Comprehension-Based Versus Production-Based Grammar Instruction: A Meta-Analysis of Comparative Studies

By Natsuko Shintani, Shaofeng Li, R. Ellis. 2013

119 citations recorded by the source corpus.

This article reports a meta-analysis of studies that investigated the relative effectiveness of comprehension-based instruction (CBI) and production-based instruction (PBI). The meta-analysis only included studies that featured a direct comparison of CBI and PBI in order to ensure methodological and statistical robustness. A total of 35 research projects in 30 published studies were retrieved. The studies were coded for three types of effect sizes: comparative, absolute, and pre-to-post change. The comparative effect sizes were used in a subsequent moderator analysis to test the impact of two mediator variables—CBI with and without Processing Instruction and PBI involving text creation versus text manipulation. The results showed that (1) overall, both types of instruction had large effects on both receptive and productive knowledge; (2) for receptive knowledge, CBI had a greater effect than PBI when the acquisition was measured within one week but the difference diminished in the delayed tests (i.e., posttests administered between 1 week and 75 days after the treatment); (3) for productive knowledge, CBI and PBI had similar effects in short-term measurement but PBI was more effective in the delayed tests; and (4) the initial advantage found for CBI was largely due to Processing Instruction. We discuss the theoretical and pedagogical significance of these findings.

Subfields: Developmental and Educational Psychology, Education, Language and Linguistics

View Paper: https://www.semanticscholar.org/paper/7d045798b86b6cd98a8eb45844db613ffd36db1a

How researchers see this paper

The researchers whose trusted networks rank it highest, strongest advocate first. Every researcher gets a different order.

In Developmental and Educational Psychology

In Education

In Language and Linguistics

Citations in the corpus

In Defense of Tasks and TBLT: Nonissues and Real Issues (2016, unknown): “Someclassroomstudies, moreover(e.g.,Shintani,2011,2013),havecomparedinput-basedandoutput-basedinstruction;theresults,togetherwiththoseofastatisticalmeta-analysisof thesameissuesinteachinggrammaringeneral(Shintani,Li,&Ellis,2013),favor input-basedapproaches.”
Corpus Use in Language Learning: A Meta-Analysis. (2017, background): “This is not uncommon (cf. Burston, 2015; Shintani, Li, & Ellis, 2013; Spada & Tomita, 2010), and these cases were counted as a single study, based on one main publication backed up where necessary with extra information from the secondary source(s).”
The Routledge handbook of English language teaching (2018, background): “In fact, recent research has shown that exploring embodied conceptual motivations and using visual aids/body actions can significantly enhance L2 learning of prepositions and phrases involving preposition particles (Boers, 2000; Tyler, 2012).”