Gleaning Insights about Input-Based and Output-Based Form-Focused Instruction through Meta-Analysis of Korean EFL Learners

Andrew Schenck

doi:10.31261/TAPSLA.15784

Published: 2025-04-04

2025

Gleaning Insights about Input-Based and Output-Based Form-Focused Instruction through Meta-Analysis of Korean EFL Learners

Andrew Schenck

Section: Articles

https://doi.org/10.31261/TAPSLA.15784

Abstract

Form-Focused Instruction (FFI) has been extensively studied, yet past research often yields contradictory results. Overly simplistic examination of grammatical features, along with inadequate exploration of EFL learners at different English proficiency levels, has limited understanding of how and when to use different forms of FFI. Due to a need for further research, the present study was designed to holistically examine input and output-based forms of FFI with various grammatical features, along with Korean EFL learners at different proficiency levels. Eighteen experimental studies with Korean EFL learners were selected for metanalysis and research synthesis. The effects of type of instruction (input vs. output) were analyzed along with complexity of a target feature and learner proficiency in English. Results suggested that input-based instruction is more effective with grammatical features that involve a single phrase (e.g., basic morphology and vocabulary), while output-based instruction is more effective with more complex phrases and clauses with a syntactic component (e.g., relative clauses and conditionals). Input may activate form-meaning mapping, which is more useful for the acquisition of basic morphology or vocabulary, whereas output may help learners order constituents, thereby aiding in the acquisition of syntactic phrases and clauses. Proficiency also appears to influence the efficacy of FFI. When proficiency of participants was low and complexity of a grammatical feature was high, the influence of input tended to be stronger. When proficiency was intermediate and complexity of a grammatical feature was low, output-based instruction tended to result in larger effect sizes.

Keywords:

form-focused instruction , input , output , Korean , L1 , L2 , EFL , grammar

Download files

PDF

Citation rules

Schenck, A. (2025). Gleaning Insights about Input-Based and Output-Based Form-Focused Instruction through Meta-Analysis of Korean EFL Learners. Theory and Practice of Second Language Acquisition, 1–23. https://doi.org/10.31261/TAPSLA.15784

Cited by / Share

Licence

This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 4.0 International License.

The Copyright Holders of the submitted texts are the Authors. The Reader is granted the rights to use the material available in the TAPSLA websites and pdf documents under the provisions of the Creative Commons 4.0 International License: Attribution - Share Alike (CC BY-SA 4.0). The user is free to copy and redistribute the material in any medium or format, and to remix, transform, and build upon the material for any purpose, even commercially.

1. License

The University of Silesia Press provides immediate open access to journal’s content under the Creative Commons BY-SA 4.0 license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/). Authors who publish with this journal retain all copyrights and agree to the terms of the above-mentioned CC BY-SA 4.0 license.

2. Author’s Warranties

The author warrants that the article is original, written by stated author/s, has not been published before, contains no unlawful statements, does not infringe the rights of others, is subject to copyright that is vested exclusively in the author and free of any third party rights, and that any necessary written permissions to quote from other sources have been obtained by the author/s.

If the article contains illustrative material (drawings, photos, graphs, maps), the author declares that the said works are of his authorship, they do not infringe the rights of the third party (including personal rights, i.a. the authorization to reproduce physical likeness) and the author holds exclusive proprietary copyrights. The author publishes the above works as part of the article under the licence "Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 4.0 International".

ATTENTION! When the legal situation of the illustrative material has not been determined and the necessary consent has not been granted by the proprietary copyrights holders, the submitted material will not be accepted for editorial process. At the same time the author takes full responsibility for providing false data (this also regards covering the costs incurred by the University of Silesia Press and financial claims of the third party).

3. User Rights

Under the CC BY-SA 4.0 license, the users are free to share (copy, distribute and transmit the contribution) and adapt (remix, transform, and build upon the material) the article for any purpose, provided they attribute the contribution in the manner specified by the author or licensor.

4. Co-Authorship

If the article was prepared jointly with other authors, the signatory of this form warrants that he/she has been authorized by all co-authors to sign this agreement on their behalf, and agrees to inform his/her co-authors of the terms of this agreement.

I hereby declare that in the event of withdrawal of the text from the publishing process or submitting it to another publisher without agreement from the editorial office, I agree to cover all costs incurred by the University of Silesia in connection with my application.

References

Alanen, R. (1995). Input enhancement and rule presentation in second language acquisition. In R. Schmidt (Ed.), Attention and awareness in foreign language learning (pp. 259–302). University of Hawaii Press.
Google Scholar

Benati, A. (2001). A comparative study of the effects of processing instruction and output-based instruction on the acquisition of the Italian future tense. Language Teaching Research, 5(2), 95–127. https://doi.org/10.1177/136216880100500202
Google Scholar

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(1), 67–93. https://doi.org/10.1191/1362168805lr154oa
Google Scholar

Cho, M. Y. (2010). The effects of input enhancement and written recall on noticing and acquisition. Innovation in Language Learning and Teaching, 4(1), 71–87. https://doi.org/10.1080/17501220903388900
Google Scholar

*Cho, Y. (2011). Effects of different types of focus-on-form instruction and learner readiness on the learning of perfective modals. Foreign Languages Education, 18, 1–27.
Google Scholar

Collins, L., & Ruivivar, J. (2020). Form-Focused Instruction. In C. A. Chapelle (Ed.), The Encyclopedia of Applied Linguistics (pp. 472–502). John Wiley and Sons. https://doi.org/10.1002/9781405198431.wbeal0432.pub2
Google Scholar

Comer, W. J., & deBenedette, L. (2011). Processing instruction and Russian: Further evidence is in. Foreign Language Annals, 44(4), 646–673. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1944-9720.2011.01155.x
Google Scholar

Diener, M. J. (2010). Cohen’s d. In The Corsini encyclopedia of psychology. https://doi.org/10.1002/9780470479216.corpsy0200
Google Scholar

Dyson, B. (2018). Developmental sequences. In J. I. Liontas (Ed.), The TESOL encyclopedia of English language teaching (pp. 1–8). John Wiley & Sons.
Google Scholar

Dyson, B. P., & Håkansson, G. (2017). Understanding second language processing: A focus on processability theory (Vol. 4). John Benjamins.
Google Scholar

Ellis, R. (2009). Task-based language teaching: Sorting out the misunderstandings. International Journal of Applied Linguistics, 19(3), 221–246. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1473-4192.2009.00231.x
Google Scholar

Gass, S. M., & Selinker, L. (2009). Second language acquisition: An introductory course (3rd ed.). Routledge.
Google Scholar

Gholami, J., & Zeinolabedini, M. (2018). Learnability and teachability hypothesis. In J. I. Liontas (Ed.), The TESOL encyclopedia of English language teaching (pp. 1–7). John Wiley & Sons.
Google Scholar

*Hwang, H. J. (2018). A study on the Korean EFL learners’ grammatical knowledge development under input-enhanced FFI and output-enhanced FFI conditions. Journal of Digital Convergence, 16(5), 435–443. https://doi.org/10.14400/JDC.2018.16.5.435
Google Scholar

Izumi, S. (2002). Output, input enhancement, and the noticing hypothesis: An experimental study on ESL relativization. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 24(4), 541–577. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0272263102004023
Google Scholar

Izumi, S., & Bigelow, M. (2000). Does output promote noticing and second language acquisition?. TESOL Quarterly, 34(2), 239–278. https://doi.org/10.2307/3587952
Google Scholar

Izumi, Y., & Izumi, S. (2004). Investigating the effects of oral output on the learning of relative clauses in English: Issues in the psycholinguistic requirements for effective output tasks. Canadian Modern Language Review, 60(5), 587–609. https://doi.org/10.3138/cmlr.60.5.587
Google Scholar

*Jeong, H., & Lee, H. (2018). The effects of two types of written output tasks on noticing and learning of vocabulary. Korean Journal of Applied Linguistics, 34(4), 75–102. https://doi.org/10.17154/kjal.2018.12.34.4.75
Google Scholar

Kaivanpanah, S., Alavi, S. M., & Ravandpour, A. (2020). The effect of input-based and output-based tasks with different and identical involvement loads on Iranian EFL learners’ incidental vocabulary learning. Cogent Psychology, 7(1), 1–17. https://doi.org/10.1080/23311908.2020.1731223
Google Scholar

*Kang, D. (2011). Noticing and L2 learning in input-based focus-on-form instruction. Foreign Languages Education, 18(2), 29–49. UCI: G704-000287.2011.18.2.017
Google Scholar

*Kang, D. H. (2003). Focus on form instructions and L2 learners’ instructional preferences. Foreign Languages Education, 10(1), 57–82. UCI: G704-000287.2003.10.1.007
Google Scholar

*Kang, N. (2009). Effects of form-focused instructions on the learning of English verb complementation by Korean EFL learners. English Teaching, 64(1), 3–25. https://doi.org/10.15858/engtea.64.1.200903.3
Google Scholar

*Kim, B. (2002). The role of focus on form in the EFL classroom setting: Looking into recast and CR tasks. English Teaching, 57(4), 267–296. UCI: G704-000189.2002.57.4.022
Google Scholar

*Kim, J. E. (2014). Timing of form-focused instruction and development of implicit vs. explicit knowledge. English Teaching, 69(2), 123–147.
Google Scholar

*Kim, J. E., & Nam, H. (2017). The pedagogical relevance of processing instruction in second language idiom acquisition. International Review of Applied Linguistics in Language Teaching, 55(2), 93–132. https://doi.org/10.1515/iral-2015-0027
Google Scholar

*Lee, H. (2002). Communicative output as a mode of focus on form. English Teaching, 57(3), 171–192. UCI: G704-000189.2002.57.3.006
Google Scholar

*Lee, H. (2003). The effects of production and comprehension for focus on form and second language acquisition. Korean Journal of Applied Linguistics, 19(2), 41–68. UCI: G704-000491.2003.19.2.010
Google Scholar

Lee, S. K. (2007). Effects of textual enhancement and topic familiarity on Korean EFL students’ reading comprehension and learning of passive form. Language Learning, 57(1), 87–118. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-9922.2007.00400.x
Google Scholar

Lee, S. K., & Huang, H. T. (2008). Visual input enhancement and grammar learning: A metaanalytic review. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 30(3), 307–331. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0272263108080479
Google Scholar

Leow, R. P., Egi, T., Nuevo, A. M., & Tsai, Y. C. (2003). The roles of textual enhancement and type of linguistic item in adult L2 learners’ comprehension and intake. Applied Language Learning, 13(2), 1–16.
Google Scholar

*Lim, J. (2007). Input enhancement in the EFL learning of present perfect and the lexical aspect. Modern English Education, 8(3), 38–60. UCI: G704-001860.2007.8.3.005
Google Scholar

Liu, Q., & Brown, D. (2015). Methodological synthesis of research on the effectiveness of corrective feedback in L2 writing. Journal of Second Language Writing, 30, 66–81. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jslw.2015.08.011
Google Scholar

Luk, Z. P. S., & Shirai, Y. (2009). Is the acquisition order of grammatical morphemes impervious to L1 knowledge? Evidence from the acquisition of plural ‐s, articles, and possessive ’s. Language Learning, 59(4), 721–754. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-9922.2009.00524.x
Google Scholar

Maleki, A. (2006). The impact of the head-initial/head-final parameter on reading English as a foreign language: A hindering or a facilitating factor?, The Reading Matrix, 6, 154–169.
Google Scholar

Namaziandost, E., Dehkordi, E. S., & Shafiee, S. (2019). Comparing the effectiveness of input-based and output-based activities on productive knowledge of vocabulary among pre-intermediate EFL learners. Asian-Pacific Journal of Second and Foreign Language Education, 4, 1–14. https://doi.org/10.1186/s40862-019-0065-7
Google Scholar

Nassaji, H., & Fotos, S. S. (2011). Teaching grammar in second language classrooms: Integrating form-focused instruction in communicative context. Routledge.
Google Scholar

Pienemann, M. (2005). Cross-linguistic aspects of Processability Theory (Vol. 30). John Benjamins Publishing.
Google Scholar

Pienemann, M., & Lenzing, A. (2015). Processability Theory (2nd ed.). In B. VanPatten & J. Williams (Eds.), Theories in second language acquisition: An introduction (pp. 159–179). Routledge. https://doi.org/10.4324/9780203628942
Google Scholar

Piggott, L. (2019). First meaning then form: A longitudinal study on the effects of delaying and reducing explicit form-focused instruction for young adolescent EFL learners. Doctoral dissertation, Utrecht University, The Netherlands. LOT Dissertation Series, number 545. LOT.
Google Scholar

Rassaei, E. (2012). The effects of input-based and output-based instruction on L2 development. TESL-EJ, 16(3), 1–26. https://tesl-ej.org/wordpress/issues/volume16/ej63/ej63a2/
Google Scholar

Rassaei, E. (2015). Effects of textual enhancement and input enrichment on L2 development. TESOL Journal, 6(2), 281–301. https://doi.org/10.1002/tesj.149
Google Scholar

Rice, M. E., & Harris, G. T. (2005). Comparing effect sizes in follow-up studies: ROC Area, Cohen's d, and r. Law and Human Behavior, 29(5), 615–620. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10979-005-6832-7
Google Scholar

Sarkhosh, M., Taghipour, B., & Sarkhosh, H. (2013). Differential effect of different textual enhancement formats on intake. Procedia-Social and Behavioral Sciences, 70, 544–559. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.sbspro.2013.01.092
Google Scholar

*Shin, M. K. (2011). Effects of output tasks on Korean EFL learners’ noticing and learning of English grammar. Foreign Language Education, 18(2), 127–163. UCI: G704-000287.2011.18.2.014
Google Scholar

Shin, M. K. (2015). The resetting of the head direction parameter. Studies in Foreign Language Education, 18, 17–35. http://hdl.handle.net/10371/95840
Google Scholar

Shintani, N. (2011). A comparative study of the effects of input-based and production-based instruction on vocabulary acquisition by young EFL learners. Language Teaching Research, 15(2), 137–158. https://doi.org/10.1177/1362168810388692
Google Scholar

*Song, M. J. (2007). Getting learners’ attention: Typographical input enhancement, output, and their combined effects. English Teaching, 62(2), 193–215. https://doi.org/10.15858/engtea.62.2.200706.193
Google Scholar

*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(2), 295–312. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.system.2007.09.006
Google Scholar

Soruç, A. (2018). The mediating role of explicit information in processing instruction and production-based instruction on second language morphological development. Educational Sciences: Theory & Practice, 18(3), 279–302. https://dergipark.org.tr/en/pub/buje/is sue/55539/760450
Google Scholar

Spada, N., & Tomita, Y. (2010). Interactions between type of instruction and type of language feature: A meta‐analysis. Language Learning, 60(2), 263–308. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-9922.2010.00562.x
Google Scholar

Sullivan, G. M., & Feinn, R. (2012). Using effect size—or why the P value is not enough. Journal of Graduate Medical Education, 4(3), 279–282. https://doi.org/10.4300/JGME-D-12-00156.1
Google Scholar

Sun, Q., & Zhang, L. J. (2021). A sociocultural perspective on English-as-a-foreign-language (EFL) teachers’ cognitions about form-focused instruction. Frontiers in Psychology, 12, 1–14. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2021.710736
Google Scholar

Sun, Q., & Zhang, L. J. (2022). Understanding novice and experienced teachers’ cognitions and practices for sustainable teacher development: the case of form-focused instruction in English language teaching. Sustainability, 14(8), 1–17. https://doi.org/10.3390/su14084711
Google Scholar

Swain, M. (1995). Three functions of output in second language learning. In G. Cook & B. Seidlhofer (Eds.), Principle and practice in applied linguistics (pp. 125–144). Oxford University Press.
Google Scholar

Swain, M. (1998). Focus on form through conscious reflection. In C. Doughty & J. Williams (Eds.), Focus on form in classroom second language acquisition (pp. 64–81). Cambridge University Press.
Google Scholar

Winke, P. M. (2013). The effects of input enhancement on grammar learning and comprehension: A modified replication of Lee (2007) with eye-movement data. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 35(2), 323–352. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0272263112000903
Google Scholar

Xu, J., & Li, C. (2021). The effects of the timing of form-focused instruction on EFL learners’ learning of difficult and easy grammatical features: A comparative study. System, 101. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.system.2021.102612
Google Scholar

*Yang, M. (2004). A comparison of the efficacy between input-based instruction and output-based instruction in focus on form. English Teaching, 59(2), 145–164. UCI: G704-000189.2004.59.2.012
Google Scholar

*Yang, M. (2008). The effects of task difficulty on learners’ attention to meaning and form during focus-on-form instruction. Foreign Languages Education, 15(3), 27–52. UCI: G704-000287.2008.15.3.006
Google Scholar

Yang, M., Cooc, N., & Sheng, L. (2017). An investigation of cross-linguistic transfer between Chinese and English: A meta-analysis. Asian-Pacific Journal of Second and Foreign Language Education, 2(15), 1–21. https://doi.org/10.1186/s40862-017-0036-9
Google Scholar

*Yeo, K. (2002). The effects of dictogloss: A technique of focus on form. English Teaching, 57(1), 149–167. UCI: G704-000189.2002.57.1.011
Google Scholar

2025
Published: 2022-05-31

ISSN: 2450-5455

eISSN: 2451-2125

10.31261/tapsla

Publisher

Wydawnictwo Uniwersytetu Śląskiego | University of Silesia Press

Licence CC

This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 4.0 International License.

Submit

Gleaning Insights about Input-Based and Output-Based Form-Focused Instruction through Meta-Analysis of Korean EFL Learners

Abstract

Keywords:

Andrew Schenck

Information