L2 Learners' Vocabulary Learning: Differential Effect(s) of Comprehension-Based vs. Production-Based Proactive/Reactive Focus on Form

Authors

Kharazmi University

Abstract

This study aims to compare the effects of four types of FFI on second language vocabulary learning. To do so, the study adopted a quasi-experimental pretest-posttest design, including five groups, each receiving a distinct treatment. The participants were 80 fourth-grade male students ranging in age from 17 to 19. Before the treatment phase, the participants took a researcher-made test of vocabulary as a pretest which was meant to measure the participants’ prior knowledge about the target words. After the treatment phase, the participants took a researcher-made test of vocabulary as posttest to measure the students' achievement of the target words. Independent samples t-test and one-way ANOVA were run to analyze the scores from the pretest and the posttest. The results indicated that there was no statistically significant difference between proactive and reactive FonF in the comprehension mode in terms of promoting vocabulary learning. There was also no statistically significant difference between these two forms of FonF in the production mode in terms of promoting vocabulary learning. However, there was a statistically significant difference between the comprehension-based and production-based FonF in enhancing vocabulary learning. These results extend the positive effect of FFI to L2 vocabulary teaching/learning.

Keywords

References

Doughty, C., & Williams, J. (1998a). Issues and terminology. In J. Williams (Ed.), Focus on form in classroom second language acquisition (pp. 1–11). Germany: Ernst Klett Sprachen.
Doughty, C., & Williams, J. (1998b). Pedagogical choices in focus on form. In J. Williams (Ed.), Focus on form in classroom second language acquisition (pp. 197–261). Germany: Ernst Klett Sprachen.
Elgün-Gündüz, Z., Akcan, S., & Bayyurt, Y. (2012). Isolated form-focused instruction and integrated form-focused instruction in primary school English classrooms in Turkey. Language, Culture and Curriculum, 25(2), 157-171.
Ellis, R. (2001). Introduction: Investigating form‐focused instruction. Language Learning, 51, 1-46.
Ellis, R. (2012). Language teaching research and language pedagogy. New York, NY: Wiley
Ellis, R., Basturkmen, H., & Loewen, S. (2002). Doing focus-on-form. System, 30(4), 419-432.
Farrokhi, F., Ansarin, A. A., & Mohammadnia, Z. (2008). Preemptive focus on form: Teachers’ practices across proficiencies. The Linguistics Journal, 3(2), 7-31.
File, K. A., & Adams, R. (2010). Should vocabulary instruction be integrated or isolated? TESOL Quarterly, 44(2), 222-249.
Hashemzadeh, M. (2012). The effect of exercise types on EFL learners’ vocabulary retention. Theory and Practice in Language Studies, 2(8), 1716-1727.
Lehmann, M. (2007). Is intentional or incidental vocabulary learning more effective. International Journal of Foreign Language Teaching, 3(1), 23-28.
Long, M. (1991). Focus on form: A design feature in language teaching methodology. In K. de Bot, R. Gisbert, & S. Kramsh, (Eds.), Foreign language research in cross-cultural perspective (pp. 39-52). Amsterdam, Netherlands: John Benjamins.
Mason, B., & Krashen, S. (2004). Is form-focused vocabulary instruction worthwhile? RELC Journal, 35(2), 179-185.
Mayo, M. D. P. G. (2011). The relevance of attention to L2 form in communicative classroom contexts. Elia: Studies in English Applied Linguistics, 11, 11-46.
Pawlak, M. (2006). The place of form-focused instruction in the foreign language classroom. Poland: Faculty of Pedagogy and Fine Arts AMU.
Peters, E., Hulstijn, J. H., Sercu, L., & Lutjeharms, M. (2009). Learning L2 German vocabulary through reading: The effect of three enhancement techniques compared. Language Learning, 59(1), 113-151.
Poole, A. (2005). Focus on form instruction: Foundations, applications, and criticisms. The Reading Matrix, 5(1), 47-56.
Rahimour, M., Salimi, A., & Farrokhi, F. (2012). The effect of intensive and extensive focus on form on EFL learners’ written accuracy. Theory and Practice in Language Studies, 2(11), 2277-2283.
Rodriguez, A. (2009). Teaching grammar to adult English language learners: Focus on form. CAEL Network Brief, 1–4. Retrieved from www.cal.org/caelanetwork/pdfs/TeachingGrammarFinalWeb.pdf.
Schmidt, R. W. (1990). The role of consciousness in second language learning. Applied Linguistics, 11(2), 129-158.
Schmitt, N. (2008). Review article: Instructed second language vocabulary learning. Language Teaching Research, 12(3), 329-363.
Shintani, N., Li, S., & Ellis, R. (2013). Comprehension‐based versus production‐based grammar instruction: A meta‐analysis of comparative studies. Language Learning, 63(2), 296-329.
Spada, N. (1997). Form-focused instruction and second language acquisition: A review of classroom and laboratory research. Language Teaching, 30(2), 73–87.
Spada, N., & Lightbown, P. M. (2008). Form‐focused instruction: Isolated or integrated? TESOL Quarterly, 42(2), 181-207.
Swain, M. (1985). Communicative competence: Some roles of comprehensible input and comprehensible output in its development. In S. M. Gass & C. G. Madden (Eds.), Input in second language acquisition (pp. 235-253). Rowley, MA: Newbury House.
VanPatten, B. (1990). Attending to form and content in the input. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 12(3), 287-301.
Vosoughi, H., & Mehdipour, Z. (2013). Effects of recognition task and production task on incidental vocabulary learning of Iranian EFL learners. International Research Journal of Applied and Basic Sciences, 4(2), 356-363.
Williams, J. (1999). Learner‐generated attention to form. Language Learning, 49(4), 583-625.
Iranian Journal of Applied Language Studies
Volume 6, Issue 1 - Serial Number 1
January 2014
Pages 59-88

Files

Share

How to cite

Statistics