The Role of Input-based and Output-based Language Teaching in Learning English Phrasal Verbs by Upper-intermediate Iranian EFL Learners

Farida Badri Ahmadi, Essa Panahandeh


The present study attempts to explore the impact of input-based and output-based pedagogical approaches on learning English phrasal verbs by upper-intermediate Iranian EFL learners. It also investigates whether there is any significant difference between Iranian male and female EFL learners regarding input-based and output-based language teaching. 73 upper-intermediate English learners participated in the study, 34 of whom were males and 39 of whom were females with an age range of 17 to 28 years old. They were divided into two intact homogeneous groups, one of which received input-based approach for teaching English phrasal verbs and the other one took advantage of output-based language teaching for the same phrasal verbs. A Test of Phrasal Verbs which is made by the researcher was used for both the pre- and post-test. Three descriptive analysis and independent-samples t-tests were used to analyze the data. Regarding the first research question, an independent-samples t-test analysis indicated that there was a significant difference between input-based and output-based instruction in teaching phrasal verbs. That is, output-based language teaching outperformed input-based language teaching and leads to better learning of the English phrasal verbs. The results of the second independent-samples t-test suggested that there was no significant difference between male and female Iranian EFL learners in output-based teaching of English phrasal verbs. The study also showed no significant difference between both genders in input-based teaching of English phrasal verbs. That is, input- and output-based instructions had no effect on genders in learning phrasal verbs.


Input-based language teaching; Output-based language teaching; Phrasal verbs; Iranian EFL learners; gender

Full Text:



Ahmadi, A., Ghafar Samar, R., & Yazdanimoghaddam, M. (2011). Teaching Requestive Downgraders in L2: How Effective are Input-Based and Output-Based Tasks? Iranian Journal of Applied Linguistics (IJAL), 14 (2), 1-30.

Basturkmen, H. (2006). Ideas and Options in English for Specific Purposes. London: The University of Auckland:Lawrence Erlbaum.

Benati, A. (2005). The Effects of Processing Instruction, Traditional Instruction, and Meaningful Based Output Instruction on the Acquisition of English Past Simple Tense. Language Teaching Research, 9(1), 67–93.

Bolinger, D. (1971). The phrasal verbs in English. Cambridge MA: Harvard University Press.

Bourton, S. H. (1984). Mastering English Grammar. Macmillan Master Series. London: The Macmillan Press LTD.

Brinton, L. J. (2000). The Structure of Modern English. A Linguistic Introduction. John Benjamins. Publishing Company.

Cook, L.B. (1964). English for Today. New York, NY: Mc Graw-Hill, Inc.

Cubillo, M. (2002). Phrasal and Prepositional Verbs in Specialized Texts: A Creative Device. University of Jaume.

Ellis, N. (1999). Cognitive approaches to SLA. Annual Review of Applied Linguistics, 19(1), 22-42.

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

Ellis, R. (2012). Language teaching research and pedagogy. West Sussex: Wiley-Blackwell.

Elola, I. & Oskoz, A. (2010). Collaborative Writing: Fostering Foreign Language and Writing Conventions Development. Language Learning & Technology, 14(3), 51-71.

Fowler, W. S. & Coe, N. (1978). Nelson English language tests (Book 2, Intermediate). London: Butler & Tanner Ltd.

Gairns, R., & Redman, S. (2011).Word Skills: Intermediate: Idioms and Phrasal Verbs Student Book with Key: Learn and Practise English Vocabulary. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Gass, S. (1997). Input, interaction and the second language learner. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

Gass, S. M., & Selinker, L. (2008). Second language acquisition: An introductory course. New York: Routledge.

Harely, B. & Swain, M. (1984). The interlanguage of immersion students and its implications for second language teaching. In A.P.R. Howatt (Ed.), Interlanguage (pp. 291-311). Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press.

Hashemian, M., Roohani, A., & Fadaei, B. (2012). On the cognitive style of field (in)dependence as a predicator of L2 learners' performance in recognition and text-based tests of metaphor. Journal of Language Teaching and Research, 3(5), 876-887.

Krashen, S. (1982). Principles and practice in second language acquisition. Oxford: Pergamon Press.

Krashen, S. (1985). The input hypothesis: Issues and implications. New York, NY: Longman.

Krashen, S. (1991). The input hypothesis: An update. Linguistics and language pedagogy: The state of the art (pp. 409–431). Washington, DC: Georgetown University Press.

Krashen, S. (1994). The input hypothesis and its rivals. In: Ellis, N. (Ed.). Implicit and Explicit Learning of Languages (pp. 45-77). Academic Press, London.

Kumaravadivelu, B. (2006). TESOL methods: Changing tracks, challenging trends. TESOL Quarterly, 40(1), 59-81.

Lipka, L. (1972). Semantic structure and word-formation: Verb-particle constructions in contemporary English. Munich: Willhelm Fink.

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: Benjamin.

Long, M. H. (1996). The role of linguistic environment in second language acquisition. In W. Ritchie, & T. J. Bhatia (Eds.), Handbook of second language acquisition (pp.413-468). Orlando, FL: Academic Press.

McCarthy, M. & O'Dell, F. (2007). English Phrasal Verbs in Use: Advanced. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Morgan-Short, K., & Bowden, H. W. (2006). Processing Instruction and Meaningful Output-based Instruction: Effects on Second Language Development. SSLA, 28(1), 31–65.

Piske, T., & Young-Scholten, M. (Eds). (2009). Input Matters in SLA. Bristol: Multilingual Matters.