Cited by 117EFL/ESL Teaching and LearningSecond Language Acquisition and LearningLanguage Acquisition and Education

Comprehension‐Based Versus Production‐Based Grammar Instruction: A Meta‐Analysis of Comparative Studies

Open access
Shintani, Natsuko, Li, Shaofeng, Ellis, Rod·2013·Language Learning

Abstract

This article reports a meta‐analysis of studies that investigated the relative effectiveness of comprehension‐based instruction (CBI) and production‐based instruction (PBI). The meta‐analysis only included studies that featured a direct comparison of CBI and PBI in order to ensure methodological and statistical robustness. A total of 35 research projects in 30 published studies were retrieved. The studies were coded for three types of effect sizes: comparative, absolute, and pre‐to‐post change. The comparative effect sizes were used in a subsequent moderator analysis to test the impact of two mediator variables—CBI with and without Processing Instruction and PBI involving text creation versus text manipulation. The results showed that (1) overall, both types of instruction had large effects on both receptive and productive knowledge; (2) for receptive knowledge, CBI had a greater effect than PBI when the acquisition was measured within one week but the difference diminished in the delayed tests (i.e., posttests administered between 1 week and 75 days after the treatment); (3) for productive knowledge, CBI and PBI had similar effects in short‐term measurement but PBI was more effective in the delayed tests; and (4) the initial advantage found for CBI was largely due to Processing Instruction. We discuss the theoretical and pedagogical significance of these findings.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1111/lang.12001

Cites

68 of 68 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Claims the paper makes

We couldn’t retrieve this paper’s full text, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

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?

  • Some classroom studies and a statistical meta-analysis favor input-based approaches over output-based instruction.

    “Some classroom studies, moreover (e.g., Shintani, 2011Shintani, , 2013)), have compared input-based and outputbased instruction; the results, together with those of a statistical meta-analysis of the same issues in teaching grammar in general (Shintani, Li, & Ellis, 2013), favor input-based approaches.”

    From In Defense of Tasks and TBLT: Nonissues and Real Issues (2016) · cites this paper as Shintani, Li, & Ellis, 2013

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Shintani, N., Li, S., & Ellis, R.
Affiliations
  • Nanyang Technological University (SG)
  • University of Auckland (NZ)
Corresponding author
Shintani, Natsuko
Venue
Language Learning
Publisher
Wiley
Published
2013-03-10
Volume
63
Issue
2
Pages
296-329
ISSN
  • 0023-8333 (ISSN-L)
  • 1467-9922
OpenAlex
W1903173051
Cited by
117
References
68
Citations by year
2026: 6 · 2025: 3 · 2024: 3 · 2023: 13 · 2022: 8 · 2021: 10 · 2020: 10 · 2019: 13 · 2018: 11 · 2017: 9 · 2016: 15 · 2015: 8 · 2014: 7 · 2012: 1
FWCI
69.72
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • Language Learning (publishedVersion)
  • eSpace (Curtin University) (submittedVersion)
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 › Language Acquisition and Education
Keywords
grammar instruction, processing instruction, text generation, text manipulation, second language grammar acquisition, delayed retention

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