Open Access Open Access  Restricted Access Subscription Access

The Effects of Implicit and Explicit Focus on Form on Oral Accuracy of EFL Learners


Affiliations
1 Department of English, Islamic Azad University, Tabriz Branch, Tabriz, Iran, Islamic Republic of
 

The current study was an attempt to reexamine the effectiveness of two kinds of form-focused instruction on oral accuracy of EFL learners. Participants of the current study were 41 male students in two experimental groups and a control group. During twelve sessions of treatment, to the first experimental group (class A), the target forms were taught implicitly through input enhancement (Implicit teaching). In the second class (class B), the grammatical structures were taught in explicit manner through metalinguistic explanation. However, to the control group (class C) no focus on form instruction was applied. A pre-test and a post-test were designed in interview model to test the oral accuracy of the learners both before and after treatment. In order to analyze the obtained scores from pre-test and post-test, paired sample T-Test was used to study the scores within each group, while one-way ANOVA was employed to study the mean variance between groups. The results showed that although both methods were beneficent, post-test scores of the students to whom the forms were taught explicitly were significantly higher than students to whom the forms were taught implicitly.

Keywords

Form-Focused Instruction, Oral Accuracy, Implicit Teaching, Input Enhancement, Explicit Teaching, Metalinguistic Explanation.
User
Notifications
Font Size

  • Afshari, S. & N. Oroujlou. (2012). Reexamining the role of implicit and explicit focus on form: Iranian EFL context. International Journal of Linguistics 4.2, 306-322.
  • Dabaghi, A. (2008). A comparison of effects of implicit and explicit corrective feedback on learners' performance in tailor-made tests. Journal of Applied Science 1.13, 114-127.
  • Doughty, C. J. & M. H. Long. (2007). The handbook of second language acquisition. Malden, MA: Blackwell Publishing.
  • Doughty, C. & J. Williams. (1998). Issues and terminology. In C. Doughty, & J. Williams (eds.), Focus on form in classroom second language acquisition. New York: Cambridge University Press, 1-13.
  • Ellis, R. (1994). The study of second language acquisition. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
  • Ellis, R. (2003). Task-based language learning and teaching. New York: Oxford University Press.
  • Ellis, R., Sh. Loewen & R. Erlam. (2006). Implicit and explicit corrective feedback and the acquisition of l2 grammar. Studies in Second Language Acquisition 28.2, 339-368.
  • Ellis, R., H. Basturkmen & Sh. Loewen. (2001). Preemptive focus on form in the ESL classroom. TESOL Quarterly 35.3, 407-432.
  • Fotos, S. (1998). Shifting the focus from forms to form in the EFL classroom. ELT Journal, 52.4, 605-628.
  • Fotos, S. & H. Nassaji (eds.) (2007). Form-focused instruction and teacher education: Studies in honour of Rod Ellis. Auckland: Oxford University Press.
  • Krashen, S. D. & T. D. Terrell. (1998). The natural approach: language acquisition in the classroom. London: Prentice-Hall International.
  • Lightbown, P. & N. Spada. (1990). Focus-on-form and corrective feedback in communicative language teaching: Effects on second language learning. Studies in Second Language Acquisition 12, 429-448.
  • Long, M. (1991). Focus on form: A design feature in language teaching methodology. In K. De Bot, R. Ginsherg & C. Kramsch. (eds.), Foreign language research in cross-cultural perspective. Amsterdam: John Benjamin, 39-52.
  • Long, M. & P. Robinson. (1998). Focus on form: Theory, research, and practice. In C. Doughty & J. Williams (eds.), Focus on form in classroom second language acquisition. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 205-241.
  • Lyster, R. & L. Ranta. (1997). Corrective feedback and learner uptake: Negotiation of form in communicative classroom. Studies in Second Language Acquisition 19.1, 37-66.
  • Nishimura, K. (2000). Effective ways of communicative instruction in the Japanese EFL classroom: Balancing fluency and accuracy. Retrieved March 20, 2006, from the ERIC database.
  • Park, E. S. (2005). Constraints of implicit focus on form: Insights from a study of input enhancement. Colombia University Working Papers in TESOL and Applied Linguistics 4.2, 1-30.
  • Saeidi, M. (2006). Multiple intelligence-based focus on form: from theory to practice. Tabriz: Islamic Azad University-Tabriz Branch Publications.
  • Salemi, A., M. Rabiee & S. Ketabi. (2012). The effects of explicit/implicit instruction and feedback on the development of Persian EFL learners' pragmatic competence in suggestion structures. Journal of Language Teaching and Research 3.1, 188-199.
  • Schmidt, R. (1990). The role of consciousness in second language learning. Applied Linguistics 11, 129-158.
  • Siyyari, M. (2005). A Comparative Study of Implicit and Delayed, Explicit Focus on Form on Iranian EFL Learners' Accuracy of Oral Production. M.A. dissertation, Sharif University of Technology.
  • Nguyen, Th., Th. Pham & M. Pham. (2012). The Relative Effects of Explicit and Implicit Form-focused Instruction on the Development of L2 Pragmatic Competence. Journal of Pragmatics 44.2, 416-434.

Abstract Views: 304

PDF Views: 56




  • The Effects of Implicit and Explicit Focus on Form on Oral Accuracy of EFL Learners

Abstract Views: 304  |  PDF Views: 56

Authors

Sina Soltanabadi Farshi
Department of English, Islamic Azad University, Tabriz Branch, Tabriz, Iran, Islamic Republic of
Sholeh Dadashzad Baghbani
Department of English, Islamic Azad University, Tabriz Branch, Tabriz, Iran, Islamic Republic of

Abstract


The current study was an attempt to reexamine the effectiveness of two kinds of form-focused instruction on oral accuracy of EFL learners. Participants of the current study were 41 male students in two experimental groups and a control group. During twelve sessions of treatment, to the first experimental group (class A), the target forms were taught implicitly through input enhancement (Implicit teaching). In the second class (class B), the grammatical structures were taught in explicit manner through metalinguistic explanation. However, to the control group (class C) no focus on form instruction was applied. A pre-test and a post-test were designed in interview model to test the oral accuracy of the learners both before and after treatment. In order to analyze the obtained scores from pre-test and post-test, paired sample T-Test was used to study the scores within each group, while one-way ANOVA was employed to study the mean variance between groups. The results showed that although both methods were beneficent, post-test scores of the students to whom the forms were taught explicitly were significantly higher than students to whom the forms were taught implicitly.

Keywords


Form-Focused Instruction, Oral Accuracy, Implicit Teaching, Input Enhancement, Explicit Teaching, Metalinguistic Explanation.

References