|
|
|
 |
Search published articles |
 |
|
Showing 3 results for Focus on Form
Mahnaz Saeidi,
Volume 12, Issue 2 (9-2009)
Abstract
This study examined the effect of Multiple Intelligence-based Focus on Form on enabling EFL learners to develop both the grammatical knowledge of the target structures (simple present and present progressive) and the ability to use it in written language context. Three different treatments were employed in three experimental groups: Multiple Intelligence-based Focus on Form (MI-FoF) focused on form, meaning, and use, along with learners' strengths and interests in language learning Focus on Form (FoF) focused on form, meaning, and use Focus on Meaning (FoM) focused on meaning. The control group, Focus on FormS (Fs), focused on explicit grammar instruction. In an intact group design, involving 218 university students, the outcome of the study, based on both direct (multiple choice questions) and indirect (free composition) types of tests, indicated that the performance of the participants didn’t differ significantly in the four groups in the indirect type of test but the performance of the MI-FoF differed significantly from the other groups in the direct type of test. This result can be attributed to the integration of MI into FoF, which enabled learners to engage in meaningful tasks actively, which, in turn, suggests that insights provided by MI can be very decisive in implementing FoF.
Javad Gholami, Morteza Bassirian,
Volume 14, Issue 2 (9-2011)
Abstract
Uptake is believed to be an indication of the effectiveness of focus on form practices and a possible facilitator for language acquisition. All the accounts of uptake in the literature have been based on the observational data derived from the audio-recordings of the meaning-focused classes. The present study is a novel attempt to account for instances of uptake in 18 hours of meaning-focused instruction in an intact EFL class through an elicitation instrument called uptake sheet. To this end, all instances of teacher- and learner-initiated preemptive Focus on Form Episodes (FFES) and uptake moves following them were identified and coded in the audio-recorded data. Then, the researchers cross-checked the audio-data findings with the ones in the uptake sheets. Compared to the oral uptake moves captured through the audio-data, the analyses revealed a significantly higher frequency of uptake moves in the uptake sheets following teacher-initiated FFEs, but a lower frequency of uptake moves was found in the case of learner-initiated FFEs. The findings would, hopefully, further clarify our conception of the nature and rate of uptake and would pave the way for further research on exploring multiple instances of uptake not accounted for so far in the literature.
, ,
Volume 17, Issue 1 (4-2014)
Abstract
The importance of input has been a broadly documented concept in the field of second or foreign language acquisition. However, kinds of input and ways of its presentation are among the controversial issues in L2 classroom research. Therefore, this study was designed to compare the effects of three kinds of input-based instruction on intake and acquisition of the English causative structures by Iranian EFL learners. A total of 105 university students in four intact classes were randomly assigned to four different conditions: processing instruction (PI), textual input enhancement (TE), consciousness-raising (C-R), and control (CO). A pretest/posttest (immediate and delayed) design was used, where participants’ ability to interpret and produce the target structure was assessed through administering a multiple choice interpretation test and a sentence-level production test. Moreover, a grammaticality judgment test was run to assess the amount of intake. Results revealed that learners in the PI group significantly outperformed learners in the other groups on both immediate/delayed production posttests. The findings also indicated that, C-R group could not retain the significant effect of instruction on delayed production posttest and TE tasks were not effective in improving the learners’ production of the target structure. Moreover, the PI group outperformed the other groups on grammaticality judgment test too. Based on these findings, we can conclude that PI which encompasses the most outstanding features of both focus on form and meaning instruction might be a more effective approach in helping EFL learners to acquire the target grammatical forms.
|
|
