Publishing Partner: Cambridge University Press CUP Extra Publisher Login
amazon logo
More Info


New from Oxford University Press!

ad

The Language Hoax

By John H. McWhorter

The Language Hoax "argues that that all humans process life the same way, regardless of their language."


New from Cambridge University Press!

ad

Language and Development in Africa

By H. Ekkehard Wolff

Language and Development in Africa "discusses the resourcefulness of languages, both local and global, in view of the ongoing transformation of African societies as much as for economic development.. "


The LINGUIST List is dedicated to providing information on language and language analysis, and to providing the discipline of linguistics with the infrastructure necessary to function in the digital world. LINGUIST is a free resource, run by linguistics students and faculty, and supported primarily by your donations. Please support LINGUIST List during the 2016 Fund Drive.

Academic Paper


Title: A comparative study of the effects of input-based and production-based instruction on vocabulary acquisition by young EFL learners
Author: Natsuko Shintani
Email: click here TO access email
Homepage: http://www.education.auckland.ac.nz/people/n-shintani#
Institution: University of Auckland
Linguistic Field: Applied Linguistics; Language Acquisition
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, productionbased 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.
Type: Individual Paper
Status: Completed
Publication Info: Language Teaching Research 15(2), 137-158


Add a new paper
Return to Academic Papers main page
Return to Directory of Linguists main page