The Electronic Journal for English as a Second Language

The Effects of Input-‐based and Output-‐based Instruction on L2 Development

December 2012–Volume 16, Number 3

Ehsan Rassaei
Islamic Azad University, Shiraz Branch, Shiraz, Iran
<ehsanrassaei@yahoo.com>

Abstract
This study investigated the effects of input and output on the development of L2
knowledge. Participants included 129 third-‐semester Persian learners of English
enrolled in 5 intact EFL classrooms functioning as four experimental groups and one
control group. Two experimental groups received two types of input-‐based instruction,
which differed from each other in terms of the saliency and the number of tokens of
target structures in the input. Participants in another experimental group received
instruction that required them to produce meaningful output that contained target
structures. The last experimental group that only received explicit instruction about
target structures was included in the study to specify the moderator role of explicit
instruction, which was also included in the input-‐based and output-‐based instruction.
The results of grammaticality judgment, multiple choice grammar, and written
production tests administered as pre-‐test, immediate and delayed post-‐tests suggested that
both input-‐based and output-‐based instruction can lead to the development of L2
knowledge. Our findings also support the claim that more obtrusive input in which
target structures are more salient to learners has more positive effects on L2
development than just exposing learners to more tokens of target structure.
Introduction
Nobody denies the essential role that input plays in L2 acquisition. Meanwhile, it is
widely acknowledged that exposure to input alone, though necessary, may not be
enough for learners to reach advanced levels of L2 development. In addition to the role
of input, output has also been recognized to play a crucial role in the process of L2
acquisition. There are conflicting views regarding the primacy of input or output for L2
acquisition. More specifically, there are studies that suggest that the role of output is
secondary to the role of input and output merely facilitates access to an already
developed L2 system (e.g., Benati, 2001; VanPatten & Cadierno, 1993; VanPatten &

TESL-EJ 16.3, December 2012 Rassaei 1

Wong, 2004). These studies provided evidence that learners who received instruction
which excludes any kind of output practice performed as well on comprehension and
even production tasks as those who had output-‐based instruction. One form of output–
based instruction is the one practiced in traditional audiolingual classrooms in which
target structures were practiced devoid of any communicative context through different
types of mechanical drills. VanPatten (1993) criticized such traditional practice- ‐oriented
instructions not only because of the use of mechanical drills, but also on the ground that
they put “the cart before the horse” by asking learners “to produce when the developing
system has not yet had the relevant intake data” (p. 436). The debate over the primary
role of input and output in L2 development led researchers to compare the effects of
different types of input-‐based and output-‐based instruction on L2 development.
Input-‐based instruction
Ellis (2012) defines input-‐based instruction as an instruction that “involves the
manipulation of the input that learners are exposed to or are required to process” (p.
285). There are different forms of input-‐based instruction. One form of input-‐based
instruction takes the form of VanPatten’s model of input processing and its pedagogical
spinoff Processing Instruction (PI) (e.g., Lee & VanPatten, 2003; VanPatten, 1993, 1996,
2002). In this type of instruction learners are pushed to process input by being asked to
show that they have understood the meaning of a target feature in input by providing a
non-‐verbal or minimally verbal response such as choosing between two pictures while
listening to a sentence that describes one of the pictures (Ellis, 2012). PI is composed of
two main stages:
1. Explicit information stage providing an explanation regarding target structure
2. Structured input activities aimed at pushing learners away from inefficient and
incorrect processing strategies (VanPatten, 1996, 2004. For a detailed
description of PI see Wong, 2004a, 2004b.)
Another way to implement input-‐based instruction more pertinent to the study is to
manipulate the input in some way in order to make some target features more
noticeable to learners. This type of input-‐based instruction usually takes the form of
textual enhancement or input enrichment, also addressed in this study. Both techniques
can be considered as focus on form instruction because they aim at drawing learners’
attention to linguistic targets while they are primarily engaged in meaning
comprehension. Long (1991) conceptualized focus on form as a kind of instruction that
“overtly draws students’ attention to linguistic elements as they arise incidentally in
lessons whose overriding focus is on meaning or communication” (pp. 4-‐5). The interest
in focus on form instruction (also known as form- ‐focused instruction) was raised in
1990s as a result of research findings that suggested that exposure to input alone though
necessary is not enough and some kind of formal intervention is needed for learners to
reach advanced levels of targetlike competence.

TESL-EJ 16.3, December 2012 Rassaei 2

Textual enhancement versus input enrichment
As a kind of focus on form instruction, textual enhancement, also known as visual
enhancement, is commonly operationalized by underlining, boldfacing, italicizing, or
CAPITALIZING (etc.) target input features under the assumption that learners are more
likely to pay attention and as a result acquire those aspects of input that are more
noticeable and salient. Input enrichment or input flood, on the other hand, refers to the
process of seeding input with extra tokens of the target structure (Trahey, 1996; Trahey
& White, 1993). In other words, in enriched input the target feature appears with high
frequency but with no textual manipulation. It is believed that the increased tokens of
input target forms attract learners’ attention (Reinders & Ellis, 2009). Input enrichment
also caters to the notion of incidental learning, defined as learning that results from
learners being provided L2 input including a target feature. This is done without
informing that they will be subsequently tested (Hulstijn, 2003).
A key question in the studies of textual enhancement or input enrichment is whether
learners notice target input features. According to Schmidt’s (1990) noticing hypothesis,
noticing is “the necessary and sufficient condition for the conversion of input into
intake” (p. 209). Schmidt (2001) also stated “people learn about the things that they
attend to and do not learn much about the things they do not attend to” (p. 30).
A number of empirical studies investigated the effects of textual enhancement on
reading comprehension (e.g., Lee, 2007; Loew, et al., 2003; Overstreet, 1998), noticing of
target forms (Shook, 1999; Izumi, 2002) and also development of L2 knowledge
(Allanen, 1995; Jourdandenais et al., 1995; Lee, 2007; Simard, 2009). While some of
these studies provided evidence for the favorable effects of textual enhancement on L2
development (e.g., Lee, 2007; Jourdandenais et al., 1995; Simard, 2009; Shook, 1999),
others found no significant effect for textual enhancement (e.g., Allanen; Overstreet,
1998; Loew et al., 2003). Furthermore, several studies reported unfavorable effects of
textual enhancement on learners’ reading comprehension scores (e.g., Lee, 2007; Loew,
et al., 2003; Overstreet, 1998).
In a meta-‐analytic review of 16 previous textual enhancement studies, Lee and Huang
(2008) explored the overall magnitude of textual enhancement on grammar learning.
The very small effect size found (d = -‐0.26), compelled the researchers to conclude that
L2 learners in their database barely outperformed other learners who were exposed to
the same unenhanced input. However, as Lee and Huang (2008) pointed out, the very
small effect size found for textual enhancement should be interpreted with care. The
authors argue that such a small effect size can be the result of divergent methodological
options that previous studies utilized. Thus, they called for more empirical research in
future in order to draw more valid and confident conclusions on textual enhancement
efficacy.
A number of other studies also investigated the effects of enriched input on L2
development (e.g., Trahey & White, 1993; Loewen, Erlam, & Ellis, 2009; Reinders & Ellis,
2009). The results of these studies are also mixed and inconclusive. For example, while
Reinders and Ellis (2009) reported beneficial effects of input enrichment on the intake

TESL-EJ 16.3, December 2012 Rassaei 3

and acquisition of English negative adverbs by adult ESL learners of English (exposed to
36 tokens of target form), Loewen et al.’s (2009) study indicated no evidence for the
acquisition of English third person –s by adult ESL learners (exposed to 51 tokens of this
target form in written input and 23 instances in aural input). Trahey (1996) also found
that the effects of input enrichment on the acquisition of L2 English are limited.
One limitation of these textual enhancement and input enrichment studies is that
previous research conflated the effects of enhanced and enriched input. In other words,
they failed to distinguish the effects of textually enhanced and enriched input. Some
prior studies failed to establish two different treatment conditions, each catering to one
type of input. As a result, it isn’t clear whether any positive effect of textual enhancement
is the result of textual manipulation of the input or the recurrence of target forms as
input enrichment.
Output-‐based instruction and L2 development
In contrast to input-‐oriented approaches to L2 acquisition, there are some researchers
who allocate more positive and causal role to output in developing L2 system. These
researchers do not deny the essential role of input in L2 acquisition. They do, however,
reject the view that input alone is sufficient for language acquisition and gives rise to the
development of linguistic system (e.g., Krashen, 1985; Schwartz, 1993, Izumi, 2002;
Izumi & Bigelow, 2000; Izumi et al., 1999; Swain, 1995; Swain & Lapkin, 1995; Toth,
2006).
Swain (1985, 1995, 2000, 2005), outlining her output hypothesis, states that output is as
essential as input in developing L2 knowledge to high levels of target- ‐like precision.
Swain (1985) claims that output “pushed” learners from the “semantic processing”
required for comprehending input to the “syntactic processing” needed for encoding
meaning (p. 249). Furthermore, Swain (1985) argues that producing the target language
may serve as “the trigger that forces the learner to pay attention to the means of
expression needed in order to successfully convey his or her own intended meaning” (p.
249). One important function of output, among others, according to Swain (1995, 2005)
is helping learners notice the gap between their linguistic resources and the target
language system.
The debate over the role of output in L2 acquisition revolves around whether it plays a
primary or secondary role. There are empirical studies that shed some light on the issue.
Most of these have compared the effects of some type of input practice (often within
VanPatten’s PI framework) to output-‐based instruction requiring learners to produce
meaningful output. However, the results of these empirical studies are divergent and
inconclusive. Most of these studies provided evidence that both input-‐based and output-‐
based instruction lead to L2 development. Nonetheless, it is possible to classify these
studies into three categories, namely studies that:
a. Indicate input-‐based and output-‐based instructions are equally effective in
promoting L2 knowledge (e.g., Farley, 2001b; Erlam, Loewen, and Philp, 2009)

TESL-EJ 16.3, December 2012 Rassaei 4

 b. Provide evidence for the advantage of input-‐based over output-‐based instruction
(e.g., Benati, 2005; Farley, 2001a; Lee and Benati, 2006)
c. Suggest the superiority of output-‐based over input-‐based instruction (e.g., Allen,
2000; Toth, 2006; Morgan-‐Short and Bowden, 2006)
Erlam et al. (2009) explored the effects of input- ‐based and output-‐based instruction on the
acquisition of implicit and explicit knowledge of English indefinite article ‘a’. Output-‐
based instruction was operationalized via a meaning- ‐focused presentation/
practice/production (PPP) format. During the presentation stage, the learners were
provided with explicit instruction about the target form. During the presentation stage,
learners practiced the use of target form in a controlled meaningful context. Finally,
during the production stage, learners produced the target forms in a free written task.
Input-‐based instruction was operationalized based on PI model. The results indicated
that both instructional groups significantly outperformed the control group that
received no instruction and improved their implicit and explicit knowledge of the target
form. Similarly, Toth (2006) examined the role of input and output in the acquisition of
L2 Spanish morphosyntax by comparing PI (as a form of input- ‐based instruction) to
instruction where input and output occurred in a communicative, teacher-‐led classroom
setting. The target grammar item was Spanish anti- ‐causative se. The results indicated
that while both groups progressed equally on a grammaticality judgment task, the
output group outperformed the input group in a controlled production task.
In contrast, Benati (2001) investigated the effects of PI and output- ‐based grammar
instruction on the acquisition of a morphological feature of Italian future tense and
indicated that the PI group outperformed the output-‐based group in an interpretation
task while both groups made equal gains in a production task. In a laboratory study,
Morgan-‐Short and Bowden (2006) explored the effects of input-‐based instruction in the
form of PI and meaningful output-‐based instruction on the interpretation and
production of Spanish preverbal direct object pronouns. Participants received
treatments in two instructional groups designated as input-‐based and output-‐based
instruction and were compared with a control group. While input-‐based instruction
group had to interpret the target structure to complete the activities, the participants
that received output-‐based instruction were required to produce direct object pronouns to
complete the activities. The results indicated that both groups had measurable gains
above the control group from pre-‐tests to post-‐tests. The researchers thus concluded,
“[N]ot only input-‐based but also output-‐based instruction can lead to linguistic
development” (p. 31).
Summary and limitations of previous research
As Ellis (2012) noted, the results of previous studies that compared the effects of input-‐
based and output-‐based instruction with each other are mixed and inconclusive. One
limitation of the previous studies is that they operationalized input- ‐based instruction
according to VanPatten’s PI model and ignored other types of input-‐based instruction,
such as textual enhancement or input enrichment. Furthermore, due to methodological
complexities involved in PI, as Morgan-‐Short and Bowden (2006) argue, it is impossible

TESL-EJ 16.3, December 2012 Rassaei 5

to determine whether the positive effects of PI is due to explicit instruction, input alone,
or the combination of input and explicit instruction. Another limitation of previous
studies of input-‐based and output-‐based instruction is that there is divergence in the
way output-‐based instruction was operationalized. For example, some studies that
reported a more positive role for output in L2 development, operationalized output
within a more communicative and interactional context (e.g., Toth, 2006; Erlam et al.,
2009). As Ellis (2012) argues, the ultimate benefits of input-‐based and production-‐based
instructions depend on the interactions that arise during instruction. Finally, as it was
noted before, previous studies of textual enhancement didn’t differentiate the effect of
enhanced input from enriched input. This conflation, according to Han et al. (2008), is
one of the shortcomings of previous textual enhancement studies. To this end, we
investigate the effects of input-‐based instruction in terms of textual enhancement and
input enrichment and compare them with the effects of output-‐based instruction on the
development of L2 knowledge. Furthermore, in order to isolate the role of explicit
instruction, usually a component of input-‐based or output-‐based instruction, we formed
another group that was only exposed to explicit instruction as treatment.
Research questions
The research questions guiding this study are:
1. Do input-‐based and output-‐based instructions lead to the development of L2
knowledge?
2. If both instructional conditions lead to development, which one is more effective?
3. Are textual enhancement and input enrichment equally effective in developing L2
knowledge? If not, which one is more effective?
Method
Design
This quasi-‐experimental study followed a pretest-‐post-‐test-‐delayed post-‐test design,
working with intact EFL classes. The independent variable is instructional technique
with four levels of enriched input, textually enhanced input, meaningful output, and
explicit instruction. The dependent variable is the development of the target structure.
The four instructional groups in the study are:

(1) Textual enhancement (TE)

(2) Input enrichment (IE)
(3) Meaningful output (MO)
(4) Explicit instruction (EI)

The treatment groups were compared to the control group. All the experimental and
control groups received the treatments according to the following schedule: In the first
treatment session, participants in the MO group received the treatments while in the

TESL-EJ 16.3, December 2012 Rassaei 6

second and third treatment sessions participants in the TE, IE, EI and control groups
received the treatments. The three treatment sessions were held on successive days.
Participants
The initial participant pool for the study consisted of 134 participants enrolled in five
third-‐semester English courses in a major language teaching institution in Iran. The
courses were part of a task-‐based program. Third-‐semester learners were chosen
because the program was scheduled to introduce the target form at the beginning of the
fourth semester. Five intact classes made up of the participants for the study were
selected. The four intact classes forming the instructional groups were designated as TE,
IE, MO, and EI groups while the fifth intact class was designated as the control group. TE
and IE groups were tokens of input-‐based instruction in the study. Participants ranged
in age from 19 to 35 and all either held graduate degree or were university student.
Except five learners who opted out of the study, all other participants stated their
consent to participate in the study and were highly motivated to improve their English,
as reported in anonymous consent forms which they completed prior to the study. The
final sample for the study included 129 participants. Besides the researcher, three
experienced EFL teachers were invited to the study to act as the research assistants and
also learners’ interlocutors during data collection sessions. Prior to the study, the
researcher met the interlocutors several times and informed them fully about the
research objectives and procedures.
Target structures
The target structure for the study is so vs. such in:
So + adjective + that clause, as in:
These boxes are so heavy that we can’t lift them.
Such + adjective + noun + that clause, as in:
It was such an important exam that we studied all the night.
These target structures were chosen after considering VanPatten’s primacy of content
words principle (VanPatten, 1996). According to this principle, learners tend to pay
more attention to content words at the expense of ignoring function words in order to
obtain maximum information from input. More specifically, so and such in the above
sentences have low communicative value and are low in saliency because such
sentences are easily understandable even by ignoring the distinction between so and
such. Thus, the above target structures can be considered as appropriate target
structures for learners of the study to examine the effects of input-‐based and output-‐
based instruction.
Operationalizations
Three important techniques operationalized in this study were: textual enhancement,
input enrichment, and meaningful output production. Textual enhancement was
operationalized by boldfacing target structures in the input. Input enrichment was
operationalized by seeding the treatment materials with extra tokens of the target

TESL-EJ 16.3, December 2012 Rassaei 7

feature. The number of target forms seeded in input enrichment materials was twice the
number of target forms to which participants in the enhancement group were exposed.
Finally, meaningful output was operationally defined as a technique which aims to
develop learners’ knowledge of L2, primarily through asking them to produce
meaningful output.
Treatment materials and procedure
Treatment materials for the four instructional groups in the study are as follows:
(a) TE: Four short texts containing target forms chosen from commercial EFL textbooks,
each containing approximately 250 words plus a short written explicit instruction
regarding target structures
The texts were manipulated and reconstructed to fit the purpose of the study. As a
result, each text contained 3 examples of each of the structures (3 so + adj+ that clause
structures and 3 such + adj + noun + that clause structures). In order to increase the
saliency of the target structures, all target structures throughout the texts were
boldfaced and underlined. The following examples reveal how textual enhancement was
operationalized in the study:
These boxes are so heavy that we can’t lift them.
It was such an important exam that we studied all the night.
In order to maintain learners’ focus on meaning, each text was followed by two
comprehension questions regarding the events in the texts which learners were asked to
answer. The texts were presented to learners in two separate sessions held in two
successive days (two texts for each day). No strict time limit was set for learners to
complete the activities. The written explicit instructions were accompanied by a brief
oral explanation by one of the research assistants as well as two written examples for
each structure. The participants first listened to the oral instructions, which lasted about
five minutes and were asked to read the written instructions for another five minutes
before reading the texts.
(b) IE: Six texts, each approximately 350 words long
Theses texts were also chosen from lower intermediate level EFL textbooks, but were
seeded with the target structures. Each of the target structures appeared four times in
each text. Thus, the total number of target structures in IE group materials was twice the
number of target structures appeared in TE group materials. No typographical change
such as boldfacing or underlining was applied to the IE materials. No explicit
instructions were added. Like the TE group materials, each text was followed by two
comprehension questions. The texts were presented to learners on two successive days,
and as in the TE group, the activities were untimed.
(c) MO: The treatment was presented to learners in three stages in one single session
Learners were first divided into two groups of 6 and two groups of 7. Each group sat
around a table with the presence of an interlocutor. During the first stage, over a span of
ten minutes, each learner was presented with explicit instructions (both written and

TESL-EJ 16.3, December 2012 Rassaei 8

oral) regarding the target structures, similar to the instructions presented to the TE
group. In the second stage, each learner was provided with a 16-‐item completion task
including 8 ‘so structures’ and 8 ‘such structures’. Each item consisted of an incomplete
sentence preceded by a description of that sentence. Participants were asked first to
read each description and fully comprehend it and then complete each sentence using
the target structures on a separate answer sheet. When the participants finished, their
answer sheets were removed. The following example illustrates an item of the sentence
completion task including an incomplete sentence and its description:
Description: My friend and I intended to go to the park. But, the weather was very cold.
Therefore, we decided to stay at home.
Incomplete sentence: The day was …
Learners were given 30 minutes to complete the task and allowed to ask for the meaning
of any word. During the third stage, the interlocutor read the description randomly and
asked participants to raise their hands to complete the accompanying sentence. The
process went on until all participants produced two grammatical sentences for each
target structure (items could be produced more than once). In the case of a learner’s
production of an ungrammatical sentence, other participants volunteered to produce the
correct one. (Appendix 1 provides the list of completion task items.)
(d) EI: The previously mentioned written instructions and four examples presented to
the TE and MO groups in the first stage
One of the research assistants provided the participants with a brief oral explanation of
the instructions. The same research assistant provided the explicit instructions for the
three experimental groups that received explicit instruction.
The participants were asked to study the instructions and the follow-‐up examples for 15
minutes. The participants performed this activity twice on two consecutive days.
Appendix 2 provides the explicit instruction and the accompanying examples presented
to EI as well as TE and MO groups.
(e) Control group: the materials and the procedure were the same as for the TE group,
except that no typographical modifications were made to the texts. In other words, the
target structures were not boldfaced nor underlined. Furthermore, no explicit
instruction was included in the materials.
Table 1 displays the major characteristics of each treatment condition.

TESL-EJ 16.3, December 2012 Rassaei 9

Table 1. Characteristics of the treatment conditions
Treatment Key Features Time
Meaningful production of target
MO forms (output) plus explicit One session
instruction

Exposure to textual enhanced 24

TE tokens of target forms plus explicit Two sessions
instruction

Exposure to enriched input with

IE 48 tokens of target forms with Two sessions
no explicit instruction

EI Explicit instruction of target forms Two sessions

Testing instruments and procedure

Three tests were administered on three occasions as pretest, post- ‐test, and delayed
post-‐test: an untimed grammaticality judgment test (UGJT), a written production task
(WPT), and a multiple choice grammar test (MCGT). The inclusion of these three testing
instruments helped us draw more valid conclusions regarding our results. The learners
in all experimental and control groups took the pre- ‐test two days before the first
treatment session began, the immediate post-‐test two days after the last treatment
session, and the delayed post-‐test two weeks after the immediate post-‐test. On each
testing occasion, all three tests were administered with a 15- ‐minute break between
them. All tests were paper-‐and-‐pencil tests, and no strict time limit was set. A
description of the tests follows:
UGJT
This test consisted of 30 sentences, 20 of which examined the correct use of the target
structures. The other 10 items were distractors included to desensitize learners to the
target structures in the pretest. Of 20 target structures items, 10 were grammatical and
10 were ungrammatical. A correct answer received one point. Learners were asked to
show whether the sentences are grammaticality correct or incorrect. Learners’
responses were scored as either correct or incorrect.
MCGT
The MCGT consisted of 30 items. Like the UGJT, the MCGT included 20 items targeting
the correct use of the target structures and 10 distracters. Learners were asked to

TESL-EJ 16.3, December 2012 Rassaei 10

choose the best answer among four options and mark their answer sheet. Correct
answers received one point.
WPT
This test, employed to measure learners’ productive knowledge of the target forms,
consisted of 22 items, 12 of which assessed the production of the target forms plus 10
distracters. The test was divided into four parts. The first two parts consisted of 12
items that equally measured learners’ production of the target structures. Each item
consisted of a short narrative followed by a prompt. Learners were asked to use the
prompts to complete the sentences using target structures. The other two parts, serving
as distractors, elicited learners’ production of relative clause and WH-‐question forms.
The test began with directions and an example regarding how to answer the items.
Issues of reliability and validity
Test-‐retest reliability (Pearson r) was calculated only for the control group. For the pre-‐ test
and the immediate post-‐test, the consistency was .76 for the UGJT, .83 for the MCGT, and
.79 for the WPT. For the pre-‐test and delayed post-‐test the consistency was .82 for the
UGJT, .81 for the MCGT, and .77 for the WPT (p < .05). In order to examine the validity of
the instruments regarding the measurement of the target structures, the testing
instruments were piloted with a group of elementary-‐level EFL learners (n = 34) and a
group of advanced-‐level EFL learners (n = 32) . The elementary-‐level pilot group was
chosen from second semester English learners and the advanced pilot group was chosen
from eighth semester English learners. Both pilot groups belonged to the same institute
from which the participants were chosen. Table 2 displays the mean scores and standard
deviations (SDs) of the pilot groups. Based on the number of items examining the target
structures in each instrument, the maximum score was 20 for UGJT and MCGT and 12 for
WPT.
Table 2. Mean scores and standard deviations for pilot groups
Elementary Advanced

M SD M SD

UGJT 8.6 .76 17.25 .66

MCGT 3.4 .62 16.20 .83

WPT 1.6 .85 10.4 .91

As Table 2 indicates, while elementary pilot group not yet receiving instruction
regarding the target structures performed poorly, participants in the advanced group
obtained high scores for the three tests. The fact that the tests could differentiate
properly between elementary and advanced groups can serve as an evidence for the
validity of the tests.

TESL-EJ 16.3, December 2012 Rassaei 11

Analysis
Raw scores for the UGJT, MCGT, and WPT were obtained for the three testing occasions.
Descriptive statistics were estimated for the three testing periods for all groups.
Participants’ scores in the pre-‐test were submitted to a one-‐way ANOVA to see if there
were any difference among the groups before the treatments. Mixed between- ‐within
subject ANOVAs were performed to explore learning gains over three testing periods
with time and treatments as independent variables and learners’ scores as dependent
variable. Tukey’s post hoc analysis was performed to see where the differences among
the groups lay. An alpha level of .05 was set and SPSS 16 was used to perform the
analyses.
Results
Tables 3, 4, and 5 present descriptive statistics for the UGJT, MCGT, and WPT scores over
the three testing periods: pre-‐test, immediate post-‐test, and delayed-‐post-‐test.
Table 3. Group means and standard deviations for the UGJT
Pretest Post-‐test Delayed Post-‐test

N M SD M SD M SD

Textual enhancement 26 8.88 .71 11.96 .77 11.11 .76

Input enrichment 25 8.44 .65 9.32 .74 8.70 .54

Output 27 8.92 .72 12.18 .73 11.29 .66

Explicit instruction 26 8.84 .73 10.00 .63 9.46 .58

Control 25 8.68 .69 9.10 .74 8.72 .54

Table 4. Group means and standard deviations for the MCGT

Pretest Post-‐test Delayed Post-‐test

N M SD M SD M SD

Textual enhancement 26 4.50 .58 6.88 .76 6.19 .56

Input enrichment 25 4.68 .55 4.88 .60 4.60 .64

Output 27 4.55 .75 7.81 .73 6.85 .76

Explicit instruction 26 4.23 .65 4.88 .65 4.46 .50

Control 25 4.28 .67 4.52 .71 4.28 .54

TESL-EJ 16.3, December 2012 Rassaei 12

Table 5. Group means and standard deviations for the WPT
Pretest Post-‐test Delayed Post-‐test

N M SD M SD M SD

Textual enhancement 26 2.34 .62 5.50 .64 3.50 .57

Input enrichment 25 2.56 .71 3.60 .55 2.10 .55

Output 27 2.59 .81 6.80 .76 5.56 .50

Explicit instruction 26 2.00 .80 3.68 .68 1.92 .62

Control 25 2.08 .77 2.22 .87 1.61 .62

In the case of the UGJT (Table 3), all experimental and control groups showed a gain
from pre-‐test to post-‐test; however, the improvements of the TE, MO, and EI groups
seem to be more prominent than those of the other groups. Similar patterns are also
evident in the delayed post-‐test. In the case of the MCGT, the gains of the IE and MO
groups are more evident than in the other groups in both immediate and delayed post-‐
tests. In the case of the WPT, most significant gains belonged to the MO and TE groups.
Figures 1, 2, and 3 represent the mean scores for the three testing periods for the
experimental and control groups. The figures confirm the initial impressions:
participants in textual enhancement and output groups outperformed other groups in
the UGJT, MCGT, and WPT over post-‐ and delayed post-‐tests.

TESL-EJ 16.3, December 2012 Rassaei 13

Figure 1. Mean scores for UGJT versus time

Figure 2. Mean scores for MCGT versus time

TESL-EJ 16.3, December 2012 Rassaei 14

Figure 3. Mean scores for WPT vs. time

In order to establish whether the experimental and control groups differ significantly
from each other before the treatments, a one-‐way ANOVA was performed on the UGJT,
MCGT, and WPT scores. No significant difference was found among the groups for the
three tests (FUGJT = 2.13, df = 4, p = .081, FMCGT = 2.17, df = 4, p = .076, and FWPT =
2.17, df = 4, p = .075). Furthermore, mixed between – within subjects ANOVAs were
performed on UGJT, MCGT, and WPT scores to compare groups’ scores over the three
testing occasions. These results are displayed in Table 6. As the table indicates, main
effects were found for time and treatment conditions (methods) for the three tests. This
means that there were significant gains over time and there were statistically significant
differences among the groups. The results also indicate interaction effect between time
and treatment groups meaning that the experimental and control groups had differential
improvements over time. This is what Figures 1 2, and 3 also displayed.
Table 6. Mixed between-‐within group ANOVA results
UGJT MCGT WPT

Source F sig. F sig. F sig.

Method (between
group) 83.1 .000 103 .000 214 .000

Time (within
group) 3.07 .000 1.5 .000 3.23 .000

Method*time 26.04 .000 23.42 .000 38.7 .000

TESL-EJ 16.3, December 2012 Rassaei 15

In order to specify further the differences among the groups in the immediate and
delayed post-‐tests, one-‐way between-‐group ANOVAs were performed for the UGJT,
MCGT, and WPT scores. For the UGJT, significant between-‐group differences were found
in both immediate post-‐test, F (4, 124) = 126.74, p = .000 and delayed post-‐test, F (4,
124) = 79.64, p = .000. Similar results were obtained for the MCGT scores in immediate
post-‐test, F (4, 124) = 197.54, p = .000 and delayed post-‐test, F (4, 24) = 155.32, p = .000.
Finally, for the WPT, significant difference was observed among the groups in the
immediate post-‐test, F (4, 24) = 159, and also in the delayed post-‐test, F (4, 24) = 210, p
= .000. Tukey’s post hoc comparisons were used to isolate where the significant
differences lay among the groups.
Regarding the UGJT, post hoc comparisons of both immediate and delayed post-‐tests
indicated no statistically significant difference between the MO and TE groups while
both groups outperformed the other groups. On the other hand, no statistically
significant difference was observed between the IE and control groups.
Post hoc analysis of MCGT also indicated no statistically significant difference between
EI, IE and control groups while the MO group outperformed all other groups including
the TE group in both immediate and delayed post-‐tests. The TE group also outperformed
the EI, IE, and control groups in both immediate and delayed post-‐tests.
Regarding the WPT, MO group significantly outperformed all other groups in both
immediate and delayed post-‐tests. Furthermore, the TE group outperformed the IE, EI,
and control groups in both immediate and delayed post- ‐tests. The IE group also
outperformed the control group in both immediate and delayed post-‐tests.
To summarize, the above analyses indicated that the MO and TE groups significantly
outperformed other groups in all tests while the MO group outperformed the TE group.
Furthermore, among the different treatment conditions, IE was the least effective
instructional treatment to develop learners’ knowledge of target forms. These findings
are summarized in Table 7.
Table 7. Summary of findings
MO = TE
UGJT
MO, TE > IE, EI, control

MO > TE, IE, EI, control

MCGT
TE > IE, EI, control

MO > TE, IE, EI, control

WPT
TE > IE, EI, control

TESL-EJ 16.3, December 2012 Rassaei 16

Discussion
This study investigated the effects of input-‐based instruction in terms of textually-‐
enhanced and enriched input and output- ‐based instruction on the development of L2
knowledge. The first research question asked was: Do input-‐based and output-‐based
instruction lead to the development of L2 knowledge? The results indicated that
learners who received enhanced input along with those who received output- ‐based
instruction significantly outperformed other groups in the three testing instruments.
Thus, the answer to the first research question is affirmative. Figures 1 and 2 confirm
that both TE and MO groups improved significantly from the pre- ‐tests to immediate
post-‐tests, although there were some losses from the immediate post- ‐tests to the
delayed post-‐tests. Overall, despite both group’s losses from post-‐tests to delayed tests,
both TE and MO groups evidenced significant gains from pre-‐tests to delayed post-‐tests,
and, therefore, both instructional conditions led to improved performance.
The second research question was: If both instructional conditions lead to improved
performance, which one is more effective? The results of one-‐way ANOVA performed on
immediate and delayed UGJT revealed no significant difference between the TE and MO
groups. The MCGT and WPT scores, however, revealed a statistically significant gain for
MO group over TE group for both immediate and delayed post- ‐tests. In other words,
textual enhancement and meaningful output had similar effects on participants’
performance in the UGJT. The results of one-‐way ANOVA on MCGT and WPT immediate
and delayed post-‐test scores on the other hand indicated the superiority of output over
textual enhancement as displayed by Table 7. Given that the MO group outperformed the
TE group in the MCGT and WPT but neither outperformed each another in the UGJT
suggests the superiority of output practice over textual enhancement in promoting
learners’ knowledge of the target structures in this study.
The third research question was: Are textual enhancement and input enrichment
equally effective in developing L2 knowledge? If no, which one is more effective? The
results of ANOVA analyses presented above revealed that the IE group did not perform
better than the control group in immediate and delayed post-‐tests while all other groups
outperformed both. Although the IE group outperformed the control group in the WPT,
the TE group outperformed both. Thus, it can be concluded that textual enhancement
was more effective than input enrichment.
It is important to discuss these findings in relation to some theoretical support and
empirical studies. Our findings for Research Question 1 suggest that both input- ‐based
(in the form of textual enhancement) and output- ‐based instructions lead to the
development of L2 knowledge. Regarding the effectiveness of input-‐based instruction, it
is important to recall that only textual enhancement technique as a representative of
input-‐based instruction led to L2 development and the other input-‐based instruction
technique, namely input enrichment was among the least effective instructional
techniques.
The positive effects of textual enhancement observed in this study can be attributed to
the role of attention and noticing in L2 acquisition. According to Gass and Macky (2000),

TESL-EJ 16.3, December 2012 Rassaei 17

attention mediates between input and intake. According to Schmidt’s (1990) noticing
hypothesis, attention controls access to awareness and is responsible for noticing, which
is “the necessary and sufficient condition for the conversion of input into intake”(p.
209). It can be argued that the more salient and noticeable the input, the more likely it
will be noticed and subsequently acquired. With regards to the answer to our third
research question pointing to the advantage of output-‐based over input-‐based
instruction, there are two positions about the role of output in L2 acquisition. One view
states that input directly leads to acquisition but output might only affect acquisition
indirectly or contribute to accessing a developing system. The other view states that
both input and output can directly affect acquisition. Our results support the view that
instruction dominated by output practice can lead to development even more efficiently
than an input-‐based instruction.
Some researchers who endorse the first position may attribute the observed gains found
for any output-‐based instruction to the incidental input that participants receive during
the treatment. Such incidental input can’t account for the effectiveness of output-‐based
instruction in the study given that the number of target structure tokens to which
learners in the MO group were exposed was fewer than the number of target structure
tokens exposed to participants in the IE group. In other words, the total number of
target structure tokens to which participants in the MO group were exposed was 36 (16
completion items being exposed to learners twice during the second and the third stages
+ 4 examples following explicit instruction), while this value for the IE group was 48.
Thus, if input were the only causative factor, we would expect the enrichment group to
outperform other groups, contrary to the results of our study.
Still, another possibility that could partially account for the effectiveness of output-‐
based instruction here is the provision of feedback by an interlocutor after each
learner’s production, a component absent from other experimental conditions. However,
it should be noted that any genuine communication entails feedback, and without
feedback it was impossible to ensure participants’ correct provision of the target
structure.
Which mechanisms of output practice made it effective for teaching the target structures
in the study? The benefits of output-‐based instruction observed in the study can be
discussed with regards to Swain’s output hypothesis. The current version of output
hypothesis (Swain, 1995, 1998, 2005) assumes four major roles for output in facilitating
L2 development: the noticing function, metalinguistic function, fluency function, and
hypothesis-‐testing function. First, output provides opportunities for fluent and speedy
use of language. This is called the fluency function of output. The second function of
output is the hypothesis testing function. Output can help learners assess the
comprehensibility and well-‐formedness of their utterances against feedback or reactions
they receive from their interlocutors. Third, the noticing function of output provides
opportunities for learners “to notice a gap between what they intend to say and what
they can say leading them to recognize what they don’t know or know only partially”
(Swain, 1995, pp. 125-‐126). The fourth function of output is its metalinguistic function

TESL-EJ 16.3, December 2012 Rassaei 18

by which it is claimed that “as learners reflect upon their own target language use, their
output serves a metalinguistic function, enabling them to control and internalize
linguistic knowledge” (Swain, 1995, p. 126).
Regarding the metalinguistic function, Swain (1995) claims that producing output might
“stimulate learners to move from the semantic, open-‐ended, non-‐deterministic, strategic
processing prevalent in comprehension to the complete grammatical processing needed
for accurate production” (p. 128). In other words, the lack of automatized and
procedural means of communication pushes learners to fall back into any declarative
and metalinguistic information at their disposal. This will in turn provide a means for
proceduralizing the newly developed L2 system.
The inclusion of the EI group in the study enabled us to isolate the effects of explicit
instruction in the absence of other treatments. The results of the study revealed that
both TE and MO groups outperformed the EI group in UGJT, MCGT, and WPT. Such
results imply that textual enhancement and output-‐based practice that incorporates
explicit instruction is more effective than explicit instruction per se and the effectiveness
of input or output practice observed in the study is, totally or in part, independent of the
explicit instruction presented to the participants. It should be noted that previous
studies of textual enhancement that didn’t present learners with explicit instruction
regarding target forms obtained mixed results. Future research can shed more light on
this issue by comparing the effects of textual enhancement with and without explicit
instruction.
Conclusion
The results of this study suggest that both input and output can give rise to the
development of L2 knowledge. However, our results suggest that output- ‐based
instruction can be more effective than input-‐based instruction. With regards to input-‐
based instruction, the results indicated that exposure to input alone is not enough to
promote the development of L2 knowledge and some form of intervention (such as
textual enhancement or explicit instruction) is needed to make input more salient to
learners. Our findings are thus compatible with Norris and Ortega’s (2000) general
finding that more obtrusive and explicit instruction is more effective than unobtrusive
and implicit instruction. However, it was also found that explicit instruction per se
confers no significant advantage to L2 learners and should be integrated into input or
output activities. With regards to output-‐based instruction it should be noted that
because producing output as a variable cannot be completely isolated from other
variables such as interlocutor’s feedback and input, we can’t confidently claim that
output in and of itself lead to L2 development. The best we can say is that instruction
that capitalizes on meaningful output practice is as effective as or even more effective
than input-‐based instruction.

TESL-EJ 16.3, December 2012 Rassaei 19

About the Author
Ehsan Rassaei, Ph.D., is a faculty member in the Department of Foreign Languages at
Islamic Azad University, Shiraz Branch, Shiraz, Iran, where he teaches research methods,
statistics, linguistics, and language teaching methodology to graduate and post-‐graduate
students.

References
Alanen, R. (1995). Input enhancement and rule presentation in second language
acquisition. In R. Schmidt (Ed.), Attention and awareness in foreign language learning
(Tech. Rep. No. 9, pp. 259–302). Honolulu: University of Hawai‘i Press.
Allen, L. (2000). Form-‐meaning connections and the French Causetive: An experiment in
Input Processing. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 22, 69-‐84.
Benati, A. (2001). A comparative study of the effects of processing instruction and
output-‐based instruction on the acquisition of the Italian future tense. Language
Teaching Research, 5, 95-‐127.
Benati, A. (2005). The effects of PI, TI, and MOI in the acquisition of English simple past
tense. Language Teaching Research, 9, 67-‐113.
Ellis, R. (2012). Language teaching research and pedagogy. West Sussex: Wiley-‐
Blackwell.
Erlam, R. (2009). The elicited oral imitation test as a measure of implicit knowledge. In
Ellis et al, (Eds.), Implicit and explicit knowledge in second language learning, testing and
teaching (pp. 65-‐93). Bristol: Short Run Press Ltd.
Farley, A. (2001a). Authentic processing instruction and the Spanish subjunctive.
Hispania, 84, 289–299.
Farley, A. (2001b). Processing Instruction and meaning-‐based output instruction: A
comparative study. Spanish Applied Linguistics, 5, 57–93.
Gass, S., & Mackey, A. (2000). Stimulated recall methodology in second language research.
Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
Han, Z., Park, E. S., & Combs, C. (2008). Textual enhancement of input: Issues and
possibilities, Applied Linguistics, 29, 597–618.
Hulstijn, J. (2003). Incidental and intentional learning. In C. Doughty & M Long (Eds.),
The handbook of second language acquisition (pp. 349-‐381). Oxford: Blackwell.
Izumi, S. (2002). Output, input enhancement, and the noticing hypothesis. Studies in
Second Language Acquisition, 24, 541–577.
Izumi, S., & Bigelow, M. (2000). Does output promote noticing and second language
acquisition? TESOL Quarterly, 34, 239–278.

TESL-EJ 16.3, December 2012 Rassaei 20

Izumi, S., Bigelow, M., Fujiwara, M., & Fearnow, S. (1999). Testing the output hypothesis.
Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 21, 421–452.
Jourdenais, R., Ota, M., Stauffer, S., Boyson, B., & Doughty, C. (1995). Does textual
enhancement promote noticing? A think aloud protocol analysis. In R. Schmidt (Ed.),
Attention and awareness in foreign language learning (Tech. Rep. No. 9, pp. 183–216).
Honolulu: University of Hawai‘i Press.
Krashen, S. (1985). The input hypothesis: Issues and implications. New York: Longman.
Lee, J. F., & Benati, A. (2009). Research and perspectives on processing instruction. Berlin:
Walter de Gruyter.
Lee, J. F., & VanPatten, B. (2003). Making communicative language teaching happen. New
York: McGraw-‐Hill.
Lee, S-‐K. (2007). Effects of textual enhancement and topic familiarity on Korean EFL
students’ reading comprehension and learning of passive for, Language Learning, 57, 87-‐
118.
Lee, S.-‐K., & Huang, H. (2008). Visual input enhancement and grammar learning: A meta-‐
analytic review. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 30, 307-‐331.
Leow, R., Egi, T., Nuevo, A., & Tsai, Y. (2003). The roles of textual enhancement and type
of linguistic item in adult L2 learners’ comprehension and intake. Applied Language
Learning, 13(2), 1-‐16.
Long, M. (1991). Focus on form: A design feature in language teaching methodology. In
K. de Bot, R. Ginsberg, & C. Kramsch (Eds.), Foreign language research in cross-‐cultural
perspective (pp. 39– 52). Amsterdam: Benjamins.
Long, M. H. (2000). Second language acquisition theories. In M. Byram (Eds.),
Encyclopedia of language teaching (pp. 527-‐34). London: Routledge.
Morgan-‐Short, K. & Bowden, H. W. (2006). Processing instruction and meaningful
output-‐based instruction. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 28, 31-‐65.
Norris, J., & Ortega, L. (2000). Effectiveness of L2 instruction: A research synthesis and
quantitative meta-‐analysis. Language Learning, 13, 417–528.
Overstreet, M. (1998). Text enhancement and content familiarity: The focus of learner
attention. Spanish Applied Linguistics, 2, 229-‐258.
Reinders, H. & Ellis, R. (2009). The effects of two types of input on intake and the
acquisition of implicit and explicit knowledge. In R. Ellis et al. (Eds.), Implicit and explicit
knowledge in second language learning testing and teaching (pp. 282-‐302). Bristol:
Multilingual Matters.
Schmidt, R. W. (1990). The role of consciousness in second language learning. Applied
Linguistics, 11, 129–158.
Schmidt, R. W. (2001). Attention. In P. Robinson (Ed.), Cognition and second language
instruction (pp. 3–32). Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.

TESL-EJ 16.3, December 2012 Rassaei 21

Schmidt, R., & Frota, S. N. (1986). Developing basic conversational ability in a second
language: A case study of an adult learner of Portuguese. In R. Day (Ed.), Talking to learn:
Conversation in second language acquisition (pp. 237–326). Rowley, MA: Newbury House
Publishers.
Schwartz, B. (1993). On explicit and negative data effecting and affecting competence
and linguistic behavior. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 15, 147–164.
Shook, D. J. (1999). What foreign language reading recalls reveal about the input-‐to-‐ intake
phenomenon. Applied Language Learning, 10, 39–76.
Swain, M. (1985). Communicative competence: Some roles of comprehensible input and
comprehensible output in its development. In S. Gass & C. Madden (Eds.), Input in second
language acquisition. Cambridge, MA: Newbury House.
Swain, M. (1995). Three functions of output in second language learning. In G. Cook & B.
Seidlhofer (Eds.), Principle and practice in applied linguistics: Studies in honor of H. G.
Widdowson (pp. 125–144). Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Swain, M. (2000). The output hypothesis and beyond: Mediating acquisition through
collaborative dialogue. In J. Lantolf (Ed.), Sociocultural theory and second language
learning (pp. 97-‐114). Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Swain, M. (2005). The output hypothesis: theory and research. In E. Hinkel (Eds.).
Handbook of Research in Second Language Teaching and Learning (pp. 471-‐483). Mahwa, NJ:
Lawrence Erlbaum.
Swain, M., & Lapkin, S. (1995). Problems in output and the cognitive processes they
generate: A step towards second language learning. Applied Linguistics, 16, 371–391.
Tomlin, R., & Villa, V. (1994). Attention in cognitive science and second language
acquisition. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 16, 183–203.
Toth, B. (2006). Processing instruction and a role for output in second language
acquisition. Language learning, 56, 319-‐385.
Trahey, M., & White, L. (1993). Positive evidence and preemption in the second language
classroom. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 15, 181–204.
Trahey, M. (1996). Positive evidence in second language acquisition: some long-‐term
effects. Second Language Research, 12, 111-‐139.
VanPatten, B. (1993). Grammar teaching for the acquisition-‐rich classroom. Foreign
Language Annals, 26, 435–450.
VanPatten, B. (1996). Input processing and grammar instruction in second language
acquisition: Theory and research. Norwood, NJ: Ablex.
VanPatten, B. (2002). Processing instruction: An update. Language Learning, 52, 755–
803.

TESL-EJ 16.3, December 2012 Rassaei 22

VanPatten, B. (2003). From input to output: A teacher’s guide to second language
acquisition. New York: McGraw-‐Hill.
VanPatten, B. (2004). Input processing in second language acquisition. In B. VanPatten
(Ed.), Processing instruction: Theory, research, and commentary (pp. 5–32). Mahwah, NJ:
Lawrence Erlbaum.
VanPatten, B., & Cadierno, T. (1993). Explicit instruction and input processing. Studies in
Second Language Acquisition, 15, 225–244.
VanPatten, B., & Wong, W. (2004). Processing instruction and the French causative:
Another replication. In B. VanPatten (Ed.), Processing instruction: Theory, research, and
commentary (pp. 97–118). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
Wong, W. (2004a). The nature of processing instruction. In B. VanPatten (Eds.),
Processing Instruction: Theory, research, and commentary (pp. 33-‐63). Mahwah, NJ:
Lawrence Erlbaum.
Wong, W. (2004b). Processing instruction in French: The roles of explicit information
and structured input. In B. VanPatten (Eds.), Processing instruction: Theory, research, and
commentary (pp. 187–205). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
Wong, W., & VanPatten, B. (2003). The evidence is IN: Drills are OUT. Foreign Language
Annals, 36, 403–423.

TESL-EJ 16.3, December 2012 Rassaei 23

Appendix 1. Treatment materials for the MO group
Part A.
Directions: read each of the following descriptions (marked 1 to 7) and try to fully
comprehend them. After each description, complete the following
sentence as in the example:
1. I bought a book yesterday. It was a very interesting book. Therefore, I decided to read
it all night.
The book was …..
The book was so interesting that I decided to read it all night.
2. Last night, we decided to go to cinema. The night was very cold. I decided to wear two
coats.
The night was….
3. I had an exam yesterday. Because, it was difficult, I only answered 3 questions.
The exam was…
4. I went shopping with my dad. The shoes were very cheap. Therefore, I decided to buy
three pairs.
The shoes were….
5. My mother baked a cake for my birthday. Because it was so delicious, I decided to eat
three pieces.
The cake….
6. Because I stayed up late last night, I was tired at work today. Therefore, I decided to
go home early. I was….
7. When I saw my score in the exam, I felt very angry and couldn’t control myself.
I felt…
8. The car was very expensive. We couldn’t afford to buy it. The car was ….
Part B.
Directions: read each of the following descriptions (marked 1 to 7) and try to fully
comprehend them. After each description, complete the following
sentence as in the example:
1. The movie was so good. We decided to watch it 5 times.
It was …..
It was such a good movie that we decided to watch it 5 times.
2. Because the book was so interesting, I read it 4 times. It was …..

TESL-EJ 16.3, December 2012 Rassaei 24

3. Because I had a very difficult exam, I decided to study all the night. It was ….
4. We went to a restaurant last night. But the food was horrible and we couldn’t eat any
of it. It was…
5. John is a very hard working student. He always gets the top score in our class. John
is…
6. Marry was a very fluent girl. I thought that she is an American. Marry was…
7. Because the exam was very easy, I answered all the questions.
It was….
8. I couldn’t afford to by the dress because it was very expensive. It was…

Appendix 2
Treatment materials for EI group
So can be followed by “an adjective” and “that” to show extremes that lead to certain
results. In this structure “that” can be optional.
So + adj + (that) sentence
The music is so loud (that) I can’t sleep.
The meal was so good (that) we decided to go to the same restaurant.
Such can be followed by “an adjective”, “a noun” and “that” to show extremes that lead to
certain results. In this structure “that” can be optional.
Such + adj + noun + (that) sentence
It was such a beautiful movie that we watched it several times.
Tom has such a big house that I get lost in my way to bathroom.

© Copyright rests with authors. Please cite TESL-‐EJ appropriately.

TESL-EJ 16.3, December 2012 Rassaei 25

TESL-EJ 16.3, December 2012 Rassaei 26