Journal of English Language Teaching and Learning

Current Issue

By Issue

By Author

By Subject

Author Index

Keyword Index

About Journal

Aims and Scope

Editorial Board

Peer Review Process

Publication Ethics

Indexing and Abstracting

FAQ

News

Related Links

The role of sequencing isolated form focused instruction and complexity in developing English grammatical knowledge by Iranian monolinguals and bilinguals

Document Type : Research Paper

Authors

1 PhD Candidate, Faculty of Foreign Languages, University of Isfahan

2 Associate Professor, Faculty of Foreign Languages, University of Isfahan

Abstract

The study compared the pedagogical effects of early versus delayed Form Focused Instruction (EFFI vs. DFFI), both subsumed under Isolated Form Focused Instruction (IFFI), on the achievement of three target structures with relative degrees of complexity by monolinguals and bilinguals. Six intact Gilaki-Persian learners of English as L3 and six groups of Persian learners of English as L2 participated in the study. They were all male beginning learners of English in Iranian public high schools who followed a pretest-treatment-posttest procedure. Four groups (grade 7) received instruction for the simple structure; four other groups (grade 8) were taught the moderately complex structure and four groups (grade 9) were exposed to the highly complex structure instruction. Within each grade, one group of Gilaki and one group of Persian natives received EFFI while their native counterparts benefited DFFI. The overall results revealed that when the method of instruction was the same, Gilaki natives outperformed Persian natives both in the post and delayed tests regardless of complexity. The groups that received the simple structure via EFFI did better than their native counterparts instructed via DFFI in both the post and delayed tests though a significant difference was only observed in the latter test. In contrast, DFFI groups outperformed their native counterparts taught via EFFI on the fairly and highly complex structures in the post and delayed posttests. Further analysis of the data demonstrated that DFFI contributes better to the durability of gain effects for more complex structures regardless of linguistic background of the learners.

Keywords

References
Anderson, J. (1982). Acquisition of cognitive skill. Psychological Review, 89, 369–406.
Andrews, K.Z. (2007). The effects of implicit and explicit instruction on simple and complex grammatical structures for adult English language learners. TESL-EJ, 1, 1-15.
Cenoz, J., and F.J. Valencia. (1994). Additive Trilingualism: Evidence from the Basque Country. Applied Psycholinguistics 15, 195-207.
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). New York: Cambridge University Press.
DeKeyser, R. (2003). Implicit and explicit learning. In C. Doughty, & M. Long (Eds.), Handbook of second language acquisition (pp. 313–348). Oxford: Blackwell.
DeKeyser, R. M. (1995). Learning second language grammar rules: An experiment with a miniature linguistic system. Studies in Second Language Acquisition 17, 3, 379–410.
DeKeyser, R. (2007). Situating the concept of practice. In R. DeKeyser (Ed.), Practicing in a second language: Perspectives from applied linguistics and cognitive psychology (pp. 1–18). New York: Cambridge University Press.
Ellis, R. (Ed.). (2001). Form-focused instruction and second language learning. Malden, MA: Blackwell Publishers.
Ellis, R. (2002). Does form-focused instruction affect the acquisition of implicit knowledge? A review of the research. Studies in Second Language Acquisition 24, 2, 223–36.
Ellis, R. (2008). The Study of Second Language Acquisition. Second Edition. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Ellis, R. (2012). Language Teaching Research and Language Pedagogy. Malden, Mass: Wiley Blackwell.
Ellis, R; S, Loewen& R. Erlam. (2006). Explicit and implicit corrective feedback and the acquisition of L2 grammar. Studies in Second Language Acquisition 28:339-68.
Erlam, R. (2000). The effects of deductive and inductive instruction on the acquisition of direct object pronouns in French as a second language. The Modern Language Journal 87, 242–260.
Graaff, R. de. (1997). The Esperanto experiment: Effects of explicit instruction on second language acquisition. Studies in Second Language Acquisition 19, 2, 249–76.
De Graaff, R., & Housen, A. (2009). Investigating the effects and effectiveness of instruction. In Long, M.H., & C.J. Doughty (Eds.), Handbook of language teaching (pp. 726–755). Oxford: Blackwell.
Housen, A. et al. (2005). Rule complexity and the effectiveness of explicit grammar instruction. In A. Housen& M. Pierrard (eds.), Investigations in instructed second language acquisition (pp. 207–41). Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.
Housen, A., & Pierrard, M. (2005). Investigating instructed second language acquisition. In A. Housen& M. Pierrard (Eds). Investigations in instructed second language acquisition (pp. 1-27). Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.
Izumi, S. (2002). Output, input enhancement, and the noticing hypothesis: An experimental study on ESL relativization. Studies in Second Language Acquisition 24. 541-577.
Jessner, U. (2006) Linguistic awareness in multilinguals: English as a third language. Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press.
Kim, J. (2012). The optimal condition for form-focused instruction: method, target, complexity and types of knowledge. A dissertation study. Washington, DC. Georgetown University,
Kim, J. (2014). Timing of form-focused instruction and development of implicit vs. explicit knowledge. English Teaching, 69(2), 123-147.
Krashen, S. (1981). Second language acquisition and second language learning. Oxford: Pergamon.
Loschky, L., & Bley-Vroman, R. (1993). Grammar and task-based methodology. In G. Crookes & S. Gass (Eds.), Tasks and language learning: Integrating theory and practice. Clevedon: Multilingual Matters.
Lyster, R. (1998). Recasts, repetition and ambiguity in L2 classroom discourse. Studies in Second Language Acquisition.20, 51-80.
Mackey. A. (1999). Input, interaction and second language development: an empirical study of question formation in ESL. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 21:577-87.
Modirkhamene, S. (2008). Metalinguistic Awareness and Bilingual vs. Monolingual EFL Learners: Evidence from a Diagonal Bilingual Context. The Journal of Applied Linguistics Vol. 1, No.1
Nassaji, H. (2016). Research Timeline: Form-focused instruction and second language acquisition. Language Teaching, 49, pp 35-62.
Nassaji, H. & Fotos, S. (2004). Current developments in research on the teaching of grammar. Annual Review of Applied Linguistics 24, 126–145.
Nassaji H., & Fotos, S. (2011). Teaching grammar in second language classrooms: Integrating form- focused instruction in communicative context. New York, NY: Routledge.
Norris, J. M., & Ortega, L. (2000). Effectiveness of L2 instruction: A research synthesis and quantitative meta-analysis. Language Learning50, 417–528.
Norris, J. M. & Ortega, L. (2001). Does type of instruction make a difference? Substantive findings from a meta-analytic review. Language Learning,  51, 157-213.
Prabhu, N.S. (1987). Second language pedagogy. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Raimes, A. (2002). Errors: Windows into the mind. In G. DeLuca, L. Fox, M. Johnson, & M. Kogen (Eds.). Dialogue on writing: Rethinking ESL, basic writing, and first-year composition (pp. 279–287). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
Robinson, P. (1996). Learning simple and complex second language rules under implicit, incidental, rule-search and instructed conditions. Studies in Second Language Acquisition 18, 1, 27–68.
Radwan, A. (2005). The effectiveness of explicit attention to form in language learning. System, 33(1), 69-87
Richards, J. C & Reppen, R. (2014). Towards a pedagogy of grammar instruction. RELC Journal, 45(1), 5 –25.
Schmidt, R. (1990). The role of consciousness in second language learning. Applied Linguistics11, 17–46.
Schmidt, R., &Frota, S. (1986). Developing basic conversational ability in a second language: A case study of an adult learner of Portuguese. In R. Day (Ed.), Talking to learn: Conversation in a second language (pp. 237-326). Rowley, MA: Newbury House.
Soleimani, H. et al. (2015). Effect of explicit and implicit instruction on implicit knowledge of English past simple tense. International Journal of Asian Social Science,  5(5): 257-265
Spada, N. (1997). Form-focused instruction and second language acquisition: A review of classroom and laboratory research. LanguageTeaching Abstracts, 30. 73-87.
Spada, N. (2014). Isolated and Integrated form-focused instruction: Effects on different types of L2 knowledge. Language teaching research, 18 (4), 453-473.
Spada, N., & Lightbown, P. M. (2008). Form-instruction: Isolated or integrated? TESOL Quarterly, 42, 181-207.
Spada, N. and Tomita, Y. ( 2010). Interactions between type of instruction and type of language feature: A meta-analysis. Language Learning, 60(2): 263-308.
Tammenga-Helmantel, M. et al. (2014).The effectiveness of deductive, inductive, implicit and incidental grammatical instruction in second language classrooms. System, 45,198-210.
Trendak, O. (2015). Exploring the Role of Strategic Intervention in Form-Focused Instruction. Switzerland: Springer International Publishing.
VanPatten, B. (1990). Attending to form and content in the input: An experiment in consciousness. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 12,287-301.
Williams, J. (1999). Learner-generated attention to form. Language Learning, 49:583-625.
Journal of English Language Teaching and Learning
Volume 11, Issue 24 - Serial Number 24
December 2019
Pages 323-350
Files
Share
How to cite
Statistics