The Effects of Input Flooding vs. Visual Input Enhancement Techniques on EFL Learners’ Grammar Uptake

Zafer Susoy; Elham Zarfsaz

doi:10.46778/goputeb.1445189

TR EN

Girdi Taşkını ve Görsel Girdi Geliştirme Tekniklerinin Yabancı Dil Öğrenenlerin Dilbilgisi Edinimi Üzerine Etkileri

Öz

Bu çalışma, girdi taşkını ve görsel girdi geliştirme tekniklerinin Türk İngilizceyi Yabancı Dil olarak öğrenenlerin dil bilgisi edinimi üzerindeki etkilerini değerlendirdi. Çalışmaya Tokat Gaziosmanpaşa Üniversitesi’nde yaşları on sekiz ile yirmi dört arasında değişen elli dokuz öğrenci katıldı. Katılımcılar rastgele üç gruba ayrıldı: girdi taşkını, görsel girdi geliştirme ve kontrol grubu. Her gruba aynı anlamsal içeriğe sahip okuma pasajları verildi. Ancak girdi taşkını grubundaki okuma metinleri, hedef yapılarının vurgulanmış olduğu metinlerden oluşurken, görsel olarak geliştirilmiş metinler kalın yazma, italik yazma ve altını çizme gibi çeşitli görsel girdi geliştirme stratejileriyle hedef yapılara dikkat çekti. Kontrol grubundaki öğrenciler sadece metinleri okudu ve eşlik eden alıştırmaları tamamladı. Bulgular, girdi taşkını ve görsel girdi geliştirmenin katılımcıların dil bilgisi edinimini artırmada istatistiksel olarak faydalı olduğunu gösterdi. Kontrol grubundaki öğrenciler, girdi taşkını ve görsel girdi geliştirme gruplarına kıyasla anlamlı bir şekilde ilerleme kaydetmedi. Ayrıca, görsel geliştirme grubunun girdi taşkını grubundan daha iyi performans gösterdiği keşfedildi.

Anahtar Kelimeler

Girdi Geliştirme , Girdi , Girdi Taşkını , Dil Bilgisi Kazanımı

The Effects of Input Flooding vs. Visual Input Enhancement Techniques on EFL Learners’ Grammar Uptake

Abstract

The current study assessed the effects of input flooding and visual input enhancement on grammar acquisition of Turkish EFL learners. Fifty-nine Tokat Gaziosmanpasa University students, ranging in age from eighteen to twenty-four, participated in the study. The participants were randomly divided into three cohorts: input flooding, visual input enhancement, and control group. Participants in each group were given reading passages with the same semantic content. However, the reading texts in the input flooding group consisted of increased salience of the targeted structures, while visually enhanced texts drew attention to the target structures through a range of visual input enhancement strategies, including bolding, italicizing, and underlining. Students in the control group only read the texts without any intervention and completed the accompanying exercises. The findings showed that the input flooding and visual input enhancement were statistically beneficial in boosting participants' grammar acquisition. Students in the control group did not significantly improve, in contrast to those in the input flooding and visual input enhancement groups. Furthermore, it was discovered that the visual enhancement group performed better than the input flood group.

Keywords

Input Enhancement , Input , Input Flooding , Grammar Uptake

References

Abdollahi, A., Nouri, R., Afshar, Z., & Hajifaraji, M. (2020). Eight English Series. Iran: Jahadedaneshgahi press.
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). Honolulu: University of Hawaii.
Al-Shammari, A. H., & Sahiouni, A. A. (2023). Impact of textual enhancement and input processing on syntactic development of EFL university students in Kuwait. Education and Information Technologies, 1-17.
Doughty, C. (1991). Second language instruction does make a difference. Studies in Second Ellis, R. (1990). Instructed second language acquisition: Learning in the classroom. Oxford: Blackwell.
Ellis, R. (2002). Does form-focused instruction affect the acquisition of implicit knowledge? Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 24(2), 223-236.
Ellis, R. (2009). Implicit and explicit learning, knowledge and instruction. In Ellis et al, (Eds.), Implicit and Explicit Knowledge in Second Language Learning, Testing and Teaching (pp. 31-64). Bristol: Short Run Press Ltd.
Ellis, R., Basturkmen, H., & Loewen, S. (2001). Learner uptake in communicative classrooms. Language Learning, 51(1), 281-318.
Fahim, M., & Vaezi, R. (2011). Investigating the effect of visually-enhanced input on the acquisition of lexical collocations by Iranian intermediate EFL learners: A case of verb-noun lexical collocations. Journal of Language Teaching and Research, 2(3), 552-560.
Folse, K. (2006). The art of teaching speaking. Michigan: Michigan University Press.
Gass, S. M., & Selinker, L. (2008). Second Language Acquisition. An Introductory Course (3rd edition). New York: Routledge.

Huy, N. T. (2015). Problems affecting learning writing skill of grade 11 at thong linh high school. Asian Journal of Educational Research, 3(2), 53–69.
Javed, M., Juan, W. X., & Nazli, S. (2013). A study of students’ assessment in writing skills of the English language. International Journal of Instruction, 6(2), 129-144.
Krashen, S.D. (1981) Second Language Acquisition and Second Language Learning. Pergamon Press Inc., Oxford.
Lee, C. (2021). Review of: Critical academic writing and multilingual students. Journal of English for Academic Purposes, 8(4), 305-307.
Lee, S.-K., & Huang, H.-T. (2008). Visual input enhancement and grammar learning: a meta-analytic review. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 30(3), 307–331. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0272263108080479
Lee Y., & Lee H. (2012). Effects of input enhancement techniques on word learning of Korean elementary learners. Primary English Education 18(3) 381-398.
Meguro, Y. (2019). Textual enhancement, grammar learning, reading comprehension, and tag questions. Language Teaching Research, 23(1), 58–77.
Namaziandos, E., Rezvani, S., & Polemikou, R. (2020). Using mobile instant messaging in teaching vocabulary to pre- intermediate EFL learners: the case of Whatsapp. Journal of English Education, 5(1), 1-10.
Nassaji, H., & Fotos, S. (2004). Current developments in research on the teaching of grammar. Annual Review of Applied Linguistics, 24(1), 126-145.
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.
Rahimi, R., & Shabani, G. (2015). Comparing the effect of enhanced versus unenhanced lexical input on Iranian intermediate EFL learners’ vocabulary learning. Indian Journal of Fundamental and Applied Life Sciences, 5(2), 917-926.
Sadeghi, M., Kargar, A. A. & Rostampour, M. (2016). The effect of input-flood through listening English movies on receptive skills: a case study. Journal of Applied Linguistics and Language Research, 3(7), 195-206.
Safdari, M. (2019). Input flooding, input enhancement and writing performance: effects and percepts. International Journal of Instruction, 12(4), 281-296.
Schmidt, R. (1990). The role of consciousness in language learning. Applied Linguistics. 11(1), 129-158.
Sharwood Smith, M. (1993). Input enhancement in instructed SLA: Theoretical bases. Studiesin Second Language Acquisition, 15, 165-179.
So, S. (2006). Input Enhancement: From Theory And Research To The Classroom. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 28(3), 529–530. http://doi.org/10.1017/S0272263106270232
Sohbati, A. H., Boroumand, M., & Khakzad E., F. (2021). Lexical Elaboration and Typographical Enhancement: Their Discrete and Combined Impact on Incidental Vocabulary Learning. International E-Journal of Educational Studies, 5(9), 1-11. https://doi.org/10.31458/iejes.757203
Song, M., & Suh, B. (2008). The effects of output task types on noticing and learning of the English past counterfactual conditional. System, 36(2), 295-312.
Stringer, T. (2018). Input enhancement techniques: a critical summary of the literature. Language and Culture: The Journal of the Institute for Language and Culture, 22, 203-219.
Szudarski, P., & Carter, R. (2016). The role of input flood and input enhancement in EFL learners’ acquisition of collocations. International Journal of Applied Linguistics, 26(2), 245–265.
White, L., Spada, N., Lightbown, P. M., & Ranta, L. (1991). Input enhancement and L2question formation. Applied Linguistics, 12(1), 416–432.
Williams, J. (1999). Memory, attention, and inductive learning. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 21(3), 1- 48.
Yarmohammadi, L. (2002). The evaluation of pre-university textbooks. The Newsletter of the Iranian Academy of Science, 18, 70-87.

Details

Primary Language

English

Subjects

Other Fields of Education (Other)

Journal Section

Research Article

Authors

Zafer Susoy ^*
0000-0002-6890-6007
Türkiye

Elham Zarfsaz
0000-0002-6172-6388
Türkiye

Early Pub Date

November 29, 2024

Publication Date

November 30, 2024

Submission Date

February 29, 2024

Acceptance Date

July 1, 2024

Published in Issue

Year 1970 Volume: 12 Number: 3

DOI

https://doi.org/10.46778/goputeb.1445189

IZ

https://izlik.org/JA69TE49BD

APA

Susoy, Z., & Zarfsaz, E. (2024). The Effects of Input Flooding vs. Visual Input Enhancement Techniques on EFL Learners’ Grammar Uptake. International Journal of Turkish Education Sciences, 12(3), 1169-1195. https://doi.org/10.46778/goputeb.1445189

Girdi Taşkını ve Görsel Girdi Geliştirme Tekniklerinin Yabancı Dil Öğrenenlerin Dilbilgisi Edinimi Üzerine Etkileri

Öz

Anahtar Kelimeler

The Effects of Input Flooding vs. Visual Input Enhancement Techniques on EFL Learners’ Grammar Uptake

Abstract

Keywords

References

Details

Primary Language

Subjects

Journal Section

Authors

Early Pub Date

Publication Date

Submission Date

Acceptance Date

Published in Issue

DOI

IZ

Cite