The effect of focused communication tasks on instructed acquisition of English past counterfactual conditionals

• Authors: Anna Broszkiewicz
• Languages of publication: EN

Abstracts

EN

One important controversy connected with the effectiveness of grammar teaching seems to have been resolved as there is ample empirical evidence testifying to the positive effect of form-focused instruction on second language acquisition (Nassaji & Fotos, 2004; Norris & Ortega, 2000; Spada, 1997, 2010). Nevertheless, there are still a number of problems open to debate and awaiting concrete solutions, such as how to establish connections between form and meaning and find the best way to teach grammar for implicit knowledge, which, in the opinion of most SLA researchers (Ellis, 2006a, p. 95) and according to numerous theoretical positions, is a key driver of linguistic competence. One of the options available to language educators is to employ focused communication tasks, which “are designed to elicit production of a specific target feature in the context of performing a communicative task” (Ellis, 2001, p. 21). The aim of the study reported in this article was to explore the effect of focused communication tasks on the instructed acquisition of English past counterfactual conditionals when compared with contextualized practice activities. The results of two types of intervention were measured employing a number of data collection instruments with a view to tapping both the explicit and implicit knowledge of the participants of the study. Both types of instructional treatment were equally effective in helping learners develop the explicit knowledge of past unreal conditionals, but when it comes to the implicit knowledge of the aforementioned structure, the group instructed by means of focused communication tasks outperformed the other experimental group and the control group, as evidenced by the results obtained from the individually elicited imitation test and the focused communication task performed in pairs.

Keywords

EN

focused communication tasks; form-focused instruction; explicit and implicit knowledge

• Publisher: Uniwersytet im. Adama Mickiewicza w Poznaniu
• Journal: Studies in Second Language Learning and Teaching
• Year: 2011
• Volume: 1
• Issue: 3
• Pages: 335-363

Dates

published

2011-10-01

Contributors

author

Anna Broszkiewicz

• Teacher Training College AMU Poznań

References

• Azar, B. (2002). Understanding and using English grammar. White Plains, NY: Longman.
• Burgess, J. & Etherington, S. (2002). Focus on grammatical form: Explicit or implicit? System, 30, 433-458.
• Bygate, M., Skehan, P., & Swain, M. (2001). Introduction. In M. Bygate, P. Skehan, & M. Swain (Eds.), Researching pedagogic tasks (pp. 1-20). Harlow: Pearson Education.
• DeKeyser, R. M. (1998). Beyond focus on form: Cognitive perspectives on learning and practising second language grammar. In C. Doughty & J. Williams (Eds.), Focus on form in classroom second language acquisition (pp. 42-64). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
• Doughty, C. (1991). Second language instruction does make a difference. Evidence from an empirical study of SL relativization. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 13, 431-469.
• Doughty, C. (2001). Cognitive underpinnings of focus on form. In P. Robinson (Ed.), Cognition and second language instruction (pp. 206-258). Cam-bridge: Cambridge University Press.
• Doughty, C., & Williams, J. 1998. Pedagogical choices in focus on form. In C. Doughty & J. Williams (Eds.). Focus on form in classroom second language acquisition (pp. 197-263). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
• Ellis, N. (1994). Implicit and explicit learning of languages. San Diego, CA: Academic Press.
• Ellis, R. (1995). Interpretation tasks for grammar teaching. TESOL Quarterly, 29, 87-105.
• Ellis, R. (1997). SLA research and language teaching. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
• Ellis, R. (1998). Teaching and research: Options in grammar teaching. TESOL Quarterly, 32, 39-60.
• Ellis, R. (2001). Introduction: Investigating form-focused instruction. In R. Ellis (Ed.), Form-focused instruction and second language learning (pp. 1-46). Oxford: Blackwell.
• Ellis, R. (2002). Does form-focused instruction affect the acquisition of implicit knowledge? A review of the research. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 24, 223-236.
• Ellis, R. (2003). Task-based language learning and teaching. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
• Ellis, R. (2004). The definition and measurement of L2 explicit knowledge. Language Learning, 54, 227-275.
• Ellis, R. (2005a). Measuring implicit and explicit knowledge of a second language: A psychometric study. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 27, 141-172.
• Ellis, R. (2005b). Principles of instructed language learning. Conference Proceedings. Asian EFL Journal, Special Edition, 9-24.
• Ellis, R. (2005c). Instructed language learning and task-based teaching. In E. Hinkel (Ed.), Handbook of research in second language teaching and learning (pp. 713-729). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
• Ellis, R. (2006a). Current issues in the teaching of grammar: An SLA perspective. TESOL Quarterly, 40, 83-107.
• Ellis, R. (2006b). Modeling learning difficulty and second language proficiency: The differential contributions of implicit and explicit knowledge. Applied Linguistics, 27, 431-463.
• Erlam, R. (2006). Elicited imitation as a measure of L2 implicit knowledge: An empirical validation study. Applied Linguistics, 27, 464-491.
• Fotos, S. (1995). Problem-solving tasks for teaching if-conditionals. In M. Pennington (Ed.), New ways in teaching grammar (pp. 83-87). Alexandria, VA: TESOL.
• Fotos, S. (2002). Structure-based interactive tasks for the EFL grammar learner. In E. Hinkel & S. Fotos (Eds.), New perspectives on grammar teaching in second language classrooms (pp. 135-155). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
• Fotos, S. (2005). Traditional and grammar translation methods for second language teaching. In E. Hinkel (Ed.), Handbook of research in second language teaching and learning (pp. 653-671). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
• Gass, S. M., & Mackey, A. (2007). Data elicitation for second and foreign lan-guage research. London: Lawrence Erlbaum.
• Griggs, P. (2005). Assessment of the role of communication tasks in the development of second language oral production skills. In A. Housen and M. Pierrard (Eds), Investigations in instructed second language acquisition (pp. 407-433). Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.
• Housen, A. & Pierrard. M. (2005). Investigating instructed second language acquisition. In A. Housen & M. Pierrard (Eds.), Investigations in instructed second language acquisition (pp. 1-31). Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.
• Krashen, S. (1981). Second language acquisition and second language learning. Oxford: Pergamon.
• Larsen-Freeman, D. (2003). Teaching language: From grammar to grammaring. Boston: Heinle.
• Lightbown, P. M. (1998). The importance of timing in focus on form. In C. Doughty & J. Williams (Eds.), Focus on form in classroom second language acquisition (pp. 177-197). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
• Lightbown, P. M. (2000). Classroom SLA research and second language teaching. Applied Linguistics, 21, 431-462.
• Lightbown, P. M., & Spada, N. (1990). Focus on form and corrective feedback in communicative language teaching. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 12, 429-448.
• Long, M. H. (1983). Native speaker/non-native speaker conversation and the negotiation of comprehensible input. Applied Linguistics, 4, 126-141.
• Long, M., & Robinson, P. (1998). Focus on form: Theory, research, and practice. In C. Doughty & J. Williams (Eds.), Focus on form in classroom second language acquisition (pp. 15-64). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
• Loschky L., & Bley-Vroman, R. (1993). Grammar and task-based methodology. In G. Crookes & S. M. Gass (Eds.), Tasks and language learning: Integrating theory and practice (pp. 123-163). Clevedon: Multilingual Matters.
• Mackey, A., & Gass, S. (2005). Second language research: Methodology and design. London: Lawrence Erlbaum.
• Munnich, E., Flynn, S., & Martohardjono, G. (1994). Elicited imitation and grammaticality judgment tasks: What they measure and how they relate to each other. In E. Tarone, S. Gass, & A. Cohen (Eds.), Research methodology in second-language acquisition (pp. 227-243). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
• Nassaji, H. (2000). Towards integrating form-focused instruction and communicative interaction in the second language classroom: Some pedagogical possibilities. The Modern Language Journal, 84, 243-250.
• Nassaji, H., & Fotos, S. (2004). Current developments in the teaching of grammar. Annual Review of Applied Linguistics, 24, 126-145.
• Nassaji, H., & Fotos, S. (2010). Teaching grammar in second language class-rooms: Integrating form-focused instruction in communicative context. New York: Routledge.
• Norris, J. M., & Ortega, L. (2000). Effectiveness of L2 instruction: A research synthesis and quantitative meta-analysis. Language Learning, 50, 417-528.
• Nunan, D. (1991). Designing tasks for the communicative classroom. Cam-bridge: Cambridge University Press.
• Nunan, D. (2004). Task-based language teaching. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
• Parrot, M. (2000). Grammar for English language teachers. Cambridge: Cam-bridge University Press.
• Pawlak, M. (2004). On the effectiveness of options in grammar teaching: Translating theory and research into classroom practice. Studia Anglica Posnaniensia, 40, 269-287.
• Pawlak, M. (2005). The feasibility of integrating form and meaning in the language classroom: A qualitative study of classroom discourse. Glottodidactica, 30-31, 283-294.
• Pawlak, M. (2006). The place of form-focused instruction in the foreign language classroom. Kalisz: Wydział Pedagogiczno-Artystyczny.
• Pawlak, M. (2007). Comparing the effect of focus on form and focus on forms in teaching English third conditional. In M. Pawlak (Ed.), Exploring focus on form in language teaching [Special issue]. Studies in Pedagogy and Fine Arts, 7, 169-191.
• Pienemann, M. (1984). Psychological constraints on the teachability of languages. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 6, 186-214.
• Prabhu, N.S. (1987). Second language pedagogy. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
• Robinson, P. (1996). Learning simple and complex second language rules under implicit, incidental, rule-search, and instructed conditions. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 18, 27-67.
• Robinson, P. (2001). Task complexity, cognitive resources and syllabus design: A triadic framework for examining task influence on SLA. In P. Robinson (Ed.), Cognition and second language instruction (pp. 287-319). Cam-bridge: Cambridge University Press.
• Robinson P., & Ellis, N. (2008). Conclusion: Cognitive linguistics, second language acquisition and L2 instruction – issues for research. In P. Robinson & N. Ellis (Eds.), Handbook of cognitive linguistics and second language acquisition (pp. 489-547). New York: Routledge.
• Samuda, V. (2001). Guiding relationships between form and meaning during task performance: The role of the teacher. In M. Bygate, P. Skehan, & M. Swain (Eds.), Researching pedagogic tasks (pp. 119-141). Harlow: Pearson Education.
• Schmidt, R. (1990). The role of consciousness in second language learning. Applied Linguistics, 11, 17-46.
• Schmidt, R. (2001). Attention. In P. Robinson (Ed.), Cognition and second language instruction (pp. 3-33). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
• Skehan, P. (1996). A framework for the implementation of task-based instruction. Applied Linguistics, 17, 38-62.
• Skehan, P. (1998). A cognitive approach to language learning. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
• Skehan, P. (2003). Task-based instruction. Language Teaching, 36, 1-14.
• Spada, N. (1997). Form-focused instruction and second language acquisition: A review of classroom and laboratory research. Language Teaching, 30, 73-87.
• Spada, N. (2010). Beyond form-focused instruction: Reflections on past, present and future research. Language Teaching, 44, 225-236. doi:10.1017/S0261444810000224
• Spada, N., & Lightbown, P. (1993). Instruction and the development of questions in L2 classrooms. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 15, 205-224.
• Swain, M. (1985). Communicative competence: Some roles of comprehensible input and comprehensible output in its development. In S. Gass & C. Madden (Eds.), Input in second language acquisition (pp. 235-256). Rowley, MA: Newbury House.
• Thornbury, S. (2000). How to teach grammar. Harlow: Pearson Education.
• Thornbury, S. (2001). Uncovering grammar. Oxford: Macmillan Heinemann.
• Yule, G. (1998). Explaining English grammar. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Identifiers

DOI

10.14746/ssllt.2011.1.3.3