Abstract
Holistic study of grammar instruction is needed not only to establish the effectiveness of pedagogical techniques, but to determine when, and in what way, they should be utilized. Within a meta-analysis of 33 experimental studies, external stimuli impacting the language learner (scope of instruction, input or output enhancement, frequency of treatment, and EFL/ESL context) were concomitantly considered alongside cognitive factors (grammatical complexity and language proficiency). Results of linear regression revealed that the selected causal factors collectively explain more than 40 % of variability in the effectiveness of pedagogical techniques for English grammar production. Study further suggests that grammar emphasis with a limited scope may be more effective; input enhancement may be more effective with grammatical features that are less essential for communication (redundant, systematic, and less salient features such as past -ed); output enhancement may be more effective with grammatical features that have many salient lexical forms (e. g., past irregular); and learners in EFL contexts can benefit more from grammar instruction.
Acknowledgements
I would like to thank the editor, Leah Roberts, for her assistance throughout the review process. Her quick replies and timely feedback were very helpful. I would also like to thank the anonymous reviewers for their careful consideration and insightful comments that helped to improve this paper.
References
*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). 67–93.10.1191/1362168805lr154oaSearch in Google Scholar
Beretta, A. & A. Davies. 1985. Evaluation of the Bangalore project. ELT Journal 39(2). 121–7.10.1093/elt/39.2.121Search in Google Scholar
Berwick, R. C., P. Pietroski, B. Yankama & N. Chomsky. 2011. Poverty of the stimulus revisited. Cognitive Science 35(7). 1207–1242.10.1111/j.1551-6709.2011.01189.xSearch in Google Scholar
*Bitchener, J. 2008. Evidence in support of written corrective feedback. Journal of Second Language Writing 17(2). 102–118.10.1016/j.jslw.2007.11.004Search in Google Scholar
*Bitchener, J. & U. Knoch. 2008. The value of written corrective feedback for migrant and international students. Language Teaching Research 12(3). 409–431.10.1177/1362168808089924Search in Google Scholar
*Bitchener, J. & U. Knoch. 2009a. The relative effectiveness of different types of direct written corrective feedback. System 37(2). 322–329.10.1016/j.system.2008.12.006Search in Google Scholar
*Bitchener, J. & U. Knoch. 2009b. The value of a focused approach to written corrective feedback. ELT Journal 63(3). 204–211.10.1093/elt/ccn043Search in Google Scholar
*Bitchener, J. & U. Knoch. 2010a. Raising the linguistic accuracy level of advanced L2 writers with written corrective feedback. Journal of Second Language Writing 19(4). 207–217.10.1016/j.jslw.2010.10.002Search in Google Scholar
*Bitchener, J. & U. Knoch. 2010b. The contribution of written corrective feedback to language development: A ten month investigation. Applied Linguistics 31(2). 193–214. doi: 10.1093/applin/amp016Search in Google Scholar
*Bitchener, J., S. Young & D. Cameron. 2005. The effect of different types of corrective feedback on ESL student writing. Journal of Second Language Writing 14(3). 191–205.10.1016/j.jslw.2005.08.001Search in Google Scholar
Botana, G. P. 2013. The role of explicit information and task-essentialness in Processing Instruction (Doctoral dissertation). College Park, MD: University of Maryland Press. file:///C:/Users/Andy/Downloads/PrietoBotana_umd_0117E_14171.pdfSearch in Google Scholar
Brown, R. 1973. A first language. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press. doi:10.4159/harvard.978067473246.Search in Google Scholar
Bialystok, E. 1982. On the relationship between knowing and using forms. Applied Linguistics 3. 181–206.10.1093/applin/3.3.181Search in Google Scholar
Carroll, J. B. 1969. What Does the Pennsylvania Foreign Language Research Project Tell Us? Foreign Language Annals 3(2). 214–236.10.1111/j.1944-9720.1969.tb01281.xSearch in Google Scholar
Celce-Murcia, M. (ed.). 1991. Teaching English as a second or foreign language, 2nd edn. Boston, MA: Heinle & Heinle Publishers.Search in Google Scholar
Chastain, K D & F J Woerdehoff. 1968. A methodological study comparing the Audio‐Lingual Habit Theory and the Cognitive Code‐Learning Theory. The Modern Language Journal 52(5). 268–279.10.1111/j.1540-4781.1968.tb01905.xSearch in Google Scholar
Chen, J. 2007. On how to solve the problem of the avoidance of phrasal verbs in the Chinese context. International Education Journal 8(2). 348–353.Search in Google Scholar
Comer, W. J. & L. deBenedette. 2011. Processing instruction and Russian: Further evidence is IN. Foreign Language Annals 44(4). 646–673.10.1111/j.1944-9720.2011.01155.xSearch in Google Scholar
DeKeyser, R. M. 2005. What makes learning second‐language grammar difficult? A review of issues. Language Learning 55(S1). 1–25.10.1111/j.0023-8333.2005.00294.xSearch in Google Scholar
De Villiers, J. & P. De Villiers. 1973. A crosssectional study of the acquisition of grammatical morphemes in child speech. Journal of Psycholinguistic Research 2(3). 267–278. doi:10.1007/BF01067106. PMID:24197869Search in Google Scholar
Dulay, H. C. & M. K. Burt. 1974. Natural sequences in child language acquisition. Language Learning 24(1). 37–53. doi:10.1111/j.1467-1770.1974.tb00234..Search in Google Scholar
Dulay, H. C. & M. K. Burt. 1975. A new approach to discovering universals of child second language acquisition. In D. Dato (ed.), Developmental psycholinguistics (Monograph series on language and linguistics, 209–233. Washington DC: Georgetown University Press.Search in Google Scholar
Dulay, H. C., M. K. Burt & S. Krashen. 1982. Language two. New York, NY: Oxford University Press.Search in Google Scholar
Dyson, B. 2009. Processability theory and the role of morphology in English as a second language development: A longitudinal study. Second Language Research 25(3). 355–376. doi: 10.1177/0267658309104578Search in Google Scholar
Ellis, R. 2005. Measuring implicit and explicit knowledge of a second language: A psychometric study. Studies in Second Language Acquisition 27(2). 141–172.10.1017/S0272263105050096Search in Google Scholar
Ellis, N. & L. Collins. 2009. Input and second language acquisition: The roles of frequency, form, and function. The Modern Language Journal 93(3). 329–335.10.1111/j.1540-4781.2009.00893.xSearch in Google Scholar
Ellis, N. & D. Larsen-Freeman. 2009. Constructing a second language: Analyses and computational simulations of the emergence of linguistic constructions from usage. Language Learning 59. 90–125. doi: 10.1111/j.1467-9922.2009.00537.xSearch in Google Scholar
*Ellis, R., S. Loewen & R. Erlam. 2006. Implicit and explicit corrective feedback and the acquisition of L2 grammar. Studies in Second Language Acquisition 28(2). 339–368.10.1017/S0272263106060141Search in Google Scholar
Ellis, R. & Y. Sheen. 2006. Reexamining the role of recasts in second language acquisition. Studies in Second Language Acquisition 28(4). 575–600.10.1017/S027226310606027XSearch in Google Scholar
*Ellis, R., Y. Sheen, M. Murakami & H. Takashima. 2008. The effects of focused and unfocused written corrective feedback in an English as a foreign language context. System 36(3). 353–371.10.1016/j.system.2008.02.001Search in Google Scholar
Evers-Vermeul, J. & T. Sanders. 2011. Discovering domains–On the acquisition of causal connectives. Journal of Pragmatics 43(6). 1645–1662.10.1016/j.pragma.2010.11.015Search in Google Scholar
Ferris, D. R. 2004. The “grammar correction” debate in L2 writing: Where are we, and where do we go from here? (And what do we do in the meantime...?). Journal of Second Language Writing, 13(1). 49–62. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jslw.2004.04.00510.1016/j.jslw.2004.04.005Search in Google Scholar
Foraker, S., T. Regier, N. Khetarpal, A. Perfors & J. Tenenbaum. 2009. Indirect evidence and the poverty of the stimulus: The case of anaphoric one. Cognitive Science 33(2). 287–300.10.1111/j.1551-6709.2009.01014.xSearch in Google Scholar
Goldschneider, J. & R. DeKeyser. 2005. Explaining the “natural order of L2 morpheme acquisition” in English: A meta-analysis of multiple determinants. Language Learning 55. 27–77.10.1111/j.0023-8333.2005.00295.xSearch in Google Scholar
Hendrickson, J. M. 1978. Error correction in foreign language teaching: Recent theory, research, and practice. The Modern Language Journal 62(8). 387–398.Search in Google Scholar
*Izumi, S. 2002. Output, input enhancement, and the noticing hypothesis. Studies in Second Language Acquisition 24(4). 541–577.10.1017/S0272263102004023Search in Google Scholar
*Izumi, Y. & S. Izumi. 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). 587–609.10.3138/cmlr.60.5.587Search in Google Scholar
Jang, J. D. 2006. Effectiveness of input enhancement in form-focused instruction. Journal of Linguistic Science 39. 187–207.Search in Google Scholar
Johnston, M. 1985. Syntactic and morphological progressions in learner English. Canberra: Commonwealth Department of Immigration and Ethnic Affairs.Search in Google Scholar
Johnston, M. 1994. Second language acquisition: A classroom perspective. Australian studies in language acquisition no. 1. Macarthur, Australia: Western Sydney University. ED 411 701F.Search in Google Scholar
Kao, C. W. 2013. Effects of focused feedback on the acquisition of two English articles. TESL-EJ 17(1). 1–15.Search in Google Scholar
Kim, J. K. & P. Rebuschat. 2010. At the interface of explicit and implicit knowledge: Evidence for synergistic effects in L2 development. Paper presented at the Second Language Research Forum, October 14–17, University of Maryland, College Park.Search in Google Scholar
Krashen, S. D. & T. D. Terrell. 1983. The natural approach. New York: Alemany Press.Search in Google Scholar
*Kubota, M. 1997. Instructional effects of positive and negative evidence on prepositional/phrasal verbs. IRLT (Institute for Research in Language Teaching) Bulletin 11. 1–39.Search in Google Scholar
Larsen-Freeman, D. E. 1976. An explanation for the morpheme acquisition order of second language learners. Language Learning 26(1). 125–134. doi:10.1111/j.1467-1770.1976.tb00264..Search in Google Scholar
Larsen-Freeman, D. 2015. Research into practice: Grammar learning and teaching. Language Teaching 48(2). 263–280.10.1017/S0261444814000408Search in Google Scholar
Lee, C. 2005. Different types of English to which Korean college students are exposed outside the class. Paper presented at the Korean Association of Foreign Language Education. East Lansing, MI.Search in Google Scholar
Lightbown, P. M. 2004. Commentary: What to teach? How to teach. In B. VanPatten (ed.), Processing instruction: Theory, research, and commentary, 65–78. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.Search in Google Scholar
Lipsey, M. W. & D. B. Wilson. 2001. Practical meta-analysis. London, England: Sage Publications.Search in Google Scholar
Long, M. & P. Robinson. 2004. Focus on form: Theory, research and practice. In C. Doughty & J. Williams (eds.), Focus on form in classroom second language acquisition, 15–41. New York, NY: Cambridge University Press.Search in Google Scholar
Luk, Z. P.–S. & Y. Shirai. 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. 721–754. doi:10.1111/j.1467–9922.2009.00524..Search in Google Scholar
*Mackey, A. 2006. Feedback, noticing and instructed second language learning. Applied Linguistics 27(3). 405–430.10.1093/applin/ami051Search in Google Scholar
*Mackey, A. & J. Philp. 1998. Conversational interaction and second language development: Recasts, responses, and red herrings?. The Modern Language Journal 82(3). 338–356.10.1111/j.1540-4781.1998.tb01211.xSearch in Google Scholar
Makino, T. (1979). English morpheme acquisition order of Japanese secondary school students (Doctoral dissertation). Available from ProQuest Dissertations and Theses database. (AAT 8228138)Search in Google Scholar
Marsden, E. & H. Y. Chen. 2011. The roles of structured input activities in Processing Instruction and the kinds of knowledge they promote. Language Learning 61(4). 1058–1098. doi: 10.1111/j.1467-9922.2011.00661.xSearch in Google Scholar
Master, P. (n.d.). Pedagogical frameworks for learning the English article system. San Jose, California: San Jose State University Press. http://www.sjsu.edu/faculty/pmaster/PedFrames.pdfSearch in Google Scholar
Master, P. 1994. The effect of systematic instruction on learning the English article system. In T. Odlin (ed.), Perspectives on Pedagogical Grammar, 229–252. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.10.1017/CBO9781139524605.011Search in Google Scholar
Master, P. 1996. Systems in English grammar: An introduction for language teachers. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice Hall Regents.Search in Google Scholar
Master, P. 1997. The English article system: Acquisition, function, and pedagogy. System 25(2). 215–232.10.1016/S0346-251X(97)00010-9Search in Google Scholar
Matthews, D., E. Lieven, A. Theakston & M. Tomasello. 2005. The role of frequency in the acquisition of English word order. Cognitive Development 20(1). 121–136.10.1016/j.cogdev.2004.08.001Search in Google Scholar
Miller, B. D. & J. W. Ney. 1967. Oral drills and writing improvement in the fourth grade. The Journal of Experimental Educational 36(1). 93–99.10.1080/00220973.1967.11011034Search in Google Scholar
*McDonough, K. & A. Mackey. 2008. Syntactic priming and ESL question development. Studies in Second Language Acquisition 30(1). 31–47.10.1017/S0272263108080029Search in Google Scholar
Muñoz, C. 2011. Input and long-term effects of starting age in foreign language learning. International Review of Applied Linguistics in Language Teaching 49(2). 113–133. doi:10.1515/iral.2011.00.Search in Google Scholar
Muller, D. 1965. The effect upon pronunciation and intonation of early exposure to the written word. Modern Language Journal 49(7). 411–413.10.1111/j.1540-4781.1965.tb01804.xSearch in Google Scholar
*Muranoi, H. 1996. Effects of interaction enhancement on constraining overgeneralized errors of English articles. The 7th International University of Japan Conference on SLR in Japan. http://nirr.lib.niigata-u.ac.jp/bitstream/10623/31130/1/2011_3_iuj2_47.pdfSearch in Google Scholar
*Muranoi, H. 2000. Focus on form through interaction enhancement: Integrating formal instruction into a communicative task in EFL classrooms. Language Learning 50(4). 617–673.10.1111/0023-8333.00142Search in Google Scholar
Norris, J M & L Ortega. 2000. Effectiveness of L2 instruction: A research synthesis and quantitative meta-analysis. Language Learning 50. 417–528. doi:10.1111/0023-8333.0013.Search in Google Scholar
Pienemann, M. 1989. Is language teachable? Psycholinguistic experiments and hypotheses. Applied Linguistics 10(1). 52–79.10.1093/applin/10.1.52Search in Google Scholar
Pienemann, M. 1999. Language processing and second-language development: Processability theory. Amsterdam: John Benjamins Publishing Company.10.1075/sibil.15Search in Google Scholar
Pienemann, M. 2005. Cross-linguistic aspects of processability theory. Amsterdam: John Benjamins Publishing Company.10.1075/sibil.30Search in Google Scholar
*Qin, J. 2008. The effect of processing instruction and dictogloss tasks on acquisition of the English passive voice. Language Teaching Research 12(1). 61–82.10.1177/1362168807084494Search in Google Scholar
Radford, A. 2009. Analysing English sentences: A minimalist approach. New York, NY: Cambridge University Press.10.1017/CBO9780511801617Search in Google Scholar
*Révész, A. 2009. Task complexity, focus on form, and second language development. Studies in Second Language Acquisition 31(3). 437–470.10.1017/S0272263109090366Search in Google Scholar
Rebuschat, P. 2013. Measuring implicit and explicit knowledge in second language research. Language Learning 63(3). 595–626.10.1111/lang.12010Search in Google Scholar
Rutherford, W. & M. Sharwood Smith. 1985. Consciousness-raising and universal grammar. Applied Linguistics 6. 274–282.10.1093/applin/6.3.274Search in Google Scholar
Sakai, H. 2011. Do recasts promote noticing the gap in L2 learning? The Asian EFL Journal Quarterly 13(1). 357–385.Search in Google Scholar
Samimy, K. K. 1989. A comparative study of teaching Japanese in the Audio‐Lingual Method and the Counseling‐Learning Approach. The Modern Language Journal 73(2). 169–177.10.1111/j.1540-4781.1989.tb02539.xSearch in Google Scholar
Schmidt, R. W. 2001. Attention. In P. Robinson (ed.), Cognition and second language instruction, 3–32. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.10.1017/CBO9781139524780.003Search in Google Scholar
Selinker, L. 1972. Interlanguage. IRAL-International Review of Applied Linguistics in Language Teaching 10(1–4). 209–232.10.1515/iral.1972.10.1-4.209Search in Google Scholar
*Sheen, Y. 2007. The effect of focused written corrective feedback and language aptitude on ESL learners’ acquisition of articles. Tesol Quarterly 41(2). 255–283.10.1002/j.1545-7249.2007.tb00059.xSearch in Google Scholar
*Sheen, Y. 2008. Recasts, language anxiety, modified output, and L2 learning. Language Learning 58(4). 835–874.10.1111/j.1467-9922.2008.00480.xSearch in Google Scholar
*Sheen, Y. 2010. Differential effects of oral and written corrective feedback in the ESL classroom. Studies in Second Language Acquisition 32(2). 203–234.10.1017/S0272263109990507Search in Google Scholar
*Sheen, Y., D. Wright & A. Moldawa. 2009. Differential effects of focused and unfocused written correction on the accurate use of grammatical forms by adult ESL learners. System 37(4). 556–569.10.1016/j.system.2009.09.002Search in Google Scholar
*Shintani, N. & R. Ellis. 2011. The incidental acquisition of English plural –s by Japanese children in comprehension-based and production-based lessons. Studies in Second Language Acquisition 32(4). 607–637.10.1017/S0272263110000288Search in Google Scholar
*Shintani, N. & R. Ellis. 2013. The comparative effect of direct written corrective feedback and metalinguistic explanation on learners’ explicit and implicit knowledge of the English indefinite article. Journal of Second Language Writing 22(3). 286–306.10.1016/j.jslw.2013.03.011Search in Google Scholar
Shintani, N. 2015. The incidental grammar acquisition in focus on form and focus on forms instruction for young beginner learners. TESOL Quarterly 49(1). 115–140. 10.1002/tesq.166.10.1002/tesq.166Search in Google Scholar
Simmons, G. V. 2001. The acquisition of the English determiner system: Sequence, order and transfer (Doctoral dissertation). Available from ProQuest Dissertations and Theses database (UMI No. 3014479)Search in Google Scholar
Sharwood Smith, M. 1993. Input enhancement in instructed SLA: Theoretical bases. Studies in Second Language Acquisition 15. 165–179.10.1017/S0272263100011943Search in Google Scholar
Sharwood Smith, M. & J. Truscott. 2014. Explaining input enhancement: A MOGUL perspective. International Review of Applied Linguistics in Language Teaching 52(3). 253–281.10.1515/iral-2014-0012Search in Google Scholar
Smith, M. & B. VanPatten. 2013. Instructed SLA as parameter setting: Evidence from earlieststage learners of Japanese as L2. In A. Benatti, C. Lavale & M. Arche (eds.), The grammar dimension in instructed second language learning: Theory, research, and practice, 127–146. London: Bloomsbury Academic Press.Search in Google Scholar
*Spada, N., P. M. Lightbown & J. White. 2005. The importance of form/meaning mappings in explicit form-focused instruction. In A. Housen & M. Pierrard (eds.), Investigations in Instructed Second Language Acquisition, 199–234. Amsterdam, The Netherlands: Mouton de Gruyter.Search in Google Scholar
Spada, N. & Y. Tomita. 2010. Interactions between type of instruction and type of language feature: A meta‐analysis. Language Learning 60(2). 263–308.10.1111/j.1467-9922.2010.00562.xSearch in Google Scholar
*Subramaniam, R. & M. H. Khan. 2013. Explicit grammar instruction in communicative language teaching: A study of the use of quantifiers. Malaysian Journal of ELT Research 9(1). 43–73.Search in Google Scholar
Takashima, H. & R. Ellis. 1999. Output enhancement and the acquisition of the past tense. In R. Ellis (ed.), Learning a second language through interaction, 173–188. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.10.1075/sibil.17.12takSearch in Google Scholar
Tarone, E. 2014. Enduring questions from the interlanguage hypothesis. In Z.-H. Han & E. Tarone (eds.), Interlanguage: 40 years later, 7–26. Amsterdam, Netherlands: John Benjamins.10.1075/lllt.39.03ch1Search in Google Scholar
Truscott, J. 1996. The case against grammar correction in L2 writing classes. Language Learning, 46(2). 327–369. http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-1770.1996.tb01238.x10.1111/j.1467-1770.1996.tb01238.xSearch in Google Scholar
Truscott, J. 1999. The case for “the case against grammar correction in L2 writing classes”: A response to Ferris. Journal of Second Language Writing, 8(2). 111–122. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/s1060-374380124-610.1016/S1060-3743(99)80124-6Search in Google Scholar
*Uludag, O. & B. VanPatten. 2012. The comparative effects of processing instruction and dictogloss on the acquisition of the English passive by speakers of Turkish. International Review of Applied Linguistics in Language Teaching 50(3). 189–212.10.1515/iral-2012-0008Search in Google Scholar
VanPatten, B. 2004. Processing instruction: Theory, research, and commentary. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.10.4324/9781410610195Search in Google Scholar
VanPatten, B. 2014. On the limits of instruction: 40 years after ‘Interlanguage. In Z.-H. Han & E. Tarone (eds.), Interlanguage: 40 years later, 105–126. Amsterdam, Netherlands: John Benjamins.10.1075/lllt.39.07ch5Search in Google Scholar
*White, L., N. Spada, P. M. Lightbown & L. Ranta. 1991. Input enhancement and L2 question formation. Applied Linguistics 12(4). 416–432.10.1093/applin/12.4.416Search in Google Scholar
Williams, J. 1995. Focus on form in communicative language teaching: Research findings and the classroom teacher. TESOL Journal 4(4). 12–16.Search in Google Scholar
*Williams, J. & J. Evans. 1998. What kind of focus and on which forms? In C. Doughty & J. Williams (eds.), Focus on form in classroom second language acquisition, 139–155. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Search in Google Scholar
Wong, W. 2001. Modality and attention to meaning and form in the input. Studies in Second Language Acquisition 23(3). 345–368.10.1017/S0272263101003023Search in Google Scholar
*Yang, Y. & R. Lyster. 2010. Effects of form-focused practice and feedback on Chinese EFL learners’ acquisition of regular and irregular past tense forms. Studies in Second Language Acquisition 32(2). 235–263.10.1017/S0272263109990519Search in Google Scholar
Yavas, M. 2011. Applied English phonology. Malden, MA: Wiley-Blackwell Publishing.10.1002/9781444392623Search in Google Scholar
Appendix A
Description of treatment scope and assessment.
| Authors | Instructional scope | Description of assessment |
|---|---|---|
| Bitchener and Knoch (2008) | “a” first/“the” subsequent mention | Written picture descriptions (nouns provided) – 30 minutes |
| Muranoi (1996) | Overgeneralization of “the” and zero article | An oral story description task, an oral picture description task, a written picture description task and a grammaticality judgment task |
| Bitchener (2008) | “a” first/“the” subsequent mention | Picture descriptions – 3 writing tasks, 30 minute time limit each |
| Sheen (2010) | Definite and indefinite articles | Speed dictation test (Time Pressured), 4 sequential pictures and write a story (no info about time) – 17 item error correction test |
| Sheen (2008) | “a” first/“the” subsequent mention | Speed dictation test (Time Pressured), 4 sequential pictures and write a story (no info about time) – 17 item error correction test |
| Sheen (2007) | “a” first/“the” subsequent mention | Speed dictation test (Time Pressured), 4 sequential pictures and write a story (no info about time) – 17 item error correction test |
| Muranoi (2000) | Indefinite article (specially one carrying new information) | Story descriptions (30 seconds to rehearse and 90 seconds to speak) – Picture description (same time limit) – GJ, 16 sentences, no time limit |
| Ellis et al. (2008) | “a” first/“the” subsequent mention | Narrative writing about picture sequence and Sheen’s error correction test |
| Bitchener and Knoch (2009b) | “a” first/“the” subsequent mention | Picture description of pictures (at the beach), 30 minutes |
| Bitchener et al. (2005) | Definite Article and Past Tense | 4 essays, 250 words (45 minutes given) |
| Sheen et al. (2009) | “a” first/“the” subsequent mention | Narrative writing test – students write about 4 sequential pictures – 15–20 minutes |
| Bitchener and Knoch (2010a) | “a” first/“the” subsequent mention | Writing about a picture (picture of social gathering) – 30 minutes |
| Bitchener and Knoch (2009a) | “a” first/“the” subsequent mention | Writing about a picture (e. g., picnic) – 30 minutes |
| Bitchener and Knoch (2010b) | “a” first/“the” subsequent mention | Writing about a picture (e. g., picnic) – 30 minutes |
| Shintani and Ellis (2013) | “a” first/“the” subsequent mention | Oral task production test |
| Shintani and Ellis (2011) | Plural -s | Writing target like expressions by Pica (20 minutes) – composition about pictures – low proficiency students and severe load and implicit knowledge |
| Yang and Lyster (2010) | Past –ed, Past irregular | Immediate response to oral crazy beach party (read passage and give back) – 9 tokens regular 17 irregular tokens/no planning after word cues |
| Benati (2005) | Past -ed | Two versions of the tests were designed, one interpretation task and one written production task, (writing not spontaneous) – real time comprehension |
| Ellis et al. (2006) | Past regular -ed | Oral Imitation – repeat sentence they think is correct |
| Izumi and Izumi (2004) | OPREP relative clause | Sentence combination, 15 seconds each |
| Izumi (2002) | OPREP relative clause | Sentence combination (18 items in 15 minutes), picture cued sentence completion (12 items 15 seconds), interpretation and grammaticality judgment (decide which picture is correct 15 seconds) |
| Qin (2008) | Passive | Production task – Complete Sentences and recreate a 100 word story in writing |
| Uludag and VanPatten (2012) | Passive | 10 minute sentence completion/Students listen and construct a three sentence passage |
| Williams and Evans (1998) | Passive | 7–12 minutes for each test, rapid – Sentence completion |
| Mackey and Philp (1998) | Questions | Dyads spot the differences between their pictures by orally asking questions (15–20 minutes) (each had picture with 10 differences) |
| White et al. (1991) | Yes/No Questions – Wh Question formation | Students asked questions until they could match pictures on their cards with interlocutor |
| Mackey (2006) | Past tense, Plurals, Questions | Shown pictures and videos (timed test) and asked questions with contexts of grammatical feature |
| McDonough and Mackey (2008) | Questions | Oral picture difference tasks, story completion tasks, map tasks, and interviewing activities |
| Spada et al. (2005) | Possessive determiner and questions | Oral production/written production – write 15 questions about what a reporter would ask |
| Subramaniam and Khan (2013) | Quantifiers | Two 350 word narratives in 2 hours (an unforgettable experience in my life |
| Révész (2009) | Past progressive | Oral picture description Task |
| Kubota (1997) | Phrasal verb | Test B – translation test 20 minutes – 10 test items – translate 10 sentences into English |
Appendix B
Summary of studies.
| Number of studies | Number of groups | Mean effect size | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Grammatical feature | |||
| Article | 15 | 50 | 1.3369 |
| Past -ed | 3 | 14 | 2.3419 |
| Past irregular | 2 | 16 | 4.4220 |
| Past | 2 | 7 | −0.5949 |
| Passive | 3 | 8 | 2.2538 |
| Relative clause | 2 | 5 | 1.0577 |
| Plural -s | 2 | 5 | 1.8037 |
| Phrasal verb | 1 | 3 | 0.8739 |
| Questions | 5 | 12 | 1.1201 |
| Possessive determiner | 1 | 2 | 1.5810 |
| Quantifiers | 1 | 2 | 1.0477 |
| Participial adjective | 1 | 2 | 1.3755 |
| Context | |||
| EFL | 12 | 55 | 2.7157 |
| ESL | 21 | 75 | 1.0318 |
| Proficiency level | |||
| Beginner | 4 | 11 | 2.3144 |
| Intermediate | 16 | 56 | 1.0146 |
| Advanced | 2 | 6 | 1.1548 |
| Type of instruction | |||
| Input enhancement | 12 | 29 | 1.8410 |
| Output enhancement | 28 | 90 | 1.6723 |
Appendix C
Correlations of research variables to effect size.
| Regression summary | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Model | R | R square | Adjusted R square | Std. error of the estimate |
| 1 | 0.659 | 0.435 | 0.381 | 0.91484 |
| ANOVA | ||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Model | Sum of squares | df | Mean square | F | Sig. | |
| 1 | Regression | 40.556 | 6 | 6.759 | 8.076 | 0.000 |
| Residual | 52.727 | 63 | 0.837 | |||
| Total | 93.283 | 69 | ||||
| Model | Unstandardized coefficients | Standardized coefficients | t | Sig. | Collinearity statistics | |||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| B | Std. error | Beta | Tolerance | VIF | ||||
| 1 | (Constant) | 3.022 | 0.893 | 3.386 | 0.001 | |||
| Scope of instruction | 0.001 | 0.001 | 0.251 | 1.129 | 0.263 | 0.181 | 5.511 | |
| Treatment frequency | −0.568 | 0.136 | −0.609 | −4.179 | 0.000 | 0.423 | 2.365 | |
| Input or output | −0.035 | 0.384 | −0.011 | −0.091 | 0.928 | 0.663 | 1.508 | |
| EFL or ESL | 0.822 | 0.436 | 0.249 | 1.885 | 0.064 | 0.513 | 1.950 | |
| Proficiency | 0.315 | 0.584 | 0.119 | 0.539 | 0.592 | 0.183 | 5.453 | |
| Grammatical complexity | −0.173 | 0.098 | −0.208 | −1.768 | 0.082 | 0.648 | 1.544 | |
Note: Dependent Variable: Pretest/Posttest Effect Size.
© 2017 Walter de Gruyter GmbH, Berlin/Boston
