No description available.

This is an in-depth study of word knowledge where the researcher attempts to investigate the need to systematically teach vocabulary in the language classroom. It is motivated by findings within second language (L2) vocabulary testing research that state that the current communicative language learning environment is insufficient for L2 learners to acquire adequate vocabulary knowledge and L2 learners need help with vocabulary learning (Laufer, 2005). This semester-long study explores the need to provide explicit vocabulary instruction from within a meaningful environment. It also investigates the relevance of focus on forms and focus on form practices in helping second language (L2) learners increase the size and depth of word knowledge. The study involved 129 undergraduates from a writing program, and used a pretest and posttest design to measure gains in L2 learners vocabulary knowledge. .The results indicate that the vocabulary gains for both implicit (control) and explicit (treatment) instructional context were not very different though the subjects in the implicit instructional group learned slightly more words compared to the explicit instructional group. However, this has more to do with individual instructor effectiveness and learner proficiency. In terms of word use, L2 learners subjected to explicit focus on forms and focus on form tasks increased their word use while the first language (L1) learners and L2 learners from the control groups did not increase their academic words. Therefore, it is possible to suggest that L2 learners can be taught to increase the depth of their vocabulary knowledge through explicit instructional practices. In terms of L1 and L2 learners, the initial findings revealed that the L2 learners did not benefit from explicit instruction. However, additional analysis revealed that subjects with sufficient vocabulary knowledge at the 2000 word level can increase their word size much more rapidly than the proficient L2 learners in the control group. An additional test on L1 and L2 learners' word collocation skills indicated that while explicit instruction did not help increase L2 learners vocabulary size, it was able to help L2 learners increase their word collocation skills and also make word associations that are closer to L1 learners' associations.

The purpose of this study is to examine the role of form-focused instruction in relation to learner investment in second language (L2) communication and learning. Although positive effects of form-focused instruction have been reported in the instructed second language acquisition literature, most of this research has been conducted from a cognitive-interactionist perspective. Little attention has been paid to the social and cultural factors of form-focused instruction, including learner investment— a desire to learn a second/foreign language taking into consideration learners’ socially constructed identities (Norton-Peirce, 1995). Drawing on second language socialization theory (Duff, 2007) and using discursive practices (Young, 2009) as an analytic framework, this study examines how form-focused instruction influences learner investment in L2 communication in the classroom setting. Twenty-four high school students in Japan participated in a study, where two Japanese teachers of English team-taught four 50-minute lessons. Each lesson contained a 30-minute treatment period, which consisted of a 15-minute exclusively meaning-focused (MF) activity and a 15-minute form-focused (FF) activity that included attention to both form and meaning. By counter-balancing effects of tasks, target grammar features, and teachers, the study examined whether and how the same learners invested in L2 communication in similar or different ways during the two different types of activities. Data were collected through classroom observations, video-recorded classroom interactions, stimulated recalls, interviews, questionnaires, and diaries. The interactional data were analyzed quantitatively by comparing the frequency of turns and language-related episodes during FF and MF activities. The same interactional data were also analyzed qualitatively in relation to discursive practices and self-reported data. The results showed that the FF activities created contexts for learners to establish their identities as L2 learners leading to more engagement in L2 communication than in the MF activities. This suggests that FF activities create a social context that enables learners to communicate in the L2 with greater investment than in MF activities.

The purpose of this study is to examine the role of form-focused instruction in relation to learner investment in second language (L2) communication and learning. Although positive effects of form-focused instruction have been reported in the instructed second language acquisition literature, most of this research has been conducted from a cognitive-interactionist perspective. Little attention has been paid to the social and cultural factors of form-focused instruction, including learner investment— a desire to learn a second/foreign language taking into consideration learners’ socially constructed identities (Norton-Peirce, 1995). Drawing on second language socialization theory (Duff, 2007) and using discursive practices (Young, 2009) as an analytic framework, this study examines how form-focused instruction influences learner investment in L2 communication in the classroom setting. Twenty-four high school students in Japan participated in a study, where two Japanese teachers of English team-taught four 50-minute lessons. Each lesson contained a 30-minute treatment period, which consisted of a 15-minute exclusively meaning-focused (MF) activity and a 15-minute form-focused (FF) activity that included attention to both form and meaning. By counter-balancing effects of tasks, target grammar features, and teachers, the study examined whether and how the same learners invested in L2 communication in similar or different ways during the two different types of activities. Data were collected through classroom observations, video-recorded classroom interactions, stimulated recalls, interviews, questionnaires, and diaries. The interactional data were analyzed quantitatively by comparing the frequency of turns and language-related episodes during FF and MF activities. The same interactional data were also analyzed qualitatively in relation to discursive practices and self-reported data. The results showed that the FF activities created contexts for learners to establish their identities as L2 learners leading to more engagement in L2 communication than in the MF activities. This suggests that FF activities create a social context that enables learners to communicate in the L2 with greater investment than in MF activities.

Made available in DSpace on 2016-03-22T17:26:44Z (GMT). No. of bitstreams: 1 Patta Alves.pdf: 946799 bytes, checksum: 7cde5c03d3fac4fda62b03a67fcefb54 (MD5) Previous issue date: 2012-03-30 / This research study investigates how Form-Focused Instruction, following the taxonomy proposed by Rod Ellis (2001), occurs in an EFL school in Southern Brazil. In addition to this, it aimed to identify in the English classes of two teachers, if their practices were permeated by technical knowledge, practical knowledge or both kinds of knowledge on Form-Focused Instruction (FFI), as well as at which moment of their teacher development this knowledge was originated. The data were collected from the audio and video recordings of two consecutive classes taught by each professional, as well as from a semi-structured questionnaire and a stimulated recall interview. The results from this investigation showed that, in the act of teaching, such professionals made use, primarily, of their practical knowledge (intuitive and implicit knowledge that is built during the practice), and that their beliefs about formal instruction were originated during their development as teachers / Este trabalho investiga como se dá a Instrução Focada na Forma no Ensino de Inglês como Língua Estrangeira sob a luz das taxionomias propostas por Rod Ellis (2001), num ambiente de curso particular de Inglês. Além disso, buscou-se identificar, nas duas professoras pesquisadas, P1 e P2, se suas aulas eram permeadas pelo conhecimento técnico, teórico ou ambos, acerca da Instrução Focada na Forma (IFF), bem como em que momento de sua formação tal conhecimento foi originado. Os dados foram obtidos a partir da gravação em áudio e vídeo de duas aulas consecutivas de cada profissional, da aplicação de um questionário semi-estruturado e de uma entrevista com lembrança estimulada. Os resultados desta investigação mostraram que, no ato da IFF, as profissionais fizeram uso, principalmente, de seu conhecimento prático (conhecimento desenvolvido durante a prática, sendo implícito e intuitivo), e que suas crenças acerca do ensino formal se originaram, inconscientemente, durante suas formações como professoras o

Abstract  This study examined grade 4-6 English teachers’ preferred approach regarding the timing of grammatical instruction, developed and distinguished by Spada and Lightbown (2008) as isolated and integrated form-focused instruction (FFI). Both isolated FFI and integrated FFI are described as taking place in primarily meaning-based communicative classrooms. They differ in that isolated FFI takes place separately from communicative activities, while integrated FFI occurs during communicative activities. Using this theoretical distinction, Valeo and Spada (2016) developed teacher and learner questionnaires. The teacher questionnaire, along with observations, was used in the current study to investigate the views of teachers in the context of Swedish compulsory school. Quantitative and qualitative analyses of the questionnaire and observation data shows a preference for integrated FFI across all grades (grade 4, grade 5 and grade 6). At the same time, many teachers expressed the value of isolated FFI. The views of the teacher in this study align with previous research claiming that isolated and integrated FFI should not be mutually exclusive. Consistent with Valeo and Spada (2016), the teachers of this study pointed out that context, individual pupils and teacher beliefs may have an impact on decisions regarding the timing of grammatical instruction.

No description available.

This study was an examination of the effects of explicit form-focused instruction on the English development of Japanese university students during a seven-week intervention. Speaking proficiency development is a continuous challenge for most EFL learners who have limited exposure to the target language outside the classroom. Within the communicative language teaching paradigm, task-based language learning (TBLT) has been considered an effective approach for developing students’ speaking proficiency. However, while TBLT has been increasingly implemented in English language classrooms, investigations in which explicit form-focused instruction has been integrated into task based speaking tasks are limited. This longitudinal classroom-based study had five purposes. The first purpose was to examine the development of speaking proficiency in terms of syntactic complexity, syntactic accuracy, and oral fluency. The second purpose was to examine the development of speaking proficiency by comparing learners who received form-focused instruction with those who did not receive form-focused instruction by examining differences in their syntactic complexity, syntactic accuracy, and oral fluency development. The third purpose was to quantitatively and qualitatively examine the week-to-week trajectory of changes in speaking proficiency development. The fourth purpose was to examine learner affective variables. The final purpose was to examine the participants’ perceptions concerning the development of speaking proficiency based on their self-assessments. The participants were 104 first-year students enrolled in a Japanese university. All of the participants narrated a different four-picture cartoon in English once a week for nine weeks. The participants were divided into one comparison group and two intervention groups: form-focused instruction (FFI) and form-focused instruction and peer feedback (FFI + PF). The form-focused instruction intervention included ten minutes of grammar instruction focused on three past tense forms: simple past, past continuous, and past perfect, as well as ten minutes of peer feedback. Between the pretest and posttest, the FFI and FFI + PF participants received seven weeks of instruction before their weekly cartoon narration. Participants in the comparison group did not receive any weekly interventions. The pretest and posttest narration data of all participants were transcribed and analyzed using six CAF measurements: mean length of T-unit, clause/T-unit ratio, percentage of error-free T-units, percentage of accurate past tense usage, speech rate, and self-repair. Moreover, the pretest and posttest narrations recorded by all of the participants were analytically rated by three raters. From the sample of 104 participants, nine participants (three representatives from each group) were chosen for a week-to-week trajectory analysis in which their six CAF performances were qualitatively and quantitatively analyzed. All of the participants completed two questionnaires after taking the pretest and posttest. I developed both questionnaires based on previous literature related to second language speaking proficiency development. The English Speaking Learner Affect Questionnaire was used to examine differences in participants’ classroom English speaking anxiety, English speaking self-efficacy, and desire to speak English. The Self-Assessment of Speaking Task Questionnaire was used to examine changes in the participants’ self-assessment of their own performances in terms of syntactic complexity, syntactic accuracy, and oral fluency. The results indicated that form-focused instruction was effective at improving the participants’ global syntactic accuracy and their accurate use of the simple past tense. However, form-focused instruction did not lead to improvements in syntactic complexity or oral fluency. However, explicit form-focused instruction did not lead to detrimental effects on syntactic complexity or oral fluency; thus, form-focused instruction did not appear to stimulate trade-off effects between syntactic complexity, syntactic accuracy, and oral fluency. The analytical ratings provided by the raters indicated that form-focused instruction did not lead to significant improvements in terms of syntactic complexity, syntactic accuracy, or oral fluency. The results also indicated that the form-focused instruction intervention was effective at quickly improving syntactic accuracy because participants who received both form-focused instruction and peer feedback improved more quickly in the simple past compared to the participants who only received form-focused instruction. However, the participants who improved syntactic accuracy quickly might have experienced trade-offs with oral fluency ability, as improvements in speed fluency were not noted until their syntactic accuracy reached a ceiling effect where their global accuracy and accurate use of simple past tense stopped to improve. The results indicated that form-focused instruction did not influence classroom English speaking anxiety, as there was no significant difference seen between participants who received form-focused instruction and participants who did not. However, an excessive amount of form-focused instruction might have negative impacts on speaking anxiety because the participants who received both form-focused instruction and peer feedback showed an increase in their classroom English speaking anxiety. On the other hand, form-focused instruction had no impact on English speaking self-efficacy and it had positive effects on the desire to speak English because the participants who received both form-focused instruction and peer feedback exhibited a significant increase in their desire to speak English compared to the participants who did not receive form-focused instruction and the participants who received only form-focused instruction. Finally, based on the learners’ self-assessment, form-focused instruction had no effects on speaking proficiency development as there was no difference in self-assessed syntactic complexity, syntactic accuracy, and oral fluency between the participants in the three groups. Participants who received form-focused instruction interventions did not assess themselves to having higher syntactic accuracy despite their improvements on the CAF measures. / Teaching & Learning

No description available.

Content-based language instruction has gained widespread acceptance as an effective approach in a range of educational settings for adults and children. It is premised on the belief that language and content are inextricably linked and that learning is enhanced through an integrated approach. Yet the nature of the relationship between content and language, and how integration can be achieved in the content-based language classroom, continue to be points of divergence for both researchers and practitioners. One approach to this question draws on research in form-focused instruction (FFI), which describes various instructional options that draw learners’ attention to form in primarily meaning and content-based classrooms. While widely accepted that FFI has a positive impact on language learning outcomes in a variety of contexts, FFI research in content-based language programs for adults has been limited. This study investigated the effect and effectiveness of FFI in a content-based language program designed to prepare adult newcomers to Canada for employment in a specific workplace sector. Two groups of adult learners participated in the study. One group of 16 adults received content-based instruction integrated with FFI while the other group of 20 adults received the same content-based instruction with a focus on meaning only. A quasi-experimental, pre-test/post-test/delayed post-test design was adopted for this comparative study in order to measure language and content outcomes. Language measures included an error correction task, a cloze task, and oral production tasks. Content outcomes were measured via content tests. In addition, a retrospective awareness protocol was designed to assess learners’ awareness of language and content in their instruction and to explore the relationship between this awareness and language development. ANOVA and ANCOVA results indicated that there was no advantage for the participants receiving form-focused instruction on language outcomes but a significant benefit on the content knowledge tests. Analysis of the retrospective report data indicated that the participants were able to identify the focus of the instruction they received. However, no relationship between awareness of language and language development was found. These findings are discussed in light of previous research and in terms of their implications for content-based language instruction.