System 32 (2004) 53–60

www.elsevier.com/locate/system

The effectiveness of two comprehensible-input

approaches to foreign language instruction
at the intermediate level
Victoria Rodrigoa, Stephen Krashenb,*, Barry Gribbonsc
a
Department of Modern and Classical Languages, MSC 8R0324, Georgia State University,
33 Gilmer Street SE Unit 8, Altlanta, GA 30303-3088, USA
b
Rossier School of Education, University of Southern California, USA
c
Institutional Development and Technology,
Santa Clarita Community College District, USA

Received 5 May 2003; received in revised form 28 August 2003; accepted 29 August 2003

Abstract
Fourth semester students of Spanish as a foreign language at the university level in the US
participated in two kinds of comprehensible-input based instruction, an extensive reading
class that combined assigned and self-selected reading, and a ’’Reading-Discussion’’ class that
consisted of assigned reading, debates and discussions. Students in both classes outperformed
those in a traditionally taught class on a check-list vocabulary test and on a grammar test.
The Reading-Discussion group outperformed the Traditional students on a cloze test
(P=0.105), but there was no difference between Traditional and Reading students on the
cloze. The results confirm the efficacy of comprehensible-input based pedagogy at the inter-
mediate level.
# 2003 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
Keywords: Comprehensible input; Extensive reading; Free voluntary reading; Content-based instruction;
Sheltered subject matter teaching; Self-selected reading; Sustained silent reading

* Corresponding author. Present address: 23852 Pacific Coast Highway PMB 919, Malibu CA 90265-
4879, USA.
E-mail address: krashen@usc.edu (S. Krashen).

0346-251X/$ - see front matter # 2003 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
doi:10.1016/j.system.2003.08.003
54 V. Rodrigo et al. / System 32 (2004) 53–60

1. Introduction

It has been proposed that we acquire language when we understand what we

hear and what we read (Krashen, 1981, 1982). Among the evidence supporting
this ‘‘comprehension’’ or input hypothesis are method comparison studies. At
the beginning level, students in classes that supply more comprehensible input
consistently outperform students in classes that supply less comprehensible input
when tests are ‘‘communicative’’ and do at least as well, or better, when tests are
grammar-based (Krashen, 1982).1
At the intermediate level, two kinds of studies support this generalization. Shel-
tered subject matter teaching, that is, teaching language through comprehensible
presentation of subject matter to second language acquirers, has been shown to be
as effective as or more effective than traditional intermediate foreign language
instruction (Lafayette and Buscaglia, 1985; Edwards et al., 1985; Hauptman et al.,
1988). In-school free reading programs, such as sustained silent reading and indivi-
dualized reading programs, have also been shown to be more effective than traditional
approaches on a wide variety of tests (for children eg. Elley and Mangubhai, 1983,
Elley, 1991; for adults, see Mason and Krashen, 1997).
In this study, we examine the impact of two different approaches based on com-
prehensible input at the intermediate level for students of Spanish as a foreign lan-
guage at the university-level. One approach focused exclusively on meaningful
reading, combining self-selected and assigned reading. The other approach included
both reading and comprehensible aural input, and focused on reading and discus-
sion of assigned texts. In neither approach was there any direct teaching of gram-
mar, or error correction. We regard the differences between these approaches as
superficial and predict that both should be at least as effective or more effective than
traditional intermediate-level methodology.

2. The study

This study consisted of two parts, an initial study, and a follow-up or replication,
each taking one semester working with intermediate level students. Both parts
included three groups.

2.1. Experimental Group I: Reading

This group experienced an extensive reading approach. Its primary goal was to
encourage students to read as much as they could during the semester. The students
1
A number of recent experimental studies appear to present evidence showing that grammar instruction
is superior to comprehensible input as a means of increasing language proficiency (for a meta-analysis, see
Norris and Ortega, 2003). Krashen (2003) has pointed out that in most of these studies comparison groups
receive either no treatment or impoverished comprehensible input, and test results are consistent with the
predictions of the Monitor hypothesis: gains are typically very modest, and tests allow subjects time to access
rules, subjects are focused on form, and have received recent and heavy instruction on the target rules.
 V. Rodrigo et al. / System 32 (2004) 53–60 55

read a combination of assigned and self-selected readings. The assigned readings

consisted of graded books, divided by levels, from 1 to 5. In addition, the students
met with the instructor to discuss their reading and for advice on further readings.
After each book, students wrote short reports, usually a page or less, which
included their reactions to the book, e.g. what they would change, their favorite
character, etc. Reports could be written in either English or Spanish. Students were
given credit for the reports toward their grade, but content and grammar mistakes
were not considered. Students also had to record the number of pages of each book,
and the time they spent reading each book.
Students were encouraged to move through three stages in their self-selected
reading. They were advised to begin with graded readers, books written especially
for students of Spanish as a foreign language, and then move on to easier authentic
reading. After reading for a while at this level, they were encouraged to try more
demanding authentic literature. It is important to emphasize that this process was
suggested, not forced, and students were allowed to stay at lower levels and/or
‘‘recycle.’’

2.2. Experimental Group 2: Reading-Discussion:

Students in this group read and participated in debates and discussions about the
required readings. The topics discussed in the Reading-Discussion group included:
traditions, social problems, unemployment, drugs, violence, personal relations; dif-
ferent living styles; ‘‘cities with charm,’’ cinema; extraterrestrial life, and advertise-
ments. In addition, students had to make oral presentations, and actively participate
in the discussions. All course activities were topic-centered so that the students could
take advantage of the background knowledge provided by what they read.
The class was asked to do the same readings the Experimental Reading class did,
but did not do self-selected reading. The readings constituted a basic source of
material for in-class discussions. The instructor spoke only Spanish in class, and the
students were required to speak Spanish in class. There were neither exams nor
grammatical explanations nor explicit teaching of vocabulary.
During the first week of class, the two experimental groups had a brief, practical
demonstration on how context and guessing strategies could be used and taken
advantage of when reading. The two groups were given a short lecture on the
importance of reading exposure in second language acquisition.

2.3. Comparison Group: traditional grammar and composition

This group participated in an Intermediate Grammar and Composition course

conducted along traditional teaching guidelines, i.e. emphasizing explicit instruction
of Spanish grammar and vocabulary. This group did only intensive reading: Each
chapter of the textbook had a reading passage that had to be fully understood and
the structures it contained were thoroughly studied. The students wrote composi-
tions that were corrected for linguistic accuracy. Students took several quizzes, a
midterm and a final exam.
56 V. Rodrigo et al. / System 32 (2004) 53–60

2.4. Subjects

Participation in all three classes required the successful completion of a three

semester elementary Spanish sequence or the equivalent. All subjects were university
undergraduates and were native speakers of English. Out of the 76 students who
participated in the study, only 33 could be considered for statistical analysis, 15 in
the initial study and 17 in the second study (Table 1). Bilingual students were
excluded from the study as well as subjects who missed either the pre- or post-tests.
Both the Reading and Reading-Discussion were taught by the one of us (V.R.). The
traditional class was taught by a graduate student in Spanish literature experienced
with and dedicated to the traditional approach.

3. Measures and results

The statistical analyses were based on mean and standard deviation measurements
for each test, along with t-tests and effect size calculations. Effect sizes (d) were
calculated according to the following formula:

experimental group mean  comparison group mean

d¼
pooled standard deviation

It is known that this statistical procedure overestimates effect size measurements

when used with small samples. Therefore, the effect size indexes were adjusted with
the DSTAT program. Because of the small size of the sample, more complex statis-
tical tests were not appropriate; only simple ttests were run to compare gain scores.
Cohen (1977) provides guidelines for the interpretation of effect sizes: d=0.2 is
considered a small effect, d=0.5 a medium effect, and d=0.8 a large effect.

3.1. Vocabulary checklist test

The vocabulary checklist consisted of 300 real words and 100 false words. Stu-
dents were asked to write a check mark next to the words they did not know. Several
studies have found high correlations between performance on vocabulary checklists
and more traditional multiple-choice tests (Meara and Buxton, 1987; Anderson and
Freebody, 1983). The reliability index for the checklist test was high (r=0.90; K-R
formula 21). Scores were corrected for guessing using the following formula
(Anderson and Freebody, 1983):

Table 1
Sample size, study, and treatment

Reading Reading-Discussion Traditional

Pilot 8 7 8
Second Study 6 5 6
 V. Rodrigo et al. / System 32 (2004) 53–60 57

RW  FW
Score ¼
100%  FW

where RW=percent of real words recognized and FW=percent of false words

recognized as real words.
Subjects from the Reading and Reading-Discussion groups in the first and the
follow-up studies were combined in the analysis of the vocabulary test. No Tradi-
tional group subjects from the initial study could be included because none took
both pre and posttests. The gains of the two experimental groups were significantly
larger than the gains achieved by the traditional group (Reading vs. Traditional,
t=2.51, df=14, P < 0.01, d=1.36; Reading-Discussion vs. Traditional, t=2.08,
df=13, P < 0.05, one tail, d=1.13; Table 2).

3.2. Grammar test

A grammar test published by the Ministry of Education and Science of Spain was
used (reliability=0.86, KR formula 20). It consisted of 30 multiple choice questions
based on short dialogues and specific grammatical features of Spanish (e.g. ser/estar,
preterit/imperfect, indicative/subjunctive, por/para, etc.). Both experimental groups
improved but the Traditional group got worse (Table 3). The difference in gain
scores between the Reading group and the Traditional group was just shy of statis-
tical significance (t=1.79; df=10; P=0.0515; d=0.935). The difference in gain
scores between the Reading-Discussion group and the Traditional group was
significant (t=3.23; df=9; p < 0.01; d=1.75).

3.3. Cloze-test

The cloze test consisted of a paragraph in which every fifth word was deleted for a
total of 50 blanks. Two sentences at the beginning of the passage were left intact to
provide more context. The blanks were not uniformly inserted in the passage. The
cloze test was a placement test used by the Spanish Department of a major uni-
versity (reliability=0.91, K-R 21). The same test was used as a pre and post-test.
The Reading group and Traditional group gains on the cloze test were not sig-
nificantly different (t=0.15; df=9, ns; d=0.08). The difference in gains between the
Reading-Discussion group and the Traditional group fell just short of the 0.10 level
of significance, one tail (t=1.35, d=9, P=0.105; d=0.728), although the difference

Table 2
Results of vocabulary test—Study 1 and study 2 combined (percent correct)

Group n Pre-test m S.D. Post-test m S.D. Gain m S.D.

Reading 12 25.33 (17.27) 36.83 (19.10) 11.50 (6.14)

Reading Discussion 11 20.91 (11.97) 34.27 (17.32) 13.36 (9.36)
Traditional 4 30.87 (13.82) 33.50 (14.27) 3.00 (4.69)
58 V. Rodrigo et al. / System 32 (2004) 53–60

Table 3
Results of grammar test—Study 2 (percent correct)

Group n Pre-test m S.D. Post-test m S.D. Gain m S.D.

Reading 6 36.00 (3.46) 41.17 (10.36) 5.17 (10.03)

Reading-Discussion 5 40.00 (13.75) 48.40 (10.24) 8.40 (6.80)
Traditional 6 47.17 (13.99) 44.17 (11.84) 3.00 (4.90)

Table 4
Results of cloze test—Study 2 (percent correct)

Group n Pre-test mean S.D. Post-test mean S.D. Gain mean S.D.

Reading 5 18.80 (14.39) 21.20 (23.35) 2.40 (11.17)

Reading-Discussion 5 14.80 (4.15) 24.80 (9.55) 10.00 (5.83)
Traditional 6 26.33 (11.62) 29.67 (16.66) 3.33 (9.61)

appeared to be substantial and the effect size was large (recall Cohen’s guidelines,
discussed above) (Table 4).

4. Summary

The Experimental Reading and Reading-Discussion group outperformed the

traditionally taught group on a vocabulary test and a grammar test. The Reading-
Discussion group outperformed the traditional group on a cloze test, but the differ-
ence fell short of statistical significance, and the Experimental Reading group and
traditional group did not differ on the cloze test. Thus, the two comprehensible
input groups did clearly better than the controls in 4 out of 6 comparisons, tended to
do better in another, and there was no difference on one, a result reasonably con-
sistent with previous research comparing teaching methods. Krashen (1982, 2003)
concluded that comprehensible input-based methods at the beginning level were
superior on tests of communication and as good or slightly better on formal tests of
grammar.

5. Discussion

While the results clearly support the hypothesis that comprehensible input-based
approaches are more effective than traditional methodology, the results cannot be
considered to be conclusive due to the small sample size of the study and lack of
control of the teacher variable. Although both instructors were experienced and
enthusiastic about the methodology they used, additional factors, such as teacher
personality, could have played a role. Nevertheless, it is highly unlikely that these
 V. Rodrigo et al. / System 32 (2004) 53–60 59

results were the result of chance, and effect sizes were substantial, with students in
the two comprehensible input groups usually performing one standard deviation
above the comparison group.
Visual inspection of the data shows that the Reading-Discussion group did better
than the Experimental Reading group (statistical tests were not performed, as spe-
cific predictions were not made). There are several plausible reasons for this result.
First, the Reading-Discussion group had exposure to more aural input than the
Reading group had, in the form of teacher-talk and class discussions. Second,
the higher level of achievement may have been a consequence of the particular
enthusiasm and high participation that the Reading-Discussion students showed
during the semester. Third, this group had a greater variety of activities, which may
have raised and maintained higher levels of interest among the students. Finally, the
discussions may have stimulated greater interest in the assigned readings. One could
also argue that increased opportunities for output aided the Reading-Discussion
group (see, however, Krashen, 1998, 2003, for arguments against the ‘‘output
hypothesis.’’).
It should be noted that the Experimental Reading group did quite well, better
than the traditionally taught group on two measures and equal on another: Just
reading for pleasure was shown to be at least as effective, or more effective, than
traditional instruction. Had this program continued longer, it might have done even
better: Krashen (2002) has concluded that short term free reading programs (less
than one academic year) are typically not as effective as longer term programs.
The study also provides some support for the three stage reading plan, moving
from graded books to light authentic reading and eventually to more demanding
literature (Krashen, 1996; Rodrigo, 1996; Dupuy et al., 1996). Several students in
the reading course, in fact, moved through all three stages and were able to read,
towards the end of the semester, pieces of literature usually assigned to upper divi-
sion classes at college level, books far more challenging than one would expect for
students at this level (e.g. authors such as Garcı́a Márquez, Manuel Puig, Ramón J.
Sender, Laura Esquivel, and Garcı́a Lorca).
The results thus provide support for the efficacy of comprehensible-input based
approaches, confirm that vocabulary and grammar can be acquired via comprehen-
sible input, and are consistent with a three-stage approach to increasing reading
proficiency.2

2
An anonymous reviewer brought up the interesting point that even ‘‘communicative’’ classes could
contain instances of form-focused teaching, citing Ellis et al. (2001), who claimed to have found ‘‘large
numbers’’ of instances of focus on form in the two communicative classes they studied. Thus, our Read-
ing-Discussion classes could have contained a great deal of direct teaching. A close look at Ellis et al.,
however, shows that their claim is not substantiated. Of the 448 instances of form focus they reported,
only 163 dealt with grammar. Of these, only 86 were followed by ‘‘successful uptake,’’ instances in which
the students actually used the form correctly. This amounts to an average of a little more than three
instances of apparently successful acquistion per student during 12 h of instruction. Even adding to this
cases in which students did not respond at all (50), this amounts to only about five cases of possible
acquisition per student during the 12 h.
60 V. Rodrigo et al. / System 32 (2004) 53–60

References

Anderson, R., Freebody, P., 1983. Reading comprehension and the assessment and acquisition of word
knowledge. Advances in Reading Language Research 5 (2), 231156.
Cohen, J., 1977. Statistical Power Analysis for the the Behavioral Sciences. Academic Press, New York.
Dupuy, B., Tse, L., Cook, T., 1996. Bringing books into the classroom: first steps in turning college-level
ESL students into readers. TESOL Journal 5, 10–15.
Edwards, H., Wesche, M., Krashen, S., Clement, R., Kruidenierr, B., 1985. Second-language acquisition
through subject-matter learning: a study of sheltered subject-matter classes at the University of Ottawa.
The Canadian Modern Language Review 41, 268–282.
Elley, W., 1991. Acquiring literacy in a second language: the effect of book-based programs. Language
Learning 41 (3), 375–411.
Elley, W., Mangubhai, F., 1983. The impact of reading on second language learning. Reading Research
Quarterly 19, 53–67.
Elllis, R., Basturkmen, H., Loewen, S., 2001. Learner uptake in communicataive ESL lessons. 51(2) 281–
318.
Hauptman, P., Wesche, M., Ready, D., 1988. Second-language acquisition through subject matter learn-
ing: a follow-up study at the University of Ottawa. Language Learning 38, 433–471.
Krashen, S. 1981. Second Language Acquisition and Second Language Learning.
Krashen, S. 1982. Principles and Practice in Second Language Acquisition. (Available: Sdkrashen.com).
Krashen, S., 1996. Not pedagogical or authentic, but interesting and comprehensible. Zielsprache
Englische 2196, 22–25.
Krashen, S., 1998. Comprehensible output? System 26, 175–182.
Krashen, S., 2001. More smoke and mirrors: a critique of the National Reading Panel report on fluency.
Phi Delta Kappan 83, 119–123.
Krashen, S., 2003. Explorations in Language Acquisition and Use: The Taipei Lectures. Heinemann
Publishing Company, Portsmouth, NH.
Lafayette, R., Buscaglia, M., 1985. Students learn language via a civilization course—a comparison of
second language acquisition environments. Studies in Second Language Acquisition 7, 323–342.
Mason, B., Krashen, S., 1997. Extensive reading in English as a foreign language. System 25, 91–102.
Meara, P., Buxton, B., 1987. An alternative to multiple choice vocabulary tests. Language Testing 4,
142155.
Norris, J., Orgeta, L., 2000. Effectiveness of L2 instruction: a research synthesis and quantitative meta-
analysis. Language Learning 50 (3), 417–428.
Rodrigo, V., 1997. Son los estudiantes conscientes de los beneficios que les brinda la lectura? Hispania 80,
255–264.