Differential Effects of Focus on Form and Focus on. Forms on English Relative Clause by EFL Learners in Japan

Transcription

1 195 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.

2 196 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 ). 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

3 197 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

4 198 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).

5 199 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 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.

6 200 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. Kinds of tests Points Time Production 5 points 5 questions 10 minutes Multiple choice 1 point 25 questions 10 minutes 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 CG Pre Immediate Delayed

7 201 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 CG Pre Immediate Delayed Figure 2. Percentage of Multiple Choice Tests in the Pre Test, Immediate Post-test and Delayed Post-test

8 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 (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 Immediate Delayed FonFs Production FonFS Multiple Choice M SD N M SD N Pre Immediate Delayed Table 5. One-way Analysis of Variance of Production and Multiple Choice Tests in FonF and FonFS Fon F Production SS df MS F p tests p<.05 subjects error Total

9 203 FonF Multiple Choice SS df MS F p tests p>.05 subjects error Total FonFS Production SS df MS F p tests p>.05 subjects error Total FFonFS Multiple Choice SS df MS F p tests p>.05 subjects error Total 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 (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.

10 204 Table 6. Multiple Comparison of FonF by Bonferroni Production Test Level I Level J Difference Standard p of Means error Pre Immediate Delayed Immediate Pre Delayed Delayed Pre Immediate Multiple Choice Test Level I Level J Difference Standard p of Means error Pre Immediate Delayed Immediate Pre Delayed Delayed Pre Immediate Table 7. Multiple Comparison of FonFS by Bonferroni Production Test Multiple Choice Test Level I Level J Difference of Means Standard error Pre Immediate Delayed Immediate Pre Delayed Delayed Pre Immediate p Level I Level J Difference of Means Pre Immediate Delayed Standard error Immediate Delayed Pre Delayed Pre Immediate p 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

11 205 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 interlanguage 2 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 1 Task 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. 2 Selinker (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).

12 206 References Clece-Marcia, M. & Larsen-Freeman, D. (1991). Teaching grammar. In M. Celce-Murcia (Ed.), Teaching English Grammar as a Second or Foreign Language 2 nd edition (pp ). 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: 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 ). 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 ) New York: Academic Press. Norris, J. M. & Ortega, L. (2000). Effectiveness of L2 instruction: A research synthesis and quantitative meta-analysis. Language Learning, 50, 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.

13 207 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,