Cover not available

Article In: Language Teaching for Young Learners: Online-First Articles

Assessing young beginning learners’ vocabulary learning via input and output tasks

ORCiD logo with link | Macau Polytechnic UniversityMacauSAR
This content is being prepared for publication; it may be subject to changes.
Abstract
This study investigates the effectiveness of input-based versus output-based instruction on vocabulary acquisition among young, beginner EFL learners. Ninety-three Chinese first-graders were randomly assigned to an Input task group, an Output task group, or a Control group. Over an intensive eight-lesson intervention, participants were taught 64 target nouns and adjectives. Receptive vocabulary knowledge was measured via a Picture Vocabulary Test at pre-test, immediate post-test, and delayed post-test (two weeks later). A Generalized Linear Mixed Model (GLMM) analysis revealed significant Group × Time interactions. Both experimental groups showed substantial and statistically equivalent gains over the Control group at both post-tests, with no significant difference between Input and Output conditions. The probability of a correct response surged from a baseline of 0.2% to approximately 5.5% immediately after instruction, declining to about 1.3% at the delayed test but remaining significantly higher than the Control group’s near-zero probability. The findings suggest that, for developing initial receptive vocabulary knowledge in young beginners, well-designed input-based tasks are as effective as output-based tasks. The results support a flexible, balanced pedagogical approach, beginning with input to establish form-meaning connections, while emphasizing the critical need for spaced repetition to counteract attrition and ensure long-term retention.
Article outline
  • 1.Introduction
  • 2.Literature review
    • 2.1Theories for input vs. output-based instruction
    • 2.2Vocabulary learning via input and output-based instruction
    • 2.3Rationale and research question
  • 3.Method
    • 3.1Participants
    • 3.2Instruction
    • 3.3Target words
    • 3.4Assessment: The Picture Vocabulary Test
    • 3.5Procedure
    • 3.6Data analysis
  • 4.Results
  • 5.Discussion
  • 6.Limitations and implications
  • Acknowledgement
  • Author queries
  • References
References (44)
References
Bates, D., Mächler, M., Bolker, B., & Walker, S. (2015). Fitting linear mixed-effects models using lme4. Journal of Statistical Software, 67(1), 1–48. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Boers, F. (2024). From PPP to APC: some thoughts triggered by Ellis’(2024) take on task-supported language teaching. International Journal of TESOL Studies, 6(4), 34–42. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Cameron, L. (2001). Teaching languages to young learners. Cambridge University Press. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Clark, E. V. (1993). The lexicon in acquisition. Cambridge University Press. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
DeKeyser, R. (1998). Beyond focus on form: Cognitive perspective on learning and practical second language grammar. In C. Doughty & J. Williams (Eds.), Focus on form in classroom second language acquisition (pp.42–63). Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Dekeyser, R. (2007). Skill acquisition theory. In B. VanPatten & J. Williams (Eds.), Theories in second language acquisition: An introduction (pp. 97–113). Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Inc.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
de la Fuente, M. J. (2002). Negotiation and oral acquisition of L2 vocabulary: The role of input and output in the receptive and productive acquisition of words. SSLA, 241, 81–112. [URL].
(2006). Classroom L2 vocabulary acquisition: Investigating the role of pedagogical tasks and form-focused instruction. Language Teaching Research, 101, 263–295. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Dunn, L. M., & Dunn, D. M. (2007). Peabody picture vocabulary TestIV. Circle Pines, MN: American Guidance Service.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Ellis, R. (2012). Language teaching research and pedagogy. Wiley-Blackwell. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
(2003). Task-based language learning and teaching. Oxford University Press.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
(2024). Task-based and task-supported language teaching. International Journal of TESOL Studies, 6(4), 1–13. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Ellis, R., Basturkmen, H., & Loewen, S. (2002). Doing focus-on-form. System, 301, 419–432. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Ellis, R., Tanaka, Y., & Yamazaki, A. (1994). Classroom interaction, comprehension, and the acquisition of L2 word meanings. Language Learning, 441, 449–491. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Erlam, R., & Ellis, R. (2019). Input-based tasks for beginner-level learners: An approximate replication and extension of Erlam & Ellis (2018). Language Teaching, 52(4), 490–511. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Gasser, M., & Smith, L. B. (1998). Learning nouns and adjectives: A connectionist account. Language and Cognitive Processes, 131, 269–306. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Henriksen, B. (2008). Declarative lexical knowledge. In D. Albrechtsen, K. Haastrup, & B. Henriksen (eds.), Vocabulary and writing in a first and second language (pp. 22–66). Palgrave Macmillan. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Izumi, S. (2003). Comprehension and production processes in second language learning: In search of the psycholinguistic rationale of the output hypothesis. Applied Linguistics, 24(2), 168–196. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Johnson, K., & Johnson, H. (eds.) (1999). Interaction Hypothesis. Encyclopedic Dictionary of applied linguistics: A handbook for language teaching (pp.174). Blackwell Publishers.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Krashen, S. (1982). Principles and practice in second language acquisition. Pergamon.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
(1985). The input hypothesis: Issues and implications. Longman.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
(1998). Comprehensible output? System, 261, 175–82. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Laufer, B. (2006). Comparing focus on form and focus on forms in second-language vocabulary learning. Canadian Modern Language Review, 631, 149–166. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Laufer, B., & Rozovski-Roitblat, B. (2015). Retention of new words: Quantity of encounters, quality of task, and degree of knowledge. Language Teaching Research, 19(6), 687–711. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Nation, I. S. P. (2012). Learning vocabulary in another language. Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Pellicer-Sánchez, A. (2017). Learning L2 collocations incidentally from reading. Language Teaching Research, 21(3), 381–402. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Pinter, A. (2011). Children learning second languages. Springer. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Schmidt, R. (1990). The role of consciousness in second language learning. Applied Linguistics, 111, 17–45. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Schmitt, N. (2010). Researching vocabulary: A vocabulary research manual. Palgrave Macmillan. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Shintani, N. (2011). A comparative study of the effects of input-based and production-based instruction on vocabulary acquisition by young EFL learners. Language Teaching Research, 151, 137–158. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
(2013). The effect of focus on form and focus on forms instruction on the acquisition of productive knowledge of L2 vocabulary by young beginning-level learners. TESOL Quarterly, 47(1), 36–62. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Sonbul, S., & Schmitt, N. (2010). Direct teaching of vocabulary after reading: Is it worth the effort? ELT Journal, 64 (3), 253–260. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Swain, M. (1985). Communicative competence: Some roles of comprehensible input and comprehensible output in its development. In S. M. Gass & C. G. Madden (Eds.), Input in second language acquisition (pp. 235–253). Newbury House.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
(2005). The output hypothesis: Theory and research. In E. Hinkel (ed.), Handbook of research in second language teaching and learning (pp. 471–483). Routledge.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Teng, M. F. (2018). The effect of focus on form and focus on forms instruction on the acquisition of phrasal verbs by Chinese students. Asian EFL Journal, 20 (2), 136–164.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
(2020). Retention of new words learned incidentally from reading: Word exposure frequency, L1 marginal glosses, and their combination. Language Teaching Research, 24(6), 785–812. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
(2024). Young beginning learners’ vocabulary learning via input and output tasks: The role of working memory. Studies in Second Language Learning and Teaching, 14 (4), 731–767. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
(2025). Assessing young learners’ vocabulary learning via communicative tasks. The Language Learning Journal, 53(6), 761–775. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
(2026). A method tutorial in using linear mixed-effects modeling in R to understand incidental vocabulary learning from captioned viewing. International Journal of TESOL Studies, 8 (3), 5–28. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
The jamovi project (2024). jamovi (Version 2.5) [Computer Software]. [URL]
Ur, P. (1996). A course in language teaching: Practice and theory. Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
VanPatten, B. (2004). Input processing in second language acquisition. In B. VanPatten (Ed.), Processing instruction: Theory, research, and commentary (pp. 5–32). Lawrence Erlbaum. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Webb, S. A., & Chang, A. C-S. (2015). Second language vocabulary learning through extensive reading: How does frequency and distribution of occurrence affect learning? Language Teaching Research, 19(6), 667–686. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Mobile Menu Logo with link to supplementary files background Layer 1 prag Twitter_Logo_Blue