Comprehension-based versus production-based grammar instruction: A meta-analysis of comparative studies

Language Learning

Volumn 63, Issue 2, 2013, Pages 296-329

  Shintani, Natsuko ^a   Li, Shaofeng ^b   Ellis, Rod ^b  

^a UNIVERSITY OF AUCKLAND   (New Zealand)

^b NANYANG TECHNOLOGICAL UNIVERSITY   (Singapore)

Author keywords

Comprehension based instruction; Grammar instruction; Meta analysis; Processing instruction; Production based instruction; Receptive and productive knowledge; Skills acquisition theory

Indexed keywords

EID: 84884414187     PISSN: 00238333     EISSN: 14679922     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1111/lang.12001     Document Type: Article

References (78)

1. Allen, L. Q. (2000). Form-meaning connections and the French causative. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 22, 69-84.
2. Asher, J. J. (1977). Learning another language through actions: The complete teacher's guidebook. Los Gatos, CA: Sky Oaks Productions.
3. Benati, A. (2005). The effects of processing instruction, traditional instruction and meaning-output instruction on the acquisition of the English past simple tense. Language Teaching Research, 9, 67-93.
4. Benati, A. (2009). Japanese language teaching: A communicative approach. London: Continuum.
5. Benati, A., & Lee, J. F. (2008). From processing instruction on the acquisition of Italian noun-adjective agreement to secondary transfer-of-training effects on Italian future tenes verb morphology. In A. Benati & J. F. Lee (Eds.), Grammar acquisition and processing instruction: Secondary and cumulative effects (pp. 54-87). Clevedon, UK: Multilingual Matters.
6. Benati, A., Lee, J. F., & Houghton, S. D. (2008). From processing instruction on the acquisition of English past tense to secondary transfer-of-training effects on English third person singular present tense verb morphology. In A. Benati & J. F. Lee (Eds.), Grammar acquisition and processing instruction: Secondary and cumulative effects (pp. 88-120). Clevedon, UK: Multilingual Matters.
7. Benati, A., Lee, J. F., & Laval, C. (2008). From processing instruction on the acquisition of French imparfait to secondary transfer-of-training effects on French subjunctive and to cumulative transfer-of-training effects with French causative constructions. In A. Benati & J. F. Lee (Eds.), Grammar acquisition and processing instruction: Secondary and cumulative effects (pp. 121-157). Clevedon, UK: Multilingual Matters.
8. Borenstein, M., Hedges, L. V., Higgins, J. P. T., & Rothstein, H. R. (2006). Comprehensive meta-analysis (Version 2.2.027) [Computer software]. Englewood, NJ: Biostat.
9. Borenstein, M., Hedges, L. V., Higgins, J. P. T., & Rothstein, H. R. (2009). Introduction to meta-analysis. Chichester, UK: Wiley.
10. Cadierno, T. (1995). Formal instruction from a processing perspective: An investigation into the Spanish past tense. Modern Language Journal, 79, 179-193.
11. Cheng, A. C. (2002). The effects of processing instruction on the acquisition of ser and estar. Hispania, 85, 308-323.
12. Cohen, J. (1988). Statistical power analysis for the behavioral sciences (2nd ed.). San Diego, CA: Academic Press.
13. Collentine, J. (1998). Processing instruction and the subjunctive. Hispania, 81, 576-587.
14. Cross, C., Copping, L., & Campbell, A. (2011). Sex differences in impulsivity: A meta-analysis. Psychological Bulletin, 137, 97-130.
15. Cumming, G. (2012). Understanding the new statistics: Effect sizes, confidence intervals, and meta-analysis. New York: Routledge.
16. De Jong, N. (2005). Can second language grammar be learned through listening? An experimental study. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 27, 205-234.
17. DeKeyser, R. M. (2007). Practice in a second language: Perspectives from applied linguistics and cognitive psychology. New York: Cambridge University Press.
18. DeKeyser, R. M., & Sokalski, K. J. (1996). The differential role of comprehension and production practice. Language Learning, 46, 613-642.
19. Duval, S. (2005). The trim and fill method. In H. R. Rothstein, A. J. Sutton, & M. Borenstein (Eds.), Publication bias in meta-analysis: Prevention, assessment, and adjustments (pp. 127-144). Chichester, UK: Wiley.
20. Ellis, N. C. (2005). At the interface: Dynamic interactions of explicit and implicit language knowledge. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 27, 305-352.
21. Ellis, R. (1995). Interpretation tasks for grammar teaching. TESOL Quarterly, 29, 87-105.
22. Ellis, R. (1997a). Second language acquisition. Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.
23. Ellis, R. (1997b). SLA research and language teaching. Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.
24. Ellis, R. (2003). Task-based language learning and teaching. Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.
25. Ellis, R. (2004). The definition and measurement of L2 explicit knowledge. Language Learning, 54, 227-275.
26. Erlam, R. (2003). Evaluating the relative effectiveness of structured-input and output-based instruction in foreign language learning. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 25, 559-582.
27. Farley, A. P. (2001a). Authentic processing instruction and the Spanish subjunctive. Hispania, 84, 289-299.
28. Farley, A. P. (2001b). Processing instruction and meaning-based output instruction: A comparative study. Spanish Applied Linguistics, 5(2), 57-94.
29. Farley, A. P. (2004). The relative effects of processing instruction and meaning-based output instruction. In B. VanPatten (Ed.), Processing instruction: Theory, research, and commentary (pp. 143-168). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
30. Gass, S., & Torres, M. J. A. (2005). Attention when: An investigation of the ordering effect of input and interaction. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 27, 1-31.
31. Goldschneider, J., & DeKeyser, R. M. (2001). Explaining the "natural order of L2 morpheme acquisition" in English: A meta-analysis of multiple determinants. Language Learning, 51, 1-50.
32. Hedges, L. V. (1994). Statistical considerations. In H. Cooper & L. V. Hedges (Eds.), The handbook of research synthesis (pp. 29-38). New York: Russell Sage Foundation.
33. Hodges, L. V., Humphris, G., & Macfarlane, G. (2005). A meta-analytic investigation of the relationship between the psychological distress of cancer patients and their carers. Social Science and Medicine, 60, 1-12.
34. Hunter, J., & Schmidt, F. (2004). Methods of meta-analysis. London: Sage.
35. Izumi, S. (2002). Output, input enhancement, and the noticing hypothesis: An experimental study on ESL relativization. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 24, 541-577.
36. Joe, A. (1998). What effects do text-based tasks promoting generation have on incidental vocabulary acquisition?. Applied Linguistics, 19, 357-377.
37. Koyanagi, K. (1999). Differential effects of focus on form vs. focus on forms. In T. Fujimura, Y. Kato, & R. Smith (Eds.), Proceedings on the 10th Conference on Second Language Research in Japan, 10 (pp. 1-31). Tokyo, Japan: International University of Japan.
38. Krashen, S., & Terrell, T. (1983). The natural approach. Hayward, CA: Alemany Press.
39. Lee, J. F., & Benati, A. (2007a). Comparing modes of delivering processing instruction and meaning-based output instruction on Italian and French subjunctive. In J. F. Lee & A. Benati (Eds.), Delivering processing instruction in classrooms and in virtual contexts: Research and practice (pp. 99-136). London: Equinox.
40. Lee, J. F., & Benati, A. (2007b). The effects of structured input activities on the acquisition of two Japanese linguistic features. In J. F. Lee & A. Benati (Eds.), Delivering processing instruction in classrooms and in virtual contexts: Research and practice (pp. 49-71). London: Equinox.
41. Leeser, M. J. (2008). Pushed output, noticing, and development of past tense morphology in content-based instruction. Canadian Modern Language Review, 65, 195-220.
42. Li, S. (2010). The effectiveness of corrective feedback in SLA: A meta-analysis. Language Learning, 60, 309-365.
43. Lightbown, P. M. (2008). Transfer appropriate processing as a model for classroom second language acquisition. In Z. Han (Ed.), Understanding second language process (pp. 27-44). Clevedon, UK: Multilingual Matters.
44. Lipsey, M., & Wilson, D. (2001). Practical meta-analysis. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
45. Littell, J. H., Corcoran, J., & Pillai, V. (2008). Systematic reviews and meta-analysis. New York: Oxford University Press.
46. Long, M. H., & Robinson, P. (1998). Focus on form: Theory, research, and practice. In C. Doughty & J. Williams (Eds.), Focus on form in classroom second language acquisition (pp. 15-40). Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
47. Lyster, R., & Saito, K. (2010). Oral feedback in classroom SLA. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 32, 265-302.
48. Mackey, A., & Goo, J. M. (2007). Interaction research in SLA: A meta-analysis and research synthesis. In A. Mackey (Ed.), Input, interaction and corrective feedback in L2 learning (pp. 379-452). Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.
49. Morgan-Short, K., & Bowden, H. W. (2006). Processing instruction and meaningful output-based instruction: Effects on second language development. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 28, 31-65.
50. Nagata, N. (1998a). Input vs. output practice in educational software for second language acquisition. Language Learning and Technology, 1(2), 23-40.
51. Nagata, N. (1998b). The relative effectiveness of production and comprehension practice in second language acquisition. Computer Assisted Language Learning, 11, 153.
52. Norris, J. M., & Ortega, L. (2000). Effectiveness of L2 instruction: A research synthesis and quantitative meta-analysis. Language Learning, 50, 417-528.
53. Oswald, F., & Plonsky, L. (2010). Meta-analysis in second language research: Choices and challenges. Annual Review of Applied Linguistics, 30, 85-110.
54. Ortega, L. (2010). Research synthesis. In B. Paltridge & A. Phakiti (Eds.), Companion to research methods in applied linguistics (pp. 111-126). London: Continuum.
55. Patall, E., Cooper, H., & Robinson, J. (2008). The effects of choice on intrinsic motivation and related outcomes: A meta-analysis of research findings. Psychological Bulletin, 134, 270-300.
56. Pienemann, M. (1985). Learnability and syllabus construction. In K. Hyltenstam & M. Pienemann (Eds.), Modelling and assessing second language acquisition (pp. 23-75). Clevedon, UK: Multilingual Matters.
57. Pienemann, M. (1989). Is language teachable? Psycholinguistic experiments and hypotheses. Applied Linguistics, 1, 52-79.
58. Plonsky, L. (2011). The effectiveness of second language strategy instruction: A meta-analysis. Language Learning, 61, 993-1038.
59. Qin, J. (2008). The effect of processing instruction and dictogloss tasks on acquisition of the English passive voice. Language Teaching Research, 12, 61-82.
60. Schulze, R. (2004). Meta-analysis: A comparison of approaches. Cambridge, MA: Hogrefe & Huber.
61. Shintani, N., & Ellis, R. (2010). The incidental acquisition of English plural -s by Japanese children in comprehension-based and production-based lessons. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 32, 607-637.
62. Song, M. J., & Suh, B. R. (2008). The effects of output task types on noticing and learning of the English past counterfactual conditional. System, 36, 295-312.
63. Swain, M. (1985). Communicative competence: Some roles of comprehensible input and comprehensible output in its development. In S. Gass & C. Madden (Eds.), Input in second language acquisition (pp. 235-256). Rowley, MA: Newbury House.
64. Swain, M. (1995). Three functions of output in second language learning. In G. Cook & B. Seidelhofer (Eds.), Principle and practice in applied linguistics: Studies in honor of H.G. Widdowson (pp. 125-144). Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.
65. Takimoto, M. (2009). The effects of input-based tasks on the development of learners' pragmatic proficiency. Applied Linguistics, 30, 1-25.
66. Tanaka, T. (2001). Comprehension and production practice in grammar instruction: Does their combined use facilitate second language acquisition?. JALT Journal, 23, 6-30.
67. Toth, P. D. (2006). Processing instruction and a role for output in second language acquisition. Language Learning, 56, 319-385.
68. Ur, P. (1996). A course in language teaching: Practice and theory. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
69. VanPatten, B. (1996). Input processing and grammar instruction: Theory and research. Norwood, NJ: Ablex.
70. VanPatten, B. (2002). Processing instruction: An update. Language Learning, 52, 755-803.
71. VanPatten, B. (2004). Input processing in second language acquisition. In B. VanPatten (Ed.), Processing Instruction: Theory, research, and commentary (pp. 5-32). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
72. VanPatten, B. (2007). Input processing in adult second language acquisition. In B. VanPatten & J. Williams (Eds.), Theories in second language acquisition (pp. 115-135). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
73. VanPatten, B., & Cadierno, T. (1993). Input processing and second language acquisition: A role for instruction. Modern Language Journal, 77, 45-57.
74. VanPatten, B., Inclezan, D., Salazar, H., & Farley, A. P. (2009). Processing instruction and dictogloss: A study on object pronouns and word order in Spanish. Foreign Language Annals, 42, 557-575.
75. VanPatten, B., & Wong, W. (2004). Processing instruction and the French causative: A replication. In B. VanPatten (Ed.), Processing instruction (pp. 97-118). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
76. VanPatten, B., & Oikkenon, S. (1996). Explanation versus structured input in processing instruction. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 18, 495-510.
77. Winitz, H. (1981). The comprehension approach to foreign language instruction. Rowley, MA: Newbury House.
78. Wong, W. (2004). The nature of processing instruction. In B. VanPatten (Ed.), Processing instruction: Theory, research, and commentary (pp. 33-63). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.