The Effect of Functional-based Approach vs. Structural-based Approach on the Accuracy of Certain Grammatical Structures on Iranian EFL Learners
Subject Areas : Research in English Language Pedagogy
Kazem Najmi
1
,
Masoumeh Salarpour
2
,
Mohamad Ahmadi
3
1 - Department of English Language Teaching, Science and Research Branch, Islamic Azad University, Tehran, Iran
2 - Alzahra University
3 - Department of English Language Teaching, Science and Research Branch, Islamic Azad University, Tehran, Iran
Keywords: Grammatical Structure, Accuracy, Functional-based Approach, Structural-based Approach,
Abstract :
The present study aimed at examining the possible effects of the functional-based approach vs. structural-based approach on the accuracy of certain grammatical structures on Iranian EFL learners. In many textbooks taught in Iran, grammar is reflected as an important tool for the enhancement of language proficiency. Reading the table of contents of many textbooks, one can find out that functions have been written for each grammatical structure. Nevertheless, observing classes, one can see little to no emphasis on the functional use of the grammatical structure. To achieve the main goal of this study, 41 male and female learners with the age range of 15 to 30 were selected from among 60 learners as homogeneous lower-intermediate participants of the study by Oxford Placement Test (OPT). They received different interventions in the two experimental groups of functional (N = 20) and structural (N = 21) being divided non-randomly based on their OPT scores. The Functional group was taught grammar using the functional approach while the structural group experienced grammar instruction using the structural approach for four sessions. Analyzing the obtained data of role-play tests performed on both groups and at both pretest and posttest using paired samples t-test and ANCOVA uncovered that both structural and functional-based approaches can enhance the acquisition of grammatical accuracy,
Ahmed, A. I. M. (2013). The functional approach to second language instruction. World Journal of English Language, 3(1), 92.
Beatty, K. (2013). Teaching & researching: Computer-assisted language learning: Routledge.
Birch, D. (1982). The Birmingham school of discourse analysis and communicative approaches to language teaching. RELC Journal, 13(2), 98-110.
Butler, C. S. (2008). Cognitive adequacy in structural-functional theories of language. Language Sciences, 30(1), 1-30.
Canale, M., & Swain, M. (1980). Theoretical bases of communicative approaches to second language teaching and testing. Applied Linguistics, 1(1), 1-47.
Crystal, D. (2011). A dictionary of linguistics and phonetics (Vol. 30): John Wiley & Sons.
Diane, L. (2019). Techniques and principles in language teaching. In: Oxford university press.
Dittmar, N. (1981). On the verbal organization of L2 tense marking in an elicited translation task by Spanish immigrants in Germany. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 3(2), 136-164.
Ek, J. v., & Alexander, L. G. (1980). Threshold level English in a European unit/credit system for modern language learning by adults: ERIC.
Elley, W. B. (1991). Acquiring literacy in a second language: The effect of book‐based programs. Language learning, 41(3), 375-411.
Givón, T. (2005). Context as other minds: The pragmatics of sociality, cognition, and communication: John Benjamins Publishing.
Givón, T., & Malle, B. F. (2002). The evolution of language out of pre-language (Vol. 53): John Benjamins Publishing.
Hall, G. (2017). Exploring English language teaching: Language in action: Routledge.
Hinkel, E. (2011). Handbook of research in second language teaching and learning: Routledge.
Huebner, T. (1983). Linguistic systems and linguistic change in an interlanguage. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 33-53.
Keck, C., & Kim, Y. (2014). Pedagogical grammar: John Benjamins Publishing Company.
Larsen-Freeman, D. (2003). Teaching language: From grammar to grammaring: Heinle & Heinle Pub.
Larsen-Freeman, D., & Anderson, M. (2013). Techniques and principles in language teaching 3rd edition-Oxford handbooks for language teachers: Oxford university press.
Levin, B. (2015). Semantics and pragmatics of argument alternations.
Liamkina, O., & Ryshina‐Pankova, M. (2012). Grammar dilemma: Teaching grammar as a resource for making meaning. The Modern Language Journal, 96(2), 270-289.
MacWhinney, B. (1988). Competition and teachability. Paper presented at the conference on Teachability of Language honoring, Carnegie Mellon University, Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania, USA.
McLaughlin, B. (1987). Theories of second-language learning. London, UK: Edward Arnold. Mitchell, R., & Myles, F.(2004). Second language learning theories (2nd ed.). New York, NY.
Mitchell, R., & Myles, F. (2004). Second language learning theories (2nd ed.), London: Arnold. In: Languages.
Moore, K. D., & Hansen, J. (2011). Effective strategies for teaching in K-8 classrooms: Sage.
Nassaji, H., & Fotos, S. S. (2011). Teaching grammar in second language classrooms: Integrating form-focused instruction in communicative context: Routledge.
Newmeyer, F. J. (2000). Deconstructing grammaticalization. Language Sciences, 23(2-3), 187-229.
Ninio, A. (2001). Pragmatic keywords and the first combining verbs in children's speech. First Language, 21(63), 433-460.
Noormohamadi, R. A functional approach to SLA: Givon’s functional-typological syntactic analysis [ Unpublished master’s thesis]. Science and Research Branch of the Islamic Azad University, Iran.
North, S. (2005). Disciplinary variation in the use of theme in undergraduate essays. Applied Linguistics, 26(3), 431-452.
Pfaff, C. W. (1992). The issue of grammaticalization in early German second language. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 273-296.
Richards, J. C., & Rodgers, T. S. (2014). Approaches and methods in language teaching: Cambridge university press.
Robinson, P., & Ellis, N. C. (2008). Handbook of cognitive linguistics and second language acquisition: Routledge.
Robinson, P. (2003). The cognitive hypothesis, task design, and adult task-based language learning. University of Hawai Second Langauge Studies Paper, 21(2).
Sato, C. J. (1988). Origins of complex syntax in interlanguage development. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 10(3), 371-395.
Sedova, K., Salamounova, Z., & Svaricek, R. (2014). Troubles with dialogic teaching. Learning, Culture, and Social Interaction, 3(4), 274-285.
Taka, V. P. (2008). Vocabulary learning strategies and foreign language acquisition: Multilingual Matters.
Verhoeven, L. T. (1994). Functional literacy: Theoretical issues and educational implications (Vol. 1): John Benjamins Publishing.
Wang, P. (2011). Constructivism and learner autonomy in foreign language teaching and learning: To what extent does theory inform practice. Theory and Practice in Language Studies, 1(3), 273-277.
Weaver, C. (1996). Teaching grammar in the context of writing. The English Journal, 85(7), 15-24.
Yalden, J. (1987). Principles of course design for language teaching. New directions in language teaching: ERIC.
Yang, L. R., & Givón, T. (1997). Benefits and drawbacks of controlled laboratory studies of second language acquisition: The Keck second language learning project. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 173-193.
Yule, G. (2010). The study of language: Cambridge University Press.