VISUAL INPUT ENHANCEMENT AND GRAMMAR LEARNING: A Meta-Analytic Review
Abstract
Effects of pedagogical interventions with visual input enhancement on grammar learning have been investigated by a number of researchers during the past decade and a half. The present review delineates this research domain via a systematic synthesis of 16 primary studies (comprising 20 unique study samples) retrieved through an exhaustive literature search. The overall magnitude of visual input enhancement was addressed by calculating and aggregating effect size d values. The results indicate that second language readers provided with enhancement-embedded texts barely outperformed those who were exposed to unenhanced texts with the same target forms flooded in them ( d = 0.22). A theoretical tension between form and meaning was indicated by a small but negative effect size value for learners' meaning processing ( d = −0.26). The importance of improving methodological practices in this research domain, including the reporting of statistical and treatment-related information and the counteracting of a possible publication bias, was also revealed by the synthetic analyses and is further discussed.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Claims the paper makes
Claims other papers make about this one
Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?
Text-enhancement is effective in helping learners to notice the target feature but not always so.
“The research on text-enhancement suggests that text-enhancement is effective in helping learners to notice the target feature but not always so (Lee & Huang, 2008).”
From Focus on form: A critical review (2016) · cites this paper as Lee & Huang, 2008
Lee & Huang's meta-analysis reported an overall positive effect of text-enhancement in tests administered shortly after reading enhanced texts, but the effect was quite small and there were marked differences in individual studies.
“They reported an overall positive effect in tests administered shortly after the learners had completed reading the enhanced texts but acknowledged that this was quite small and also that there were marked differences in the results of individual studies.”
From Focus on form: A critical review (2016) · cites this paper as Lee & Huang's (2008)
No citation lists for this paper
No citation lists for this paper yet — checked again daily.
References 57 · Cited by 238
- Authors
- Lee, S.-K., & Huang, H.-T.
- Affiliations
- University of Hawaiʻi at Mānoa (US)
- Corresponding author
- Huang, Hung-Tzu
- Venue
- Studies in Second Language Acquisition
- Publisher
- Cambridge University Press (CUP)
- Published
- 2008-07-16
- Volume
- 30
- Issue
- 3
- Pages
- 307-331
- ISSN
- 0272-2631 (ISSN-L)
- 1470-1545
- OpenAlex
- W1965660796
- Cited by
- 238
- References
- 57
- Citations by year
- 2026: 7 · 2025: 13 · 2024: 12 · 2023: 12 · 2022: 7 · 2021: 13 · 2020: 16 · 2019: 34 · 2018: 12 · 2017: 17 · 2016: 20 · 2015: 8 · 2014: 13 · 2013: 17 · 2012: 13
- FWCI
- 72.69
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
- Locations
- Studies in Second Language Acquisition (publishedVersion)
- Topics
- Social Sciences › Arts and Humanities › Language and Linguistics › EFL/ESL Teaching and Learning
- Social Sciences › Psychology › Developmental and Educational Psychology › Second Language Acquisition and Learning
- Social Sciences › Psychology › Developmental and Educational Psychology › Reading and Literacy Development
- Keywords
- grammar learning, second language reading, form-focused instruction, meaning processing, form and meaning, pedagogical intervention, publication bias, methodological practices
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review
