Upload
dinhkhanh
View
237
Download
0
Embed Size (px)
Citation preview
195
Differential Effects of Focus on Form and Focus on
Forms on English Relative Clause by EFL Learners in Japan
Noriko Kimura, Tokyo Gakugei University, the United Graduate School of Education
assigned to Yokohama National University, Japan
Abstract: This study investigates differential effects of form-focused and
formS-focused instruction on learning of the English relative clause by adolescents in
Japan. Three intact classes were assigned to two experimental groups
(Focus-on-Form, Focus-on-FormS) and a control group. Focus-on-Form group
completed a problem-solving task and Focus-on-FormS group received an explicit
grammar rule explanation. This study employed an experimental design with pre-,
immediate post-, and delayed post-tests. To determine differential effects of the two
types of instruction, productive and receptive skill tests were deployed: a short writing
task and a set of grammar multiple-choice questions.
Results showed a significant difference between the two experimental groups.
Focus-on-Form group outperformed Focus-on-FormS group in the delayed post-test,
although these two groups gained almost the same scores in pre and immediate
post-tests. Consequently this indicates Focus-on-Form through TBLT promoted
learning of the English relative clause. The findings will be discussed in the context of
EFL in Japan.
1. Introduction
In Japan traditional grammar-translation method has widely been implemented in the
English education for a long time to obtain knowledge from other countries through
reading books written in English. However, as the communicative approach emerged in
1970s (Hymes, 1972), the Japanese education also began to shift toward communicative
language teaching. Since then grammar-translation method and the gradually
developing communicative approach have coexisted in the Japanese educational context
(EFL). Still grammar teaching for communication has been a neglected area in Japan,
even after Celce-Murcia and Larsen-Freeman (1991) stressed the importance of
form-meaning-use mapping for second language acquisition to occur.
196
Krashen (1985) maintained the significance of the “Input Hypothesis” among his five
hypotheses. He stressed the importance of comprehending the message that the input
conveyed for language acquisition to occur. His ideas were thus influential in
emphasizing the approach for learning languages with a focus on meaning. Some
examples of this include Communicative Language Teaching, Content-Based
Instruction, and immersion program.
Long (1983) agreed with Krashen’s comprehensible input but laid emphasis on
interaction, and explored how input could be made comprehensible though interaction.
Thus, Long proposed the Interaction Hypothesis, arguing that receiving interactionally
modified input [italics added]is the important mechanism for making language
comprehensible: he emphasized that corrective feedback during interaction is important.
When interlocutors cannot understand each other, they have to negotiate the meaning.
“The negotiation will give them the opportunity for language development because they
can find better ways to communicate their messages” (Long, 1996, pp.451-452).
A meaning-centered approach, called the French immersion program, has been
implemented in Canada based on research results of Swain. Swain (1885, 1998, 2000)
proposed the comprehensible output hypothesis[italics added], which includes three
roles of output: 1.Noticing function: Learners encounter gaps between what they want
to say and what they are able to say and so they notice what they do not know or only
partially know in L2. 2. Hypothesis-testing function: When learners say something there
is always a hypothesis underlying e.g. about grammar. By uttering something, learner
tests this hypothesis and receives feedback from an interlocutor. 3. Metalinguistic
function: Learners reflect about the language they are learning and hereby the output
enables them to control and internalize linguistic knowledge. This hypothesis
integrated these three roles results in good effects on overcoming French immersion
students’ underachievement in speaking and writing. She proposed “collaborative
dialogue”[italics added, which refers to how second language learners co-construct
linguistic knowledge while engaging production tasks, drawing their attention to both
form and meaning. While interacting with each other, learners will learn which forms
are best used to express their ideas. Therefore, language use mediates language
learning” (Swain, 2000, p.99).
Schmidt (1995) suggests that nothing is learned unless it has been noticed. “Noticing
197
does not itself result in acquisition, but it is an important starting point.” His
hypothesis called the “Noticing Hypothesis” says that second language learners cannot
begin to acquire a language feature until they become aware of it in the input.
To acquire a second language (L2), quite different from how to acquire the first
language (L1), it should be recognized that the relationship between form and meaning
is too complex. Therefore focus-on meaning(FonM)and focus-on formS (FonFS),
which had lain at the extremity of the language education, reached out to each other.
Attention to linguistic forms within the context of performing communicative activities
is termed “Focus on Form (FonF)” (Long, 1991). He defines the term as follows:
Focus on Form…overtly draws students’ attention to linguistic elements
as they arise incidentally in lessons whose overriding focus is on
meaning or communication. (Long, 1991)
Nowadays, FonF has been supported in ESL environment and the effects have been
investigated by many researchers. Since Norris and Ortega (2000) conducted a
meta-analysis of the effectiveness of form-focused and formS-focused instruction, a
great amount of research has been carried out. The study summarized that focused
instruction lead to large gains of targeted features and mentioned that explicit types of
instruction are more effective than implicit types, and that focus-on-form and
focus-on-formS interventions result in equivalent and large effects. However, there is
no consensus regarding the durability of the effects of L2 instruction. Norris and Ortega
mentioned as follows:
Thus, although both FonF and FonFS instructional approaches result
in large and probabilistically trustworthy gains over the course of an
investigation, the magnitude of these gains differs very little between
the two instructional categories. Finally, the order of effectiveness
observed for more specific instructional types ( explicit FonF>
explicit FonFS>implicit FonF >implicit FonFS ) is suggestive of
needed future research (Norris & Ortega, 2000).
Williams (1999) also demonstrates the effectiveness of FonF, whether or not learners
attended to form through communication with negotiation. She mentioned that
198
learner-generated attention to form relates to the proficiency of learners.
Learner-generated attention to form increases considerably with rising
proficiency and during specific activities. In general, the likelihood
of learner-generated attention to form seems to be linked to learners’
perception of the goals of the activity (Williams, 1999).
In Japan (EFL), the effectiveness of FonF through meaning-focused interaction should
be researched whether it is the same as that in ESL. The experimental result must
show all of the teachers what has influence on students to acquire form, not to
understand it. The issue that the more possibility will be laid on either FonF or FonFS
can interest English teachers. In this research, one thematic focus is on the differential
effect on a relative pronoun of FonF and FonFS in attending to form and getting ready
to notice form. In addition, this research aims at whether explicit FonFS is more
effective than implicit FonF confirming the results gained by research just as former
researchers expected. Therefore the research questions are as follows:
Research questions:
1. Which is more effective to attend to form for EFL learners, FonF or FonFS?
2. What incidental factors derive attention to form from learners and retain it in mind?
2. Method
2.1 Design
Accuracy in the using of the relative pronoun was measured over a period of a month by
means of a pre-, post- and delayed-post-test design. Three groups (two experimental and
one control) of low-intermediate EFL high school students participated in this study.
FonF group engaged in a communicative problem-solution activity, and FonFS group
received an explicit grammar explanation and completed sentence-combining excises. A
control group received a grammar-translation lesson.
2.2 Participants
The participants of this study are first year students who belong to the general course of
a senior high school in Japan. All the participants took the GTEC (Global Test of
English Communication) test to measure their initial stage of proficiency. Four students
were excluded from the data to eliminate ceiling effects. Then, the experimental group
was divided into two sub-groups: Group A (FonF, n=13) and Group B (FonFS, n=12).
199
The average scores of these experimental groups were on 315 and 318, which do not
indicate statistical significance from t-test. Furthermore, another group was allotted as a
control group (Group C, n=13) to examine the effectiveness of FonF and FonFS
treatment.
2.3 Procedure
Before the target lesson, a production test was administered to measure all the
participants’ knowledge of a subjective relative pronoun. The test included 5
picture-descriptions and 25 multiple choice questions. The participants were asked to
complete these questions in 20 minutes. After one week, both FonF group and FonFS
group received their treatment. The immediate post-test followed the treatment. After
five weeks, a delayed post-test was administered. Twenty minutes were given for the
pre-, immediate and delayed post-tests. The control group did not receive the targeted
treatment, but completed the three sets of tests in the same timeline provided in Table 1.
Table 1. Timetable for Procedures
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Day one Pretest
After one week Treatment
Immediate post-test
After 5 weeks Delayed post-test
--------------------------------------------------------------------
2.4 Treatment
FonF group experienced a communicative discussion activity in groups of three. First,
each group member received a card on which a small portion of information about the
situation and the problem was written with the target feature (a subjective relative
pronoun) written in red. The group members shared information and ideas to find a
solution to a problem written on each cue card. Fifty minutes were given to complete
this activity.
FonFS group received an explicit explanation about a subjective relative pronoun and
completed 5 sentence-combining exercises (explicit FonFS) in fifty minutes. The
control group received a grammar–translation lesson.
2.5 Instruments
Each of the five pieces of production (writing) test required a description of a picture.
200
Ten minutes were given to write five sentences. Another ten minutes was given to
choose the correct item to construct a correct sentence. Twenty-five multiple-choice
questions were completed. The full mark of pre-, immediate and delayed post-tests
was 50 points.
3. Results
3.1 Production tests
Table 2 below indicates the percentile scores of the descriptive statistics of the
experimental groups and the control group. Figure 1 shows a visual representation of
the mean percentages for the three testing periods for FonF, FonFS, and the control
group.
In the pretest, the production test indicates that the percentage of correct answers is
66 % in FonF and 70% in FonFS. In the immediate post-test, both FonF and FonFS
groups made a great development. After one month, the delayed post-test was
conducted to examine their acquisition of the target form. The percentage of the
correct answers of production accounted for 86% in FonF and 78% in FonFS.
Productive ability in FonF group gradually developed but that of FonFS group reached
the peak immediately after the treatment and dropped in Time 3 (delayed post-test).
While the upper control group showed 68 % in the production of the pre-test. The
score was similar to that of FonFS group. In the immediate and delayed post-tests,
their production test scores slightly gained from 68 to 71 and then to 72, but the gain
was statistically insignificant.
Table 2. Percentage of Correct Answers in Production Tests
Production FonF FonFS CGPre 66 70 68Immediate 78 78 71Delayed 86 78 72
Kinds of tests Points Time
Production 5 points× 5 questions 10 minutes
Multiple choice 1 point×25 questions 10 minutes
201
Figure 1. Percentage of Production Tests in the Pre Test, Immediate Post-test and
Delayed Post-test
3.2 Multiple choice Tests
The multiple choice tests showed quite different results. In the pretest, FonF
accounted for 83% and FonFS for 80%. The results of both groups increased sharply
from 83 to 89 and 80 to 92, but decreased greatly after the immediate post-test. FonFS
group made a greater development than FonF group. However, in the delayed post-test
their scores decreased and were almost the same, 83 % in FonF and 81 % in FonFS.
As a result, both treatment groups returned to the level at the pretest, and
multiple-choice test did not indicate any sign of durability of treatment effects. The
control group did not show development, moving from 76 % in the pre-test to 72 % in
the immediate post-test and to 66% in the delayed post-test. (Refer to Table 3 and
Figure 2)
Table 3. Percentage of Correct Answers in Multiple Choice Tests
Multiple Choice FonF FonFS CGPre 83 80 76Immediate 89 92 72Delayed 83 81 66
Figure 2. Percentage of Multiple Choice Tests in the Pre Test, Immediate
Post-test and Delayed Post-test
202
3.3 Repeated Measures ANOVA Results
One-Way Analysis of Variance investigated whether there was clear distinction among
three tests of both FonF and FonFS because the result would prove which method had
an effect on uptake of form for learners. The significant probability of the production
test in FonF is less than 0.05. (p<.05). Therefore these means were significant. On the
other hand, the means of the multiple choice test did not show significant difference.
In FonFS, the means of both production and multiple choice tests were insignificant. As
a result, the influence of FonF on uptake of form is much more effective than that of
FonFS, specifically on production with the target form. FonFS group results showed
neither productive nor reactive influence in the long run. (Refer to Table 5)
Table 4. Descriptive Statistic Results of Production and Multiple Choice Tests in
FonF and FonFS
FonF Production FonFs Multiple Choice
M SD N M SD N
Pre 16.62 5.910 13 16.69 4.211 13
Immediate 19.62 4.735 13 16.00 17.80 13
Delayed 21.54 2.665 13 16.69 2.287 13
FonFs Production FonFS Multiple Choice
M SD N M SD N
Pre 17.50 5.108 12 15.92 4.209 12
Immediate 19.58 3.942 12 16.50 1.679 12
Delayed 19.42 3.423 12 16.25 2.667 12
Table 5. One-way Analysis of Variance of Production and Multiple Choice Tests
in FonF and FonFS
Fon F Production
SS df MS F ptests 160.051 2 80.026 7.852 p<.05subjects 528.769 12 44.064error 244.615 24 10.192Total 933.435 38
203
FonF Multiple Choice
SS df MS F ptests 4.154 2 2.077 0.23 p>.05subjects 96.359 12 8.03error 217.179 24 9.049Total 317.692 38
FonFS Production
SS df MS F ptests 32.167 2 16.083 1.558 p>.05subjects 359.667 11 32.697error 227.167 22 10.326Total 908.001 35
FonFS Multiple ChoiceFonFS Multiple Choice
SS df MS F ptests 2.056 2 1.028 0.17 p>.05subjects 170.889 11 15.535error 133.278 22 6.058Total 306.223 35
A clear distinction by Multiple Comparison was among three tests in FonF. In the
production test, the clear distinction obviously existed between the pretest and the
delayed post-test. The significant probability between them is less than 0.05. (p<.05).
(Refer to Table 6) Therefore FonF developed learners’ productive ability about the
target form after one month. On the other hand, FonFS did not show any significant
difference among three tests. (Refer to Table 7) It only affected the immediate
post-test after the target lesson. It was of no use in the long run.
The control group did not show improvement not only in the immediate post-test but
also in the delayed post-test. In other words, traditional grammar-translation method
did not give positive effects on the acquisition of the relative pronoun.
204
Table 6. Multiple Comparison of FonF by Bonferroni
Production Test Multiple Choice Test
Level I Level J Difference
of Means
Standard
error
p
Pre Immediate -3 1.33 0.131
Delayed -4.923※ 1.375 0.011
Immediate Pre 3 1.33 0.131
Delayed -1.923 1.022 0.253
Delayed Pre 4.923※ 1.375 0.011
Immediate 1.923 1.022 0.253
Level I Level J Difference
of Means
Standard
error
p
Immediate 0.692 1.313 1
Delayed 0 1.209 1
Pre -0.692 1.313 1
Delayed -0.692 0.996 1
Pre 0 1.209 1
Immediate 0.692 0.996 1
Pre
Immediate
Delayed
Table 7. Multiple Comparison of FonFS by Bonferroni
Production Test Multiple Choice Test
Level I Level J Difference
of Means
Standard
error
p
Immediate -2.083 1.345 0.449
Delayed -1.917 1.104 0.331
Pre 2.083 1.345 0.449
Delayed 0.167 1.461 1
Delayed Pre 1.917 1.104 0.331
Immediate -0.167 1.461 1
Pre
Immediate
Level I Level J Difference
of Means
Standard
error
p
Immediate -0.583 1.076 1
Delayed -0.333 1.047 1
Pre 0.583 1.076 1
Delayed 0.25 0.88 1
Pre 0.333 1.047 1
Immediate -0.25 0.88 1
Pre
Immediate
Delayed
4. Discussion
According to these experiments, form is acquired effectively through communicative
use of the target feature. Form is acquired in accordance with meaning and function in
a communicative context. VanPatten (2004) and stresses the importance of connecting
form and its meaning and function for language acquisition to occur. Thus, if the
connection does not occur, i.e., if the learner does not perceive nor notice the form, no
connection to meaning and function is made and the form is dropped from further
processing. Izumi (2009) states that meaningful substance should be provided in a
specific context for the reason that the context can play a role to connect linguistic form
in mind as “a hook” or “a spider’s thread” in the cerebral network.
FonF group noticed form in the given context and was prompted to recognize new
vocabulary through using words and interaction among one another. In other words,
the target form was established with the meaning and context of the tasks. The control
205
group with a traditional approach did not learn the target. The reason might be
retrieved from the learning condition that students make little use of the connection of
form, meaning and function in a communicative context.
FonF has durability of keeping form and has a better effect on developing accuracy than
repeating grammatical practice. FonF activities enable learners to notice the target
features through communicative tasks. In EFL environment like Japan, the effects of
FonF are much expected in terms of form acquisition.
5. Conclusion
In conclusion, one finding is that FonF increases the opportunities to notice partially
acquired grammar rules and unknown vocabulary. Another finding is that
Learner-Initiated FonF associated with Task-Based Language Teaching (TBLT)1 is more
effective than teacher-initiated grammatical lesson because learners are forced to derive
their knowledge of words, form, and structure from their interlanguage2 to use the
language to convey their messages for communicative purposes. It is obvious that FonF
contributed to the durability of learning. It can be interpreted that FonF is useful and
effective to the acquisition of forms. Further research should be conducted to
determine if other linguistic forms can be acquired effectively by way of FonF
approach.
Notes 1Task based-teaching is an approach to the teaching of second/ foreign languages
based on a syllabus consisting of communicative tasks and utilizing a methodology that
makes meaningful communication rather than linguistic accuracy primary. 2Selinker (1972) coined the term ‘interlanguage’ to refer to the systematic
knowledge of an L2 which is independent of both these learner’s L1 and the target
language. The term has come to be used with different but related meaning: (1) to refer
to the series of interlocking systems which characterize acquisition, (2) to refer to the
system that is observed at a single stage of development (‘an interlanguage’), and (3) to
refer to particular L1/L2 combinations (for example, L1 French/ L2 English versus L1
Japanese/ L2 English).
206
References
Clece-Marcia, M. & Larsen-Freeman, D. (1991). Teaching grammar. In M.
Celce-Murcia (Ed.), Teaching English Grammar as a Second or Foreign
Language 2nd edition (pp. 279-296). New York: Newbury House / Harper Collins.
Izumi, S. (2009). Focus-on form wo toriireta atarashii eigo kyouiku. [The new English
education introducing Focus-on Form]Tokyo: Taishukan
Krashen, S. D. (1985). The input hypothesis: Issues and implications. London; New
York: Longman.
Long, M. (1983). Native speaker/non-native speaker conversation and the negotiation of
comprehensible input. Applied Linguistics 4/2: 126-41.
Long, M. (1991). Focus on form: A design feature in language teaching methodology. In
K. de Bot, C. Kramsch., & R, Ginsberb, & C. Kramsch (Eds.), Foreign Language
Research in Cross-cultural Perspective (pp. 39-52). Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
Long, M. (1996). The role of the linguistic environment in second language acquisition.
In W. Ritchie, & T. Bhatia (Eds.), Handbook of Second Language Acquisition. (pp.
413-468) New York: Academic Press.
Norris, J. M. & Ortega, L. (2000). Effectiveness of L2 instruction: A research synthesis
and quantitative meta-analysis. Language Learning, 50, 417-528.
Schmidt, R. (1995a). Consciousness and foreign language learning: A tutorial in the role
of attention and awareness in learning. In R. Schmidt (Ed.), Attention &
Awareness in Foreign Language Learning (pp. 1-64). Hawaii: University Hawaii
at Manoa.
Swain, M. (1985). Communicative competence: some roles of comprehensible input
and comprehensible output in its development. In S. Guss and C. Madden (Ed.),
Input in Second Language Acquisition. Rowley, Mass.: Newbury House.
207
Swain, M. (1998). Focus on form through conscious reflection in C. Doughty and J.
Williams (Ed.), Focus-on-form in Classroom Second Language Acquisition.
Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Swain, M. (2000). The output hypothesis and beyond: Mediating acquisition through
collaborative dialogue. In J. P. Lantolf (Ed.), Sociocultural Theory and Second
Language Learning. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
VanPatten, B. (2004). Input processing in second language acquisition. In B. VanPatten
(Ed.), Processing Instruction: Theory, research, and commentary (pp. 5-31)
Chicago: University of Illinois.
Williams, J. (1999). Learner-generated attention to form. Language Learning, 49,
583-625.