Preemptive and Reactive Focus-on-Form Instruction: Effect on learning parallel grammatical structures

Authors

  • Fouad BOULKROUN University of Mentouri Constantine

Keywords:

Instruction, focus on form, input enhancement, feedback, consciousness, raising

Abstract

The present study set out to investigate the differential effect of focus-on-form (FonF) instruction. Two research questions were raised: 1) Does FonF instruction,both preemptive and reactive, have a differential effect on learners' interlanguage? 2) Are short-term gains, if at all, maintained in the long-term? Fifty one (51) third-year LMD university English language learners are divided into two groups: a FonF group (N=27), and a Control group (N=24). Parallel structures were selected as the target form. A Grammaticality Judgment Test (GJT) was used to measure accuracy of the target form over the short- and the long-term; therefore, three similar but not identical tests were administered at three temporal times: a pre-test, an immediate post-test, and a delayed post-test. The results of the present study showed that FonF instruction had a differential effect in language learning in both the short- and the long-term. Recommendations for both research and pedagogy are discussed.

Downloads

Download data is not yet available.

Author Biography

Fouad BOULKROUN, University of Mentouri Constantine

Faculty of Letters and Languages, Department of Foreign Languages

References

Williams, J. Learner-generated attention to form. Language Learning:49/4. 1999, 583-625.

Long, M. Focus on form: A design feature in language teaching methodology. In K. deBot, C. Kramsch, & R. Ginsberg, (eds.), Foreign language research in cross-cultural perspective. Amsterdam: John Benjamin. 1991, 39-52.

Long, M., & Robinson, P. Focus on form: Theory, research and practice. In C. Doughty & J. Williams (eds.), Focus on form in classroom second language acquisition. Cambridge: CUP. 1998, 15-41.

Krashen, S.Principles and practice in second language acquisition. Oxford: Pergamon Press.1982.

White, L. Against comprehensible input: The Input Hypothesis and the development of second-language competence. Applied Linguistics:8/2. 1987, 95-110.

Larsen-Freeman, D. On the teaching and learning of grammar: Challenging the myths. In F. Eckman, D. Highland, L. P. J. Mileham, & R. Weber (eds.), Second language acquisition theory and pedagogy. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum. 1995, 131–50.

Cadierno, T. Formal instruction from a processing perspective: An investigation into the Spanish past tense. Modern Language Journal: 79. 1995, 179–93.

Bardovi-Harlig, K.Tense and aspect in second language acquisition: Form, meaning, and use. Oxford: Blackwell. 2000.

Ellis, N. C. At the interface: Dynamic interactions of explicit and implicit language knowledge. Studies in Second Language Acquisition:27. 2005, 305–352.

Long, M. Does second language instruction make a difference? A review of the research. TESOL Quarterly:17/3. 1983, 359-382.

Ellis, R. Investigating form-focused instruction. Language Learning:51, supplement 1. 2001, 1-46.

Ellis, R. Does form-focused instruction affect the acquisition of implicit knowledge? A review of the research. Studies in Second Language Acquisition:24. 2002, 223-236.

Harley, B. Functional grammar in French immersion: A classroom experiment. Applied Linguistics:10/3. 1989, 331-359.

White, L. Adverb placement in second language acquisition: some effects of positive and negative evidence in the classroom. Second Language Research:7/2. 1991, 133-161.

Sharwood Smith, M. A. Input enhancement in instructed SLA. Studies in Second Language Acquisition:15/2. 1993, 165-179.

Schmidt, R. Awareness and second language acquisition. Annual Review of Applied Linguistics: 13/1. 1993, 206–226.

Long, M. Instructed interlanguage development. In L. M. Beebe (ed.), Issues in second language acquisition: Multiple perspectives. Cambridge, MA: Newbury House/Harper and Row.1988, 115–141

Spada, N. Form-focused instruction and second language acquisition: a review of classroom and laboratory research. Language Teaching: 30. 1997, 73-87.

Ellis, R., Basturkmen, H., &Loewen, S. Learner uptake in communicative ESL lessons. Language Learning: 51/2. 2001a, 281–318.

Long, M. The role of linguistic environment in second language acquisition. In W. C. Ritchie & T.K. Bhatia (eds.), Handbook of second language acquisition. New York: Academic Press.1996, 413-468

Swain, M. Communicative competence: some roles of comprehensible input and comprehensible output in its development’. In S. M. Gass and C. G. Madden (eds.), Input in Second Language Acquisition. Heinle and Heinle Publishers. 1985: 235-353.

Lightbown, P. M., &Spada, N. Focus-on-Form and corrective feedback in communicative language teaching. Studies in Second Language Acquisition: 12/4. 1990, 429-448.

Doughty, C. & Williams, J. Pedagogical choices in focus on form. In C. Doughty & J. Williams (eds.). Focus on form in classroom second language acquisition. Cambridge: CUP.1998.

Leow, R. P. Attention, awareness, and foreign language behavior. Language Learning: 51, supplement 1. 2001, 113-155.

Fotos, S. Integrating grammar instruction and communicative language use through grammar consciousness-raising tasks. TESOL Quarterly:28/2. 1994, 323-351.

Loewen, S. Variation in the frequency and characteristics of incidental focus on form. Language Teaching Research: 7/3. 2003, 315-345.

Williams, J. The effectiveness of spontaneous attention to form. System: 29/3. 2001, 325-340.

Ellis, R., Basturkmen, & H., Loewen, S. Doing Focus-on-Form. System: 30/4. 2002, 419-432.

DeKeyser, R. Beyond focus on form: Cognitive perspectives on learning and practicing in L2 grammar. In C. Doughty & J. Williams (eds.). Focus on form in classroom second language acquisition. Cambridge: CUP.1998.

Harley, B. The role of focus-on-form tasks in promoting child L2 acquisition. In C. Doughty & J. Williams (eds.). Focus on Form in Classroom Second Language Acquisition. Cambridge, England: Cambridge University Press. 1998, 156-174.

Lightbown, P. M. The importance of timing in focus on form. In C. Doughty & J. Williams (eds.). Focus on form in classroom second language acquisition. Cambridge: CUP.1998.

Spada, N. &Lightbown, P. M. Instruction and the development of questions in L2 classrooms. Studies in Second Language Acquisition: 15/2. 1993, 205–24.

Doughty, C. Second language instruction does make a difference: Evidence from an empirical study of ESL relativization. Studies in Second Language Acquisition: 13/4. 1991, 431-469.

Leeman, J., Arteagoitia, I., Fridman, B., & Doughty, C. Integrating attention to form with meaning: Focus on form in content-based Spanish instruction. In R. Schmidt (ed.), Attention and awareness in foreign language learning. Honolulu: University of Hawai‘i Press. 1995, 217–258

Doughty, C. & Varela,E. Communicative focus on form. In: C. Doughty & J. Williams (eds.). Focus on form in classroom m second language acquisition. Cambridge: CUP. 1998.

Day, E. M. &Shapson,S. M. Integrating formal and functional approaches to language teaching in French immersion: An experimental study. Language Learning:41/1. 1991, 25–58.

Bialystok, E. Psycholinguistic dimensions of second language proficiency. In W. Rutherford & M. A. Sharwood Smith (eds.). Grammar and second language teaching: A book of readings. New York: Newbury House. 1989, 31–50.

Bialystok, E. Explicit and implicit judgments of L2 grammaticality. Language Learning: 29. 1979, 81–103.

Downloads

Published

2016-12-01

How to Cite

BOULKROUN, F. (2016). Preemptive and Reactive Focus-on-Form Instruction: Effect on learning parallel grammatical structures. Journal of Human Sciences , 27(3), 145–167. Retrieved from https://revue.umc.edu.dz/h/article/view/2402

Issue

Section

Articles

Similar Articles

<< < 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 > >> 

You may also start an advanced similarity search for this article.