The Effect of Typographical Input Enhancement on Iranian EFL Learners’ Accuracy in Oral Production of Narratives

Parisa Hazrativand


Researchers suggest that language learners taught with the Communicative Language Teaching (CLT) approach tend to have trouble acquiring semantically less salient grammatical forms. This study describes an experiment in input enhancement in general, and specifically Typographical input enhancement which is one of the three main types of input enhancement and it attempts to find out which two sets of materials are better in helping students to use the past tense form of English more accurately: unenhanced texts, or enhanced materials in the form of short stories. The framework of the study was the incorporation of focused comprehension tasks. 40 female students at the age range of 18-28 participated in the study and test results indicated that the participants in the Experimental group (which received enhanced input) increased significantly in their ability to use the simple past tense verbs accurately in oral narratives on the posttest. However, inter-groups differences were not statistically significant. It was concluded that typographically enhanced input can be a valuable addition to the CLT curriculum in order to improve learners’ accuracy in their speaking skill through increasing noticing by the means of enhancing input typographically.



typographical input enhancement, oral production, focused task

Full Text:



Buscemi, C. E. (2003). Computer-enhanced and non-computer-enhanced Spanish Language Instruction: A case study. University of Texas, Austin. System, 3, 23-31.

Chapelle, C.(2003). English language teaching and technology. Philadelphia: J. Benjamins Publishing Company. Celce-Murcia, M. (1991a). Language and communication: A time for equilibrium and integration. Georgetown University Press.

Celce-Murcia, M. (1991b). Second language grammar: Learning and teaching. TESOL Quarterly, 26(2),122-128.

Combs, C, H. (2006). What cognitive processes are triggered by input enhancement? Teaching College, Columbia University. Working Papers in TESOL & Applied Linguistics. 4, 1-11.

Cross, J. (2002). Noticing//in SLA: is it a valid concept? British Council, Nogoya. Japan. Retrieved on May 10, 2006 from http:// www-writing. TESL-EJ/ej 23/a2,html.

Dornyei, Z. & Thurrell, S. (1991). Strategic competence and how to teach it. ELT Journal, 6,345-356.

Dornyei, Z. & Thurrell, S. (1992). Conversation and dialogues in action. Hemel Hempstead, England: Prentice Hall.

Doughty, C & Williams,J. (1998). Focus on form in classroom. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Ellis, R. (1997). Second language acquisition. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Ellis, R. (1999). Input-based approaches to teaching grammar: A review of classroom-oriented research. Annual Review of Applied Linguistics. 19, 64-80.

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

Gass, S. (1988). Integrating research areas: A framework for second language studies. Applied Linguistics, 27, 1-27.

Gass, S. & Torres , M. (2005). Attention when? An investigation of the ordering effect of Input and interaction. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Harley, B., & Swain, M. (1984). The interlanguage of immersion students and its implications for second language teaching. In A. Davies, C. Criper, & A. Howatt (eds.) Interlanguage. Edinburgh:Edinburgh University Press.

Hulstijn, J. (1997). Second Language acquisition research in the laboratory Possibilities and Limitations. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 18, 65-71.

Kumaravadivelu, B. (1992). Macro strategies for the second/foreign language teaching. Modern Language Journal, 76, 41-49.

Kumaravadivelu, B. (1993). Maximizing learning potential in the communicative classroom. ELT Journal, 47, 12-21. Larsen, L, J. (2002). The acquisition of inflectional verb morphology through input enhancement. Ohio University. Retrieved on May 18,2006 from http:// rave. Ohiolink. edu/etdc/ view.acc.num.

Larsen-Freeman, D. (1990). On the need for a theory of language teaching. In J. E. Alatis (Ed.), Washington, DC; Georgetown University Press.

Larsen-Freeman, D. (2000). Teaching and principles in language teaching (2nd ed.), Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Long, M. (1991). Focus on form: A design feature in language teaching methodology. In K, deBot, R. B. Ginsberg & C.

Mclaughlin, B. (1990). “ Conscious” versus “ unconscious” learning. TESOL Quarterly, 38,345-354.

Morris, L., & Tremblay, M. (2002). The Impact of attending to Unstressed words on the acquisition of written grammatical morphology of French-speaking ESL students. Canadian Modern Language Review, 3, 321-346. Muranoi, H. (2000). Focus on form through interaction enhancement: Integrating formal.

Nagata, N. (1998). Input vs. output practice in educational software for second language acquisition. Language Learning and Technology, 6, 312-353.

Rutherford, W. (1988). Second language grammar: Teaching and Learning. London: Longman.

Salaberry, M. (1998). On input processing, True language competence, and pedagogical bandwagons: A reply to Sanz and VanPatten (1999). Canadian Modern Language Review, 54, 87-120.

Schmidt, R, (1990). The role of consciousness in second language learning. Applied Linguistics, 13, 206-226.

Sharwood Smith, M. (1981). Consciousness-raising and the second language learner. Applied linguistics, 2, 159-168.

Sharwood Smith, M. (1993). Input enhancement in instructed SLA: Theoretical bases. Studies in Second language Acquisition, 15,165-179.

Skehan, P. (1992). Strategies in second language acquisition. Thames Valley University. Working Papers in English Language Teaching, 21, 345-370.

Swain, M. (1985). Communicative competence: Some roles of comprehensible input and comprehensible output in its development. In: Gass, S. & Madden, C. (Eds.), Input in second language acquisition (pp.235-253). Rowley, MA: Newbury House.

Tomlin, R., & Villa, H. (1994). Attention in cognitive science and second language acquisition. Studies in Second Language Acquisition,16, 183-203.

Urano, K. (2000). Typographical input enhancement on the web: (urano @ Hawaii. Edu). Retrieved on Nov 5, 2006.

Willis, D. & J. Willis. (2001). Task-based language learning. In R. Carter and D. Nunan (eds.) The Cambridge guide to teaching English to speakers of other languages. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Willis, J. (1996). A framework for task-based learning. Harlow, UK: Longman, Addison Wesley.



  • 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.