The Korean Association for the Study of English Language and Linguistics
[ Article ]
Korea Journal of English Language and Linguistics - Vol. 22, No. 0, pp.86-99
ISSN: 1598-1398 (Print) 2586-7474 (Online)
Print publication date 31 Jan 2022
Received 05 Jan 2022 Revised 20 Feb 2022 Accepted 27 Feb 2022

Exploring the Sequence Effect of Input and Output on the Learning of English Articles

Eun Young Kang
Professor, Kongju University

© 2022 KASELL All rights reserved
This is an open-access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons License, which permits unrestricted non-commercial use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.


This study examined whether the ordering of input and output could affect the learning of English articles. Sixty-nine Korean high school learners of English were divided into two experimental groups and a comparison group. The experimental groups were provided with (1) an L1-L2 translation output task and (2) a relevant L2 narrative written input, while two groups of students were presented with the tasks in a reverse order. An input-output group read an L2 narrative text first and then engaged in the L1-L2 translation, whereas an output-input group completed the translation followed by an opportunity to read the narrative text. The comparison group read the same L2 text and completed reading comprehension questions. After this cycle of treatment was repeated three times, the learners’ use of English articles was assessed using a writing task. Progress was measured with two post-tests based on the TLU (Target-Like Use, Pica 1991) score for their use of articles. A repeated measure ANOVA revealed that the output-input treatment resulted in higher scores throughout the two post-tests than the input-output sequence and the comparison group. The result indicates that the availability of relevant input immediately after learners’ output experience could enhance the learning of particular elements of language for which they are acquisition-ready. This result may have implications for language teachers and L2 researchers in helping them to design output tasks.


English articles, input, output, noticing function of output


  • Doughty, C. 2001. Cognitive underpinnings of focus on form. In P. Robinson, ed., Cognition and L2 Instruction, 206-257. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. []
  • Doughty, C. and J. Williams. 1998. Focus on Form in Classroom Second Language Acquisition. New York: Cambridge University Press.
  • Gass, S. 1997. Input, Interaction, and the Second Language Learner. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
  • Herron, C. and M. Tomasello. 1988. Learning grammatical structures in a foreign language: Modelling versus feedback. The French Review 61(6), 910-922.
  • Han, Z-H. and Y. Sun. 2014. First exposure: A replication of Han and Peverly (2007). In Z-H. Han and R. Rast, eds., First Exposure to a Second Language: Learners’ Initial Input Processing, 8-40. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press. []
  • Hanaoka, O. 2007. Output, noticing, and learning: An investigation into the role of spontaneous attention to form in a four-stage writing task. Language Teaching Research 11(4), 459-479. []
  • 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. []
  • Izumi, S. and M. Bigelow. 2000. Does output promote noticing and second language acquisition? TESOL Quarterly 34, 239–278. []
  • Izumi, Y. and S. Izumi. 2004. Investigating the effects of oral output on the learning of relative clauses in English: Issues in the psycholinguistic requirements for effective output tasks. Canadian Modern Language Review 60(5), 587-609. []
  • Izumi, S., M. Bigelow, M. Fujiwara and S. Fearnow.1999. Testing the output hypothesis: Effects of output on noticing and second language acquisition. Studies in Second Language Acquisition 21, 421-452. []
  • Krashen, S. 1985. The Input Hypothesis: Issues and Implications. New York: Longman.
  • Long, M. 1996. The role of the linguistic environment in second language acquisition. In W. Ritchie and T. Bhatia eds., Handbook of Second Language Acquisition, 413-468. San Diego, CA: Academic Press. []
  • Lyster, R. and M. Sato. 2013. Skill acquisition theory and the role of practice in L2 development. In M. G. Mayo, J. Gutierrez-Mangado and M. M. Adrián, eds., Multiple Perspectives on Second Language Acquisition, 71–92. Amsterdam: Benjamins. []
  • Master, P. 2002. Information structure and English article pedagogy. System 30, 331-348. []
  • Morris, C., J. Bransford and J. Franks. 1977. Levels of processing versus transfer appropriate processing. Journal of Verbal Learning and Verbal Behavior 16(5), 519-533. []
  • Pica, T. 1991. Foreign language classrooms: Making them research-ready and researchable. In B. Freed, ed, Foreign Language Acquisition Research and the Classroom, 393-412. Lexington, MA: D.C. Heath.
  • Qi, D. S. and S. Lapkin. 2001. Exploring the role of noticing in a three-stage second language writing task. Journal of Second Language Writing 10(4), 277-303. []
  • Schmidt, R. 1994. Deconstructing consciousness in search of useful definitions for applied linguistics. AILA Review 11, 11-26.
  • Schmidt, R. 1990. The role of consciousness in second language learning. Applied Linguistics 11, 129-158. []
  • Schmidt, R. 2001. Attention. In P. Robinson, ed., Cognition and Second Language Acquisition, 3-32. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
  • Sharwood Smith, M. 1993. Input enhancement in instructed SLA: Theoretical bases. Studies in Second Language Acquisition 15, 165-179. []
  • Sheen, Y. 2007. The effect of focused written corrective feedback and language aptitude on ESL learners’ acquisition of articles. TESOL Quarterly 41, 255-283. []
  • Sheen, Y., D. Wright and A. Moldawa. 2009. Differential effects of focused and unfocused written correction on the accurate use of grammatical forms by adult ESL learners. System 37, 556– 569. []
  • Schwartz, B. 1993. On explicit and implicit data effecting and affecting competence and linguistic behavior. Studies in Second Language Acquisition 15, 147-163. []
  • Song, M. J. and B. R. Suh. 2008. The effects of output task types on noticing and learning of the English past counterfactual conditional. System 36(2), 295-312. []
  • Swain, M. 1985. Communicative competence: Some roles of comprehensible input and comprehensible output in its development. In S. Gass and C. Madden, eds., Input in Second Language Acquisition, 235-253. Rowley, MA: Newbury House.
  • Swain, M. 1995. Three functions of output in second language learning. In G. Cook and B. Seildhofer, eds., Principles and Practice in Applied Linguistics: Studies in Honour of H.G. Widdowson, 125-144. Oxford , UK: Oxford University Press.
  • Rassaei, E. 2019. Computer-mediated text-based and audio-based corrective feedback, perceptual style and L2 development. System 82, 97-110. []
  • Reynolds, B. L. and C. W. Kao. 2021. The effects of digital game-based instruction, teacher instruction, and direct focused written corrective feedback on the grammatical accuracy of English articles. Computer Assisted Language Learning 34(4), 462-482.
  • Uggen, M. S. 2012. Reinvestigating the noticing function of output. Language Learning 62(2), 506-540. []