Keywords
form-focused instruction
explicit and implicit knowledge
How to Cite
Number of views: 524
Number of downloads: 392
Abstract
One important controversy connected with the effectiveness of grammar teaching seems to have been resolved as there is ample empirical evidence testifying to the positive effect of form-focused instruction on second language acquisition (Nassaji & Fotos, 2004; Norris & Ortega, 2000; Spada, 1997, 2010). Nevertheless, there are still a number of problems open to debate and awaiting concrete solutions, such as how to establish connections between form and meaning and find the best way to teach grammar for implicit knowledge, which, in the opinion of most SLA researchers (Ellis, 2006a, p. 95) and according to numerous theoretical positions, is a key driver of linguistic competence. One of the options available to language educators is to employ focused communication tasks, which “are designed to elicit production of a specific target feature in the context of performing a communicative task” (Ellis, 2001, p. 21). The aim of the study reported in this article was to explore the effect of focused communication tasks on the instructed acquisition of English past counterfactual conditionals when compared with contextualized practice activities. The results of two types of intervention were measured employing a number of data collection instruments with a view to tapping both the explicit and implicit knowledge of the participants of the study. Both types of instructional treatment were equally effective in helping learners develop the explicit knowledge of past unreal conditionals, but when it comes to the implicit knowledge of the aforementioned structure, the group instructed by means of focused communication tasks outperformed the other experimental group and the control group, as evidenced by the results obtained from the individually elicited imitation test and the focused communication task performed in pairs.
References
Azar, B. (2002). Understanding and using English grammar. White Plains, NY: Longman.
Burgess, J. & Etherington, S. (2002). Focus on grammatical form: Explicit or implicit? System, 30, 433-458.
Bygate, M., Skehan, P., & Swain, M. (2001). Introduction. In M. Bygate, P. Skehan, & M. Swain (Eds.), Researching pedagogic tasks (pp. 1-20). Harlow: Pearson Education.
DeKeyser, R. M. (1998). Beyond focus on form: Cognitive perspectives on learning and practising second language grammar. In C. Doughty & J. Williams (Eds.), Focus on form in classroom second language acquisition (pp. 42-64). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Doughty, C. (1991). Second language instruction does make a difference. Evidence from an empirical study of SL relativization. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 13, 431-469.
Doughty, C. (2001). Cognitive underpinnings of focus on form. In P. Robinson (Ed.), Cognition and second language instruction (pp. 206-258). Cam-bridge: 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. 197-263). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Ellis, N. (1994). Implicit and explicit learning of languages. San Diego, CA: Academic Press.
Ellis, R. (1995). Interpretation tasks for grammar teaching. TESOL Quarterly, 29, 87-105.
Ellis, R. (1997). SLA research and language teaching. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Ellis, R. (1998). Teaching and research: Options in grammar teaching. TESOL Quarterly, 32, 39-60.
Ellis, R. (2001). Introduction: Investigating form-focused instruction. In R. Ellis (Ed.), Form-focused instruction and second language learning (pp. 1-46). Oxford: Blackwell.
Ellis, R. (2002). Does form-focused instruction affect the acquisition of implicit knowledge? A review of the research. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 24, 223-236.
Ellis, R. (2003). Task-based language learning and teaching. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Ellis, R. (2004). The definition and measurement of L2 explicit knowledge. Language Learning, 54, 227-275.
Ellis, R. (2005a). Measuring implicit and explicit knowledge of a second language: A psychometric study. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 27, 141-172.
Ellis, R. (2005b). Principles of instructed language learning. Conference Proceedings. Asian EFL Journal, Special Edition, 9-24.
Ellis, R. (2005c). Instructed language learning and task-based teaching. In E. Hinkel (Ed.), Handbook of research in second language teaching and learning (pp. 713-729). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
Ellis, R. (2006a). Current issues in the teaching of grammar: An SLA perspective. TESOL Quarterly, 40, 83-107.
Ellis, R. (2006b). Modeling learning difficulty and second language proficiency: The differential contributions of implicit and explicit knowledge. Applied Linguistics, 27, 431-463.
Erlam, R. (2006). Elicited imitation as a measure of L2 implicit knowledge: An empirical validation study. Applied Linguistics, 27, 464-491.
Fotos, S. (1995). Problem-solving tasks for teaching if-conditionals. In M. Pennington (Ed.), New ways in teaching grammar (pp. 83-87). Alexandria, VA: TESOL.
Fotos, S. (2002). Structure-based interactive tasks for the EFL grammar learner. In E. Hinkel & S. Fotos (Eds.), New perspectives on grammar teaching in second language classrooms (pp. 135-155). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
Fotos, S. (2005). Traditional and grammar translation methods for second language teaching. In E. Hinkel (Ed.), Handbook of research in second language teaching and learning (pp. 653-671). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
Gass, S. M., & Mackey, A. (2007). Data elicitation for second and foreign lan-guage research. London: Lawrence Erlbaum.
Griggs, P. (2005). Assessment of the role of communication tasks in the development of second language oral production skills. In A. Housen and M. Pierrard (Eds), Investigations in instructed second language acquisition (pp. 407-433). Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.
Housen, A. & Pierrard. M. (2005). Investigating instructed second language acquisition. In A. Housen & M. Pierrard (Eds.), Investigations in instructed second language acquisition (pp. 1-31). Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.
Krashen, S. (1981). Second language acquisition and second language learning. Oxford: Pergamon.
Larsen-Freeman, D. (2003). Teaching language: From grammar to grammaring. Boston: Heinle.
Lightbown, P. M. (1998). The importance of timing in focus on form. In C. Doughty & J. Williams (Eds.), Focus on form in classroom second language acquisition (pp. 177-197). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Lightbown, P. M. (2000). Classroom SLA research and second language teaching. Applied Linguistics, 21, 431-462.
Lightbown, P. M., & Spada, N. (1990). Focus on form and corrective feedback in communicative language teaching. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 12, 429-448.
Long, M. H. (1983). Native speaker/non-native speaker conversation and the negotiation of comprehensible input. Applied Linguistics, 4, 126-141.
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. 15-64). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Loschky L., & Bley-Vroman, R. (1993). Grammar and task-based methodology. In G. Crookes & S. M. Gass (Eds.), Tasks and language learning: Integrating theory and practice (pp. 123-163). Clevedon: Multilingual Matters.
Mackey, A., & Gass, S. (2005). Second language research: Methodology and design. London: Lawrence Erlbaum.
Munnich, E., Flynn, S., & Martohardjono, G. (1994). Elicited imitation and grammaticality judgment tasks: What they measure and how they relate to each other. In E. Tarone, S. Gass, & A. Cohen (Eds.), Research methodology in second-language acquisition (pp. 227-243). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
Nassaji, H. (2000). Towards integrating form-focused instruction and communicative interaction in the second language classroom: Some pedagogical possibilities. The Modern Language Journal, 84, 243-250.
Nassaji, H., & Fotos, S. (2004). Current developments in the teaching of grammar. Annual Review of Applied Linguistics, 24, 126-145.
Nassaji, H., & Fotos, S. (2010). Teaching grammar in second language class-rooms: Integrating form-focused instruction in communicative context. New York: Routledge.
Norris, J. M., & Ortega, L. (2000). Effectiveness of L2 instruction: A research synthesis and quantitative meta-analysis. Language Learning, 50, 417-528.
Nunan, D. (1991). Designing tasks for the communicative classroom. Cam-bridge: Cambridge University Press.
Nunan, D. (2004). Task-based language teaching. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Parrot, M. (2000). Grammar for English language teachers. Cambridge: Cam-bridge University Press.
Pawlak, M. (2004). On the effectiveness of options in grammar teaching: Translating theory and research into classroom practice. Studia Anglica Posnaniensia, 40, 269-287.
Pawlak, M. (2005). The feasibility of integrating form and meaning in the language classroom: A qualitative study of classroom discourse. Glottodidactica, 30-31, 283-294.
Pawlak, M. (2006). The place of form-focused instruction in the foreign language classroom. Kalisz: Wydział Pedagogiczno-Artystyczny.
Pawlak, M. (2007). Comparing the effect of focus on form and focus on forms in teaching English third conditional. In M. Pawlak (Ed.), Exploring focus on form in language teaching [Special issue]. Studies in Pedagogy and Fine Arts, 7, 169-191.
Pienemann, M. (1984). Psychological constraints on the teachability of languages. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 6, 186-214.
Prabhu, N.S. (1987). Second language pedagogy. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Robinson, P. (1996). Learning simple and complex second language rules under implicit, incidental, rule-search, and instructed conditions. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 18, 27-67.
Robinson, P. (2001). Task complexity, cognitive resources and syllabus design: A triadic framework for examining task influence on SLA. In P. Robinson (Ed.), Cognition and second language instruction (pp. 287-319). Cam-bridge: Cambridge University Press.
Robinson P., & Ellis, N. (2008). Conclusion: Cognitive linguistics, second language acquisition and L2 instruction – issues for research. In P. Robinson & N. Ellis (Eds.), Handbook of cognitive linguistics and second language acquisition (pp. 489-547). New York: Routledge.
Samuda, V. (2001). Guiding relationships between form and meaning during task performance: The role of the teacher. In M. Bygate, P. Skehan, & M. Swain (Eds.), Researching pedagogic tasks (pp. 119-141). Harlow: Pearson Education.
Schmidt, R. (1990). The role of consciousness in second language learning. Applied Linguistics, 11, 17-46.
Schmidt, R. (2001). Attention. In P. Robinson (Ed.), Cognition and second language instruction (pp. 3-33). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Skehan, P. (1996). A framework for the implementation of task-based instruction. Applied Linguistics, 17, 38-62.
Skehan, P. (1998). A cognitive approach to language learning. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Skehan, P. (2003). Task-based instruction. Language Teaching, 36, 1-14.
Spada, N. (1997). Form-focused instruction and second language acquisition: A review of classroom and laboratory research. Language Teaching, 30, 73-87.
Spada, N. (2010). Beyond form-focused instruction: Reflections on past, present and future research. Language Teaching, 44, 225-236. doi:10.1017/S0261444810000224
Spada, N., & Lightbown, P. (1993). Instruction and the development of questions in L2 classrooms. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 15, 205-224.
Swain, M. (1985). Communicative competence: Some roles of comprehensible input and comprehensible output in its development. In S. Gass & C. Madden (Eds.), Input in second language acquisition (pp. 235-256). Rowley, MA: Newbury House.
Thornbury, S. (2000). How to teach grammar. Harlow: Pearson Education.
Thornbury, S. (2001). Uncovering grammar. Oxford: Macmillan Heinemann.
Yule, G. (1998). Explaining English grammar. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
License
1.1 The Author hereby warrants that he/she is the owner of all the copyright and other intellectual property rights in the Work and that, within the scope of the present Agreement, the paper does not infringe the legal rights of another person. The owner of the copyright work also warrants that he/she is the sole and original creator thereof and that is not bound by any legal constraints in regard to the use or sale of the work.
1.2. The Publisher warrants that is the owner of the PRESSto platform for open access journals, hereinafter referred to as the PRESSto Platform.
2. The Author grants the Publisher non-exclusive and free of charge license to unlimited use worldwide over an unspecified period of time in the following areas of exploitation:
2.1. production of multiple copies of the Work produced according to the specific application of a given technology, including printing, reproduction of graphics through mechanical or electrical means (reprography) and digital technology;
2.2. marketing authorisation, loan or lease of the original or copies thereof;
2.3. public performance, public performance in the broadcast, video screening, media enhancements as well as broadcasting and rebroadcasting, made available to the public in such a way that members of the public may access the Work from a place and at a time individually chosen by them;
2.4. inclusion of the Work into a collective work (i.e. with a number of contributions);
2.5. inclusion of the Work in the electronic version to be offered on an electronic platform, or any other conceivable introduction of the Work in its electronic version to the Internet;
2.6. dissemination of electronic versions of the Work in its electronic version online, in a collective work or independently;
2.7. making the Work in the electronic version available to the public in such a way that members of the public may access the Work from a place and at a time individually chosen by them, in particular by making it accessible via the Internet, Intranet, Extranet;
2.8. making the Work available according to appropriate license pattern Attribution 4.0 International (CC BY 4.0) as well as another language version of this license or any later version published by Creative Commons.
3. The Author grants the Publisher permission to reproduce a single copy (print or download) and royalty-free use and disposal of rights to compilations of the Work and these compilations.
4. The Author grants the Publisher permission to send metadata files related to the Work, including to commercial and non-commercial journal-indexing databases.
5. The Author represents that, on the basis of the license granted in the present Agreement, the Publisher is entitled and obliged to:
5.1. allow third parties to obtain further licenses (sublicenses) to the Work and to other materials, including derivatives thereof or compilations made, based on or including the Work, whereas the provisions of such sub-licenses will be the same as with the Attribution 4.0 International (CC BY 4.0) Creative Commons sub-license or another language version of this license, or any later version of this license published by Creative Commons;
5.2. make the Work available to the public in such a way that members of the public may access the Work from a place and at a time individually chosen by them, without any technological constraints;
5.3. appropriately inform members of the public to whom the Work is to be made available about sublicenses in such a way as to ensure that all parties are properly informed (appropriate informing messages).
6. Because of the royalty-free provision of services of the Author (resulting from the scope of obligations stipulated in the present Agreement), the Author shall not be entitled to any author’s fee due and payable on the part of the Publisher (no fee or royalty is payable by the Publisher to the Author).
7.1. In the case of third party claims or actions for indemnity against the Publisher owing to any infractions related to any form of infringement of intellectual property rights protection, including copyright infringements, the Author is obliged to take all possible measures necessary to protect against these claims and, when as a result of legal action, the Publisher, or any third party licensed by the Publisher to use the Work, will have to abandon using the Work in its entirety or in part or, following a court ruling in a legal challenge, to pay damages to a third party, whatever the legal basis
7.2. The Author will immediately inform the Publisher about any damage claims related to intellectual property infringements, including the author’s proprietary rights pertaining to a copyrighted work, filed against the Author. of liability, the Author is obliged to redress the damage resulting from claims made by third party, including costs and expenditures incurred in the process.
7.3. To all matters not settled herein provisions of the Polish Civil Code and the Polish Copyright and Related Rights Act shall apply.