Differential Impact of Sequential and Simultaneous Input Enhancement on Iranian EFL Learners’ Intake

Document Type : Research Paper


1 Assistant Professor, Department of Foreign Languages, Farhangian University, Tehran, Iran

2 Department of Foreign Languages and Linguistics, Payame Noor University, Tehran, Iran


This study set out to explore whether different input enhancement tasks as implicit instruction techniques had any significant impact on the intake of causative verbs in English as a foreign language among Iranian EFL learners. For this purpose, three intact classes consisting of 75 male and female intermediate L2 learners were randomly divided into three conditions: simultaneous grammar consciousness-raising tasks (GCR, n= 22), sequential textual enhancement (TE, n= 28), and control group (CON, n= 25) that received reading comprehension passages totally free from the target structure. A grammaticality judgment test was used as the pre and posttest in order to measure the participants’ intake. Results revealed that the learners in GCR group had significantly better intake of the target structure than those in the TE group, while control group made no gain. The findings cast doubt on the usefulness of focusing on form before focusing on meaning. 


Alanen, R. (1995). Input enhancement and rule presentation in second language acquisition. In R. Schmidt (Ed.), Attention and awareness in foreign language acquisition (pp. 259-302). University of Hawaii: Honolulu.
Alsadhan, R. O. (2011). Effects of textual enhancement and explicit rule presentation on the noticing and acquisition of L2 grammatical structures: A meta- analysis.An unpublished doctoral dissertation, Colorado State University, Colorado.        
Amirian, M. R., & Sadeghi, F. (2012). The effect of grammar consciousness-raising tasks on EFL learners performance. International Journal of Linguistics, 4(3), 708-720.
Berent, G. & Kelly, R. (2008).The efficiency of visual input enhancement in teaching deaf learners of L2 English. In Z. Han (Ed.), Understanding second language process (pp. 80-105). UK: MPG Books.
Brown, J. D.  (2000). Focus on grammar. Upper Saddle River, N.J: Prentice Hall.
Combs, C. (2008). Topic familiarity and input enhancement: An empirical investigation.Applied Linguistics, 8(2), 1-51.
 Craik, F., & Lockhart, R. (1972). Levels of processing: A framework for memory research.Journal of Verbal Learning and Verbal Behaviour, 11, 671–84
Doughty, C. (1991). Second language instruction does make a difference: Evidence from an empirical study of SL relativization. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 13, 431-496.  Retrieved June 2, 2012 from: http://dx.doi.org/10.1017/S0272263100010287
Ellis, N. C. (1993). Rules and instances in foreign language learning: Interactions of implicit and explicit knowledge. European Journal of Cognitive Psychology, 5(3), 289-319.
Ellis, N. C. (Ed.) (1994). Implicit and explicit learning of languages. London: Academic Press.       
Ellis,R. (2008). The study of second language acquisition. Oxford University Press.
Farahani, A. K., &Sarkhosh, M. (2012). Do different textual enhancement formats have differential effects on the intake of English subjunctive mood? Theory and Practice in Language Studies, 2(4), 688-698. Retrieved May 15, 2012 from: http://dx.doi.org/10.4304/tpls.2.4.688-698.
Fotos, S. (1993). Consciousness-raising and noticing through focus on form: Grammar task performance versus formal instruction. Applied linguistics, 14, 385-401.
Fotos, S. (1994). Integrating grammar instruction and communicative language use through grammar consciousness-raising tasks.TESOL Quarterly, 28(2), 323-51.
Fotos, S.,  & Ellis, R., (1991). Communicating about grammar: A task-based approach.TESOL Quarterly, 25, 605–628.           
Gass, S., & Selinker, L. (2008). Second language acquisition. New York, NY: Rutledge.
Han Z., Park E.S., & Combs C. (2008). Textual enhancement of input: Issues and possibilities. Applied Linguistics, 29(4), 597-618.
Han, Z. H.,& Peverly, S. (2007). Input processing: A study of ab initio learners with multilingual backgrounds. The International Journal of Multilingualism, 4(1), 17–37.
Hernandez, T. A. (2011). Re-examining the role of explicit instruction and input flood on the acquisition of Spanish discourse markers. Language Teaching Research, 15(2) 159–182.Retrieved March 7, 2012 from:  http://ltr.sagepub.com/content/15/2/159          
Izumi, S. (2003). Comprehension and production processes in second language learning: In search of the psycholinguistic rationale of the noticing hypothesis. Applied Linguistics, 24(2), 168-196.
Jourdenais, R. O. M., Stauffer, S., Boyson, B., & Doughty, C. (1995). Does textual enhancement promote noticing? A think-aloud protocol analysis. In R. Schmidt (Ed.), Attention and awareness in second language learning(Technical Report 9) (pp. 183-216). University of Hawaii, Second Language Teaching and Curriculum Center: Honolulu.       
Krashen S. (1985).The input hypothesis: Issus and implication. WY: Longman.
Lee, S. K. (2007). Effects of textual enhancement and topic familiarity on Korean EFL students’ reading comprehension and learning of passive voice.Language Learning, 57, 87-118. Retrieved April 10, 2011 from: http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-9922.2007.00400.x 
Lee, S. K., & Huang, H. T. (2008). Visual input enhancement and grammar learning: A meta-analytic review. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 30, 307-331. Retrieved June 17, 2012 from: http://dx.doi.org/10.1017/S0272263108080479
Leow, R., (1997). The effects of input enhancement and text length on adult L2 readers’ comprehension and intake in second language acquisition.Applied Language Learning, 8, 151–182.         
Leow, R., 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, 1–16.
Long, M. (1982). Native speaker/non-native speaker conversation in the second language classroom. In M. Long & C. Richards (Eds.), Methodology in TESOL: A book of readings (pp. 339 354). New York: Newbury House.
Lyddon,  p., A. (2011). The efficacy of corrective feedback and textual enhancement inpromoting the acquisition of grammatical redundancies. The Modern Language   Journal, 95, 104-129.
Mohamed, N. (2004). Consciousness-raising tasks: A learner perspective. ELT Journal, 58(3), 228-37.       
Overstreet, M. (1998).Text enhancement and content familiarity: The focus of learner’ on attention. Spanish Applied Linguistics, Vol. 2, 229-258.   
Overstreet, M. (2002).The effects of textual enhancement on second language learner reading comprehension and form recognition (Doctoral Dissertation).Available from ProQuest Dissertations and Theses databases. (UMI No. 3070405)        
Reinders, H. &Ellis,R. (2009).The effects of two types of positive enhanced input on intake and L2 acquisition. In R. Ellis, S. Loewen, R. Erlam, J. Philp, C. Elder, & H. Reinders (Eds.), Implicit and Explicit Knowledge in a Second Language (pp. 27-41). Clevedon: Multilingual Matters.         
White, J. (1998).Getting the learners’ attention: A typographical input enhancement study. In C. Doughty & J. Williams (Eds.), Focus-on-form in second language classroom acquisition (pp. 91-128). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press
Reinders, H. (2012). Towards a definition of intake in second language acquisition.Applied Research in English, 1(2), 15-36.
Rutherford, W. &Sharwood Smith, M. (1985).Consciousness raising and universal grammar. Applied Linguistics, 6(3), 274-282.         
Sarkhosh, M., Sarboland, E. (2012). Different Textual Enhancement Formats and the Intake of English Past Simple Tense. International Journal of Linguistics, Vol. 4(2), 459-474.
Sa-ngamwibool, A. (2007). Enhancing structure and written expression among EFL Thai students through consciousness-raising instruction.Journal of NELTA,12, 1 & 2.
Scott, V., M. (2008). What’s the problem? L2 learners’ use of the L1 during consciousness-raising, form-focused tasks.The Modern Language Journal, Vol. 92, 100-117. Retrieved January 16, 2010 from: http://www.gwu.edu/rgsl/Spanish/Spanishfaculty/delafuente2008.pdf.
Sharwood Smith, M. (1993). Input enhancement in instructed SLA: Theoretical bases. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 15, 165-179. Retrieved July 10, 2009 from: http://dx.doi.org/10.1017/S0272263100011943
Shook, D. J. (1994).FL/L2 reading, grammatical information, and the input to intake phenomenon. Applied Language Learning, 5, 57-93.
Simard, D. (2009). Differential effects of textual enhancement formats on intake. System, Vol. 37, 124-135. Retrieved October18, 2010 from: http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.system.2008.06.005
Skehan, P. (1996). A framework for the implementation of task-based instruction. Applied Linguistics, 17, 38–62.
Sugiharto, P. (2006). Grammar consciousness-raising, research, theory, and application. Indonesian Journal of English Language Teaching, 2, 140-148.        
Van Patten, B. (1996). Input processing and grammar instruction: theory and research. Ablex, Norwood, NJ.       
VanPatten, B. (2007). Input processing in adult second language acquisition. In B. Van Patten & J. Williams (Eds.), Theories in Second Language Acquisition, (pp. 115–135). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
Wagaer-Gough, J. &Ehtch, E. 1975.The importance of input data in second language acquisition studies. Language Learning, 5(1), 297-307.
White, J. (1998). Getting the learners’ attention: A typographical input enhancement study.In C. Doughty & J. Williams (Eds.), Focus-on-form in second language classroom acquisition (pp. 91-128). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Wong, W. (2003). Textual enhancement and simplified input: Effects on L2 comprehension and acquisition of non-meaningful grammatical form. Applied Language Learning, 13, 17–45.
Wong, W. (2005).Input enhancement: From theory and research to the classroom. San Francisco, CA: McGraw-Hill (Second Language Professional Series).