grammatical Information, and the Input-to-Intake Phenomenon. Applied Language Learning, 5(2), 57-93.

Smith, M. S. (1993). Input enhancement in instructed SLA. Studies in second language acquisition, 15(02), 165 179.

Swain, M. (1998). Focus on form through conscious reflection. In C. Doughty & J.Williams (Eds.), Focus on form in second language acquisition (pp. 64 81). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Swain, M. (2000). The output hypothesis and beyond: Mediating acquisition through collaborative dialogue. In J. P. Lantolf (Ed.), Sociocultural theory and second language learning (pp. 97-114). Oxford: Oxford University Press.

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. (2001). Focus on form through collaborative dialogue: Exploring task effects. In M. Bygate, P. Skehan, & M. Swain (Eds.), Researching pedagogic tasks: Second language learning, teaching and testing (pp. 99-118). Harlow: Longman.

Takimoto, M. (2009). The effect of input-based tasks on the development of learners’ pragmatic proficiency. Applied Linguistics, 30, 1-25.

Takimoto, M. (2012). The effects of explicit feedback and form meaning processing on the development of pragmatic proficiency in consciousness-raising tasks. System, 34, 601-614.

Talebzadeh, Sh (2005). The Effect of Planning Time on the Grammatical Complexity of Written Task Performance Reflected in the Use o Subordination by Iranian EFL Learners. Islamic Azad University, Science and Research Campus.

VanPatten, B. (1990). Attending to form and content in the input. Studies in second language acquisition, 12(03), 287-301.

VanPatten, B., & Cadierno, T. (1993). Explicit instruction and input processing. Studies in second language acquisition, 15(02), 225-243.

Vygotsky, L. S. (1978). Mind in society: The development of higher psychological processes. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.

Wajnryb, R. (1990). Grammar dictation. 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.

2012-2020 (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.