A comparative study of the effects of input-based and production-based instruction on vocabulary acquisition by young EFL learners
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
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?
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
Task-based Language Learning and Teaching
Ellis, R. (2003) · Asian Journal of English Language Teaching · doi:10.65961/ajelt-2003-1-009 · Cited by 3,601 · see citing works
Does Second Language Instruction Make a Difference? A Review of Research
Long, M. H. (1983) · TESOL Quarterly · doi:10.2307/3586253 · Cited by 573 · cited 2× · see citing works
“The students’ L2 utterances in Lesson 3 were also classified in terms of two types of interaction: IRF (i.e. initiate-respond-feedback) exchange (Sinclair & Coulthard, 1975) and negotiation of meaning (Long, 1983).”
BackgroundEllis, N., & Beaton, A. (1993) · The Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology Section A · doi:10.1080/14640749308401062 · Cited by 246 · see citing works
Flagged first, then by citations
Cited by
Sorted by citations
Materials development for language learning and teaching
Tomlinson, B. (2012) · Language Teaching · doi:10.1017/s0261444811000528 · Cited by 811 · see citing works
In Defense of Tasks and TBLT: Nonissues and Real Issues
Long, M. H. (2016) · Annual Review of Applied Linguistics · doi:10.1017/s0267190515000057 · Cited by 359 · see citing works
- Authors
- Shintani, N.
- Affiliations
- University of Auckland (NZ)
- Corresponding author
- Shintani, Natsuko
- ORCID
- Shintani, Natsuko
- Venue
- Language Teaching Research
- Publisher
- SAGE Publications
- 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