Processing Instruction for Input and Output Enrichment in Language Classrooms

Muhlise Coşgun Ögeyik


With the onset of intense theoretical and empirical interests in the field of language teaching and learning, there has been an anticipated shift in language professionals’ opinions towards the understandings of further effectual language instruction. As the outcome of such instruction, language learners are expected to have a rich repertoire of competency in internalized second language (L2) knowledge, whether rule-based or practice-based or both- for having proficiency in the L2. Despite the traditional language instruction for teaching specific language rules through rote-learning, in the recent models suggested for processing instruction, the attempt has been made to change the ways of giving input through focused practice and to turn the input into intake coherently by promoting form and meaning correspondence. Accordingly, in the process, a range of occurrences between the input and output channel can be expected to flow through various manipulations of instruction, particularly grammar teaching, in many instances.

Teachers, teacher trainers, and student teachers, -as professionals of language teaching-, are aware of both the multifaceted value of grammar teaching and the troubles with teaching grammar; we may even feel unsatisfied when we exclude grammar teaching from the classroom. Therefore, satisfied answers are sought to the questions: Does grammar teaching really work? Does grammar teaching mean language teaching? Which approaches have been suggested, discussed, and criticized in the field? Do we have past negative or positive experiences in grammar learning/teaching? The present study intends to discuss these issues once again to address the challenges in grammar teaching.

Full Text:



Bahrami, M. (2010). The effect of task types on EFL learners' listening ability. URC Undergraduate Research Journal, 9. Retrieved October 2014 from:

Benati A., & Lee J. F.(2008). Grammar acquisition and processing instruction: Secondary and cumulative effects. Bristol, UK: Multilingual Matters.

Brown, H.D. (2007). Principles of language learning and teaching. White Plains, New York: Pearson Education.

Celce-Murcia, M., Brinton, D.M., & Snow, M.A. (2013). Teaching English as a second or foreign language. Boston: Heinle & Heinle.

Coşgun Ögeyik, M. (2017). The comparative effectiveness of noticing in language

learning. International Review of Applied Linguistics in Language Teaching, Advance Online Publication, pp. 1-24. doi:

Egi, T. (2010). Uptake, modified output, and learner perceptions of recasts: Learner responses as language awareness. The Modern Language Journal, 94, 1–21.

Ellis, R. (1993). The structural syllabus and second language acquisition. TESOL

Quarterly, 27(1), 91-113.

Ellis, R. (1997). SLA research and language teaching. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Ellis, R. (2003). Task-based language learning and teaching. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Ellis, R. (2009). Corrective feedback and teacher development. L2 Journal, 3, 1-18.

Ellis, R., Loewen, S. & Erlam, R. (2006). Implicit and explicit corrective feedback and the acquisition of L2 grammar. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 28/2, 339-368.

Farley, A.(2005). Structured input: Grammar instruction for the acquisition-oriented classroom. New York, NY: McGraw-Hill.

Gass S. M. & Selinker, L. (2008). Second language Acquisition. New York: Routledge.

Gass, S. (1997). Input, interaction, and the second language learner. Mahway, New Jersey Erlbaum.

Gass, S. (1988). Integrating research areas: a framework for second language studies. Applied Linguistics, 9, 92-106.

Hinkel, E. & Fotos, S. (eds.) (2002) New Perspectives on Grammar Teaching in Second Language Classrooms Mahwah, NJ: L. Erlbaum Associates

Jourdenais, R. (2001). Protocol analysis and SLA. In Peter. Robinson (Ed.), Cognition and Second Language Acquisition, New York: Cambridge. pp. 354-375

Larsen-Freeman, D. (2003). Teaching language: From grammar to grammaring. Boston, MA: Heinle & Heinle.

Lightbown, P. M. & Spada, N. (2013). How languages are learned (4th edition) Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Loewen, S. (2009). Recasts in multi-move focus on form episodes. In A. Mackey and C. Polio (eds.) Multiple perspectives on interaction. New York: Routledge, pp.176-196.

Long, M. H. (1996). The role of the linguistic environment in second language acquisition. In W. C. Ritchie & T. K. Bhatia (Eds.), Handbook of second language acquisition, pp. 413–468. San Diego, CA: Academic Press.

Long, M. (1991). Focus on form: A design feature in language teaching and methodology. In

K. De Bot, R. B. Ginsberg & C. Kramsch (Eds.), Foreign language research in

cross-cultural perspective (pp. 39-52). Amsterdam, The Netherlands: John Benjamins.

Lyster, R., & Ranta, L. (1997). Corrective feedback and learner uptake: Negotiation of form in communicative classrooms. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 19, 37-66.

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

Nassaji, H., & Fotos, S. (2011). Issues in form-focused instruction and teacher education. In S. Fotos & H. Nassaji (Eds.), Form-focused instruction and teacher education: Studies in honor of Rod Ellis (pp. 7-15). Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Newby, D. (1989) Grammar for Communication, Vienna: Österreichischer Bundesverlag.

Odlin, T. (1994). Perspectives on Pedagogical Grammar. New York: Cambridge University Press.

Ortega, L. (2009). Understanding second language acquisition. London: Hodder.

Rahi, M. (2013). The effect of explicit feedback on the use of language learning strategies: the role of instruction. Dil ve Edebiyat Eğitimi Dergisi, 2//5, 1-12.

Sadeghi, B. & Heidaryan H. (2012). The effect of teaching pragmatic discourse markers on EFL learners' listening comprehension. English Linguistics Research, 1/2, 165-176.

Schmidt, R. (2001). Attention. In P. Robinson (Ed.), Cognition and second language instruction. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. pp. 3-32.

Schmidt, R. (2010). Attention, awareness, and individual differences in language learning. In W. M. Chan, S. Chi, K. N. Cin, J. Istanto, M. Nagami, J.W. Sew, T. Suthiwan, & I. Walker, Proceedings of CLaSIC, Singapore. December 2-4 pp. 721-737. Retrieved October, 2014 from

Shirazi, Z. R. H. & F. Sadighi. (2012). Implicit versus explicit feedback in classroom: An experimental study. Journal of Language Teaching and Research 3.3, 439–445.

Skehan, P. (1998). A cognitive approach to language learning. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Swain, M. (2000). “The output hypothesis and beyond: mediating acquisition through collaborative dialogue.” In Lantolf, J.P. (Ed.). Sociocultural theory and second language learning. Oxford: Oxford University Press, pp.97-114.

Tomlin, R. S., & Villa, V. (1994). Attention in cognitive science and second language acquisition. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 16, 183-203.

Ur, P. (2011). A course in Language Teaching : Practice and Theory. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

VanPatten, B. & Borst, S. (2012). The roles of explicit information and grammatical sensitivity in the processing of Clitic direct object pronouns and word order in Spanish L2. Hispania, 95, 270-284.

Walsh, M. (2005). Consciousness-raising (C-R): Its background and application. Retrieved June 12, 2014 from

Williams, J. (2004). Implicit learning of form-meaning connections. In B. VanPatten, J. Williams, S. Rott, & M. Overstreet (Eds.), Form-meaning connections in second language acquisition, pp. 203-218. Mahwah, N. J.: Erlbaum.

Winke, P.M. (2013). The effects of input enhancement on grammar learning and comprehension: A modified replication of Lee (2007) with eye-movement data. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 35/2, 323-352.


  • There are currently no refbacks.

Creative Commons License
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.