Journal of Linguistics and Language Teaching
Volume 10 (2019) Issue 1, pp. 11-29
Is
Form-Focused Instruction Really a Waste of Time?
A
Review of Past Mistakes and Future Possibilities through
Andrew
Schenck (State University of New York, Songdo, South Korea) & Matthew
Baldwin
(Korea
Advanced Institute of Science and Technology, Daejeon, South Korea)
Abstract
When viewed through a
generic, one-size-fits-all perspective, use of input enhancement does
not appear effective. Through analysis of individual grammatical
features and different learner proficiency levels, a significant
impact may be revealed. To study the impact of input enhancement on
diverse grammatical features, 16 short reading texts and writing
activities (both timed) were given to a treatment group (n
= 11) and control group (n
= 9). While results suggest that average grammatical accuracy of the
treatment group did not significantly differ from that of the control
group (U
= 11559.00; p
= .30), input enhancement on individual morphosyntactic features
yielded a significant result for the plural-s feature at (U
= 122.50; p
= .04). In addition to this less salient, redundant feature, input
enhancement at specific proficiency levels appears to promote learner
accuracy for some grammatical features. At CEFR level B1, for
example, learners benefited most from input enhancement of
grammatical features at intermediary stages of the Processability and
Natural Orders of acquisition. Tailoring emphasis of grammatical
features to learner proficiency during the communication process may
foster greater accuracy.
Keywords: Form-focused instruction, input enhancement, grammar, morphosyntactic features, grammatical accuracy
1
Introduction
While
increased globalization has compelled many nations to promote
English, achievement continues to be lackluster. In
EFL countries such as Malaysia, for example, government efforts to
increase English ability have failed to curb declining proficiency
rates among undergraduates (Shuib,
Abdullah, Azizan & Gunasegaran 2015).
In other countries like South Korea, massive private spending
has also failed to yield results (Kang 2009, Kim 2012). In 2016,
Korean parents spent 18.1 trillion won on extracurricular education
for their children (Statistics Korea 2016), yet TOEFL achievement in
2017 remained merely average (Educational Testing Service 2017).
Despite extreme expenditures in both the public and private sector,
educational achievement in English continues to be marginal, leading
educators to call for rethinking and redesign of curricular goals.
In
an attempt to rectify problems with English curricula, researchers
have investigated how technology can improve the accuracy of speech
and writing. One research study used text-chat to provide recasts and
metalinguistic information about the zero article (Sauro 2009). While
insightful, results showed no clear advantage of either feedback type
for participants of intermediate proficiency (Sauro 2009). Another
study used mobile phones to promote the learning of English grammar
but cited problems with insufficient teacher monitoring, a lack of
student involvement, and a dearth of engaging learning materials
(Wang & Smith 2013). Yet another study described the use of
online corpora to facilitate grammatical accuracy (Hegelheimer
& Fisher 2006). As with other studies, efficacy of the featured
pedagogical technique was not concretely proven (Carlstrom 2014,
Schenck & Cho, 2012).
Although
clear attempts have been made to increase grammatical accuracy of
English speech and writing, student achievement has remained nominal.
This problem exposes a fundamental truth, that more money and
technology do not equate to increased acquisition. Without a clear
knowledge of how grammatical accuracy is enhanced, one cannot simply
“buy” effective reforms. Currently, research reveals that we lack
a clear understanding of how instruction or technology may be used to
enhance grammatical accuracy. Some studies suggest that corrective
feedback is effective (Bitchener, Young & Cameron 2005, Ferris
2004), whereas others contend it has little or no impact (Truscott
1996, 1999). Some research implies that recasts are effective (Goo &
Mackey 2013, Sakai 2011), yet other studies claim they are not (Ellis
& Sheen 2006, Sheen 2010). It is clear that a concrete
understanding of grammar, as well as effective means to hasten the
process of acquisition, has yet to be realized. As a result, reforms
continue to use a trial-and-error approach toward form-focused
instruction. It is no surprise that researchers like VanPatten (2014)
fail to identify the influence of explicit grammatical emphasis on
morphosyntactic development. Without knowing how and when to
emphasize grammar, educators cannot hope to provide effective
curricula or technology. Because knowledge of acquisition and
instruction of grammatical features is not adequately understood,
more research is needed.
2 Literature Review
Like
other types of form-focused instruction, input enhancement, which
refers to the modification of text using bolding, italics,
underlining, or highlighting, has yielded mixed results. From a
theoretical perspective, the technique is believed to promote
acquisition by focusing attention on a specific grammatical feature
(Park 2017, Smith 1993). Some
studies reveal that input enhancement may increase awareness of a
target feature, leading to a better understanding and more accurate
usage of grammatical forms (Jourdenais, Ota, Stauffer, Boyson &
Doughty 1995,
Lee 2007). Other research suggests that such enhancement has a
negligible or even negative impact on comprehension (Lee 2007,
Lee & Huang 2008,
Leow, Egi, Nuevo & Tsai 2003). Like other types of form-focused
instruction, the efficacy of input enhancement has not been firmly
established.
While
information about input enhancement is indeed insightful,
one key problem is that it appears to limit the generalizability of
findings. Research studies often utilize a reductionist approach,
targeting similar features or single grammatical features in one
study (Lee
& Huang 2008, Leow, Egi, Nuevo & Tsai 2003).
Grammatical features may differ in several distinct ways
(Goldschneider & DeKeyser 2005). Some features, like the
irregular past tense, are easier to see and hear, since they are
comprised of an entire word with sonorant vowels; other features,
like the plural or third person singular -s,
are more difficult to perceive within input, containing only a single
non-voiced consonant (Song, Sundara, & Demuth 2009, Yavas 2016).
Features like the regular past -ed,
plural -s,
and third person singular -s,
are highly regular, whereas past irregular verbs vary considerably in
form. Yet another morphological feature, the definite article, is
highly systematic in form, yet contains a variety of meanings to
include general use (e.g. the
moon), immediate situational use (e.g. Don’t go in there. The
floor is wet!), or local use (e.g. the cafeteria) (Celce-Murcia &
Larsen-Freeman 1999). In contrast to morphology, syntactic features,
such as questions or clauses, require an ordering of words for
accuracy (Pienemann 1999, 2005). Clearly, morphosyntax is highly
diverse in form and meaning. Despite such disparity, researchers
often test pedagogical techniques by using only one grammatical
feature. Such methodology often leads to erroneous generalization of
results to all other types of grammar. To more accurately understand
the role of form-focused instruction, there is a need to test how
different grammatical features are acquired via each pedagogical
technique (Schenck 2017, Schenck 2018, Williams 2013).
In addition to the type
of grammar emphasized, timely emphasis of a morphosyntactic feature
may influence acquisition. Research reveals that the timely
introduction of grammar can increase both
frequency
and accuracy in production (Gholami
& Zeinolabedini 2018). According to the Teachability Hypothesis,
well-timed emphasis of grammar just above a learner’s level of
cognitive proficiency may result in acquisition (Pienemann 1989).
While the determination of a “Goldilocks Zone” for the
introduction of form-focused instruction may be problematic, research
reveals
two stage-by-stage processes of linguistic development that serve as
a partial guide (Dyson 2018, Dyson
& Håkansson 2017). These sequences
of morphosyntactic acquisition are outlined in Table 1 (Krashen &
Terrell 1983, Pienemann 1999):
Stages
|
Processability
Order
|
Stages
|
Natural
Order
|
1
|
Single
Words
|
1
|
Progressive
(-ing)
Plural
(-s)
Copula
(is)
|
2
|
SVO
Sentences
Plural
(-s)
|
||
3
|
Negative
+ Verb
Do-Fronting
Topicalization
Adverb-Fronting
|
2
|
Singular
Auxiliary (is)
Article
(a(n),
the)
|
4
|
Yes/No
Question Inversion
Particle
Verb Separation
Wh-copula
Question Inversion
|
3
|
Past
Irregular
|
5
|
Wh-auxiliary
Question Inversion
Third
Person Singular (-s)
|
4
|
Regular
Past (-ed)
Third
Person Singular (-s)
Possessive
(-s)
|
6
|
Cancel
Inversion
|
Table
1: Stages of Acquisition
According
to the Processability order of acquisition, learners progress from
single words, to SVO sentences, to more advanced inter-phrasal
constructions like subject / verb inversion in questions (which
requires a cognitive understanding of subject and verb phrases).
Finally, learners manipulate independent and dependent clauses as in
cancel inversion (e.g. Could you tell me where
the post office is?).
For grammatical features like the plural -s,
awareness of the adjacent noun is the only information required,
explaining why it may be acquired earlier, in stage two. The third
person singular -s,
in contrast, requires an understanding of the relationship between a
subject and verb (making it an inter-phrasal feature), which explains
later emergence in Stage Five. According to this model, presenting
explicit grammar emphasis at a stage just above a learner’s
competence would result in acquisition. For example, verbs with a
negative (didn’t
go), a
hallmark of Stage Three, would be appropriate when learners have
acquired features like the plural -s.
In
contrast to the Processability Sequence, the Natural Order lacks a
clear explanation for the emergence of individual features.
Phonological salience, frequency within input, morphological
regularity, and semantic complexity may explain this order
(Goldschneider & DeKeyser 2005). Features in the first three
stages tend to be easier to hear or comprehend within input (they
have a vowel), are more frequently used, and do not require a
cognitive link between multiple phrases in a sentence. Grammatical
features in Stage Four are less frequent, less salient (often lack a
vowel), and may require an understanding of multiple phrases. Whereas
the third person singular -s
requires an understanding of the subject noun phrase and a verb, the
possessive -s
requires an understanding of the link between two nouns.
While
acquisition orders have some variability (Dyson 2018, Dyson
& Håkansson 2017, Lowie
& Verspoor 2015), the highly systematic process of their
manifestation has the potential to transform pedagogy. Through
assessment of a learner’s cognitive stage of proficiency,
developmentally appropriate grammatical features can be emphasized
through form-focused instruction. Although Acquisition Order research
accurately identifies the importance of proficiency level in grammar
instruction, other studies have been
carried
out at only one proficiency level, limiting the generalizability of
findings. Most teachers' written feedback, for example, has been
studied with higher proficiency learners (Jakobson 2018), making
adaptation of results to all learners problematic. Since a recent
meta-analysis suggests that proficiency level is a major factor
impacting the efficacy of grammar instruction (Schenck 2017), the
respective
levels of linguistic development should be considered when
pedagogical interventions are designed.
Despite
a clear potential for utilization, acquisition orders are not
currently mapped to any standard measures of language proficiency
(e.g. TOEFL, IELTS), making timely introduction of grammatical
features impossible for most instructors or curriculum designers.
Without attachment to a generally accepted measure of language
competence, each individual learner’s stage of development would
have to be assessed separately, making timely curricular emphasis of
grammar impractical. If stages or sequences of grammatical
acquisition could be associated with a common standard, such as the
Common European Framework of Reference (CEFR), specific pedagogical
techniques like input
enhancement
could be used at more opportune times, ensuring that the right
grammatical features are selected according to cognitive proficiency.
In addition to possibilities for instruction, binding a
stage-by-stage designation of grammar acquisition to frameworks like
the Common European Framework of Reference (CEFR) may allow for the
automation of computer programs designed to promote grammatical
accuracy in production. While such computer programs could not
address anomalies associated with individual learners, they could
lead to much larger linguistic gains for accuracy as a whole.
Essentially,
conflicting research results concerning the efficacy of grammar
emphasis are a reflection of research methodologies, which have
largely dealt with grammatical features as one generic unit. Some
morphosyntactic features may benefit from input enhancement, while
others may not; some grammatical features may be acquired at a
specific proficiency level, while others may not. Therefore, it is
important that both the grammatical feature type and cognitive level
of proficiency in question
be
considered when designing instruction. Currently, acquisition
sequences such as the Natural Order and the Processability Order
provide useful information, yet teachers, educators, and software
programmers cannot effectively provide explicit instruction without a
concrete understanding of when to introduce grammatical features. The
present study is in accordance with the
need to discover more about what
grammatical features should be emphasized at each level of linguistic
proficiency.
3
The Study
3.1
Research Questions
Systematic
examination of multiple grammatical features may increase the
efficacy of English instruction or computer-assisted language
learning, thereby heightening the grammatical accuracy of student
writing. To investigate the impact of input enhancement on the
acquisition of grammatical features at each stage of proficiency, the
following research questions were posed:
1.
Does input enhancement significantly impact the accuracy of grammar
in timed writing tasks?
2.
In what way does the impact of input enhancement differ according to
the type of grammatical feature to be taught?
3.
How does the impact of input enhancement differ based upon the
respective level of English proficiency?
After obtaining IRB
approval, twenty-one students from two different Korean universities
were selected for the present
study.
Ages ranged from 18 to 32. While most learners were of Korean
nationality (17), there were learners from Pakistan (one), the Czech
Republic (one), and Vietnam (two). Learners were purposively selected
if they had taken a TOEFL, TOEIC, or IELTS exam less than one month
before the study was administered. After obtaining their
TOEIC,
TOEFL, or IELTS scores, learners were separated into five CEFR
categories (A1, A2, B1, B2, or C1+). Eleven of the participants were
at the C1+ level, seven participants were at the B2 level, and three
participants were at the B1 level. Due to limitations in mapping
standardized test scores to the CEFR (British
Council,
n.d.; Educational
Testing Service
2014, 2015), only one level could be designated for scores that
surpassed C1. Thus, any scores at or above C1 were designated C1+.
3.3
Method
After participants were
selected, they were randomly assigned to either a treatment group or
a control group. Eleven of the participants were assigned to the
experimental group, and ten participants were assigned to the control
group. One Korean participant from the B1 level did not complete the
testing instrument and needed to be excluded from the study. Thus,
the final number of participants in the control group was nine.
Following selection, each participant used a computer program
specially designed for the study. The program delivered 16 short
texts from 50 to 200 words. After being given three minutes to read
the text, learners had to rewrite the text within the same limited
time period (three minutes). The time limit was used to help ensure
that implicit knowledge was utilized for the writing task. Moreover,
initial instructions conveyed the importance of reconstructing
meaning. Collectively, task delivery promoted writing for the
communication of ideas, exerted pressure to prevent conscious
correction, focused attention on meaning, and prevented the use of
meta-language, which ensured that implicit knowledge was utilized
(Ellis, 2009).
Whereas
the control group had no input enhancement on reading texts, the
treatment group had the target grammatical features bolded (See
Figure 1):
Figure
1.
Computer program user interface display of reading and treatment
(bolding).
Due
to the range of student participants from B1 to C1 / C2, learners
were given text commensurate with or slightly more difficult than
their proficiency levels. Readings that ranged from C1 to C2 were
selected from the book Northstar
5.
Small texts from the book were chosen based upon the clear
communication of a story or point and the presence of target
grammatical features. Texts with the following grammatical features
were chosen: Contracted will
(3),
past regular tense (3), past irregular tense (4), questions (8),
conditionals (4), gerunds (6), plural -s
(18),
third-person singular -s
(4),
articles (15), adjective clauses (3), noun clauses (4). Since
authentic texts were chosen, the number of grammatical features in
texts (the numbers in parentheses) varied according to normal
patterns of distribution. In order to prevent distraction, only one
grammatical feature was emphasized within each text for the treatment
group.
Following
completion, the texts written by the participants were evaluated for
correct use of the target feature and accurate reconstruction of
textual meaning. First, grammatical accuracy was evaluated using Pica
(1983), who established a formula for the target-like use of
grammatical features. The formula to be used is as follows:
Number
of Grammatical Morphemes Accurately Supplied
÷
(Number
of Obligatory Contexts + Number of Overused Forms)
Two
native English-speaking researchers scored the resulting texts to
ensure reliability. To confirm that reliability was adequately
established, assessments of grammatical accuracy were correlated
between raters A and B. The resulting correlation of r
= .71
(p
< .01) was above the accepted value of .7 for determination of
adequate reliability (Kline 1986). Following individual assessment of
grammatical accuracy, scores were averaged together.
Tests
of significance were performed in three steps. To assess the overall
impact of input enhancement (the aim of Question One), the
Mann-Whitney U test
was
used to evaluate differences in grammatical accuracy between the
treatment group and the control group. To evaluate the impact of
input enhancement on individual grammatical features (Question Two),
the Mann-Whitney U was used to compare mean accuracy of individual
grammatical features of the treatment group to those of the control
group. Finally, to evaluate the effect of proficiency level on input
enhancement (Question Three), the Kruskal Wallis test was used to
compare input enhancement across proficiency levels. As a large
number of grammatical features were tested with a small number of
participants, nonparametric tests were used. The non-parametric tests
did not assume that there was a normal distribution of grammatical
accuracy scores among participants.
Following
statistical calculations of significance, mean accuracy scores were
charted for each grammatical feature (separated based upon control
and treatment group). Three charts were constructed for analysis, one
for each CEFR proficiency level represented in the study (B1, B2, and
C1+). Results were then collectively analyzed.
4
Results and Discussion
Average
grammatical accuracy of the treatment group did not significantly
differ from that of the control group (U
= 11559.00; p
= .30). In fact, the accuracy of the control group (51%) was slightly
higher than that of the treatment group (47%), suggesting that input
enhancement has a negligible or negative impact on acquisition. While
insightful, a general evaluation of results may obscure underlying
differences due to grammatical feature type and proficiency level.
Results
for Research Question Two, which sought to examine the impact of
input enhancement on individual morphosyntactic features, yielded
significant results for the plural -s
feature at the p
< .05 level (U
= 122.50; p
= .04). While not significant for other grammatical features, the
findings support a prior meta-analysis, which suggests that input
enhancement is more effective for insalient and redundant
morphological features like the plural -s,
past -ed,
and third-person singular -s
(Schenck 2018). These features are difficult to perceive within input
and occur alongside other words that signal tense (e.g. yesterday,
next
week,
two
weeks ago).
Using input enhancement in reading may prime a learner’s lexicon,
facilitating the use of these features more easily in speech and
writing.
Our analysis of the
impact of input enhancement at different CEFR levels yielded
additional insights. While results of the Kruskal Wallis test yielded
insignificant results (χ2
= 3.17; p
= .205), Table 2 reveals a pattern of mean accuracy based upon level.
At the lowest CEFR level, B1, learners benefited more from input
enhancement. As proficiency increased, the impact of input
enhancement decreased. This finding also supports findings of a prior
meta-analysis, which suggests that form-focused instruction may be
more beneficial at lower proficiency levels (Schenck 2018).
Effect
of Treatment
|
|||
Level
|
Mean
|
N
|
Std.
Deviation
|
B1
|
.0575
|
11
|
.44048
|
B2
|
-.0275
|
11
|
.23300
|
C1+
|
-.0486
|
11
|
.21500
|
Total
|
-.0062
|
33
|
.30695
|
Table
2: Mean
Gains (or Losses) from the Use of Input Enhancement
Each proficiency level
reveals a distinct pattern of accuracy based upon the respective type
of grammatical feature. At the B1 level, accuracy was larger for the
input-enhancement group when contracted will
(+100%),
third person singular -s
(+22%),
articles (+18%), irregular past (+25%), question inversion (+25%),
and noun clauses (+25%) were emphasized (Figure 2). For all other
grammatical features, accuracy was higher for the control group. When
viewing B1 learner performance along with the Processability and
Natural orders, the results become more apparent:
Figure
2: Grammatical Accuracy Scores for Treatment and Control Groups for
the B1 Level
Grammatical features like
the plural -s
and the gerund, which emerge at early stages of the Natural and
Processability acquisition orders, reveal higher values for the
control group, yielding negative effects for the treatment group,
-61% and -17%, respectively. This finding may not be surprising when
viewed in the context of acquisition order. Since learners at the B1
level may already have mastered these grammatical features,
unnecessary cognitive effort can distract, rather than assist the
learner. It may be analogous to other forms of procedural learning.
Teaching someone how to perform an action like driving, for example,
may only be beneficial before a habit is formed. Following mastery,
constant instruction may serve as a distraction.
Learners at the B1 level
are intermediate language learners, which may explain why question
inversion, the third person singular -s,
the article, and past irregular features yielded more effective
results for the treatment group. All of these features occur at
intermediate stages of the acquisition order theories (Figure 3):
Figure
3.
Location of Mean Gains for Grammatical Accuracy Using the Treatment
at the B1 Level
Question inversion and
third person singular are acquired at stages 4 and 5 of the
Processability order. Articles, past irregular, and the third person
singular occur at stages 2, 3, and 4 of the Natural order,
respectively. The larger effect of the treatment suggests that
learners may benefit from form-focused emphasis of this grammar.
While features like the plural -s
have already been mastered, learners may still need to work on
grammatical features like question inversion and the third person
singular -s.
Whereas the plural requires understanding of the noun phrase in which
it is embedded (intra-phrasal), question inversion and the third
person singular both require an understanding of the relationship
between the subject noun phrase and the predicate verb phrase
(inter-phrasal). In order to perfect such features, learners must
understand the link between a subject and its predicate (e.g.
auxiliary verbs and main verbs). At the B1 stage, the sentence-level
manipulation of features like independent and dependent clauses may
be too cognitively difficult for focused attention to be effective.
This perspective may explain why teaching
conditionals
is not even attempted at this level.
As revealed from our
analysis of B1 learners, the evaluation of input enhancement
according to both grammatical feature type and proficiency level
confirms the importance of timing in the emphasis of form-focused
instruction. If a specific type of grammar is not used at the correct
stage of proficiency, the treatment may have no effect. This view
appears to have even more support at the B2 proficiency level (Figure
4):
Figure
4: Grammatical Accuracy Scores for Treatment and Control group for
the B2 Level
Contracted will
(+15%),
regular past -ed
(+17%),
articles (+24%), adjective clauses (+27%), and conditionals (+5%) all
yielded positive results for input enhancement. As at the B1 level,
less salient and redundant features appeared to benefit from input
enhancement. Both the regular past -ed
and
contracted will
yielded greater accuracy scores for the treatment group.
Grammatical features like
question inversion and the past irregular, which benefited from input
enhancement at the B1 level, did not show greater accuracy for the
treatment group at the B2 level. This result may be explained by the
Acquisition Order. Question inversion and past irregular features
emerge at lower stages of the Processability Order (Stage 4 and early
Stage 5 ) and Natural order (Stage 3), respectively. Thus, these
features may already have been acquired at the B2 level, making input
enhancement a distraction for natural communication. Cognitive
resources may be devoted to more developmentally appropriate
grammatical features.
Features at lower stages
of the Processability Order (below Stage 5) and Natural Order (below
Stage 4) show a larger impact for the control group (with the
exception of articles). This finding may suggest that these features
have been acquired and are being used procedurally (by habit).
Articles, which are semantically more complex than their counterparts
in equivalent stages, may require additional form-focused instruction
at the B2 level. There is a tendency for more advanced features like
the past regular (Stage 4 of the Natural Order) or conditionals to
benefit from input enhancement. Like the emergence of conditionals,
increased accuracy for adjective clauses may signal a cognitive
readiness to develop more complex clauses and sentences. It is
important to note that the third person singular does not benefit
from input enhancement, contrary to the preceding proficiency level.
Unlike other insalient and redundant features like regular past (-ed)
and contracted will,
the third-person singular feature requires an inter-phrasal
understanding of the subject and its predicate verb, explaining the
difficulty.
At the C1 level, the
effects of input enhancement decrease considerably (Figure 5):
Figure
5: Grammatical Accuracy Scores for Treatment and Control group for
the
C1+ Level
Input enhancement has a
negative impact on most grammatical features, except less salient
features like third-person singular -s
(+21%) and contracted will
(+39%),
as well as complex inter-sentential features like conditionals
(+18%). By this stage of the order, it appears that learners have
acquired most features, meaning that input enhancement serves more as
a detriment than a benefit. As third-person singular -s
and conditionals have yet to be acquired, an additional emphasis of
these, or other similar features, may be beneficial.
When viewed through a
generic, one-size-fits-all perspective, the use of input enhancement
does not appear effective. Through analysis of individual grammatical
features and different CEFR proficiency levels, a potential for
significant impact may be realized. Results obtained from this study
suggest that input enhancement has a positive, albeit insignificant
effect on less salient features like contracted will,
past regular (-ed),
and third person singular -s.
Not only are these features more difficult to perceive within input,
they are often redundant, coexisting with other words that signal
verb tense or number (e.g. yesterday,
tomorrow, he).
Learners may benefit from the input enhancement of these features
while reading. Further research is needed to assess how the duration
of this input enhancement may impact acquisition.
In addition to the
emphasis of less salient, redundant features, input enhancement used
in a timely fashion may help to develop learner accuracy over time.
At the B1 level of the CEFR, learners appear to benefit most from
input enhancement that emphasizes grammatical features at
intermediary stages of acquisition orders. Learners may benefit from
the emphasis of lexical grammatical features like past irregular,
which require a variety of different simple form-to-meaning mappings.
Learners benefit from features needed to construct a basic noun
phrase. Articles (e.g. the
black car) and noun clauses (e.g. He knows that
I like it)
each develop the noun phrase. Finally, the learner seems to be
developing an understanding of the relationship between subject and
predicate verbs, which explains the effects of input enhancement on
question inversion and third person singular.
At CEFR level B2,
grammatical features in lower stages of acquisition, such as question
inversion and past irregular, do not benefit from input enhancement,
which suggests
that
these features may already have been mastered. For those features
that learners are comfortable using, input enhancement may distract
the natural process of communication. As is true for the B1 level,
less salient and redundant features reveal a benefit from emphasis.
Both the contracted will
and
regular past reveal gains from input enhancement. The
further development of adjective clauses and articles suggests that
learners are developing more complex noun phrases at this level.
The third person singular and larger grammatical features that
require dependent or independent clauses (e.g. conditionals, relative
clauses, and noun clauses) do not appear to benefit from input
enhancement. Learners may not have the necessary cognitive resources
(i.e.
the
lexicon and short-term memory) required to concentrate on such
emphasis. The slightly positive impact for input enhancement with
conditionals suggests that inter-sentential complexity is developing
in the learner.
At CEFR level C1,
learners do not benefit from input enhancement as
far as most grammatical features are concerned.
The most complex of the less salient features, the third person
singular -s,
does reveal a benefit from input enhancement. The most complex
conditionals also benefit from such an enhancement. At this stage,
learners appear to have mastered the basic sentence structures and
can develop more intricate noun, verb, and adjective phrases. They
may, however, need help developing more complex sentences with both
independent and dependent clauses.
Overall, our results
suggest that learners may benefit from input enhancement when it is
provided at a cognitively appropriate time, just before mastery. For
other procedural activities like driving a car, learners may benefit
from instruction in the beginning. As the activity becomes
internalized, as it becomes a habit, instruction may serve to
distract the learner. Grammar acquisition may proceed in a similar
way. Such an interpretation explains why less proficient learners
appear to benefit more from an explicit enhancement of the features.
It is also important to
note that only a limited number of participants could be recruited
for study of each level. While the results of this study are
potentially insightful, in unison with results from a prior
meta-analysis, replication and expanded inquiry is needed with a
larger number of participants from all proficiency levels. Further
research of lower proficiency levels may reveal an even more
significant impact for input enhancement.
Is form-focused
instruction really a waste of time? As this study suggests, the
efficacy of input enhancement primarily depends on the time that it
is introduced. Seen
in this light, the results of the present study reveal
a need for further inquiry of this and other forms of form-focused
instruction. While the correct time to introduce grammatical emphasis
is now difficult to assess, further research can reveal more
effective means to evaluate student progress, thereby facilitating
the timely introduction of grammatical features.
A larger corpus of
studies is needed to provide a more holistic perspective about when
to introduce form-focused instruction. Ultimately, further research
into language acquisition must be tied to a universal framework such
as the CEFR. Otherwise, a timely introduction of form-focused
instruction will not be possible. Tailoring the emphasis of
grammatical features to learner proficiency may increase accuracy in
student essays. It may also assist in the development of more
effective computer-assisted language learning. Further examination of
the differences that exist between proficiency, grammatical features,
and the duration of instruction has the potential to transform the
teaching of English in such a way that grammatical accuracy is
fostered while learners simultaneously gain communicative competence.
References
Bitchener,
J., Young, S., & Cameron, D. (2005). The effect of different
types of corrective feedback on ESL student writing. Journal
of Second Language Writing,
14(3),
191-205.
British
Council. (n.d.). Common
European Framework equivalencies.
Retrieved from
https://takeielts.britishcouncil.org/find-out-about-results/understand-your-ielts-scores/common-european-framework-equivalencies
Carlstrom,
B. (2014). Data-driven learning made easy. In M. Pinto & D.
Shaffer (Eds.), KOTESOL
Proceedings 2013: Proceedings of the 21st Annual KOTESOL
International Conference (pp.
95–102). Seoul, Korea: Korea TESOL.
Celce-Murcia,
M., Larsen-Freeman, D., & Williams, H. A. (1999). The
grammar book: An ESL/EFL teacher's course
(2nd
ed.). New York, NY: Heinle & Heinle Publishers.
Dyson,
B. (2018). Developmental Sequences. The
TESOL Encyclopedia of English Language Teaching,
1-8.
Dyson,
B. P., & Håkansson, G. (2017). Understanding
Second Language Processing: A Focus on Processability Theory (Vol.
4). John Benjamins Publishing Company.
Educational
Testing Service. (2014). TOEFL
ITP® test score descriptors.
Retrieved from
https://www.ets.org/s/toefl_itp/pdf/test_score_descriptors.pdf
Educational
Testing Service. (2015). Mapping
the TOEIC® and TOEIC Bridge™ tests on the Common European
Framework of Reference for Languages.
Retrieved from
https://www.ets.org/s/toeic/pdf/toeic_cef_mapping_flyer.pdf
Educational
Testing Service (ETS). (2017). Test
and score data summary for TOEFL iBT and PBT tests: January
2017– December 2017 Test Data.
Retrieved from https://www.ets.org/s/toefl/pdf/94227_unlweb.pdf
Ellis,
R. (2009). Task‐based language teaching: Sorting out the
misunderstandings. International
Journal of Applied Linguistics, 19(3),
221-246.
Ellis,
R., & Sheen, Y. (2006). Reexamining the role of recasts in second
language acquisition. Studies
in Second Language Acquisition,
28(4),
575-600.
Ferris,
D. R. (2004). The “grammar correction” debate in L2 writing:
Where are we, and where do we go from here? (And what do we do in the
meantime…?). Journal
of Second Language Writing, 13(1),
49-62.
Gholami,
J., & Zeinolabedini, M. (2018). Learnability and Teachability
Hypothesis. The
TESOL Encyclopedia of English Language Teaching,
1-7.
Goldschneider,
J. M., & DeKeyser, R. M. (2005). Explaining the “Natural Order
of L2 Morpheme Acquisition” in English: A meta‐analysis of
multiple determinants. Language
learning, 55(S1),
27-77.
Goo,
J., & Mackey, A. (2013). The case against the case against
recasts. Studies
in Second Language Acquisition,
35(1),
127-165.
Hegelheimer,
V., & Fisher, D. (2006). Grammar, writing, and technology: A
sample technology-supported approach to teaching grammar and
improving writing for ESL learners. CALICO
journal,
257-279.
Jakobson,
L. (2018). Teacher written feedback on adult beginners’ writing in
a second language. ITL-International
Journal of Applied Linguistics, 169(2),
235-261.
Jourdenais,
R., Ota, M., Stauffer, S., Boyson, B., & Doughty, C. (1995). Does
textual enhancement promote noticing? A think-aloud protocol
analysis. Attention
and awareness in foreign language learning,
183-216.
Kang, S.W. (2009).
Koreans ranked bottom in English proficiency test. The
Korea Times.
Retrieved from
http://www.koreatimes.co.kr/www/news/nation/2009/04/117_42399.html
Kim, B.E. (2012).
Koreans’ TOEFL scores on the rise. The
Korea Times.
Retrieved from
http://www.koreatimes.co.kr/www/news/nation/2013/08/117_116035.html
Kline, P. (1986). A
handbook of test construction: Introduction to psychometric design.
London: Routledge.
Krashen,
S. D., and T. D. Terrell. (1983). The
Natural Approach.
New York: Alemany Press.
Lee, S. K. (2007).
Effects of textual enhancement and
topic familiarity on Korean EFL students' reading comprehension and
learning of passive form. Language
learning,
57(1),
87-118.
Lee,
S. K., & Huang, H. T. (2008). Visual input enhancement and
grammar learning: A meta-analytic review. Studies
in Second Language Acquisition,
30(3),
307-331.
Leow,
R. P., Egi, T., Nuevo, A. M., & Tsai, Y. C. (2003). The Roles of
Textual Enhancement and Type of Linguistic Item in Adult L2 Learners'
Comprehension and Intake. Applied
Language Learning,
13(2),
1-16.
Lowie,
W., & Verspoor, M. (2015). Variability and variation in second
language acquisition orders: A dynamic reevaluation. Language
Learning, 65(1),
63-88.
NorthStar,
Third Edition, correlated to TOEIC®, TOEFL® and CEF Ranges. (2009).
London, England: Pearson Education Inc.
Park,
Y. (2017). Syntactic enhancement: Bootstrapping for second language
reading. Journal
of Cognitive Science, 18(4),
473-509.
Pica, T. (1983). Methods
of Morpheme Quantification: Their Effect on the Interpretation of
Second Language Data. Studies
in Second Language Acquisition,
6(1),
69-78. doi:10.1017/S0272263100000309
Pienamann,
(1989). Is language teachable? Psycholinguistic experiments and
hypotheses. Applied
Linguistics, 10,
52–79.
Pienemann,
M. (1999). Language
processing and second-language development: processability theory.
Amsterdam: John Benjamins Publishing Company.
Pienemann,
M. (2005). Cross-linguistic
aspects of processability theory.
Amsterdam: John Benjamins Publishing Company.
Sakai,
H. (2011). Do Recasts Promote Noticing the Gap in L2 Learning?. The
Asian EFL Journal Quarterly, 13(1),
357-385.
Sauro,
S. (2009). Computer-mediated corrective feedback and the development
of L2 grammar. Language
Learning & Technology,
13(1),
96-120.
Schenck,
A., & Cho, Y. W. (2012). The efficacy of corpus-based pedagogical
techniques for academic writing. Multi-media
Assisted Language Learning, 15(2),
167-186.
Schenck,
A. (2017). Learning to improve grammar instruction through
comprehensive analysis of past research. International
Review of Applied Linguistics in Language Teaching, 55(2),
165-195.
Schenck, A. (2018). An
investigation of the relationship between grammar type and efficacy
of form-focused instruction. The
New Studies of English Language & Literature, 69,
223-248.
Sheen,
Y. (2010). Differential effects of oral and written corrective
feedback in the ESL classroom. Studies
in Second Language Acquisition, 32(2),
203-234.
Shuib,
M., Abdullah, A., Azizan, S. N., & Gunasegaran, T. (2015).
Designing an intelligent mobile learning tool for grammar learning
(i-MoL). International
Journal of Interactive Mobile Technologies (iJIM), 9(1),
41-46.
Smith,
M. S. (1993). Input enhancement in instructed SLA. Studies
in second language acquisition,
15(2),
165-179.
Song,
J. Y., Sundara, M., & Demuth, K. (2009). Phonological constraints
on children’s production of English third person singular–s.
Journal
of Speech, Language, and Hearing Research,
52(3),
623-642.
Statistics Korea. (2017).
Private
Education Expenditures Survey in 2016.
Retrieved from
http://kostat.go.kr/portal/eng/pressReleases/11/2/index.board?bmode=read&bSeq=&aSeq=359882&pageNo=1&rowNum=10&navCount=10&currPg=&sTarget=title&sTxt=
Truscott,
J. (1996). The case against grammar correction in L2 writing classes.
Language
Learning, 46(2),
327-369. http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-1770.1996.tb01238.x
Truscott, J. (1999). The
case for “the case against grammar correction in L2 writing
classes”: A response to Ferris. Journal
of Second Language Writing, 8(2),
111-122. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/s1060-374380124-6
VanPatten, B. (2014).
On the limits of instruction: 40 years after 'Interlanguage'. In Z-H.
Han & E. Tarone (Eds.), Interlanguage:
40 years later
(pp. 105-126). Amsterdam, Netherlands: John Benjamins.
Wang,
S., & Smith, S. (2013). Reading and grammar learning through
mobile phones. Language
Learning & Technology, 17(3),
117-134.
Williams,
K. (2013). A case for explicit grammar instruction in English as
second/foreign language classrooms. Academic
Leadership Journal in Student Research, 1(1),
7.
Yavas,
M. (2016). Applied
English Phonology.
John Wiley & Sons.
Authors:
Andrew
Schenck
Director
of the English Program
State
University of New York (SUNY)
Songdo
South
Korea
Email:
andrew.schenck@sunykorea.ac.kr
Matthew
Baldwin
English
as a Foreign Language (EFL) Program
Korea
Advanced Institute of Science and Technology (KAIST)
Daejeon
South
Korea
Email:
mbaldwin@kaist.ac.kr