The Comparative Effect of Using Visual and Auditory Input Enhancement on the Use of Cohesive Devices in the Writing of Iranian EFL Filed-dependent and independent Learners

Document Type: Research article


1 Department of English Language and Literature, Science and Research Branch, Islamic Azad University, Tehran, Iran.

2 Department of English Language and Literature, Karaj Branch, Islamic Azad University


Writing has been a troublesome skill for Iranian EFL learners as it needs accurate planning and acceptable coherence. The current study aimed as investigating the comparative effect of visual and auditory input enhancement on the use of cohesive devices in the writing of Iranian EFL learners. Participants of the study were 60 field dependent and 60 field independent language learners at intermediate level of language proficiency. The study adopted a pretest posttest design and data were analyzed through employing statistical test of ANCOVA. Results of statistical analysis showed that visual input enhancement was significantly more effective than auditory input enhancement in terms of their effects on the use of cohesive devices in both field dependent and field independent language learners. Results were discussed and implications of study were also presented.


Alanen, R. (1995). Input enhancement and rule presentation in second language acquisition. In R. Schmidt (Ed.), Attention and awareness in foreign language learning. Honolulu, University of Hawai’i Press Second Language Teaching & Curriculum Center.

Al-Meni, A. M. O. (2008). An investigation of the effect of computer-assisted writing instruction on EFL Saudi learners’ ability. Unpublished M.A Thesis, King Saud University, Riyadh, KSU.

Altenberg, B. & M. Tapper. (1998). The use of adverbial connectors in advanced Swedish Learners’ written English. In Learner English on computer, ed. S. Granger, 80-93. London: Longman.

Altun, A., & Cakan, M. (2006). Undergraduate students’ academic achievement, Fielddependent /independent cognitive styles and attitude toward computers. Journal of Educational Technology & Society, 9(1), 289-297.

Barcroft, J. (2003). Distinctiveness and bidirectional effects in input enhancement for vocabulary learning. Applied Language Learning, 13(2), 133–59.

Basturkmen, H. (2002). Learner observation of, and reflection on, spoken discourse: An approach for teaching academic speaking. TESOL Journal, 11(2), 26-30.

Brown, H. D. (1994). Principles of language learning and teaching (3rd ed.). Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall Regents.

Brown, H. D. (2000). Teaching by principles: An interactive approach to language pedagogy (2nd ed). Longman: San Francisco State University.

Castro, C. D. (2004). Cohesion and the social construction of meaning in the essays of Filipino college students writing in L2 English. Asia Pacific Education Review, 5(2), 215-225.

Clark, R. C. & Lyons, C. (2004). Graphics for Learning: Proven Guidelines for Planning, Designing, and Evaluation in Training Materials. Boston: Heinle and Heinle.

Crossley, S., Kyle, K., & McNamara, D. (2016). The development and use of cohesive devices in L2 writing and their relations to judgments of essay quality. Journal of Second Language Writing, 32(1), 1-5.

Dahl, D. A. (1981). The role of experience in speech modifications for second language learners. Minnesota Papers in Linguistics and Philosophy of Language, 7(2), 78-93.

Dueraman, B. (2007). Cohesion and Coherence in English Essays Written by Malaysian and Thai Medical Students. A paper presented at Southern Thailand English Language Teaching/Cultural Change Conference.

Ellis, R. (2008). The study of second language acquisition. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Fei, D. (2006). The Effect of the use of adverbial connectors on Chinese EFL learners writing quality. CELEA Journal, 29(1), 105–111.

Gascoigne, C. (2006). Explicit Input Enhancement: Effects on Target and Non-Target Aspects of Second Language Acquisition. Foreign Language Annals, 39(4), 551- 564.

Ghasemi, M. (2013). An investigation into the use of cohesive devices in second language writings, Theory and Practice in Language Studies, 3(9), 1615-1623.

Håkansson, G. (1986). Quantitative aspects of teacher talk. In G. Kasper (Ed.), Learning, teaching, and communication in the foreign language classroom (pp. 83–98). Aarhus, Denmark: Aarhus University Press.

Han, Z-H., Park E., & Combs, C. (2008). Textual enhancement of input: Issues and possibilities. Applied Linguistics, 29, 597-618.

Hinkel, E. (2001). Matters of cohesion in L2 academic texts. Applied Language Learning, 12(2), 111-132.

Izumi, S. (2002). Output, input enhancement and the noticing hypothesis: An experimental study on ESL relativization. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 24(4), 541–77.

Jamieson, J. (1992). The cognitive styles of reflection/impulsivity and field-independence/ dependence and ESL success. Modern Language Journal, 76(5), 491-501.

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 (pp. 183-216). Honolulu: Second Language Teaching and Curriculum Center, University of Hawaii at Manoa.

Khodareza, P. & Ashouri, Sh. (2016). Analysis of cohesive devices and collocations in English text books and teachers’ attention to them in Azad University of foreign languages in Iran. Indian journal of Fundamental and Applied Life Sciences, 6(2), 17-22.

Kim, Y. (2006). Effects of input elaboration on vocabulary acquisition through reading by Korean learners of English as a foreign language. TESOL Quarterly, 40(2), 341–373.

Leeman, J., Arteagoitia, I., Fridman, B., & Doughty, C. (1995). Integrating attention to form with meaning: Focus on form in content-based Spanish instruction. In R. Schmidt (Eds.), Attention & awareness in foreign language learning (pp. 217-258). Honolulu: University of Hawaii Press.

Leki, I. (2003). A challenge to second language writing professionals: Is writing overrated? In B. Kroll (Ed.). Exploring the dynamics of second language writing. New York: Cambridge University Press.

Littlemore, J. (2001). An empirical study of the relationship between cognitive style and the use of communication strategy. Applied Linguistics, 22(2), 241-265.

Mohammed, A. S. (2015). Conjunctions as cohesive devices in the writings of English as second language learners. Procedia - Social and Behavioral Sciences, 208(2), 74-81.

Moini, M. R., & Kheirkhah. F. (2016). Use of cohesive devices in children and regular literature: conjunctions and lexical cohesion. IJCTS, 4(4), 13-23.

Moriarty, S.E. (1994). Visual communication as a primary system. Journal of Visual Literacy,4 (2), 11-21.

Mukherjee, N. & Roy, D. (2003). A Visual context-aware multimodal system for spoken language processing. Retrieved January, 2016 from: http://www.iscaspeech. org/archive/eurospeech_2003/e03_2273.html

Narita, M., Sato, C., & Sugiura, M. (2004). Connector usage in the English essay writing of

Japanese EFL learners. Proceedings of 4th International Conference on Language Resources and Evaluation. LREC, 1171–1174.

Norris, J. M., & Ortega, L. (2000). Effectiveness of L2 instruction: A research synthesis and quantitative meta-analysis. Language Learning 50(3), 417-528.

Pallant, J. (2010). SPSS Survival Manual (4th edition). Berkshire: McGrew-Hill.

Peters, E. (2012). Learning German formulaic sequences: The effect of two attention drawing techniques. Language Learning Journal, 40(1), 65–79.

Petterson, R. (2004). Gearing communications to the cognitive needs of students: Findings from visual literacy research. Journal of Visual Literacy, 24(2), 129-154.

Pishghadam, R., & Saboori, F. (2011). A Qualitative analysis of ELT in the language institutes of Iran in the light of the theory of “World Englishes”. Journal of Language Teaching and Research, 2, 569-579.

Robert, D. (1986). From learning to acquisition? Foreign language development in a U. S. classroom and during a semester abroad. (Unpublished doctoral dissertation). Stanford University, Stanford.

Rostami, Gh., Gholami, H., & Piri, S. (2016). A Contrastive study of cohesive devices used in pre-university and headway textbooks. Journal of Applied Linguistics and Language Research, 3(2), 136-147.

Schmidt, R. (1990). The role of consciousness in second language learning. Applied Linguistics, 11(2), 129-158.

Schmidt, R. (1992). Psychological mechanisms underlying second language fluency. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 14,357-385

Shi, C. (2011). A study of the relationship between cognitive styles and learning strategies. Higher Education Studies, 1(1), 20-32.

Smith, M. S. (1993). Consciousness raising and the second language learner. Applied Linguistics, 2(2), 36-48.

Tapper, M. (2005). Connectives in advanced EFL Learners’ written English – preliminary results. In F. Heinat & E. Klingvall (Eds.), The department of English in Lund: Working papers in linguistics 5. Lund: Department of English, Lund University.

Vahabi, Sh. (2006). The relationship between EFL learners FD/FI cognitive style, proficiency, and communication strategies in writing. ILI Language Teaching Journal, 2(1), 145-150.

Wei-Yu Chen, C. (2006). The mixing of English in magazine advertisements in Taiwan. World Englishes, 25(5), 467–478.

Witkin, H. A., Ottman, P. K., Raskin, E. & Karp, S. A. (1971). A manual for the embedded figures test. Palo Alto, CA: Consulting Psychologists.

Zainal, Z., & Husin, S. H. B. M. (2011). A study on the impacts of reading on the writing performance among faculty of civil engineering students. Retrieved April, 2016 from: