EVALUATING THE RELATIVE EFFECTIVENESS OF STRUCTURED-INPUT AND OUTPUT-

BASED INSTRUCTION IN FOREIGN LANGUAGE LEARNING: Results from an

Experimental Study
Author(s): Rosemary Erlam
Source: Studies in Second Language Acquisition , December 2003, Vol. 25, No. 4
(December 2003), pp. 559-582
Published by: Cambridge University Press

Stable URL: https://www.jstor.org/stable/44486699

JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide
range of content in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and
facilitate new forms of scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact [email protected].
Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at
https://about.jstor.org/terms

Cambridge University Press is collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access
to Studies in Second Language Acquisition

This content downloaded from

144.82.8.74 on Sat, 07 Jan 2023 21:49:10 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
SSLA, 25, 559-582. Printed in the United States of America.
DOI: 10. 101 7.S0272263 10300024X

EVALUATING THE RELATIVE

EFFECTIVENESS OF
STRUCTURED-INPUT AND
OUTPUT-BASED INSTRUCTION IN
FOREIGN LANGUAGE LEARNING

Results from an Experimental Study

Rosemary Erlam
University of Auckland

This paper reviews studies that have contrasted the effectiveness

of structured-input instruction with output-based instruction. It then
presents results from a study comparing the relative effects of struc-
tured-input and output-based instruction on students' ability to com-
prehend and produce direct object pronouns in second language
French. Three classes of students (A/=70) were assigned to three
groups: structured-input instruction, output-based instruction, and
control. Students were assessed on listening comprehension, read-
ing comprehension, written production, and oral production tasks.
All but one of these language measures required a pressured re-
sponse. Overall, the results showed greater gains for the output-
based instruction group.

The research presented in this paper was made possible by a grant awarded to the author by the
Foundation for Research Science and Technology, Wellington, New Zealand. I am considerably in-
debted to Rod Ellis for his guidance and support. I would also like to thank the anonymous SSLA
reviewers for their invaluable feedback and advice.
Address correspondence to: Rosemary Erlam, Department of Applied Language Studies and Lin-
guistics, University of Auckland, Private Bag 92019, Auckland, New Zealand; e-mail: r.erlam@auckland
.ac.nz.

© 2003 Cambridge University Press 0272-2631/03 $12.00 559

This content downloaded from

144.82.8.74 on Sat, 07 Jan 2023 21:49:10 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
 560 Rosemary Erlam

The mode! of language acqu

three main processes: inta
2001). Traditionally, languag
processes- that is, teachers
tion with activities that con
to produce the target stru
argued that instead of try
put, instruction should focu
tion that changes the way in
more likely to become intak
guage system. There is now
the effectiveness of having
produce language output.

INPUT-BASED INSTRUCTION

The idea that having students work with language input should precede pro-
duction is not new. An early form of input-based instruction was described by
Asher (1981) and Winitz (1981) as comprehension training. They recommended
the delay of oral practice in foreign language teaching until the "clinician"
(Winitz, p. 102) is convinced that the structures being taught are fully under-
stood without contextual assistance. Any investigation, however, of the suc-
cess of these input-based instructional techniques was done in the context of
global method studies. The present discussion focuses on more recent research
in input-based instructional techniques that has investigated the acquisition
of specific language structures.
Several input-based instructional techniques have been the focus of recent
SLA research. For example, enriched-input instructional techniques (also re-
ferred to as input flooding, by Trahey, 1996, and Trahey & White, 1993) expose
students to input that has been seeded with examples of the target structure
(Ellis, 1993; Robinson, 1996). Enhanced-input instructional techniques, on the
other hand, expose students to input in which the target structure is typo-
graphically enhanced (Alanen, 1995; Doughty, 1991; Leeman, Arteagoitia, Frid-
man, & Doughty, 1995). Both of these instructional techniques are forms of
implicit language instruction in that they involve neither rule presentation nor
direction to attend to particular language forms (Norris & Ortega, 2000). In
terms of explicit input-based instruction, two types can be identified: input-
processing instruction and structured-input instruction.
Input-processing and structured-input instruction have not always been
clearly differentiated. This is because some studies have been designed as in-
put processing studies (DeKeyser & Sokalski, 1996; Salaberry, 1997) but are
more appropriately defined as structured-input studies because they do not
make any mention of altering an unhelpful, natural-processing strategy (Van-
Patten, 2002).' Another likely reason for the fact that research informed by
these two theoretical positions is often not clearly differentiated is that Van-

This content downloaded from

144.82.8.74 on Sat, 07 Jan 2023 21:49:10 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
Structured-Input and Output-Based Instruction 561

Patten uses the term structured-input activities to refer to the input-b

ities that he gives to students in his processing-instruction treatmen
may lead to the misunderstanding that structured-input activities are
mous with input-processing instruction. This paper focuses more spec
on research that has investigated the effectiveness of structured-input
tion.

STRUCTURED-INPUT INSTRUCTION

In structured-input instruction, students are required to work with language

input that focuses their attention on a particular target structure. They are
given listening or reading tasks that require them to pay attention to the form
of the target structure and process its meaning. They are not at any stage en-
gaged in activities requiring them to produce this structure. A crucial aspect
of this instructional approach is that it involves a primary focus on form (Ellis,
2001).
There are now a number of studies that have contrasted the effectiveness
of activities designed to encourage students to pay attention to form and pro-
cess input for meaning with output-based activities. This research has per-
haps been inspired by results from global method studies investigating the
effectiveness of comprehension-based approaches (e.g., Asher, Kusudo, & de
la Torre, 1974) and by results from input processing research (e.g., VanPat-
ten & Cadierno, 1993a, 1993b). These studies found that students who had
worked on input-based activities performed better on comprehension tasks
and, more surprisingly, performed as well on production tests as those who
had worked on output-based activities.
Details of studies that have contrasted structured-input and output-based
instruction are presented in Table 1. These studies differ in how they opera-
tionalized output-based instructional treatments - that is, the instructional
treatment option that was contrasted with structured-input instruction. Some
studies (Nagata, 1998; Tanaka, 2001) compared structured-input instruction
with meaning-focused, output-based instruction. Other studies (Hazzard, 1999;
Kim, 2001; Toth, 1997) compared structured-input instruction with a more tra-
ditional form of output-based instruction; students engaged in some mechani-
cal language practice as well as more meaningful language activities. One
study (Tanaka, 1996) did not require students in the output-based instruction
group to focus on meaning at all. DeKeyser and Sokalski (1996) included some
mechanical practice in the instructional treatment given to their structured-
input group as well as in the instructional treatment given to the output-based
instruction group. Therefore, in their study also, each group received an equal
focus on meaning. Salaberry (1997) did not provide enough information to en-
able classification. Only two studies (Tanaka, 2001; Toth) provided any defini-
tion of what was meant by meaningful or mechanical activities, and no study
gave details as to what proportion of the treatment session was spent on me-
chanical as opposed to meaningful activities. The classification of treatments

This content downloaded from

144.82.8.74 on Sat, 07 Jan 2023 21:49:10 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
562 Rosemary Ērtam

çô -M . D (O

I s? -M î*. . t
-T"
-T" a ^^l.lilÎll
, te , teojoj «M
«M «S«S
CO CO
G •■5GSï 3Q,G<C4-fQ.9s -si
•■5 3Q,G<C4-fQ.9s

555 ^V
V , §<3- .22
G oj «M -G "Og¿3 g c o
.22 •■5 g g ¡3
Û. 3 c
¡3 c ^oû § o 5
6 5 çá 0
0 1 £ §S
§ ?w
<3- S
0 guli gļjc 0
feS§ o ^ Iu§ ^ufeS^ o o5
"8 fi.2P 2 w Ä;5 502i^ť û< Û.O 3 3vS te 3 .3
"8 g «Õ jD Ä;5 3 e c ť S? 3G e •£> a, 'G •= G te Q.-0 .3
Se^&ol'âëbiS g «Õ jD 3 e c S? 3G 5 e .2 i a, £ 'G 'f •= 5 G Q.-0 = Ł
o
o

„1 li !
CM

<£>
-* es - G ^ *o D*a
S
G
! -* I es II -
G
O

u
I to
to 2 o .S c c U « c u u c v
to 8 aj o 3 teë c ¿J c a U 3 « o
|| 2 .S
3
u H a-o 2 g ö S ¿J cî a 3 ? o S
üo
a J u£
o ^ ¿.ss
^ o o o.g
c > o.o 'S
a. 60 .2» ¿ ^ o 2
4->
Vi
G

to s- 52 52 «o
G

G
a
Om
U |S ^i2
O 'o ^ Om
5«-
T> 5 <2
>m >
'GiS
> iS 00 !» !»Gi2
>cmG^ |t 5
'G a. < o

2
3

i te li o
u

2 te - o 5* â*
*J? £ - o è
00
M>4

O o « g o ^ o 3
.S -° s o 'C o
Vi
Vi
S te 0« ~ o +■»

I S -21 te 0« la
a>
G

.Ě
'•M
U
sJl 3 §> Ź J§>
3
«M
o
si 11
g
o
i «il s ^ 1 I
I * 5 i! I si f
4-»

S
ts
.2?
* Õ 2/5 G« C s -a
<y .C G« C - £ û<
00 «o 4-» O "te <u co +•» "te
£ û< I
'G
co
á 00 i&š «o 4-» O ti "te <u ii co +•»
s; co"o ã w "o co o co
.S
<u - ~ P "P
13 <u 2 £ - ~ 3 ¿3 *0 £3
^^c *
Sļ*5 * & 3Gg
G°S2 2c g
"O° c "O g
JZ
4-4

G .S &
T3 - 0
0G
.2 £ 4> "S 'J ¿ 3 "O
5 u S g S § .2 <S 2
a>

¿
g "g
"g §
o| 3S43^3 -9 •*S-ä -9
3 •* ä 3
Vi

2
«M
O
3 S-fc
- <■> 00 3 3 te 3 S3
O O .S O Ho

6 ^ CO g^? O* S S
s
s
G
co
^ S 2
<*2 OŽ r-
<D *a *"1 P 00
>» -^2 ^
ž
f >» ti -^2 1 -S 5 ^
<£ Q co H i H

This content downloaded from

144.82.8.74 on Sat, 07 Jan 2023 21:49:10 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
Structured-Input and Output-Based Instruction 563

Ss **
i°c s-šg
^^g g
° to
g ^°g to
U g<2
05 -o oo¿ Wg
^ ggf U g g 05 o O s
g a.«) gfe| g go.| -o g -gif oo¿ W
*11 *!§■ Uļ* lili
Ss g S § g . Ss-^S 3 8® s
SfS S -S 11 . S fil 3 Sgl*
Ooo. cS^ÜOosa cj ob oo o.
c c 'S S
a;
4J -
(Ö a) C 5
« 4-* cd CS
C cd o
I S= ļ S S
§ìli
«ö oto §Sw-O^«ö S.S. ìli
*3 CC S C -r-ł c Oi C c C vT -
Sw-O^ sí
¿S .2 .2 iS .2 -r-ł a> .2 to 2 « .2 /-s 2 5
Suu ït3Sû I!gíü'S .Sj
O. 3 3 _ CL 3 g 3 -O S..Ē 3 S _ >
O. S"§"SSg-§3.-§ 3 3 _ CL 3 g 3 -O g S..Ē t-g "g 3 I S _ g 4 >
Ç aao £D.§û,hS£a3 < «
« js is JŠ JŠ „JŠ ,*J2
« &||
•o H ïHï H
"Oï ïŽ"O
^ ^&| Ž II ^ ^
M IO CM CO CO CM «- «

3 3
ex ex

I I
U* «M

«2 2
a> S' oí 2*
0 So So «
Ź 0 c8& So <
w u -g
« & * Oi
« S 2 ai Oi >
c SS £ -3
•* •*
s i •$ 1
'& c -es
01 « *- O

S 2
oí e*>S
«2 ooS
«2 Tjoí J e*>
J& 1*2 S5! g>& Tj
- » co CO c3 UJ O U CL

"o "Õ -,
■SS ë s 11 -,
S f §8 ^8 "o
•9 s ISIS
-
s! § S tf_
oo is i i m g
o sS-
S- o33 o33 3
o 3 g.
.s g.g
8
rj" ^ LO
i- • IO OO «O

00 Sš
g 2 O
2 . g
S--•go
g í^i Jž«o
«o
<8 Ň - <8

S' X
z s £
£ If-
g

This content downloaded from

144.82.8.74 on Sat, 07 Jan 2023 21:49:10 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
 564 Rosemary Erlam

as meaning-focused is ther
individual researchers have i
mechanical and meaningfu
Mechanical activities are tho
to meaning and for which t

(1) Fill in the gap in the follow

a. Voilà l'autobus. Vous devez

There's the bus. You need to take it to get into town."

b. Où est le guide Michelin? Je veux

"Where is the Michelin guide? I want to read it."

Meaningful activities, on the other hand, can only be su

when the meaning of both the stimulus and the respon
in (2).

(2) Answer the following questions to see if you are a good student or not. Use direct
object pronouns to replace the underlined nouns.
Est<e que tu fais toujours tes devoirs?
"Do you always do your homework?"
The student formulates an answer, such as:
Oui, je les fais tous les soirs.
"Yes, I always do it every evening."

These differences in the way that output-based instruction is conceptualized

and operationalized may be crucial in explaining the results obtained.
A number of conclusions can be drawn from the results of studies that
have contrasted structured-input and output-based instruction.

1. All studies provided evidence that students who have had structured-input in-
struction perform as well on comprehension and interpretation tasks as those who
have had output-based instruction.
2. Only one study reported a superior effect for structured-input instruction on com-
prehension tasks (Tanaka, 1996). It is important to note that the instruction that
students in the output-based instruction group received in this study did not re-
quire them to focus on meaning at all.
3. Four studies (DeKeyser & Sokalski, 1996; Hazzard, 1999; Tanaka, 1996; Toth, 1997)
reported equivalent gains for both structured-input and output-based instruction
groups on production tasks. (Hazzard reported equivalent gains for both groups
on an oral production task but greater gains for the structured-input group on a
written production task.) It is interesting to note that, in all of these studies in
which there were equivalent gains for both groups on production tasks, struc-
tured-input instruction was contrasted with output-based instruction that included
mechanical practice and was not consistently meaning focused. Three studies
(Kim, 2001; Nagata, 1998; Tanaka, 2001) reported greater gains for the output-
based instruction group on production tasks. In Nagata and in Tanaka (2001), the
output-based instructional treatments were meaning focused.
4. In those studies in which there was an advantage for the output-based instruction

This content downloaded from

144.82.8.74 on Sat, 07 Jan 2023 21:49:10 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
Structured-Input and Output-Based Instruction 565

group on tests of production, the advantage tended to be evidenced on t

required a pressured response- that is, timed production tests (Kim; Tanaka
Toth also reported a slight advantage for the output-based instruction g
test of free oral production.

The results from structured-input instruction research to date sugge

is crucial to consider what structured-input instruction is opposed to
is evidence to suggest that structured-input instruction may not be s
to meaning-oriented, output-based instruction. There is also evidence
gest that the advantage for output-based instruction may be greater
of language production that require a pressured or unplanned resp
present study was designed to further investigate the effectiveness o
tured-input instruction in relation to output-based instruction when t
is meaning oriented, and the effects of the instruction are measured
tery of tests that included time-pressured instruments.

THE PRESENT STUDY

This study investigated the relative effects of structured-input instruction and

output-based instruction on the acquisition of direct object pronouns in French
(excluding en and reflexives). It was conducted with school-age learners, i
contrast to the majority of previous structured-input studies (six out of nine
that were conducted with university students. All but one of the languag
measures required a pressured response. The research questions for the
study were the following.

1. Do structured-input instruction and output-based instruction lead to greater gains

on tests of comprehension and production than those evidenced by the control
group?
2. Does structured-input instruction enable L2 learners to comprehend the target
structure more effectively than meaning-oriented, output-based instruction?
3. Does structured-input instruction enable second language (L2) learners to pro-
duce the target structure as effectively as meaning-oriented, output-based instruc-
tion?

Subjects

The study was conducted in one of New Zealand's largest secondary schools
during the last school term of 2000. Three classes of fourth-form students (ap-
proximately 14 years of age) were involved in the study. To establish whether
there was any overall difference in ability between the classes, students'
scores (available for 66 of the 70 students) were compared on a Test of Scho-
lastic Abilities (Reid, Jackson, Gilmore, & Croft, 1981), administered prior to
their entry into the school and designed to give an indication, using a 9-point
scale, of their ability to cope with the abstract manipulation of verbal and nu-

This content downloaded from

144.82.8.74 on Sat, 07 Jan 2023 21:49:10 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
 566 Rosemary Ērtam

merical symbols. A one-wa

among the three groups on t
Each class included some s
guage other than English, al
been living in New Zealand
English of these students wa
tional ESOL classes, which m
optional subject such as Fren
not English, there were five
six students in group 2 (ou
group 3 (control).
The teaching approach ad
places an emphasis on deve
there is also considerable f
45-minute lesson. For the p
signed to one of the two tre
instruction) or to the contro
had attended all treatment
analyses. Group 1 (structur
put-based instruction) cons
sisted of 26 students.

Research Method

Prior to the study, the students had not received any classroom instruction
on direct object pronouns although they may well have come across them in-
cidentally. For the purposes of the study, they were introduced to the target
structure earlier than scheduled in the syllabus plan. Normally, they would
not be given instruction in direct object pronouns until their third year of
French. During the period of this study, they received no instruction on the
target structure other than that given during the instructional treatments.

Target Structure

Ellis (1995) claimed that language forms that are already known but to which
another, as yet unknown, meaning is to be assigned will be more learnable
than entirely new language forms. Students in the present study were already
familiar with the linguistic forms that realize direct object pronouns - that is,
they had previously been taught these linguistic forms in lessons dealing with
other grammatical functions (i.e., nous and vous as subject pronouns; me, te ,
nous, and vous as reflexive pronouns; and le, la, and les as definite articles).
Mastery of direct object pronouns required them to assign another meaning
to these already familiar forms.
Direct object pronouns present a number of difficulties for L2 learners of

This content downloaded from

144.82.8.74 on Sat, 07 Jan 2023 21:49:10 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
Structured-Input and Output-Based Instructton 567

French. They require the learner to make a number of morphoseman

tinctions, such as gender, person, and number. Felix and Hahn (1985)
that students master the pronominal system by acquiring these morp
tic features one at a time. This, they claimed, parallels naturalistic
acquisition, which is characterized by the learner's successive acqu
individual structural features and the reintegration of those features
target-structure norms.
Several studies (Gundei & Tarone, 1992; Towell & Hawkins, 1994) hav
tified three stages that learners pass through in the placement of dir
pronouns: after the verb (e.g., *J'ai reconnu le "1 recognized him"), o
of the pronoun (e.g., J'ai reconnu), and between the auxiliary ver
past participle (e.g., *J'ai le reconnu).2 Learners may initially assume
rect object pronouns are postverbal as in English (i.e., the LI of the m
of students in this study). The fact that full object nouns are placed
verb (e.g., J'ai reconnu Mary i recognized Mary"), as are object pronou
affirmative commands (e.g., Faîtes-le "Do it"), is further evidence to
this assumption. As learners progress in their acquisition, however, t
ize that the object pronoun is not postverbal, but they mistakenly as
null objects are permissible (i.e., that the object may be omitted). Van
(1996) suggested that such an error could be attributable to input
tains weak and nonsalient object pronouns; in spoken French the schw
of the object pronouns (me, te, and le) may be weakened to the exten
is almost imperceptible. In written input, the preverbal object pronou
in French is placed medially in the sentence, may be dismissed as a st
that appears to have little communicative value. It would seem then t
ject pronouns lend themselves especially well to form-focused instruc
cause an attempt to make these forms more salient is likely to induce
to attend to them even though they occur medially.

Instructional Treatments

The experimental treatments for all groups consisted of three lessons, which
lasted 45 minutes each and occurred over a 1-week period. All teaching ses-
sions were conducted by the same instructor, who was also the researcher.
The structured-input group received explicit instruction regarding the key
grammatical items (e.g., direct object noun and direct object pronoun). Stu-
dents were then given a series of sentences and asked to identify the direct
object pronoun in each one. The placement of the direct object pronoun
within the sentence was explained to them. They then received explicit in-
struction regarding one of the morphological features of direct object pro-
nouns (i.e., person, number, or gender) and worked at sequenced, input-based
activities (VanPatten, 1996) that allowed practice of this particular feature.
These activities were modeled on those used by VanPatten and Cadierno
(1993a) and sequenced as follows.

This content downloaded from

144.82.8.74 on Sat, 07 Jan 2023 21:49:10 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
 568 Rosemary Erlam

1. Students were given handou

ture were two written statem
the pronoun form that corres
2. Students were shown a seri
tor. Once again they had to de
responded to the picture.
3. Students were given short
the correct (direct object pro
4. Students alsoworked at an af
a personal response. They had
referents and decide whether
je l'écoute toujours en classe (
class (yes/no)."
5. Students were given a series of consciousness-raising exercises in which they had
to identify errors in written and then spoken input (as recommended by Ellis,
1995). These exercises required them to decide whether a given pronoun form was
correct for a particular context and whether it was correctly placed in the sen-
tence. They were encouraged to explain the reason why a particular usage was
nontargetlike. Correct answers were given and explained to the students, but the
production of direct object pronouns was not elicited.

For the morphological distinction of person, students worked on activities de-

signed as described in 1 and 2, and for the morphological distinction of num-
ber and gender, they worked on activities as described in 1-3. Activities 4 and
5 enabled them to work on all of the morphological distinctions of direct ob-
ject pronouns. For all of these activities, only nonverbal answers were elicited
(i.e., students were encouraged to refer to choices in terms of option [a] or
[b]), and feedback was given. (See Appendix for examples of activities.)
The model of teaching for the output-based instruction group fits loosely
with what DeKeyser (1998) described as "cognitive code," in which explicit
instruction is followed by form-focused activities that allow students time to
think and apply rules they have learned. The students in this group also re-
ceived explicit information regarding direct object pronouns. However, this
time, the explicit information regarding the different morphological aspects of
direct object pronouns was presented all at once. Furthermore, the placement
of direct object pronouns was explained to the students.
Students then worked at a number of activities, which, unlike those given
to the structured-input group, did not allow for practice of the different mor-
phological aspects of direct object pronouns one at a time. In some activities
they were given sentences in which direct object nouns were underlined.
They were instructed to rewrite the sentences, replacing the direct object
noun with the correct pronoun form. Students were also given written, gap-fill
activities in which they had to choose the pronoun that corresponded to a
previously mentioned noun and place it in the gap. Other activities were de-
signed to give them oral practice of direct object pronouns; one was com-
pleted chorally with the researcher, and the others were done in pairs. For

This content downloaded from

144.82.8.74 on Sat, 07 Jan 2023 21:49:10 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
Structured-Input and Output-Based Instruction 569

the purposes of this study, oral pair work was kept to a minimum to
the possibility that students gained input from listening to each o
tempts to produce the target structure. Thus, a greater emphasis was
on individual written activities. (See Appendix for examples of activit
Although this group work was intended to focus only on meaningf
ties, it was later discovered that two activities were mechanical, as de
Lee and VanPatten (1995), in that the students did not need to attend
ing and there was only one correct response. These two activities too
of 22 minutes for students to complete, constituting a small proport
of the total instructional time. While completing these activities,
were encouraged to refer to a grid of direct object pronouns that was
on the overhead projector. On completion of each exercise the researc
ther gave correct answers and explained her choice of pronoun or eli
swers from the students, explaining and correcting any errors that a
The control group also had three lessons scheduled with the re
but were unaware that they were receiving instructional treatment t
fered with respect to the target structure from that given to the ot
classes. They thus received no exposure to the target structure ou
testing episodes.

Testing

A pretest was administered prior to a 2-week holiday break. The instructional

treatments commenced the first week after the break, and posttest 1 was com-
pleted the following week. Posttest 2 was completed in the sixth week follow-
ing instruction. A split-block design was used in test administration. Three
similar versions (A, B, and Ç) of each test were created, and during each testing
session each group of students was split into three and received one of these
three versions. By the end of posttest 2, all students had completed all three
versions of each test type. All tests took place during scheduled class hours.

Listening Comprehension Tests. The listening comprehension tests con-

sisted of 12 items, 2 of which were distractors. They were timed to require the
students to process language in real time. The students had 2 seconds to view
a picture, after which they heard four sentences read at a slightly slower than
normal rate by a native French speaker. They had another 2 seconds to decide
which sentence accurately described the picture, after which the picture was
removed. A tape recording was used for the administration of all listening
tests. The sentences were chosen to include options that were (a) grammati-
cally incorrect, (b) grammatically correct and accurate in describing the pic-
ture, and (c) grammatically correct but inaccurate in describing the picture.
The correct choice in each case was a grammatically correct and accurate de-
scription of the picture. Students could score up to a maximum of 10 points.

Reading Comprehension Tests. The reading comprehension tests con-

sisted of a short text written in French, which was controlled for vocabulary

This content downloaded from

144.82.8.74 on Sat, 07 Jan 2023 21:49:10 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
570 Rosemary Erlam

(i.e., a small number of unfa

tained examples of direct
swer 10 multiple-choice ques
they understood the prono
had to choose one out of fou
each correct answer, yieldin

Written Production Tests. S

with direct object nouns un
told to rewrite the statemen
prompts, replacing the unde
the test, they were shown a
at 12 seconds to view each st
complete each response, dur
removed. A prerecorded ta
stimulus was to be presented
The test comprised 12 items
were carefully controlled to
rect object pronouns that va
and that the pronouns occur
(e.g., with an infinitive or i
was originally designed to r
ing their language performa
all cases to preclude this. In
establish a time frame that w
answers and no opportunity
Each test was graded to giv
noun forms and one for ma
one point for each attempt
form, yielding a maximum
dents were given one point
each pronoun correctly plac

Oral Production Tests. Th

story as indicated by a shor
of the target structure, each
All versions of the test elici
an average of four or more.
test was controlled for in th
The oral production test ha
lowed enough time to look
front of the examiner) befo
moved along to the next pic
given picture (by either giv
information). Below each p
the action depicted. The stud

This content downloaded from

144.82.8.74 on Sat, 07 Jan 2023 21:49:10 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
Structured-Input and Output-Based Instruction 571

lead them to expect that this narration task was designed to test thei
to produce direct object pronouns. However, it was obvious from
some of them approached the task that they understood this. Others
to treat the task as a more general measure of their communicativ
tence.

Students' scores on this test were excluded from the analyses if they failed
to establish two possible occasions for pronoun use - that is, two or more ref-
erents to a previously mentioned noun. They were given a total of three
scores: The first reflected attempted pronoun forms (there was no limit to this
score), the second reflected the percentage of correct pronoun forms (of the
total number attempted), and the third reflected the percentage of pronouns
correctly placed (of the total number attempted). No student used a correct
pronoun form or placed an attempted pronoun form correctly on the pretest.
The reading comprehension test was completed after the written produc-
tion and listening comprehension tests to minimize the possibility that it would
serve as input for these two tests. Oral production testing began the day fol-
lowing group administration of these three tests and was completed within
the week. For this test, students were tested individually and audio recorded.
A number of examiners (none of whom were teachers at the school) were in-
volved in the administration of these testing procedures.

Test Reliability and Validity. Douglas (2001) reported that SLA researchers
generally fail to discuss whether language measures used are reliable and
valid for the purposes they were intended, and he stressed the need to ad-
dress these issues. The measures used in this study were all designed to pro-
vide information about students' learning of direct object pronouns in L2
French. Accordingly, all test measures were trialed on two populations of stu-
dents of French- one that had received explicit instruction in the target struc-
ture and one that had not. Significant differences between the performances
of both groups for all tests were found: listening comprehension versions A, B,
and C, /(49) = -5.46, p < .001, /(39) = -4.07, p < .001, and /(48) = -3.37, p < .001,
respectively; reading comprehension versions A, B, and C, /(75) = -5.43, p <
.001, /(43) = -2.20, p < .05, and /(46) = -2.14, p < .05, respectively; written pro-
duction versions A, B, and C, /(30) = 5.43, p < .001, /(30) = 4.98, p < .001, and
/(30) = 4.42, /><.001, respectively. These results are considered evidence of
the validity of the tests. Reliability was estimated from the test scores of stu-
dents in the structured-input instruction and output-based treatment options.
The scores of the students in the control group were not included because it
was expected that there would be very little variability in their scores.
Test scores for versions A, B, and C were aggregated for each of the two
comprehension tests. This decision was made because it is well known that
reliability is a function of test length (Brown, 1996), and due to timing con-
straints individual versions of the tests contained relatively few test items. An
internal-consistency method was used, and Cronbach's alpha was chosen. The
reliability estimate for the combined listening comprehension test (30 items)

This content downloaded from

144.82.8.74 on Sat, 07 Jan 2023 21:49:10 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
 572 Rosemary Erlam

Table 2. Reliability mea

deviations of language te

Test Cronbach's alpha M SD

Comprehension
Listening .4318 10.23 3.133
Reading .6540 10.81 3.674
Written production
Version A .8962 8.2791 7.1191
Version B .9070 8.4545 7.8665
Version C .9457 7.4318 8.3091

was .4318, which is considered low. It is possible t

answers on this test because they were unable
language choices presented to them in real time. T
test scores. The results of the listening test have
given this low reliability estimate. The reliability
reading comprehension test (24 items) was .6540
that there were fewer items and low variability in
In contrast, reliability estimates for each of the
were high, as shown in Table 2. The greater reliab
tion tests can perhaps be explained in part by t
and the greater variability in test scores. As Brow
is administered to a group of students with a wid
be more reliable than one administered to a gr
abilities. Table 2 also shows that those tests wit
had greater reliability estimates. Correlation co
give an estimate of interrater reliability of scoring
placement in the oral production tests. High corre
of interrater reliability. The results (with p < .01
quency, r= .989; pronoun form, r= .968; and prono

RESULTS

Descriptive statistics were calculated for each test, and raw scores from al
tests across all testing sessions were submitted to a one-way ANOVA to deter-
mine what effect there might be for treatment (structured-input, output-based
instruction, and control). The significance level was set at .05 for all statistical
tests. ANOVAs performed on pretest scores revealed no significant differences
among the groups before treatment, which shows that any differences among
groups on posttests are not due to prior knowledge of the structure. Descrip-
tive statistics for the listening comprehension tests are reported in Table 3.
Results of the ANOVA conducted on posttest 1 scores revealed a significan
difference in how the three groups performed on this test: pretest, Ķ2, 69) =

This content downloaded from

144.82.8.74 on Sat, 07 Jan 2023 21:49:10 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
Structured-Input and Output-Based Instruction 573

Table 3. Descriptive statistics for listening

comprehension tests

Input Output Control

(n = 23) (n = 21) (n = 26)
Test M SD M SD M SD

Pretest 2.65 1.23 2.86 1.88 3.08 1.72

Posttest 1 3.17 1.40 4.76 2.19 2.92 1.23
Posttest 2 3.43 2.35 3.67 1.83 2.73 1.48

Note. Maximum score = 10. For input, </=0.28, and for output, </=0.84.

Table 4. Descriptive statistics for reading

comprehension tests

Input Output Control

(n = 23) (/i = 21) (n = 26)
Test M SD M SD M SD

Pretest 2.74 1.60 3.43 1.54 3.58 1.45

Posttest 1 3.83 1.37 4.19 1.80 3.08 1.57
Posttest 2 3.74 1.76 3.76 1.64 3.58 1.21

Note. Maximum score = 8. For input, </=0.30, and for output, </=0.40.

0.416, p = .661; posttest 1, Ķ2, 69) = 8.389, p < .001; posttest 2,

p = .215. Post hoc analyses revealed that the output group perf
cantly better than both the structured-input and control grou
2, however, no significant difference was found among the th
interesting to note, nonetheless, that, whereas both treatmen
gains on both posttests, the control group made a negative gai
for the two experimental groups, calculated using Cohen's
reported. As described by Norris and Ortega (2000), d was calc
trasting the two experimental groups with the control group
and 2. The two contrasts thus obtained for each group were av
duce a single size estimate for each group on each test.
The results of the reading comprehension tests are presen
Results of the ANOVA conducted on posttest 1 scores revea
significant difference in how the three groups performed on t
F(2, 69) = 2.03, p = .139; posttest 1, Ķ 2, 69) = 3.06, p = .053; post
0.105, p = .901. Post hoc analyses found that the output group
nificantly better than the control group. On posttest 2, howe
groups did not differ significantly. Both treatment groups mad
significant gains, whereas the control group made no gains.
The written production tests were scored to give separate se

This content downloaded from

144.82.8.74 on Sat, 07 Jan 2023 21:49:10 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
 574 Rosemary Ērtam

Table 5. Descriptive stat

tests scored for pronoun

Input Output Control

(n = 23) (n = 21) (n = 26)
Test M SD M SD M SD

Pretest 1.96 1.47 2.81 2.66 1.73 2.39

Posttest 1 9.78 4.84 11.57 4.64 3.88 3.08
Posttest 2 7.30 5.29 9.52 5.61 4.92 3.77

Note. Maximum score = 20. For input, d- 1.02, and for output, d= 1.52.

Table 6. Descriptive statistics for written production

tests scored for pronoun placement

Input Output Control

(n = 23) (n = 21) (n = 26)
Test M SD M SD M SD

Pretest 2.00 1.65 3.00 2.85 1.73 2.34

Posttest 1 8.61 3.94 11.29 4.81 3.85 2.57
Posttest 2 6.74 4.89 8.81 5.65 4.62 3.13

Note. Maximum score = 20. For input, d = 0.54, and for output, d= 0.90.

tion about acquisition of pronoun form and placement. Resu

5 reflect scores for the target form. The ANOVA revealed
ence in how all three groups performed on both posttests u
condition: pretest, F(2, 69)= 1.47, p = .237; posttest 1,
.0001; posttest 2, F(2, 69) = 5.183, p< .01. Post hoc analyse
structured-input group and the output group both performe
ter than the control group on posttest 1. On posttest 2, the
not the structured-input group, again performed significan
control group.4
Results of scoring for pronoun placement are presente
again, there was a significant difference in how the three gr
both posttests: pretest, F(2, 69) = 1.874, p = .162; posttest 1
p < .0001; posttest 2, F(2, 69) = 4.879, p < .05. On posttest 1,
revealed that the output group performed significantly bet
structured-input and control groups, and the structured
formed significantly better than the control group. There
significant difference between the structured-input and out
test 2 or between the structured-input and control grou
output group performed significantly better than the cont
test.

This content downloaded from

144.82.8.74 on Sat, 07 Jan 2023 21:49:10 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
Structured-Input and Output-Based Instruction 575

Table 7. Descriptive statistics for oral production

tasks scored to indicate incidence of pronoun use

Input Output Control

(n = 19) (n = 19) (n = 22)
Test M SD M SD M SD

Pretest 0.53 1.47 0.74 1.91 0.09 0.43

Posttest 1 1.32 2.11 1.74 2.86 0.14 0.64
Posttest 2 0.74 1.56 1.74 2.08 1.14 2.40

Note. For input, d =0.35, and for output, d =0.61. Some students had to be
deleted from the oral pretesting either because they were not recorded due
to technical error or because they failed to establish two possible cases for
direct object occurrence.

Table 8. Descriptive statistics (percentages) for oral

production tests scored for pronoun form

Input Output Control

(n = 19) (n = 19) (n = 22)
Test M SD M SD M SD

Pretest 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

Posttest 1 10.53 26.77 20.84 36.06 0.00 0.00
Posttest 2 5.26 22.94 17.11 35.41 0.00 0.00

Note. For input, d =0.67, and for output, d= 1.15.

The results of the oral production tests scored for pronoun

played in Table 7. There is no ceiling for these scores. The ANOVA
significant difference between the performance of the groups on
only: pretest, Ķ2, 59) = 1.183, p = .314; posttest 1, F(2, 59) = 3.449,
test 2, F(2, 59) = 1.136, p = .328. Post hoc analyses revealed tha
group attempted significantly more pronoun forms than the con
There was no significant difference in the performance of all gr
test 2. However, it is interesting to note the scores of the contro
this test. It appears that students in this group had become incre
through their exposure to the structure in testing sessions that a
noun could be replaced by a pronoun form. Although no student
used a correct target form or placed an attempted target form cor
of these tests, these students did attempt more pronoun forms o
For the oral production tests (as in the written production test
were given scores that reflected mastery of both the morphologi
tactic features of the target structure. Pretest scores demonstrat
dent was able to use a correct target form or correctly place
target form. Table 8 presents the results for pronoun form. To o

This content downloaded from

144.82.8.74 on Sat, 07 Jan 2023 21:49:10 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
 576 Rosemary Erlam

Table 9. Descriptive sta

production tests scored f

Input Output Control

(n = 19) (n = 19) (n = 22)
Test M SD M SD M SD

Pretest 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

Posttest 1 14.47 30.41 31.58 44.75 0.00 0.00
Posttest 2 5.26 22.94 23.68 42.06 0.00 0.00

Note. For input, d- 0.76, and for output, d= 1.37.

scores, the total number of correct target forms was divided by the to
ber of instances of pronoun use (or by two if the student attempted
pronoun form).5 The result obtained was converted into a percen
ANOVA was not appropriate for making comparisons on the pretest o
the control group, given that these scores exhibit zero variance, inde
samples Mests were conducted to compare the performance of the str
input and output groups on both posttests. There was no significant
between these two groups: posttest 1, /(36) = -1.00, p = .323; posttest
-1.22, p = . 229.
Table 9 presents the results for pronoun placement in the oral t
procedure for scoring the oral production of pronoun form (Table 8)
used to obtain these figures for pronoun placement. 7-tests were
on the scores on the structured-input and output groups on both
No significant differences were observed: posttest 1, /(36) = -1.37
posttest 2, /(36) = -1.676, p = .102.

DISCUSSION

Research question 1 asked whether structured-input and output-based in

struction led to greater gains on tests of comprehension and production than
those evidenced by the control group. The answer to this question is yes. As
previously described, effect sizes were calculated by contrasting the two ex-
perimental groups with the control group on posttests 1 and 2. The two expe
imental groups made gains when compared to the control group on all tests.
Ten out of the 14 effect sizes that were calculated can be classified as either
large (d > 0.80) or medium (0.50 <d< 0.80), according to Cohen (1988). Th
gains that both experimental groups made on all language measures demo
strate the effectiveness of form-focused instruction in teaching a grammatica
structure such as direct object pronouns in L2 French.
Research question 2 asked whether structured-input instruction enabled L2
learners to comprehend the target structure more effectively than meaning-
oriented, output-based instruction. The answer to this question is no. In fact,

This content downloaded from

144.82.8.74 on Sat, 07 Jan 2023 21:49:10 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
Structured-Input and Output-Based Instruction 577

results show that the output group performed better than the st
input group on both comprehension tests, although there was some e
to suggest greater gains over time for the structured-input group. T
little difference between the averaged effect sizes of posttests 1 and 2
groups on the reading comprehension tests, and both were small
0.50). A careful examination of the means for each group (in Tabl
ever, shows that the output group's initial gains were not sustained i
test 2, whereas the gains made by the structured-input group were m
over time. Tanaka (1996) also found that students who received st
input instruction maintained gains on comprehension tests to a great
than those given output-based instruction.
On the listening comprehension tests, the effect size for the outpu
was large (d = 0.84), whereas that of the structured-input group was
0.28). This is an interesting result that contrasts with those of other
in no other study was the effect of the output-based instruction grou
than that of the structured-input group on measures of interpret
comprehension. The difference in results, at least for the listening com
sion tests, may perhaps be explained by a key difference in test desi
is, students were required to process language in real time- although
reliability estimates on this test suggest that any conclusions must b
tive. Only one other study (Kim, 2001) has used a measure of compre
that involved a time restriction. Kim found, however, that both stru
input and output-based instruction groups performed similarly on th
Research question 3 asked whether structured-input instruction en
learners to produce the target structure as effectively as meaning-or
output-based instruction. Again the answer to this question is no. Th
group performed better than the structured-input group on all meas
production. The effect sizes for the structured-input group were eith
or medium for all tests except the written production tests scored fo
noun form where the effect size was large (d= 1.02). In contrast, t
sizes for the output group were large on all tests except the oral prod
tests scored for pronoun form (d= 0.61). However, it is important to n
although students in the output group performed better overall than
in the structured-input group on all production tests, the latter, wh
engage in any activity requiring them to produce the target structur
time during instructional treatments, performed nearly as well as th
group on the written production tests scored for pronoun form. The
underscore the importance of the role of input in language learning.
There are a number of reasons that could account for the relative e
ness of the output-based instruction in this study. The first reason i
majority of practice activities were designed to be meaningful. There
evidence from previous structured-input research to support the hyp
that the meaning-oriented nature of the majority of activities that th
based instruction group engaged in could account for the results obta
this study (Nagata, 1998; Tanaka, 2001). The second possible reaso

This content downloaded from

144.82.8.74 on Sat, 07 Jan 2023 21:49:10 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
578 Rosemary Erlam

the instruction induced atte

Careful examination of the
in the treatment groups sug
ments made the target stru
input group were given activ
to specific linguistic forms a
put-based instruction group
choose an appropriate lingu
underlined direct object nou
cus on the meaning that th
tasks. Students in this instr
on their performance. The ef
about the impossibility of
been very dissimilar from t
activities in the structured-
tunity to notice the gap bet
can be argued, then, that st
in noticing and processing di
(1997) pointed out, if what
salience in the input that st
comes about" (p. 129).
The third possible reason f
instruction in this study is
This claim is based on result
involve time pressure. On
response within a limited pe
output-based instruction gro
of the output-based instruct
group increased as time pres
put-based group on the list
discussed. There was also a la
group on the oral productio
medium effect size for the
fect sizes for both groups o
form were large (d= 1.02, d=
tests exerted greater pres
that were not tightly prescr
the output-based instruction
almost exclusively on prod
yield a measure of automa
there may be some support
practiced (DeKeyser & Soka
Norris and Ortega (2000) cla
tween the observed effecti
used. Further research is ne

This content downloaded from

144.82.8.74 on Sat, 07 Jan 2023 21:49:10 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
Structured-Input and Output-Based Instruction 579

in this and other studies are a function of differences in test design. V

(2002) suggested the need for research design that incorporates m
speed along with those of accuracy to see whether students who e
output gain more in fluency than those who do not. The results of th
tentatively support this theory. However, results on the oral product
tend to indicate that, although output-based instruction was more ef
than structured-input instruction in enabling students to develop aut
use of the target structure, neither type of instruction was particular
tive. The gains made on these tests were limited. For example, on pos
students in the output-based instruction group attempted on ave
than two pronoun forms (M= 1.74), and of these, only 24% were corr
the given context. Students in the structured-input group attempted
age less than one form (M = 0.74) on these tests, of which only 5% w
rect. The fact that both groups made relatively small gains on
production test may be due to the limited duration (i.e., 135 minutes
structional treatments. These limited gains may also be a factor of ti
is, testing may have been conducted before students had the ti
needed to develop automatic use of the target structure.

CONCLUSION

This study provides further evidence for the value of input-based instruction
as an instructional method. This is an encouraging result for the designers of
any language program that requires the learner to work autonomously and af-
fords less opportunity for teacher or other-learner interaction (e.g., distance
learning). Results suggest, however, that there is no greater advantage for
structured-input instruction over meaning-oriented, output-based instruction.
The overall greater gains made by the output-based group in this study sug-
gest that the meaning-oriented nature of instruction may play a key role in
SLA. There is also some evidence that output-based instruction may be more
effective when language measures require a pressured response. More re-
search, however, is needed to ascertain whether giving students opportunities
to produce language leads to greater gains in automaticity and the develop-
ment of oral skills.

( Received 8 April 2003 )

NOTES

1. In input-processing instruction, the language structure targeted is one that has been demon-
strated to present input-processing instruction difficulties for students according to VanPatten's
principles of input processing (VanPatten, 1996, 2002). In input-processing instructional treatments,
students receive explicit information about this unhelpful processing strategy and work at input-
based materials that help direct them away from it.
2. The students in the study had not had any formal instruction on the preterite tense, and direct
object pronouns, therefore, were never presented to them in this context.
3. All post hoc testing was done using Fisher's LSD test. There was no concern over an escalated

This content downloaded from

144.82.8.74 on Sat, 07 Jan 2023 21:49:10 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
 580 Rosemary Erlam

family-wise Type 1 error rate beca

three groups (Howell, 1999, p. 321).
4. Although the structured-input g
(means of 7.3 and 4.92, respectively)
5. As all native French speakers use
each of the three versions of the o
minimum, expected number of inst
a student, who had attempted only
on the basis of one correct example

REFERENCES

Alanen, R. (1995). Input enhancement and rule presentation in second language acquisition. In R
Schmidt (Ed.), Attention and awareness in foreign language learning (Tech. Rep. No. 9, pp. 259-
302). Honolulu: University of Hawaii, Second Language Teaching and Curriculum Center.
Asher, J. J. (1981). Comprehension training: The evidence from laboratory and classroom studies.
H. Winitz (Ed.), The comprehension approach to foreign language instruction (pp. 187-223). Row
ley, MA: Newbury House.
Asher, J. J., Kusudo, J., & de la Torre, R. (1974). Learning a second language through commands: l
second field test. The Modern Language Journal, 58, 24-32.
Brown, J. D. (1996). Testing in language programs . Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall.
Cohen, J. (1988). Statistical power analysis for the behavioural sciences (2nd ed.). Mahwah, NJ: Lrl-
baum.
DeKeyser, R. (1998). Beyond focus on form: Cognitive perspectives on learning and practicing second
language grammar. In C. Doughty & J. Williams (Eds.), Focus on form in classroom second lan-
guage acquisition (pp. 42-63). New York: Cambridge University Press.
DeKeyser, R., & Sokalski, K. (1996). The differential role of comprehension and production practice.
Language Learning 46, 613-642.
Doughty, C. (1991). Second language instruction does make a difference: Evidence from an empirical
study of SL relativization. Studies in Second Languagę Acquisition, 13, 431-469.
Douglas, D. (2001). Performance consistency in second language acquisition and language testing
research: A conceptual gap. Second Language Research, 17, 442-456.
Ellis, N. (1993). Rules and instances in foreign language learning: Interactions of implicit and explicit
knowledge. European Journal of Cognitive Psychology, 5, 289-318.
Ellis, R. (1995). Interpretation tasks for grammar teaching. TESOL Quarterly, 29, 87-105.
Ellis, R. (2001). Introduction: Investigating form-focused instruction. Language Learning 51 (Suppl. 1),
1-46.
Felix, S., & Hahn, A. (1985). Natural processes in classroom second language learning. Applied Linguis-
tics, 6, 223-238.
Gass, S. (1997). Input, interaction, and the second languagę learner. Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
Gundel, J., & Tarone, E. (1992). Language transfer and the acquisition of pronouns. In S. Gass & L.
Selinker (Eds.), Languagę transfer in language learning (pp. 87-100). Amsterdam: Benjamins.
Hazzard, M. S. (1999). The effects of instructional methodology on the comprehension of problematical
grammar structures in Spanish. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Temple University, Philadel-
phia, PA.
Howell, D. (1999). Fundamental statistics for the behavioural sciences (4th ed.). Pacific Grove, CA: Dux-
bury Press.
Kim, S. (2001). Structured-input and production practice in foreign/second languagę learning. Unpub-
lished doctoral dissertation, Temple University Japan, Tokyo.
Lee, J., & VanPatten, B. (1995). Making communicative languagę teaching happen. New York: McGraw-
Hill.
Leeman, J., Arteagoitia, I., Fridman, B., & Doughty, C. (1995). Integrating attention to form with mean-
ing: Focus on form in Spanish content-based instruction. In R. Schmidt (Ed.), Attention and
awareness in foreign language learning (Tech. Rep. No. 9, pp. 217-258). Honolulu: University of
Hawaii, Second Language Teaching and Curriculum Center.
Nagata, N. (1998). Input vs. output practice in educational software for second language acquisition.
Language Learning and Technology, 1, 23-40.
Norris, J., & Ortega, L. (2000). Effectiveness of L2 instruction: A research synthesis and quantitative
meta-analysis. Languagę Learning 50, 417-528.

This content downloaded from

144.82.8.74 on Sat, 07 Jan 2023 21:49:10 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
 Structured-Input and Output-Based Instruction 581

Reid, N., Jackson, P., Gilmore, A., & Croft, A. (1981). Test of scholastic abilities. Well
Zealand Council for Educational Research.
Robinson, P. (1996). Learning simple and complex rules under implicit, incidental, rule-se
tions. and instructed conditions. Studies in Second Lamtuaste Acauisition. 18. 27-67.
Salaberry, M. (1997). The role of input and output practice in second language acquisition
dian Modern Lanaiase Review. 53. 422-451.
Tanaka, T. (2001). Comprehension and production practice in grammar instruction: Does t
bined use facilitate second language acquisition? JALT Journal, 23, 6-30.
Tanaka, Y. (1996). The comprehension and acquisition of relative clauses by Japanese high
dents through formal instruction. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Temple Univers
Tokvo.
Toth, P. (1997). Linguistic and pedagogical perspectives on acquiring second language morph
look at Spanish se. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, University of Pittsburgh, PA.
Towell, R., & Hawkins, R. (1994). Approaches to second language acquisition. Clevedon, UK
gual Matters.
Trahey, M. (1996). Positive evidence in second language acquisition: Some long term effects. Second
Language Research, 12, 111-139.
Trahey, M., & White, L. (1993). Positive evidence and preemption in the second language classroom.
Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 15, 181-204.
VanPatten, B. (1996). input processing and grammar instruction in second language acquisition. West-
port, CT: Ablex.
VanPatten, B. (2002). Processing instruction: An update. Langpage Learning, 52, 755-803.
VanPatten, B., & Cadierno, T. (1993a). Explicit instruction and input processing. Studies in Second
Language Acquisition , 15, 225-243.
VanPatten, B., & Cadierno, T. (1993b). Input processing and second language acquisition: A role for
instruction. The Modern Language Journal, 77, 45-57.
Winitz, H. (1981). A reconsideration of comprehension and production in language training. In H.
Winitz (Ed.), The comprehension approach to foreign language instruction (pp. 101-141). Rowley,
MA: Newbury House.

APPENDIX
EXAMPLES OF TEACHING MATERIALS USED

Structured-Input Instruction

Input-based activities (translations provided for the reader only).

(1) Students are shown a picture of a man frowning and talking sternly to a young boy who is
looking up at him. They are asked to decide which of the following two sentences represents
what the man may be saying.
a. Ne te regarde pas comme ça. "Don't look at yourself like that."
b. Ne me regarde pas comme ça. "Don't look at me like that."

(2) Students are shown a picture of a girl looking at a pile of presents on the table in front of her.
They have to decide which of these two sentences best describes the picture.
a. Elle veut l'ouvrir. "She wants to open it."
b. Elle veut les ouvrir. "She wants to open them."

Error<orrection exercise. Henri asks David some questions. But David has had a bit too
much to drink! When he speaks French, he makes some mistakes. For each question
that Henri asks below, listen to the answer that David gives, and decide whether it is
grammatically correct or whether it contains an error.

This content downloaded from

144.82.8.74 on Sat, 07 Jan 2023 21:49:10 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
 582 Rosemary Erlam

Henri: David, est<e que tu trouves le

David: Non, je trouve le très difficile.
Henri: Alors, est<e que tu trouves les
David: Ah oui, je les trouve très diffi

Output-Based Instruction

Oralactivity. Your partner wan

lowing questions?

Modele: Est<e que tu m 'adores? "Do

Oui, mon amour, je t'adore, or, no
1 don't love you."
1. Est<e que tu m'adores? "Do you
2. Est<e que tu me trouves sexy? "
3. Est<e que tu vas m'aimer dans 2

Written activity. Complete the f

for your opinion about differen
out the whole sentence, replac
adjectives that are in the list to

difficile "difficult" facile "ea

ennuyeux(se ) "boring" genial "bril
délicieux "delicious" passionnant

1. Comment trouves-tu

2. Comment trouves-tu le français? "What do you think o

3. Comment trouves-tu les examens? "What do you thin
4. Comment trouves-tu le rap? "What do you think of rap

This content downloaded from

144.82.8.74 on Sat, 07 Jan 2023 21:49:10 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms