Your browser does not support the PubReader view.
Go to this page to see a list of supporting browsers.
The Korean Association for the Study of English Language and Linguistics
[ Article ]
Korea Journal of English Language and Linguistics - Vol. 26, No. 0, pp.441-459
ISSN: 1598-1398 (Print) 2586-7474 (Online)
Print publication date 31 Mar 2026
Received 31 Dec 2025 Revised 03 Mar 2026 Accepted 03 Mar 2026
DOI: https://doi.org/10.15738/kjell.26..202603.441

Effectiveness of Construction-based Instruction on Korean Middle School Learners’ L2 Production and Engagement

Mincheol Sim ; Junkyu Lee
(First author) PhD Student, Department of TESOL, Graduate School Hankuk University of Foreign Studies 107 Imun-ro, Dongdaemun-gu Seoul, Korea, Tel: +82-2-2173-3978 mcsim@hufs.ac.kr
(Corresponding author) Professor, Graduate School of Education Hankuk University of Foreign Studies 107 Imun-ro, Dongdaemun-gu Seoul, Korea, Tel: +82-2-2173-3978 junkyu@hufs.ac.kr


© 2026 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.

Abstract

In second language (L2) instruction, integrating form and meaning is important for learners’ ability to use language. However, it remains unclear how such integration can be realized in instructional practice, particularly in Korean middle school EFL classrooms. This study examined the pedagogical potential of construction-based instruction, which links sentence forms to the meanings of recurring events, to enhance sentence-level L2 production and promote learner engagement. To this end, forty-three second-year middle school learners received either construction-based instruction or conventional form-focused instruction. L2 production was assessed through written production tasks, including a sentence translation task and a guided writing task, administered at pretest and posttest following a four-week instructional period. Participants also completed a learner engagement questionnaire after the posttest. The results indicated that the construction-based instruction group showed significantly greater improvement in both written production tasks and reported overall higher engagement. These findings suggest that construction-based instruction can effectively support sentence-level L2 production and foster greater engagement among middle school EFL learners by linking sentence forms to event meanings.

Keywords:

construction-based instruction, L2 production, learner engagement, middle school learners, construction grammar

Acknowledgments

This work was supported by Hankuk University of Foreign Studies Research Fund of 2026.

References

  • Bencini, G. M. L. and A. E. Goldberg. 2000. The contribution of argument structure constructions to sentence meaning. Journal of Memory and Language 43(4), 640-651. [https://doi.org/10.1006/jmla.2000.2757]
  • Biber, D., S. Conrad and G. Leech. 2002. Longman Student Grammar of Spoken and Written English. Harlow: Pearson Education.
  • Bybee, J. 2010. Language, Usage and Cognition. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. [https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511750526]
  • Eerdemutu, L., J.-M. Dewaele and J. Wang. 2024. Developing a short language classroom engagement scale (LCES) and linking it with needs satisfaction and achievement. System 120, 103189. [https://doi.org/10.1016/j.system.2023.103189]
  • Ellis, N. C. 2003. Constructions, chunking, and connectionism: The emergence of second language structure. In C. J. Doughty and M. H. Long, eds., The Handbook of Second Language Acquisition, 63-103. Oxford: Blackwell. [https://doi.org/10.1002/9780470756492.ch4]
  • Ellis, R. 2006. Current issues in the teaching of grammar: An SLA perspective. TESOL Quarterly 40(1), 83-107. [https://doi.org/10.2307/40264512]
  • Ellis, R. 2008. The Study of Second Language Acquisition. 2nd ed. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
  • Fredricks, J. A., P. C. Blumenfeld and A. H. Paris. 2004. School engagement: Potential of the concept, state of the evidence. Review of Educational Research 74(1), 59-109. [https://doi.org/10.3102/00346543074001059]
  • Goldberg, A. E. 1995. Constructions: A Construction Grammar Approach to Argument Structure. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
  • Goldberg, A. E. 2003. Constructions: a new theoretical approach to language. Trends in Cognitive Sciences 7(5), 219-224. [https://doi.org/10.1016/S1364-6613(03)00080-9]
  • Goldberg, A. E. 2006. Constructions at Work: The Nature of Generalization in Language. Oxford: Oxford University Press. [https://doi.org/10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199268511.001.0001]
  • Goldberg, A. E. and D. Casenhiser. 2008. Construction learning and second language acquisition. In P. Robinson and N. C. Ellis, eds., Handbook of Cognitive Linguistics and Second Language Acquisition, 197-215. New York: Routledge.
  • Guo, Y., J. Xu and C. Chen. 2023. Measurement of engagement in the foreign language classroom and its effect on language achievement: the case of Chinese college EFL students. International Review of Applied Linguistics in Language Teaching 61(3), 1225-1270. [https://doi.org/10.1515/iral-2021-0118]
  • Jeon, J. and J. Yin. 2022. Revisiting key issues in applying the communicative approach in Korea: Follow up after 26 years of implementation. The Journal of Asia TEFL 19(3), 961-974. [https://doi.org/10.18823/asiatefl.2022.19.3.12.962]
  • Jeong, H. and H. Kim. 2017. An analysis of grammar activities in middle school English textbooks and learners’ perspectives. Journal of the Korea English Education Society 16(1), 129-146. [https://doi.org/10.18649/jkees.2017.16.1.129]
  • Kang, D. 2017. EFL students’ and teachers’ beliefs about grammar learning and error correction in Korean secondary schools. Secondary English Education 10(2), 9-20.
  • Kim, H. and Y. Rah. 2021. Applying constructionist approaches to teaching English argument structure constructions to EFL learners. TESOL Quarterly 55(2), 568-592. [https://doi.org/10.1002/tesq.3002]
  • Kim, H., H. Choi and H. K. Yang. 2013. Developmental patterns of Korean EFL learners’ English argument structure constructions. Procedia - Social and Behavioral Sciences 97, 397-404. [https://doi.org/10.1016/j.sbspro.2013.10.251]
  • Krashen, S. D. 1982. Principles and Practice in Second Language Acquisition. Oxford: Pergamon Press.
  • Krashen, S. D. 1985. The Input Hypothesis: Issues and Implications. London: Longman.
  • Larsen-Freeman, D. 2003. Teaching Language: From Grammar to Grammaring. Boston: Heinle.
  • Lee, J. 2024. An analysis of grammar activities in middle school English textbooks from the perspective of developing communicative competency. Teacher Education Research 63(4), 561-579.
  • Lei, H., Y. Cui and W. Zhou. 2018. Relationships between student engagement and academic achievement: A meta-analysis. Social Behavior and Personality: An International Journal 46(3), 517-528. [https://doi.org/10.2224/sbp.7054]
  • Long, M. H. 1991. Focus on form: A design feature in language teaching methodology. In K. de Bot, R.B. Ginsberg, and C. Kramsch, eds., Foreign Language Research in Cross-Cultural Perspective, 39-52. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. [https://doi.org/10.1075/sibil.2.07lon]
  • Long, M. H. 2015. Second Language Acquisition and Task-Based Language Teaching. Malden: Wiley-Blackwell.
  • Nam, K. 2011. A critical look at interaction in a Korean middle school classroom: Its role in development of students’ communicative abilities. English Language Teaching 23(1), 129-151.
  • Nassaji, H. and S. Fotos. 2011. Teaching Grammar in Second Language Classrooms: Integrating Form-Focused Instruction in Communicative Context. New York: Routledge. [https://doi.org/10.4324/9780203850961]
  • Philp, J. and S. Duchesne. 2016. Exploring engagement in tasks in the language classroom. Annual Review of Applied Linguistics 36, 50-72. [https://doi.org/10.1017/S0267190515000094]
  • Rah, Y. 2014. Construction-grammar-based approach for enhancing Korean college EFL learners’ sentence production ability. Studies in Linguistics 32, 79-100. [https://doi.org/10.17002/sil..32.201407.79]
  • Rah, Y. and H. Kim. 2018. Construction-based approach to teaching the English resultative construction to Korean EFL learners. System 72, 1-12. [https://doi.org/10.1016/j.system.2017.09.027]
  • Song, J. and J. Kim. 2018. A study on middle school students’ expository writing ability and characteristic analysis. The Journal of Curriculum and Evaluation 21(1), 129-151. [https://doi.org/10.29221/jce.2018.21.1.129]
  • Sulis, G. 2022. Engagement in the foreign language classroom: Micro and macro perspectives. System 110, 102902. [https://doi.org/10.1016/j.system.2022.102902]
  • Sung, M. C. and H. K. Yang. 2016. Effects of construction-centered instruction on Korean students’ learning of English transitive resultative constructions. In S. De Knop and G. Gilquin, eds., Applied Construction Grammar, 89-114. Berlin, Boston: De Gruyter Mouton. [https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110458268-005]
  • Svalberg, A. M.-L. 2021. Engagement with language in relation to form-focused versus meaning-focused teaching and learning. In P. Hiver, A. H. Al-Hoorie and S. Mercer, eds., Student Engagement in the Language Classroom, 38-55. Bristol: Multilingual Matters. [https://doi.org/10.2307/jj.22730722.8]
  • Tomasello, M. 2003. Constructing a Language: A Usage-Based Theory of Language Acquisition. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.
  • Tukan, F. M. E. 2024. The difficulties and strategies of EFL students in improving their English skills. International Journal of Indonesian Education and Teaching 8(1), 101-113. [https://doi.org/10.24071/ijiet.v8i1.3375]
  • Whitehead, G. E. K. 2017. Teachers’ voices: Obstacles to communicative language teaching in South Korea. Asian EFL Journal 19(4), 5-31.
  • Yang, H. K. 2010. Linguistic systems of target language as organizational foundations of foreign language teaching. Korean Language Education 133, 63-81.