The Study of Turn-taking Processes through Focus on Form and Focus on Forms Instructions: Incidental Grammar Acquisition

Authors

1 Department of English Language Teaching, Zanjan branch, Islamic Azad University

2 assistant professor, department of English Language Teaching, Zanjan branch, Islamic Azad University

Abstract

The present study aimed at examining whether the turn-taking processes in focus on form and focus on forms teaching contexts were similar or different. Turn-taking refers to ‘how each of the interlocutors in an interaction contributes to the conversation’. Both lessons were designed to teach some words but they also provided opportunities for incidental acquisition by exposing them to the two target structures, namely, plural s and copula be. The FonF lesson was of planned while FonFs lesson employed present-practice-product (PPP) methodology. Forty-five beginner Iranian students were non-randomly divided into three groups of fifteen, namely, FonF, FonFs and control group. They received eight repeated lessons during six weeks. Two tests for receptive knowledge of plural-s, and one test for productive knowledge of copula-be were used to measure the acquisitions of target features in terms of the differences in interactions that takes place in the two instructional approaches and consequently opportunities for noticing of target structures. The study used a quasi-experimental design through pre-tests, immediate post-tests and delayed post-tests. Then the statistical analysis was run through one-way repeated measures ANOVAS. Conversation analysis (CA) was employed by utilizing seedhouse’s ‘form and accuracy’ and ‘meaning and fluency’ framework to investigate classroom interactions. The analysis revealed that the interaction in the two groups differed in organization of turn-taking, occurrence of different kinds of repair, and the frequency and function of private speech. Overall, it was revealed that the interaction in the FonF lesson was ‘conversational’ while that in the FonFs lesson was ‘pedagogical’.
 

Keywords


Article Title [Persian]

مطالعه ی مراحل نوبت صحبت کردن از طریق رزش تدریس تمرکز روی معنی و تمرکز روی ساختار: دریافت ضمنی گرامر

Authors [Persian]

  • حسین عربگری 1
  • سیروس ایزد پناه 2
1 گروه آموزش زبان انگلیسی ، واحد زنجان ، دانشگاه آزاد اسلامی
2 استادیار ، گروه آموزش زبان انگلیسی ، واحد زنجان ، دانشگاه آزاد اسلامی
Abstract [Persian]

مطالعه ی حاضر به منظور بررسی شباهت یا تفاوت مراحل "نوبت صحبت کردن" در محیط های تدریس گرامر با تمرکز روی معنی و تمرکز روی ساختار انجام شده."نوبت گیری در صحبت کردن" عبارت است از این که چگونه هریک از طرف مکالمه در مکالمه مشارکت می کند. هر دو درس برای تدریس تعدادی لغت جدید طراحی شدند اما در عین حال آنها فرصت هایی را برای دریافت و یادگیری ضمنی دو ساختار گرامری یعنی "ها" ی جمع و فعل " بودن" فراهم کردند. روش تدریس تمرکز روی معنی از نوع از قبل طراحی شده بود در حالی که روش تدریس تمرکز روی ساختار از روش نشان دادن، تمرین کردن و تولید کردن برای آموزش فراگیران استفاده کرده. 45 دانش آموز مبتدی ایرانی به صورت غیر تصادفی به سه گروه تمرکز روی معنی ، تمرکز روی ساختار و گروه کنترل تقسیم شدند. آنها 8 جلسه ی مکرر در طول 6 هفته دریافت کردند. دو تست برای اندازه دانش دریافتی "ها" ی جمع و یک تست برای اندازه گیری دانش تولید فعل "بودن" به کار گرفته شدند برای اندازه گیری موارد مورد تدریس هدف در زمینه ی تفاوت در تعاملاتی که اتفاق می افتد در دو شرایط تدریس و در نتیجه فرصت هایی که برای "دریافت ضمنی" موارد گرامری هدف اتفاق می افتد. این مطالعه از شیوه ی شبه تجربی از طریق پیش آزمون، پس آزمن سریع و پس آزمون تاخیری استفاده کرد. سپس تحلیل آماری از طریق آنالیز واریانس یک طرفه مکرر اجرا شد. تجزیه و تحلیل مکالمه با استفاده از چارچوب "فرم و دقت" و " معنا و روانی" "سیدهوس" برای بررسی تعاملات کلاسی مورد استفاده واقع شد. تحلیل و بررسی مشخص کرد که تعامل در دو گروه از نظر سازمان دهی نوبت صحبت کردن، رخداد انواع دوباره اصلاح کردن و فراوانی و نقش گفتار شخصی. به طور کلی مشخص گردید که تعامل در در کلاس تمرکز روی معنی از نوع "محاوره ای" در حالی که در کلاس تمرکز روی ساختار از نوی "آموزشی" بوده
 

Keywords [Persian]

  • نوبت گیری
  • تمرکز روی معنا
  • تمرکز روی ساختار
  • دریافت ضمنی
Berko, J. (1958). The child’s learning of English morphology. Word, 14, 150–177.

Brown, R. (1973). A first language: The early stages. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.

Ellis, N. C. (2002). Frequency effects in language processing. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 24, 143–188.

Ellis, R. (2002). Methodological options in grammar teaching materials. In E. Hinkel & S. Fotos (Eds.), New perspectives on grammar teaching in second language classrooms (pp. 155–179). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.

Ellis, R. (2006). Current issues in the teaching of grammar: An SLA perspective. Tesol Quarterly, 83-107.

Ellis, R. (2016). Focus on form: A critical review. Language Teaching Research, 20(3), 405-428.

Ellis, R., Basturkmen, H., & Loewen, S. (2002). Doing focus-on-form. System, 30, 419–432.

Gass, S. (1997). Input, interaction, and the second language learner. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.

Gass, S., & Mackey, A. (2000). Stimulated recall methodology in second language research. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.

Gass, S., & Torres, M. J. A. (2005). Attention when: An investigation of the ordering effect of input and interaction. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 27, 1– 31.

Hulstijn, J. H. (2003). Incidental and intentional learning. In C. J. Doughty & M. H. Long (Eds.), Handbook of second language acquisition (pp. 349–381). Oxford, England: Blackwell.

Krashen, S. (1982). Principles and practice in second language acquisition. Oxford, England: Pergamon.

Krashen, S. (1985). The input hypothesis: Issues and implications. London, England: Longman.

Krashen, S. (1998). Comprehensible output? System, 26, 175–182.

Lightbown, P. M. (2007). Transfer-appropriate processing as a model for classroom second language acquisition. In Z. Han & E. Park (Eds.), Understanding second language process (pp. 27–44). Clevedon, England: Multilingual Matters.

Loewen, S. (2005). Incidental focus on form and second language learning. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 27, 361–386.

Long, M. H. (1981). Input, interaction and second language acquisition. In H. Winitz (Ed.), Native language and foreign language acquisition. Annals of the New York Academy of Sciences 379 (pp. 259–278). New York: New York Academy of Sciences.

Long, M. H. (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, the Netherlands: John Benjamins.

Long, M. H. (1996). The role of linguistic environment in second language acquisition. In W. C. Ritchie & T. K. Bhatia (Eds.), Handbook of second language acquisition (pp. 413–468). San Diego, CA: Academic Press.

Long, M. H., & Crookes, G. (1992). Three approaches to task-based syllabus design. TESOL Quarterly, 26, 27–56.

Markee, N. (2005). Conversation analysis for second language acquisition. In E. Hinkel (Ed.), Handbook of research in second language teaching and learning (pp. 355–374). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.

Markee, N. (2008). Toward a learning behavior tracking methodology for CA-for- SLA. Applied Linguistics, 29, 404–427.

Pienemann, M. (1998). Language processing and language development: Processability theory. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.

Pienemann, M. (2005). An introduction to processability theory. In M. Pienemann (Ed.), Cross-linguistic aspects of processability theory (pp. 1–60). Amsterdam, the Netherlands: John Benjamins.

Robinson, P. (2005). Cognitive abilities, chunk-strength, and frequency effects in implicit artificial grammar and incidental L2 learning: Replications of Reber, Walkenfeld, and Hernstadt (1991) and Knowlton and Squire (1996) and their relevance for SLA. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 27, 235–268.

Sacks, H., & Schegloff, E. A. (1979). Two preferences in the organization of reference to persons in conversation and their interaction. Everyday language: Studies in ethnomethodology, 15-21.

Schmidt, R. (1994). Implicit learning and the cognitive unconscious: Of artificial grammars and SLA. In N. Ellis (Ed.), Implicit and explicit learning of language (pp. 165–210). London, England: Academic Press.

Schmidt, R. (2001). Attention. In P. Robinson (Ed.), Cognition and second language instruction (pp. 3–32). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Seedhouse, P. (2004). The interactional architecture of the language classroom: A conversation analysis perspective. Malden, MA: Blackwell.

Shintani, N. (2013a). The effect of focus on form and focus on forms instruction on the acquisition of productive knowledge of L2 vocabulary by young beginning- level learners. TESOL Quarterly, 47, 36–62.

Shintani, N. (2013b). Using tasks with young beginner learners: The role of the teacher. Innovation in Language Learning and Teaching, 8. Advance online publication. doi:10.1080/17501229.2013.861466

Shintani, N. (2015). The incidental grammar acquisition in focus on form and focus on forms instruction for young beginner learners. TESOL Quarterly, 49(1), 115-140.

Shintani, N. (2016). Input-based Tasks in Foreign Language Instruction for Young Learners (Vol. 9). John Benjamins Publishing Company.

Shintani, N., & Ellis, R. (2010). The incidental acquisition of English plural -s by Japanese children in comprehension-based and production-based lessons. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 32, 607–620.

Swain, M. (1995). Three functions of output in second language learning. In G. Cook & B. Seidelhofer (Eds.), Principle and practice in applied linguistics: Studies in honor of H. G. Widdowson (pp. 125–144). Oxford, England: Oxford University Press.