Learning effects of linguistic forms in FonF intervention are determined by 1) interactive tasks that are involved; 2) communication breakdown; and 3)
“task-essentialness” of a target form (Loschky & Bley-Vroman, 1993, as cited in Doughty & Williams, 1998, p.209), which refers to the necessity of using a target form to complete a task. The three factors, elaborated in 3.1 Theoretical premises, are influential in learning effects of linguistic forms because they decide whether learners’
attention would be effectively directed to forms in interaction. As for 3.2, more discussions on optimal implementation environment for FonF intervention will be provided.
2.3.1 Theoretical premises Interactive tasks
Motivated by Interaction Hypothesis (Long, 1983), FonF emphasizes the importance of interaction in learning. Interactions between learners are crucial in learning of linguistic forms, especially forms of vocabulary. Ellis, Tanaka, and Yamazaki (1994) examined learning effects on word meanings brought by different learning conditions, and found interactionally modified input condition was more
10
effective in helping comprehension and learning of L2 words than conditions of premodified and unmodified input. In their study, the learners voluntarily interacted with teachers to solve their comprehension problems of L2 words so as to successfully perform the listening tasks. This insightful study provided the foundation for lexis learning through communicative tasks, especially interactive ones.
Interactive tasks were proved useful and highly recommended in word learning based on the following reasons (Nation and Newton, 1993): First, meaningful contexts in interactive tasks offer adequate clues for word guessing. Second, opportunities of repeated use of the new items are available in interactive tasks.
Zimmerman (1997) has researched into the learning effects on L2 words brought by instruction that combined a communicative method with reading. She found that the participants receiving this instruction outperformed their counterparts in the control group, proving the benefits of communicative activities on learning. Also, the questionnaires showed that the learners viewed communicative activities as useful for vocabulary learning. It was commented in this study that communicative activities were beneficial for facilitating learners’ word learning, and that they are also considered useful by learners.
Communication breakdown
FonF researchers agree with the idea of learning L2 through interaction, but further indicate that learners’ attention should be occasionally and unobtrusively shifted to linguistic forms when comprehension problems arise and communication breaks down. The switch in attentional focus was clearly clarified in definition of FonF provided by Long and Robinson (1998): “Focus on form often consists of an occasional shift of attention to linguistic code features –by the teacher and/or one or more students –triggered by perceived problems with comprehension or production”
(p.23). When communication breaks down, learners are likely to be aware of the
11
mismatches between the target language and their interlanguage, their attention thus shifting to forms. Communication breakdown has been asserted to be one of the best triggers for learners to shift their attention to form in FonF instruction (Long &
Robinson, 1998).
Difficulty in comprehension or communication breakdown is in fact more likely to result from failure to understand words than grammatical errors (Laufer, 2006), as words serve as basic units that convey meanings in communication (Oxford &
Scarcella, 1994). Learners’ failure to recognize word forms would easily cause difficulty in comprehension and the meaning making later on, which would drive the learners to pay attention to the forms.
It has to be noted that learners’ shifting of attention to form should not cause the interruption of the communication flow, however. Focus on form “occur[s] in conjunction with –but not interrupt[s]—communicative interaction” (Doughty &
Varela, 1998, p.114). In order that communication flow is not interrupted, FonF tasks should guide learners to put major focus on communication. Learners should engage in meaning making and communication first and then pay attention to linguistic features when necessary.
Task-essentialness of a target form in a task
Whether learners’ attention could be directed to a target form is also determined by the degree of “task-essentialness” of the form in a communicative task. When a target form is presented in a way that makes it “task essential,” it plays a vital role in meaning making in a task and thus drives learners to simultaneously attend to form and meaning (Lightbown, 1998; Long & Robinson, 1998). Without using the “task essential form,” to successfully perform a task is difficult, if not impossible.
Significance of “task-essentialness” was shown by William and Evans (1998).
They found their FonF intervention produced different learning outcomes in learning
12
of two forms, participial adjectives and passive sentences, with the former learned better than the latter. One of the provided explanations for such discrepancy in learning effects was that the form of participial adjective was more task essential in the treatment, a dictogloss task. Learners needed to attend to the meanings of paired adjectives (e.g. boring and bored) so as to complete the task, but they did not necessarily have to do so with the other target form, i.e., passive sentences. In the distogloss task, the participants showed a tendency to use active voice instead of passive voice. On the contrary, they used participial adjectives more consciously, monitoring their own usage of the adjectives. It was concluded in this study that even with the same FonF intervention, learners’ learning outcomes can vary according to the degree of task-essentialness of target forms. A target form that is task essential enables learners to make connections between meaning and form.
Besides the basic principles above, some methodological issues regarding FonF intervention should also be addressed. The following section touches upon some methodological problems with instruction design and the way target forms should be presented in a FonF activity. Several FonF studies, mostly centering on learning of word forms, would be reviewed.
2.3.2 Optimal implementation environment for FonF intervention
For more understanding of optimal implementation environment for FonF intervention, issues about FonF instruction design and the way target forms should be presented in a FonF activity will be discussed in this section. Previous studies that are related to these issues will be reviewed, with some methodological problems raised.
At the end of this section, how the present study will be designed in response to these problems will be roughly described.
Instruction design
First and foremost, FonF intervention of learning word forms should help
13
learners to connect word forms and meanings in a meaning-oriented activity. Saeidi, Zaferanieh and Shatery (2012) and Laufer (2006) both examined the effects of FonF instruction on vocabulary learning, but with different conclusions drawn because the treatments in their studies attracted learners’ attention differently. The treatment in Saeidi et al.’s study (2012) was a dictogloss activity, in which learners listened to an article that involved target forms and then worked in groups to reconstruct the text. As an interactive task, the dictogloss task can successfully direct learners’ attention to connections between word forms and meanings.
FonF intervention lacking in meaning-oriented tasks may cause learners to neglect connections between word meanings and forms. Compared to the FonF activity in Saeidi et al.’s study (2012) as reviewed above, that in Laufer’s (2006) study seems not equally meaning-oriented. The task in Laufer’s (2006) study required the learners to answer comprehension questions, originally designed with an attempt to draw learners’ attention to meanings of the target words in the texts. However, some of the comprehension questions were actually straightforward enough for learners to answer simply by copying the words from the articles without careful interpretation of the word meanings. Plus, participants in this study were under the condition of working alone. Without interactions with others, their need to engage in negotiation of meaning was obviated; they might be able to complete the task of answering comprehension questions without paying attention to target word forms. Whether FonF helps learners to connect word meanings and forms through such intervention thus remains questionable. With “negotiation of meaning” as the core, FonF requires activities in instruction be interactive, and learners’ attention be directed to connect word forms and meanings so as to ensure learning effects of word forms.
The next issue regarding FonF instruction design is that the duration of FonF intervention should be long enough so that the treatment can make significant effects
14
on learning of forms. Noted by Han et al. (2008), many FonF studies equated effectiveness of FonF intervention with production of target forms in immediate output-oriented posttests. But it was often found in such studies that their FonF intervention only involved one-shot treatment and lasted for a short period of time, thus deriving false conclusions that cast doubts about the effectiveness of FonF. With so little time spared for processing, the expected results of form learning are hard to achieve.
Two examples of studies which help to explain the significance of long-term treatments are reviewed as follows. Swain and Lapkin (2001) examined language learning effects of a dictogloss task but found no significant differences between the pretest and the posttest. One of the explanations was that participants in this study had limited time on task (i.e. ten minutes), not to mention the fact that the participants received only one-shot treatment. The attempt to promote learners’ interlanguage, which is rather stable within a short period of time, obviously failed. On the other hand, Alcon (2007), aiming to investigate effects of teacher-initiated focus on form of vocabulary, collected data of audio-recorded classroom conversations, learners’
diaries, posttest and delayed posttest translations for a whole year. Her conclusion was thus based on rich data, suggesting that learners’ noticing of target forms was likely to lead to language usages in immediate and delayed posttests, a sign of language learning. Long-term intervention is more likely to make complex language problems solved (Long & Robinson, 1998) and learning effects take place. The present study, confined by the school schedule of the participants, will not be able to allow data collection as long as that in Alcon’s study. But still, it will be made sure that the period of treatment is realistically long enough for possible learning outcomes to occur.
The way target forms should be presented in a FonF activity
15
The context in which target words are presented, that is, whether they are given in oral or written discourse, is influential (Han et al., 2008; Plonsky & Loewen, 2013).
As found in Plonsky and Loewen’s study, not all target words were learned equally, suggesting that the participants’ conscious attention to word forms might be associated with but unable to guarantee successful word learning. One explanation for this, though having not yet been fully investigated, was that the participants might have difficulty in inferring meanings of target words from spoken discourse, as processing word meanings through mere listening might be cognitively demanding.
The connections between word meanings and forms are difficult to make by receiving input simply by listening.
The similar problem of presenting target words in oral discourse was posed by many other studies investigating word learning mainly through listening comprehension tasks as treatments (de la Fuente, 2002; Ellis et al., 1994; Shintani, 2012, 2013). In these studies, the target words were all embedded in oral discourse.
The learners had difficulty learning word forms by only being exposed to the input in listening comprehension tasks; they might succeed in completing the listening tasks and show comprehension, but lack of sufficient time to process meaning and forms of unfamiliar words while listening might limit the learning effects. The present study is thus motivated to investigate learners’ learning of word forms through treatment with target words presented in written discourse, in which learners are provided with more time to process meaning of words.
Some methodological issues of FonF intervention has been dealt with in this section. The present study attempts to respond to problems raised by previous studies, designing treatments that might further enhance learning effects of word forms in FonF intervention. FonF tasks in this study will be interactive and meaning-oriented so that learners pay major attention to communication. Target words will be made
16
“task-essential” through task design to drive learners to make the connections between word forms and meanings. Learners’ focus on form will take the form of written discourse so as to provide more time for word processing. Also, the FonF treatment in the present study will be administered for a period of time long enough for possible learning effects to take place.