The effect of ‘form-focused tasks’ on

‘attention’ and ‘noticing’ in SLA

Takashi Oba <takashi.reading2008@gmail.com>

Sakata second junior high school

August 8, 2010

Japan Society of English Language Education, 36th in Osaka

Outline of the presentation

Introduction1. The review of the literature

2. The present study*3. Result

4. Discussion5. Pedagogical implications

6. Limitations & further researchReferences

*Oba, T. (2009). The unique role and potential of output practice: The effect of pushed-output and input-processing on the acquisition of ‘-ing/-ed adjectives’. Unpablished Master’s dissertation presentated at University of Reading, UK.

1. The review of literature

What is ‘form-focused’ task?

•Tasks involving ‘form-focused instruction’ (‘FFI’)

•“Form-focused instruction involves some attempt to focus learners’ attention on specific properties of the L2 so that they will learn them.” (R.Ellis, 2008, p.963)

•‘Focus-on-form’ is a type of FFI.

•“... 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, pp.45-6)

•Different from ‘focus-on-meaning’ & ‘focus-on-formS’

•‘Noticing’ the linguistic form is crucial

•‘Noticing’ includes ‘attention’ & ‘awareness’

* Noticing Hypothesis (Schmidt,1990;2001)

Why is FFI / Focus-on-form effective?

* ‘Form-meaning mapping‘ (Ellis, 2008)

•Attending to/noticing the target form

•Meaningful context

Output Hypothesis (Swain,1985;1995)

•Noticing function

•Hypothesis testing function

•Metalinguistic function

The role of input & output in SLA

The role of output in SLA (Izumi,2003;

Gass, 1988)

•Output is not just a product of learning process

• Facilitating further cognitive processing (‘restructuring’ / ‘integrative processing’)

• Promoting ‘automaticity’

Input-processing (Van Patten,

1996;2002)

• Input directly affects the process of SLA

•Output plays the minimum role ( ‘accessing’ the developing system)

• The capacity of working memory is limited

2. The present study

•Pushed-output task (PO) ☞ ‘ dictogloss’ & ‘jigsaw’ [Swain & Lapkin, 2001]

•Input-processing task (IP) ☞ ‘ Structured-input activities‘[Van Patten & Cadierno, 1993]

Two types of ‘form-focused’ task

*Both tasks involve the following elements;• Explicit grammar instruction

• Teacher’s corrective feedback

Dictogloss (Wajnryb, 1990)

•A short but dense text is read to the learners several times at normal speed.

•The learners jot down the words and phrases they recognize.

•The learners work together in small groups to reconstruct the text from their shared information.

The text for dictogloss: ‘A trip to Spain’

Takashi visited Madrid and Barcelona in Spain with

his friend last month. He was really excited to see

fascinating pictures by Picaso, Velazquez and so on.

In Barcelona, there are a lot of buildings which were

designed by Gaudi. They are wonderful. The biggest

cathedral in the city is visited by many tourists every

year. Takashi was impressed by the Cathedral. It was

surprising that a lot of people didn’t speak English.

Tourists have to be careful about pickpockets, so he

was worried about that. It was a disappointing thing

about Barcelona. On the whole, he was satisfied ...

Jigsaw task

• Learners construct a story from the pictures they have.

•One student tell the story of pictures number 1,3,& 5. The other does those numbered 2,4,& 6.

Structured-input activities

•Do ‘form-focused’ tasks (PO&IP) result in an great improvement in comprehension and production proficiency of ‘-ing /-ed adjectives’?

•Does collaborative dialogue in the PO group facilitate ‘attention’ and ‘noticing’ in acquiring the target form?

Research questions

Method

•Participant: 78 senior high school students in Sapporo (15 /16 years old).

•The students were randomly divided into two groups (PO group=40, IP group=38)

•A Japanese instructor carried out the tasks in both groups.

•Target form: ‘-ing /-ed adjectives‘ (ex. surprising /surprised)

Experimental sequenceDay

129th,

June,2009 Pre-test (30mins)

Day 2

6th, July, 2009 1st period: Task 1 (45mins)

Day 3

7th, July, 2009

2nd period: Rest of Task 1 & Task 2 (45mins)

Day 4

8th, July, 2009

3rd period: Rest of Task 2 (45mins)

Day 5

9th, July, 2009 Post-test (30mins)

The procedure of the tasks and instruction

Assessment•Written grammar tests (see Appendix

11-15) ☞analyzing quantitative data. 　

•The transcript of the collaborative dialogue (‘dictogloss’) 　　　　　　　　　　　　☞ analyzing qualitative change (‘meta-talk’)

Mean raw scores & standard deviation(Comprehension)

Group nPre-test

Immediate post-test

MeanStandard

Deviation (SD)Mean SD

IP 38 24.45 6.82 32.05 6.62PO 40 25.300 6.305 33.22 7.45

3. Results

Group nPre-test

Immediate post-test

Mean SD Mean SD

IP 38 25.37 8.69 40.18 10.12

PO 40 28.80 8.71 41.62 11.10

Mean raw scores & standard deviation (Production)

Results of two-sample t-tests (input vs output)

Difference of mean scores between the groups for pre-test

Difference of mean scores between the improvement of the

groups

difference

t-value p-value diff t p

Comprehension 76 0.10

0.921

76 -0.68 0.499

Production 76 -1.740.08

676 0.80 0.426

p < α=.05

Results of paired t-test (difference between pre- & post-tests in each

group)

Comprehension Production

diff t p diff t p

IP 74 -4.280.00

074

-6.85

0.000

PO 78 -5.140.00

078

-5.75

0.000

p < α=.05

Collaborative dialogue (see Appendix 3-5)

Findings

•PO & IP significantly improved from the pre- to the post-test.

•No significant difference between PO & IP.

•In the collaborative PO task, ‘meta-talk‘ and feedback may facilitate ‘noticing’ and reflection on the target form (Swain & Lapkin, 1995).

•Learners’ attention & noticing are effectively facilitated.

•‘Focus-on-form’ triggers form-meaning mapping.

•IP & PO are independently beneficial.

4. Discussion

•Cognitive demand : IP <PO 　　　　　　

•IP: Intake facilitation (superficial level ) PO: integrative processing (deeper level)

•Output (‘ internal priming device’) 　　　　 → ‘ meta-talk‘ in solving the problems may facilitate ‘noticing’ / reflection on the form. (‘internalization’ takes place) 　　　→ qualitative change & active involvement in SLA (Izumi, 2002).

•Not only mechanical drills or grammar translation (‘yakudoku’) but also ‘form-focsed’ tasks will be effective in certain cases.

•The cognitive process of learning can be facilitated through ‘attention’ & ‘noticing’ in the meaningful context.

•Both input & output are crucial (enriched input ＋meaning based output practice).

•Take into account the counter productive factors (task demand, complexity of target form, learning style preference, motivation and learner’s proficiency can be controlled by teachers)

5. Pedagogical implications

Teacher’s roleL2 teachers are responsible for lightning the task burden by attempting to choose the appropriate quantity of the tasks and the complexity of the target form, depending on learner’s proficiency level and learning style preference (Muranoi, 2007).

6. Limitations & further research

•The period of study is short.

•The lack of delayed test & controlled group.

•The method for testing measures (no oral test)→fail to measure proficiency in unplanned & spontaneous language use.

•Longitudinal studies involving successive and varying types of practice using various structure forms will be needed.

References• DeKeyser, R. M. 1998. Beyond focus on form: Cognitive perspectives on learning and

practicing second language grammar. In C. Doughty & J. Williams (Eds.), Focus on form in classroom second language acquisition (pp.42-63). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

• DeKeyser, R. M., & Salaberry,R. &Robinson, P., & Harrington, M. 2002. What gets processed in processing instruction? A commentary on Bill VanPatten’s “Processing instruction: An updated”. Language Learning, 52, 4, 805-823.

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

• Gass, S. 1988. Integrating research areas: A framework for second language studies. Applied Linguistics, 9, 198-217.

• Izumi, S. 2002. Output, input enhancement, and the noticing hypothesis. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 24, 4, 541-577.

• Izumi, S. 2003. Comprehension and production processes in second language learning: In search of the psycholinguistic rationale of the output hypothesis. Applied Linguistics, 24, 2, 168-196.

• Long, M. H. 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: John Benjamins.

• Muranoi, H. 2007. Output practice in the L2 classroom. In. R. M. DeKeyser (Eds.), Practice in a second language: Perspective from applied linguistics and cognitive psychology (pp.51-84). New York: Cambridge University Press.

• Oba, T. (2009). The unique role and potential of output practice: The effect of pushed-output and input-processing on the acquisition of ‘-ing/-ed adjectives’. Unpablished Master’s dissertation presentated at University of Reading, UK.

• Robinson, P. 1995. Attention, memory, and the ‘noticing’ hypothesis. Language Learning, 45, 283-331.

• Schmidt, R. 1990. The role of consciousness in second language learning. Applied Linguistics, 11, 129-58.

• Schmidt, R. 2001. Attention. In P. Robinson (Eds.), Cognition and second language instruction (pp.3-32). New York: Cambridge University Press.

• Swain, M. 1985. Communicative competence: Some roles of comprehensible input and comprehensible in its development. In S. Gass & C. Madden (Eds.), Input in second language acquisition (pp.235-53). Cambridge, MA: Newbury House.

• Swain, M. 1995. Three functions of output in second language learning. In G.Cook & B.Seidlhofer (Eds.), Principle and practice in applied linguistics (pp.125-144). Oxford: Oxford University Press.

• Swain, M. & Lapkin, S. 2001. Focus on form through collaborative dialogue: Exploring task effects. In M. Bygate, P. Skehan, & M. Swain (Eds.), Researching Pedagogic Tasks, Second Language Learning, Teaching and Testing (pp.99-118). Harlow: Longman.

• Toth, P. D. 2006. Processing instruction and a role for output in second language acquisition. Language Learning. 56.2, 319-385.

• VanPatten, B. 1996. Input processing and grammar instruction: Theory and research. Norwood: Ablex Punlishing Corporation.

• VanPatten, B. 2002. Processing instruction: An updated. Language Learning, 52, 4, 755-803.

• VanPatten, B. & Cadierno, T. 1993. Explicit instruction and input processing. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 15, 225-243.

• VanPatten, B., & Oikkenon, S. 1996. Explanation versus structured input in processing instruction. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 18,4, 495-510.

• VanPatten, B. & Sanz, C. 1995. From input to output: processing instruction and communicative tasks. In F. Eckman, D. Highland, P. Lee, J. Milcham, and R. Weber (Eds.), Second Language Acquisition Theory and Pedagogy (pp.169-185). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

• Wajnryb, R. 1990. Grammar dictation. Oxford: Oxford University Press.