Contextualizing Grammar Instruction through Meaning-Centered Planned Pre-emptive Treatment and Enhanced Input in an EFL Context
الموضوعات :
مجید قلیچی
1
(Payame Noor University, Postgraduate School, Tehran, Iran)
الکلمات المفتاحية: Grammatical Knowledge, contextualized FoF instruction, de-contextualized FoFs instruction, durable effects, enhanced input,
ملخص المقالة :
This study has aimed to compare the effects of two types of form-focused instruction, i.e. de-contextualized focus-on-forms instruction versus meaning-centered contextualized focus-on-form instruction, on the development of grammatical knowledge of Iranian high-school students. Two groups of male high-school first graders participated in this study. One group was taught through de-contextualized deductive grammatical explanation, while the other group received enhanced input and contextualized grammar instruction embedded in meaning-centered activity based on dialogs. The results indicated that de-contextualized instruction as it is normally practiced in high-school contexts failed to promote successful use of the auxiliaries do, does, and did in a written production test. In contrast, adding the design features of meaning-based contextualization and enhanced input to instruction did result in better performance on a written production grammar test involving the use of the auxiliaries under study. In the delayed posttest, contextualized meaning-based instruction appeared to have a durable effect, but the effect was not significant enough to warrant any claim for the durable superiority of this form of instruction.
References
Anderson, J. (1983). The architecture of cognition. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University.
Clark, J. L. (1987). Curriculum renewal in school foreign language learning. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
DeKeyser, R. (1998). Beyond focus on form: Cognitive perspectives on learning and practicing second language grammar. In C. Doughty & J. Williams (Eds.), Focus on form in classroom second language acquisition (pp. 42–63). Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
Ellis, R. (2003). Task-based language learning and teaching. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Ellis, R. (2005). Measuring implicit and explicit knowledge of a second language: A psychometric study. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 27, (2), 141–172.
Ellis, R. (2008). The study of second language acquisition. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Ellis, R. Basturkmen, H., & Loewen, S. (2002). Doing focus on form. System, 30, 419–432.
Ellis, R., Loewen, S., & Erlam, R. (2006). Implicit and explicit corrective feedback and the acquisition of L2 grammar. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 28(2), 339–368.
Gass, S. (1997). Input, interaction, and the second language learner. Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
Harley, B. (1989). Functional grammar in French immersion: A classroom experiment. Applied Linguistics, 19, 331–359.
Hatch, E., & Farhady, H. (1982). Research design and statistics for applied linguistics. Rahnama Publications.
Krashen, S. (1981). Second language acquisition and second language learning. Oxford: Pergamon.
Krashen, S. (1994). The input hypothesis and its rivals, In N. C. Ellis (ed.), Implicit and explicit learning of languages (45–77). London: Academic Press.
Larsen-Freeman, D. (2000). Techniques and principles in language teaching. 2nd ed. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Lightbown, P. (1992). Getting quality input in second/foreign language classroom. In R. Ellis (2008). The study of second language acquisition. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Lightbown, P., Spada, N., & Wallace, R. (1980). Some effects of instruction on child and adolescent ESL learners. In R. Ellis (2008). The study of second language acquisition
(pp. 855–856). Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Macaro, E. & Masterman, L. (2006). Does intensive explicit grammar instruction make all the difference? Language Teaching Research 10 (3), 297–327.
Long, M. (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.
McLaughlin, B. (1987). Theories of second language learning. London: Arnold.
Mitchell, R., & Myles, F. (2004). Second language learning theories. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Pienemann, M. (1984). Psychological constraints on the teachability of languages. Studies in Second Language Acquisition 6, 186–214.
Ponniah, R.J. (2009). Form-focused instruction and the learning experience of adult ESL students. MAJL, 1(6), 382–391
Saraceni, M. (2008). Meaningful form: Transitivity and intentionality. ELT Journal, 62 (2), 164–172.
Schmidt, R. (1990). The role of consciousness in second language learning. Applied Linguistics, 11, 129–158.
Sharwood Smith, M. (1981). Consciousness –raising and the second language learner. Applied Linguistics, 2(2), 159–169.
Takimoto, M. (2008). The effects of various kinds of form-focused instruction on learners' ability to comprehend and produce polite requests in English. TESL Canada Journal,26 (1), 31–51
Tode, T. (2007). Durability problems with explicit instruction in an EFL context: The learning of the English copula be before and after the introduction of the auxiliary be. Language Teaching Research, 11(1), 11–30.
Truscott, J. (1998). Noticing in second language acquisition: A critical review. Second Language Research, 14(2), 103–135.
VanPatten, B. (1990). Attending to form and content in the input. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 12, 287–301.
