Jump to ContentJump to Main Navigation
Show Summary Details
More options …

International Review of Applied Linguistics in Language Teaching

Ed. by Jordens, Peter / Roberts, Leah


IMPACT FACTOR 2018: 0.667
5-year IMPACT FACTOR: 1.296

CiteScore 2018: 1.02

SCImago Journal Rank (SJR) 2018: 0.891
Source Normalized Impact per Paper (SNIP) 2018: 1.341

Online
ISSN
1613-4141
See all formats and pricing
More options …
Volume 55, Issue 2

Issues

Learning to improve grammar instruction through comprehensive analysis of past research

Andrew Schenck
Published Online: 2016-02-16 | DOI: https://doi.org/10.1515/iral-2015-0038

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.

Keywords: grammar instruction; language proficiency; EFL; input; output; ESL

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.CrossrefGoogle Scholar

  • Beretta, A. & A. Davies. 1985. Evaluation of the Bangalore project. ELT Journal 39(2). 121–7.CrossrefGoogle Scholar

  • Berwick, R. C., P. Pietroski, B. Yankama & N. Chomsky. 2011. Poverty of the stimulus revisited. Cognitive Science 35(7). 1207–1242.CrossrefGoogle Scholar

  • *Bitchener, J. 2008. Evidence in support of written corrective feedback. Journal of Second Language Writing 17(2). 102–118.CrossrefGoogle Scholar

  • *Bitchener, J. & U. Knoch. 2008. The value of written corrective feedback for migrant and international students. Language Teaching Research 12(3). 409–431.CrossrefGoogle Scholar

  • *Bitchener, J. & U. Knoch. 2009a. The relative effectiveness of different types of direct written corrective feedback. System 37(2). 322–329.CrossrefGoogle Scholar

  • *Bitchener, J. & U. Knoch. 2009b. The value of a focused approach to written corrective feedback. ELT Journal 63(3). 204–211.CrossrefGoogle 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.CrossrefGoogle 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: CrossrefGoogle 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.CrossrefGoogle 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.pdfGoogle Scholar

  • Brown, R. 1973. A first language. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press. doi:.CrossrefGoogle Scholar

  • Bialystok, E. 1982. On the relationship between knowing and using forms. Applied Linguistics 3. 181–206.CrossrefGoogle Scholar

  • Carroll, J. B. 1969. What Does the Pennsylvania Foreign Language Research Project Tell Us? Foreign Language Annals 3(2). 214–236.CrossrefGoogle Scholar

  • Celce-Murcia, M. (ed.). 1991. Teaching English as a second or foreign language, 2nd edn. Boston, MA: Heinle & Heinle Publishers.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.CrossrefGoogle 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.Google Scholar

  • Comer, W. J. & L. deBenedette. 2011. Processing instruction and Russian: Further evidence is IN. Foreign Language Annals 44(4). 646–673.CrossrefGoogle Scholar

  • DeKeyser, R. M. 2005. What makes learning second‐language grammar difficult? A review of issues. Language Learning 55(S1). 1–25.CrossrefGoogle 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:. PMID:24197869CrossrefGoogle Scholar

  • Dulay, H. C. & M. K. Burt. 1974. Natural sequences in child language acquisition. Language Learning 24(1). 37–53. doi:..CrossrefGoogle 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.Google Scholar

  • Dulay, H. C., M. K. Burt & S. Krashen. 1982. Language two. New York, NY: Oxford University Press.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: CrossrefGoogle 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.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.CrossrefGoogle 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: CrossrefGoogle 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.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.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.CrossrefGoogle Scholar

  • Evers-Vermeul, J. & T. Sanders. 2011. Discovering domains–On the acquisition of causal connectives. Journal of Pragmatics 43(6). 1645–1662.CrossrefGoogle 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.2004.04.005CrossrefGoogle 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.CrossrefGoogle 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.CrossrefGoogle Scholar

  • Hendrickson, J. M. 1978. Error correction in foreign language teaching: Recent theory, research, and practice. The Modern Language Journal 62(8). 387–398.Google Scholar

  • *Izumi, S. 2002. Output, input enhancement, and the noticing hypothesis. Studies in Second Language Acquisition 24(4). 541–577.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.CrossrefGoogle Scholar

  • Jang, J. D. 2006. Effectiveness of input enhancement in form-focused instruction. Journal of Linguistic Science 39. 187–207.Google Scholar

  • Johnston, M. 1985. Syntactic and morphological progressions in learner English. Canberra: Commonwealth Department of Immigration and Ethnic Affairs.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.Google Scholar

  • Kao, C. W. 2013. Effects of focused feedback on the acquisition of two English articles. TESL-EJ 17(1). 1–15.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.

  • Krashen, S. D. & T. D. Terrell. 1983. The natural approach. New York: Alemany Press.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.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:..CrossrefGoogle Scholar

  • Larsen-Freeman, D. 2015. Research into practice: Grammar learning and teaching. Language Teaching 48(2). 263–280.CrossrefGoogle 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.

  • 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.Google Scholar

  • Lipsey, M. W. & D. B. Wilson. 2001. Practical meta-analysis. London, England: Sage Publications.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.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:..CrossrefGoogle Scholar

  • *Mackey, A. 2006. Feedback, noticing and instructed second language learning. Applied Linguistics 27(3). 405–430.CrossrefGoogle 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.CrossrefGoogle Scholar

  • Makino, T. (1979). English morpheme acquisition order of Japanese secondary school students (Doctoral dissertation). Available from ProQuest Dissertations and Theses database. (AAT 8228138)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: CrossrefGoogle 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.pdf

  • 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.Google Scholar

  • Master, P. 1996. Systems in English grammar: An introduction for language teachers. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice Hall Regents.Google Scholar

  • Master, P. 1997. The English article system: Acquisition, function, and pedagogy. System 25(2). 215–232.CrossrefGoogle 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.CrossrefGoogle 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.Google Scholar

  • *McDonough, K. & A. Mackey. 2008. Syntactic priming and ESL question development. Studies in Second Language Acquisition 30(1). 31–47.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:.CrossrefGoogle Scholar

  • Muller, D. 1965. The effect upon pronunciation and intonation of early exposure to the written word. Modern Language Journal 49(7). 411–413.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.pdf

  • *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.CrossrefGoogle Scholar

  • Norris, J M & L Ortega. 2000. Effectiveness of L2 instruction: A research synthesis and quantitative meta-analysis. Language Learning 50. 417–528. doi:.CrossrefGoogle Scholar

  • Pienemann, M. 1989. Is language teachable? Psycholinguistic experiments and hypotheses. Applied Linguistics 10(1). 52–79.CrossrefGoogle Scholar

  • Pienemann, M. 1999. Language processing and second-language development: Processability theory. Amsterdam: John Benjamins Publishing Company.Google Scholar

  • Pienemann, M. 2005. Cross-linguistic aspects of processability theory. Amsterdam: John Benjamins Publishing Company.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.CrossrefGoogle Scholar

  • Radford, A. 2009. Analysing English sentences: A minimalist approach. New York, NY: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar

  • *Révész, A. 2009. Task complexity, focus on form, and second language development. Studies in Second Language Acquisition 31(3). 437–470.CrossrefGoogle Scholar

  • Rebuschat, P. 2013. Measuring implicit and explicit knowledge in second language research. Language Learning 63(3). 595–626.CrossrefGoogle Scholar

  • Rutherford, W. & M. Sharwood Smith. 1985. Consciousness-raising and universal grammar. Applied Linguistics 6. 274–282.CrossrefGoogle Scholar

  • Sakai, H. 2011. Do recasts promote noticing the gap in L2 learning? The Asian EFL Journal Quarterly 13(1). 357–385.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.CrossrefGoogle Scholar

  • Schmidt, R. W. 2001. Attention. In P. Robinson (ed.), Cognition and second language instruction, 3–32. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar

  • Selinker, L. 1972. Interlanguage. IRAL-International Review of Applied Linguistics in Language Teaching 10(1–4). 209–232.CrossrefGoogle 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.CrossrefGoogle Scholar

  • *Sheen, Y. 2008. Recasts, language anxiety, modified output, and L2 learning. Language Learning 58(4). 835–874.CrossrefGoogle 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.CrossrefGoogle 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.CrossrefGoogle 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.CrossrefGoogle 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.CrossrefGoogle 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.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)Google Scholar

  • Sharwood Smith, M. 1993. Input enhancement in instructed SLA: Theoretical bases. Studies in Second Language Acquisition 15. 165–179.CrossrefGoogle 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.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.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.

  • Spada, N. & Y. Tomita. 2010. Interactions between type of instruction and type of language feature: A meta‐analysis. Language Learning 60(2). 263–308.CrossrefGoogle 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.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.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.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.xCrossrefGoogle 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/s1060-374380124-6CrossrefGoogle 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.Google Scholar

  • VanPatten, B. 2004. Processing instruction: Theory, research, and commentary. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.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.Google Scholar

  • *White, L., N. Spada, P. M. Lightbown & L. Ranta. 1991. Input enhancement and L2 question formation. Applied Linguistics 12(4). 416–432.CrossrefGoogle Scholar

  • Williams, J. 1995. Focus on form in communicative language teaching: Research findings and the classroom teacher. TESOL Journal 4(4). 12–16.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.

  • Wong, W. 2001. Modality and attention to meaning and form in the input. Studies in Second Language Acquisition 23(3). 345–368.CrossrefGoogle 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.CrossrefGoogle Scholar

  • Yavas, M. 2011. Applied English phonology. Malden, MA: Wiley-Blackwell Publishing.Google Scholar

About the article

Published Online: 2016-02-16

Published in Print: 2017-06-27


Citation Information: International Review of Applied Linguistics in Language Teaching, Volume 55, Issue 2, Pages 165–195, ISSN (Online) 1613-4141, ISSN (Print) 0019-042X, DOI: https://doi.org/10.1515/iral-2015-0038.

Export Citation

© 2017 Walter de Gruyter GmbH, Berlin/Boston.Get Permission

Comments (0)

Please log in or register to comment.
Log in