Pedagogical Effectiveness and Feasibility of Focus on Form vs. Focus in a Reading Class

Many empirical investigations have demonstrated that explicit Focus on Form (FOF) methods are more effective than implicit Focus on Meaning (FOM) methods (Norris & Ortega, 2000), because in FOF instruction learners’ attention is drawn to linguistic form while FOM instruction requires learners' attention to communicate (Ellis, 2001). However, this piece of research focused on both the effectiveness and feasibility study of FOF vs. FOM in reading class. In this quasi- experimental study, 20 adult EFL learners of pre-intermediate level were divided into two experimental groups which received two different types of instruction. During a ten-session treatment, the first group was provided with FOF instruction (Dictoglass task), while the second group was provided with FOM instruction (Discussion task). The results revealed a significant difference between two experimental groups. The FOF group scored significantly higher than the FOM group. Regarding the students and teachers’ perspectives towards feasibility of FOF in reading class, the students believed that FOF was feasible in reading classes, while the teachers were not unanimous in this regard, but towards feasibility of FOM both groups held positive attitudes. Generally, the data revealed that both FOF and FOM have feasibility in reading classes. In terms of feasibility, both methods are equally well- functioning, but as to developing reading skill FOF proved a bit more effective than FOM.

Key words: Focus on Form (FOF), Focus on Meaning (FOM), Feasibility of FOF and FOM

Methodology

To meet the purpose of this study there were two separate groups; EFL learners and teachers. The participants were20 female Pre-Intermediate EFL learners, aged 18- 27 from Kimiya Private Institute in Iran. Their text book was Select Readings (Linda Lee, Erick Gundersen; 2011). The teachers were 50 male and female teachers holding BA or MA degrees in English. They all had some experiences of teaching reading and were familiar with the notions like FOF and FOM. So, the following instruments were used for the purpose of this study: • A version of The Key English Test (KET) as a general proficiency test was used for controlling the learners in terms of their language proficiency level prior to the experiment. The test includes grammar and structure, writing, reading, speaking, and vocabulary in 35 multiple choice items. • A teacher-made Diagnostic Reading Comprehension Test based on the syllabus. It went under all steps of test construction so that can be valid and reliable in structure. The test includes vocabulary, language focus, true or false, and comprehension sections as a pre- test from (Select Readings by Linda Lee, Erick Gundersen; 2011). • A questionnaire (see appendix E) developed based on the criteria of feasibility of FOM and FOF reported in the respective literature which includes21 likertscale items for each groups. • A teacher-made Achievement Reading Comprehension Test similar to the Diagnostic Test based on the syllabus. It went under all steps of test construction so that it could be used as post-test.   

n/a

Batstone, R.(1994a). Grammar. Oxford University Press, Oxford. Batstone, R.(1994b). Product and process: grammar in the second language classroom. Bygate, M. ,Tonkyn, A. ,Williams, E.(Eds.). Grammar and the Language Teacher. Prentice Hall, Hemel Hempstead (pp. 224236).

Celce-Murcia, M., D. M. Brinton & J. M. Goodwin. (1996). Teaching Pronunciation: A Referencefor Teachers ofEnglish to Speakers ofOther Languages. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

De Keyser, R. (1998). Beyond focus on form.Cognitive perspectives on learning and practicing second language grammar.In C. Doughty and J. Williams (eds.) Focus on form in classroom second language acquisition. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Doughty, C., & Varela, E. (1998).Communicative focus on form.In C. Doughty, & J. Williams (Eds.), Focus on form in classroom second language acquisition (pp. 114-138). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Doughty & J. Williams (Eds.) (1998).Communicative Focus on form in classroom second language acquisition (pp. 15–41).Cambridge, England: Cambridge University Press.

Doughty, C. & Williams, J. (1998).Pedagogical choices in focus on form.In C. Doughty, & J. Williams (Eds.), Focus on form in classroom second language acquisition (pp. 197-261). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Ellis, R. (2001). Investigating form-focused instruction.In R. Ellis (Ed.), Form-focused instruction and second language learning (pp. 1-46). Malden, MA: Black well publishers.

Ellis, R., Loewen, S., &Basturkmen, H. (2006).Disentangling Focus on form.A response to Sheen and O’Neill (2005).Applied Linguistics, 27, 135-141. Gess-Newsome, J.,& Lederman, N. G. (1995). Biology teachers' perceptions of subject matter structure and its relationship to classroom practice. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 32(3), 301-325. Hedge, T. (2000). Teaching and learning in the language classroom. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Spada, N. and P.M. Lightbown, (1993). Instruction and the development of questions in L2 classrooms.Studies in Second LanguageAcquisition 15:205-224.

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  

Long, M.H. (1997). Focus on form in Task-Based Language Teaching. The McGraw-Hill Companies.http://www.mhhe.com/socscience/foreignlang/top.htm 

Long, M., & Robinson, P. (1998). Focus on form: Theory, research and practice. In C.

Doughty, & J. Williams (Eds.), Focus on form in classroom second language acquisition (pp. 15–41). Cambridge, England: Cambridge University Press.

Krashen, S. (1982). Principles and practice in second language acquisition. Oxford: Pergamon Press Krashen, S. (1985).The Input Hypothesis. Oxford: Pergamon Press.

Krashen, Stephen D. and Tracy D. Terrell. 1983. The natural approach: Language acquisition in the classroom. Hayward, CA: Alemany Press. 183pp.

Lyster, R. (1998). Recasts, repetition, and ambiguity in L2 classroom discourse. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 20, 5181.http://dx.doi.org/10.1017/S027226319800103X

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

Norris, J. and Ortega, L. (2001). Does type of instruction make a difference? Substantive findings from a meta-analytic review. Language Learning 51, Supplement 1:157-213.

Paradowski, Michał B.: (2007) “Acquisition-learning hypothesis”. In: Exploring the L1/L2 Interface. A Study of Polish Advanced EFL Learners. Institute of English Studies, University of Warsaw, pp. 1011.

Schmidt, R. (1993). Awareness and second language acquisition [Electronic version].Annual Review of Applied Linguistics, 13, 206226.

Schwartz, B.D. (1993). On explicit and negative data effecting and affecting competence and linguistic behavior.Studies in Second Language Acquisition 15:147–163.

Sharwood- Smith, M. (1993).Input Enhancement in Instructed Language Acquisition.Studies in second language acquisition Vol.15 (pp. 165-179)

Shak, J. & Gardner, S. (2008).Young learner perspectives on four focuson-form tasks.Language Teaching Research, 12(3):387-408. doi: 10.1177/1362168808089923

Spada, N. &Lightbown, P.M. (2008). Form-focused instruction: Isolated or integrated? TESOL Quarterly, 42(2):181-207. Available at p://www.jstor.org/stable/40264447.Accessed 13 January 2014. Swain, M. (1998). Focus on form through conscious reflection. In C.

Doughty, & J. Williams (Eds.), Focus on form in classroom second language acquisition (pp. 64-81). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Van Pattern, B. (1989). Can learners attend to form and content while processing input? Hispania, 72, 409-417

 Van

Patten, B., &Oikkenon, S. (1996). Explanation vs. structured input in processing instruction.Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 18, 495- 510.http://dx.doi.org/10.1017/S0272263100015394 White, L. 1989. Universal grammar and second language acquisition. Amsterdam: John Benjamin.

Williams, J., & Evans, J. (1998). What kind of focus and on which form? In C. Doughty, & J. Williams (Eds.) Focus on form in classroom second language acquisition (pp. 139-155). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Willis, D. & Willis, J. (2007).Doing task-based teaching Oxford: Oxford University Press.