Cited by 98Second Language Acquisition and LearningEFL/ESL Teaching and LearningLanguage Development and Disorders

A comparative study of the effects of input-based and production-based instruction on vocabulary acquisition by young EFL learners

Shintani, Natsuko·2011·Language Teaching Research

Abstract

The study reported in this article investigated the comparative effects of two types of treatment — one of which emphasized input and the other output — on the vocabulary acquisition of young EFL learners. In the input-based instruction, the students were not required to produce output whereas in the production-based instruction the students were required to produce output. Thirty-six Japanese children aged 6—8 were divided into three groups (input-based, production-based and control group), received six weeks instruction and took four types of vocabulary tests as a pre-, post- and delayed post-test. The findings provide further evidence that both input-based and production-based instruction lead to both receptive and productive vocabulary knowledge. In general, the results show similar levels of effects for input-based and production-based instruction on vocabulary acquisition. However, an examination of process features indicates that the input-based tasks provided opportunities for richer interaction for the learners than the production-based activities. This may explain the better performance of the input-based group on the task-based comprehension test and the same levels of achievement in the production tests despite relatively fewer opportunities for second language (L2) production.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1177/1362168810388692

Cites

3 of 3 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

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

Claims the paper makes

This paper’s full text isn’t openly available, 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, 2011

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Shintani, N.
Affiliations
University of Auckland (NZ)
Corresponding author
Shintani, Natsuko
Venue
Language Teaching Research
Published
2011-03-14
Volume
15
Issue
2
Pages
137-158
ISSN
  • 1362-1688 (ISSN-L)
  • 1477-0954
OpenAlex
W2143251291
Cited by
98
References
3
Citations by year
2026: 6 · 2025: 8 · 2024: 6 · 2023: 3 · 2022: 6 · 2021: 9 · 2020: 5 · 2019: 9 · 2018: 11 · 2017: 8 · 2016: 4 · 2015: 7 · 2014: 8 · 2013: 3 · 2012: 5
FWCI
10.50
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Locations
Language Teaching Research (publishedVersion)
Topics
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Developmental and Educational Psychology › Second Language Acquisition and Learning
  • Social Sciences › Arts and Humanities › Language and Linguistics › EFL/ESL Teaching and Learning
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Developmental and Educational Psychology › Language Development and Disorders
Keywords
vocabulary acquisition, input-based instruction, young EFL learners, receptive vocabulary, expressive vocabulary, second language acquisition, task-based interaction, Japanese children, second language vocabulary acquisition

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