FonF教學對以英語為外語青年學習者寫作中使用英語動詞過去式之效益

全文

(1)國立台灣師範大學英語學系碩士論文 Master Thesis Graduate Institute of English National Taiwan Normal University. FonF 教學對以英語為外語青年學習者寫作中使用英語動詞過去式之效益. The Effect of FonF Instruction on Young EFL Learners' Use of English Past Tense in Academic Writing. 指導教授：劉. 宇. 挺. Advisor: Dr. Yeu-Ting Liu 研究生：紀. 昇. 助. 中華民國一百零一年六月 June, 2012.

(2) 2.

(3) 摘要本研究旨在檢驗三種 FonF 教學方式：指正性回饋 (CF)，輸入強化 (IE) 及思處指引 (PI) 在三面向的成效。此三面向分別是：(1) 強化高中學生英文寫作－看圖說故事－使用動詞過去式的整體效益；(2) 比較每項教學方式間的相對效益, 以及 (3) 效益的延續性。本項研究於台北艋舺一中實施，160 位來自四個班級的高一學生分成四組，一對照組，三實驗組，四組都接受二階段前測，一階段選擇，一階段寫作文，為看圖說故事題型。前測之後, 進入實驗階段，三實驗組接受各教學活動，活動後填寫檢視學生學習期間注意力的問卷。最後，全四組學生接受後測、延遲後測，皆為寫作，題型為看圖說故事。動詞過去式使用的正確率計算後輸入統計軟體分析，使用重複量數雙因子變異數分析、單因子變異數分析、事後分析(Scheffe)以及重複量數單因子變異數分析，數據結果的判讀輔以問卷所顯示的學生接受教學期間意識型中的注意力多寡程度。結果顯示 FonF 整體有效強化學生對過去式的注意，此發現與指正性回饋大部份的文獻結果吻合，指正性回饋是 FonF 教學活動的一環，大部份的文獻支持在寫作中使用指正性回饋。在 FonF 教學方式中，思處指引與指正性回饋成效大於輸入強化，成效延續到了延遲後測。此三項教學方式的成效差異，其中可能的原因為學習者的意識與思辨處理機制，本研究的討論著眼於此。. 關鍵字：FonF、指正性回饋，輸入強化、思處指引、英文寫作、過去式. i.

(4) Abstract This study aimed to examine three Focus on Form (FonF) treatments: corrective feedback (CF), input enhancement (IE) and processing instruction (PI), in terms of (1) the overall efficacy on fostering high school students’ ability in applying the past tense in picture-story writing; (2) the relative efficacy of each treatment after comparison; and (3) the sustainability of the efficacy. Assigned to four groups, 160 first-grade students from four intact classes in First Manka Senior High School first received a two-fold pretest, with multiple choice questions and a picture-story writing task. Conducted next in the treatment session were the treatments of the three pedagogical activities and a post intervention where students filled out a questionnaire, for the purpose of examining learner noticing. Finally, there were a posttest and a delayed posttest, both of which contained a picture-story writing task. Accuracy ratio was accounted for and analyzed, using a two-way repeated-measure ANOVA, and a one-way ANOVA, followed by Scheffe post-hoc analysis. The interpretation of the outcome was complemented by the responses from the questionnaires, which elicit learner responses that reflect the extent of awareness involved. The finding showed that FonF pedagogical treatments as a whole were facilitative of enhancing learners’ awareness of the target language form, which echoes CF literature, which is itself a form of FonF pedagogical treatment, and most of which favored the conduction of ii.

(5) corrective feedback in writing instruction. Among the FonF pedagogical treatments, PI and CF were more effective than IE, with the efficacy sustained in the delayed post test. The differences among the three FonF treatments can be accounted for by the factor, among possible others, of learner awareness and processing mechanism involved.. Key words: FonF, input enhancement, corrective feedback, processing instruction, EFL writing, English past tense. iii.

(6) Acknowledgement. I would like to express my gratitude to all those who have assisted me, directly or indirectly, in this study. My professor, Dr. Yeu-Ting Liu, without whom my thesis could not have been possible, is the one my deepest gratitude goes to. He has shown me the true nobility in academy, which is sacred, in the sense that it is the accumulation of human knowledge, intolerable of minor carelessness. Parellel to academic principles, emtional support accounted much for the construction of this thesis. The support came mainly from my family, who have offered me drivingforce to proceed whenever I encountered difficulties. The thought of giving in to difficulties would subside when the awareness of time surged over in my mind. Without my family, I couldn’t have been aware of the importance of time. Days with them have stayed unchanged, for nearly twenty years. Yet, it feels like a blink of an eye. If twenty years could pass like an instant, how much time could I spare in doing nothing meaningful? Emotional support came also from friends. My classmates back in college days and those from my grad school have urged me to finish my thesis, supporting me with friendship and encouragement. One of them, Patrick Chen, always cared about my progress every time we got together. Oscar Lin, who is objective and knowledgeable, never fails to offer insightful suggestions toward difficulties I encountered during the process. Cindy, Alicia, and the classmates in the summer program all gave me timely and friendly advice, reminding me to move on in line with the schedule. Had it not been for these considerate reminders, I could have ignored much. I am such a careless person. Another friend, colleague and mentor who I can’t leave out is the history teacher in my office, Mr. Kao Ming-Lang. He always kept an eye on me, monitoring whether I was fully devoted to the work or having too much leisure time in the office. Thanks to his never-ceasing monitoring, I could (not help but) focus on my thesis. Last but not the least, to my significant other, Shirley Chan. My feeling is beyond words. Ever since ten years ago, I have coveted a chance to pursue the master degree, for practical purpose, and also for self-recognition. I want to prove to myself that, despite all the hardship and barriers that once barred me from reaching my goal, and despite the fact that they were beyond my control, I could still, one way or another, realize my dream. Insignificant as it might appear to be, compared to the grand hall of academy, yet, I have grabbed it. My gratitude to all, and my recognition to myself. iv.

(7) Table of Contents 摘要 ................................................................................................................................ i Abstract......................................................................................................................... ii Acknowledgement ....................................................................................................... iv Table of Contents ......................................................................................................... 1 Glossary ........................................................................................................................ 3 Focus on Form (FonF) ......................................................................................... 3 Input Enhancement (IE)...................................................................................... 3 Textual enhancement ........................................................................................... 4 Input processing ................................................................................................... 5 Processing instruction .......................................................................................... 5 CHAPTER ONE INTRODUCTION ......................................................................... 6 1.1 Background of the Study ......................................................................... 6 1.2 1.3 1.4. Statement of the Problem ........................................................................ 9 Purpose.................................................................................................... 11 Significance of the Study ....................................................................... 12. 1.5 Organization of thesis ............................................................................ 13 CHAPTER TWO LITERATURE REVIEW .......................................................... 14 2.1 Focus on form ......................................................................................... 14 2.2 Corrective feedback in focus on form .................................................. 16 2.3 2.4 2.5 2.6. Input enhancement in focus on form ................................................... 22 Processing instruction in focus on form ............................................... 26 Constraints of focus on form ................................................................. 31 Attention and awareness in focus on form........................................... 36. CHAPTER THREE METHODOLOGY ................................................................. 43 3.1 Target structure ...................................................................................... 44 3.2 Setting and participants ........................................................................ 45 3.3 Design and stimuli .................................................................................. 46 3.4 Procedures and instruments ................................................................. 46 3.5 3.5.1 3.5.2. Operationalizations ................................................................................ 48 Intervention ........................................................................................ 51 Post intervention ................................................................................ 56. 3.5.3 3.5.4 3.6 3.6.1 3.6.2. Immediate Posttest ............................................................................. 56 Delayed posttest .................................................................................. 57 Correction guidelines ............................................................................. 58 Scoring policy ..................................................................................... 58 Statistical analysis .............................................................................. 61 1.

(8) CHAPTER FOUR RESULTS................................................................................... 63 CHAPTER FIVE DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSION ........................................ 77 5.1 Discussion................................................................................................ 77 5.1.1 The theoretical framework ........................................................ 77 FonF and the aids in writing instruction ................................................. 78 Learner awareness in each treatment ...................................................... 82 Noticing ....................................................................................................... 83 Following noticing: processing .................................................................. 91 5.1.2 Pedagogical Implications ........................................................... 95 5.2 On data collection and methodology .................................................... 98 5.3 Summary ............................................................................................... 100 5.4 Conclusion ............................................................................................ 102 REFERENCES......................................................................................................... 104 Appendix-A The consent form .................................................................................. 110 Appendix-B Pretest 1 (multiple choice questions) .................................................... 111 Appendix C-Pretest 2 Questionnaire for IE group..................................................... 114 Appendix D-Pretest 2 Questionnaire for CF group ................................................... 115 Appendix E-Pretest 2 Questionnaire for PI group ..................................................... 116 Appendix F-Pictures for story-writing in pretest, posttest and delayed posttest ....... 117 Appendix G-Model Passage for input enhancement handout ................................... 118 Appendix H-Handouts for PI group .......................................................................... 119 Appendix I- Percentage of accuracy from each subject in the pretest of multiple choice questions ......................................................................................................... 126. 2.

(9) Glossary. Focus on Form (FonF). Long first introduced the notion of focus on form pedagogical technique as one which “…overtly draws students’ attention to linguistic elements as they arise incidentally in lessons whose overriding focus is on meaning or communication” (Long, 1991, pp. 45-46). This definition was more theoretical (Doughty & Williams, 1998). The later definition is more operational: 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. (Long & Robinson, 1998, p. 23). It is pointed out that focus on form (FonF) should be distinguished from focus on formS, in which language teaching focuses on training learners to master bits of knowledge and information about the target language. FonF entails a prerequisite engagement in meaning before attention to linguistic features can be expected to be effective (Doughty & Williams, 1998).. Input Enhancement (IE). Sharwood Smith defined input enhancement (IE) as “a deliberate attempt to make specific features of L2 input more salient in order to draw learners’ attention to 3.

(10) these features” (1991, p. 118). This “deliberate attempt” can be manifested in different ways. There are many ways of drawing attention to form without indulging in metalinguistic discussion. A simple example would be the use of typographical conventions such as underlining or capitalizing a particular grammatical surface feature, where you merely ask the learners to pay attention to anything that is underlined or capitalized. (Rutherford & Sharwood Smith, 1985, p. 271). Sharwood Smith further introduced a continuum of explicitness. At the explicit end, a metalinguistic rule explanation might be found (Sharwood Smith, 1991). To this end, corrective feedback such as those with marking, underlining, provision of accurate form and linguistic explanation can be categorized as an input enhancement technique. In the present study, one experimental group is labeled IE but with a narrower sense. It refers to the technique applied by Park (2004). Namely, it is a pre-writing handout with passage where the target structure is typographically enhanced.. Textual enhancement. Textual enhancement is a type of input enhancement technique. It refers to the typographical manipulation of the target structure for the purpose of increasing its saliency to facilitate learner noticing. Typographical manipulation usually involves the application of boldface type, underlining, italics, or slight enlargement of fonts. It can 4.

(11) also involve written accurate usage of a target form, and stipulation of linguistic rules in response to learners’ writing errors.. Input processing. VanPatten suggests, “…processing refers to making a connection between form and meaning… a learner notes a form and at the same time determines its meaning (or function). The connection to meaning may be partial or it may be complete” (VanPatten, 2004, P6). Partial connection of form to meaning may result in insufficient competence in production and thus inaccurate usage when learners write. Compared with input enhancement, which emphasizes the manipulation of external variables, input processing emphasizes those internal to the learners.. Processing instruction. Processing instruction (PI) is a type of focus on form instruction that is predicated on a model of input processing. The goal of PI is to help L2 learners derive richer intake from input by having them engage in structured input activities that push them away from the strategies they normally use to make form-meaning connections.. 5.

(12) CHAPTER ONE INTRODUCTION. 1.1 Background of the Study. In Taiwan, high school students’ writing receives little attention on average. In particular, among the four skills in English, productive skills are less catered to by the instructors than receptive skills. Teachers and learners dedicate a considerable amount of time and energy in training reading and paralanguage, with peripheral, if not zero, effort on passage-composition. Formal training/instruction on writing takes little class time, correction is scant, and only on occasions such as taking an examination do students take time to put thoughts into language. This occasion, however, offers very little time for them to decently ponder over, organize, and write about assigned topics. In addition, throughout a semester, there are not many such occasions—three as usually is the case for pilot examinations. Students, without a doubt, have little chance to write. With few opportunities for writing practice, it comes as no surprise that students dread writing, viewing it as something that they would avoid as much as possible. Organization and other rhetorical structures result from poorly constructed passages. It all boils down to the fact that sentences are not accurately written. 6.

(13) One of the many prevailing writing mistakes for high school students in Taiwan is the concept of the past tense. Some English language learners tend to ignore the context and framework of time and apply one tense—the present tense. Others might switch between the present and the past tenses, and thus blur the function of time-reference. Still others could not distinguish the past tense from past participle when verbs are regular. This confuses the reader. The past tense is taught in the early stages of language learning, but it is not mastered or acquired even after many years of instruction. The failure to acquire the past tense change little even when corrective feedback (CF) is given. There is no lack of practices and examinations which aim to evaluate students’ acquisition of the past tense. For officially three years of junior high school education, students who enter senior high, despite their previous training, cannot master the concept of framework of time. Translation practice clearly shows the insufficiency of language demand in terms of the past tense. In addition to the training from examinations, writing exercises, such as what has been mentioned, translation, and article composition also constitute reinforcement condition for students. Such being the case, students have abundant opportunities to practice what they learn, but there seems to be very little success. Personal experience as a frontier teacher further confirms this observation. In the past year, my students were assigned with a 7.

(14) considerable amount of writing practices in classes. Many pieces of writing from students continue to show errors on the past tense despite the fact that I did correct all their mistakes. The accuracy of the past tense, though it is not the whole of writing ability or language proficiency, is a facet of composition which requires linguistic accuracy, and can hardly be neglected when forming overall impression of the writers’ learning results. In recent years, there has been a tendency for English writing test in General Scholastic Test (GST) to adopt the picture-story-telling method. For the past eight years, this type of writing test has appeared seven times (from 2004 to 2011, with the exception of 2008). In storytelling, the past tense is a major request and a demonstration of the learners’ command of linguistic accuracy. Instead of focusing on the basic principles of passage writing as usually seen with topic sentence, supporting sentences, relevance, and cohesion, story-telling requests learners to take into consideration what is seen and what is a possible event occurrence and to put plots, developments, or description into words. That is to say, the description of actions accounts for major writing effort. In addition, considering the fact that in English, the core of each sentence is a verb; it is apparent that the use of the past tense prevails nearly throughout the entire passage and shows how learners view the world, whether 8.

(15) from the perspective of native language or of the target language.. 1.2 Statement of the Problem. Facing the task, senior high school teachers and students, when doing the practice, usually apply the procedure in which students write and submit and then teachers provide CF either on form or content, or on both. Yet, more often than not, the improvement in accuracy is limited, and teachers often find that correction leads to varied efficacy. This is part of the reason why offering CF is seriously opposed by Truscott (1996), who claimed that it is harmful. However, CF has been statistically proven by many studies as effective, in that most studies have yielded positive results, after overcoming flaws in experiments. CF in writing has been exploited in many aspects. In early studies, there were controversies in methodology (such as lack of a control group), interpretation of statistics, generalizability of efficacy, to name just a few. Some studies involved direct provision of explicit feedback, while others enlisted indirect implicit feedback. Target structure varies from less obtrusive ones such as definite and indefinite articles, to more salient ones like reported speech. The number of target structure varies, too, from single to multiple ones. Most of the factors found in the literature on CF, however, are confined to external variables that can be manipulated, recorded, and 9.

(16) controlled. Little effort has been dedicated to probing internal factors, such as noticing and processing. Noticing of the target form is also the aim of another alternative pedagogical treatment, Input Enhancement (IE), as used by Park (2004). Unlike CF, which is a posterior response to learners’ errors, IE anticipates possible areas in need of treatment and draws learners’ attention to the target form, and thus is a prior referential input for learners. It makes use of typographical modification, such as the use of bold face, italics, underline, or slightly enlarged font, to enhance perceptual saliency to facilitate learner noticing. Similar to CF, IE shifts learners’ attention during meaning-oriented activities to linguistic forms with documented materials. However, IE is not as widely applied as CF in writing instruction in Taiwan. It is less examined in writing training. Empirical studies (Park, 2004; White, 1998; Jourdenais, Stauffer, Boyson, Doughty, 1995) have indicated that treatments such as IE and CF can indeed temporarily induce learner noticing of the target structure, but whether noticing would lead to further/deeper processing (i.e., turning input into intake/uptake) is seldom extensively studied. To probe the issue of processing in writing instruction, another pedagogical intervention technique developed in recent years, Processing Instruction (PI), should 10.

(17) be taken into consideration. Developed in order to hone learners’ accuracy in decoding input, PI considers learner universal processing strategies when providing pedagogical intervention, in the hope of providing an optimal decoding/encoding environment to transform the input into intake. There are several studies conducted to examine PI on learning linguistic forms with significant efficacy, such as those on the French causative (VanPatten & Wong, 2004), the Spanish Ser and Estar (Cheng, 2004; Farley, 2004), and the Italian future tense (Benati, 2004), to name just a few. In the ESL context, however, it is yet to be applied and examined in writing training. In particular, PI-related studies have rarely been conducted in the EFL context, which is the case in Taiwan.. 1.3 Purpose. Since IE and PI consider noticing and learner universal processing, which are seldom studied in the CF literature, in consideration of how linguistic accuracy in writing can be solidified, the research interest here therefore takes a step further to include, in addition to CF, these techniques (i.e. IE & PI) that take learners’ internal noticing and processing variables into consideration. Although Processing Instruction has been proposed as a pedagogical intervention for more than 10 years, it has received less attention in L2 writing research, as compared with IE and CF research. 11.

(18) The purpose is to examine whether there are ways other than CF, which Taiwanese high school teachers can adopt, to hone their students’ linguistic competence, and which can possibly achieve equal or better efficacy.. 1.4 Significance of the Study. This study aims to explore the possibility of applying alternatives to traditional pedagogical methods that deal with learners’ linguistic errors, that is to say, on how English composition can be trained via ways other than burying oneself in piles of paper scrutinizing every minor linguistic error that can otherwise be more efficiently treated. If confirmed, the alternative techniques can be widely applied in basic writing programs designed to train learners’ writing, providing the program developer insight into new techniques when they design writing materials. Teachers would be more certain when they conduct writing courses to increase learners’ linguistic accuracy in writing, saving much energy that has to be otherwise channeled onto correction. Learners would witness actual improvement in writing, which rests upon their dedication to the course and the effort they make, rather than feeling at a loss, not knowing what to pay attention to when composing. Much more class time can be devoted to other aspects of writing. The correction can be directed to those errors often found in Taiwanese students’ writing. 12.

(19) 1.5 Organization of thesis. This thesis will proceed in the following sequence. Chapter Two provides relevant literature review on focus on form, the three pedagogical techniques, CF, IE and PI, the constraints of focus on form, and issues in attention and awareness. From the gap determined in the review, there are three research questions brought forward. Chapter Three is concerned with the methodology which was applied in conducting the current study, including design, setting, participants, operationalization, target structure, procedure and instruments, and correction guidelines. Chapter Four will present research results with statistical interpretations. Chapter Five will illustrate insights gained from findings on the research questions and statistical results, discussions, and limitations of this study, from which possible gaps for future research will be brought forth.. 13.

(20) CHAPTER TWO LITERATURE REVIEW. The previous chapter has briefly addressed IE, CF and PI. Although aiming at raising learners’ accuracy in form, these three pedagogical treatments are to be embedded in writing instruction, where meaning is still the overriding focus. Such occasional shift of learners’ attention (from meaning to form) corresponds to a language teaching concept, focus on form, which is a common ground where IE, CF and PI are often implemented. This teaching concept will be reviewed first, followed by more detailed discussion of each pedagogical treatment, constraints, and issues in processing. Research questions will be presented at the end of the review.. 2.1 Focus on form. In the compiled work of Long in 1998, language teaching was generally categorized into three dimensions, focus on forms (traditional), focus on meaning (innovative) and focus on form (eclectic). They differ on the implicit or explicit choice of the learner or the language to be taught as the starting point in course design (Long & Robinson, 1998). Traditional language teaching tends to focus on mastering parts of a language, with meanings cast aside, and little attention is paid on language 14.

(21) use. Innovative teaching methods emphasize the interchange of meanings and language use, viewing language as an inseparable “whole” instead of “parts.” The concern for accuracy is rendered in peripheral status. What comes as a compromise between these two stances is what has been called focus on form (FonF). FonF is a teacher-initiated act that caters to the learners’ linguistic needs. As Long. (1999). suggested,. language. instructions. with. FonF. require. major. teaching/learning energy spent on communicative tasks, with occasional shift of learners’ attention to specific linguistic form, guided by the teachers. There are two different types of FonF. As Park (2004, p. 2) reviewed Long’s FonF, the early formulation of FonF was featured by “incidental attention to form in response to a communicative need that takes place during lessons where overriding focus is placed on meaningful communication,” while in a subsequent compiled work, FonF has been extended to involve “pre-analysis of learners’ linguistic needs to identify the forms in need of treatment, precedence of learner engagement with meaning over code, and succinct and unobtrusive treatment”. In other words, in the initial version, FonF occurs as a reaction to a communicative need or a communication breakdown, be it oral or written. Due to this reactive nature, it is thus referred to as reactive FonF. The later version can take place with pre-designed syllabus targeting certain linguistic feature before the treatment. Hence, it is referred 15.

(22) to as proactive FonF (Park, 2004). In light of this division, reactive FonF includes pedagogical techniques like CF (DeKeyser, 1993), itself a linguistic reminder within meaningful texts, and proactive FonF includes those like input enhancement (Park, 2004), target form visually protruded within meaningful texts and VanPatten’s (1991) processing instruction (Han, Park, & Combs, 2008), whose core feature is the referential and affective structured meaningful activities (more details about IE and PI provided below on page 20 and 24).. 2.2 Corrective feedback in focus on form. Due to the fact that CF, provided in (L2) writing instruction, “typically consists of negative feedback teachers provide in response to learners’ actual or perceived errors” (Park, 2004), and the fact that it forges enhancement of saliency for target features in text (Han et al, 2008), CF can be perceived as one type of reactive FonF pedagogical intervention. In the past two decades, myriads of studies have been conducted on the efficacy of CF on students’ linguistic accuracy in writing, with positive results. However, in this line of inquiry, the essence of CF as a pedagogical intervention in SLA (reactive technique in focus on form) and inextricable theoretical base concerning the role of noticing and processing in learning have received 16.

(23) relatively little exploitation, which will shortly be reviewed below. Many studies have examined the efficacy of CF (Bitchener, 2008; Bitchener & Knoch, 2010; Bitchener, Young, & Cameron, 2005; Chandler, 2003; DeKeyser, 1993; Ferris & Robert, 2001; Sheen, 2007). Most showed that CF is beneficial to students’ writing accuracy, after overcoming a few flaws. In earlier CF studies, a common flaw concerned the research design (Sheen, 2007). The lack of a control group, for example, limited the generalizability of the efficacy and application of CF. Another insufficiency was that the effect of CF was mostly confined to the revision of students’ original work. The effect of CF to new pieces of writing was yet to be investigated. In light of the aforementioned insufficiency, later studies on CF enlisted control groups as well as extended the experiment into examining whether the effect of CF would be sustained in the composition of new writing pieces. Along with these improvements of earlier flaws, the number of target structures has also been narrowed down, from multiple into single one, so as to facilitate learner noticing. Other factors related to efficacy of CF, such as analytic ability, were also examined. Sheen (2007) found that individual learners with higher analytic ability tend to benefit more from CF. The efficacy of CF has been examined along the criterion of directness. Bitchener (2005) questioned “whether certain types of CF (more direct) are more 17.

(24) likely than others (less direct) to help L2 students improve the accuracy of their writing” (cited in Bitchener, Young, Cameron, P193). In an attempt to address the above inquiry, issues regarding directness of CF were then explored in many studies. Bitchener et al.’s (2008) study is a case in point. According to Bitchener, “direct CF may be defined as the provision of the correct linguistic form or structure above or near the linguistic error…written meta-linguistic explanation … and/or oral meta-linguistic explanation” (Bitchener et al., 2008, p. 105). He sought to find out whether different corrective feedback (indirect vs. direct) would have a different effect on accuracy and whether this accuracy, if any, would be capable of being sustained into new pieces of writing. Seventy five students took part in this study. They were divided into four groups. Group one (17 students) received direct error correction for each targeted error category, as well as written and oral meta-linguistic explanations. Group two (18 students) received direct error correction for each targeted error category and written meta-linguistic explanation. Group three (20 students) only received direct error correction for each targeted error category. Group four. was. the. control. group. (20. students).. The. procedure. followed. pretest-treatment-posttest-delayed posttest. It was found that written CF had a significant effect on improving accuracy in the use of the English article system and that this level of accuracy was retained two months later without additional feedback 18.

(25) or instruction (Bitchener et al., 2008). The efficacy of CF has also been examined in terms of the nature of the CF provided to learners. Bitchener and other researchers investigated whether CF of a different nature (written vs. oral; explicit vs. implicit; individual five-minute conference) given to 53 adult migrant students on three types of error (prepositions, the past simple tense, and the definite article) resulted in improved accuracy in new pieces of writing over a 12-week period (Bitchener, Young, & Cameron, 2005). They found that the CF with both written and individual oral meta-linguistic explanation is significantly more effective than that with only written meta-linguistic explanation, which is yet more effective than mere CF. In light of his finding, Bitchener (2007) thus suggests that direct feedback reduces confusion when students deal with errors. This is especially true with lower proficiency learners. Direct feedback is preferred in the pedagogical setting (Ferris & Helt, 2000). What also influences the efficacy of CF is whether errors are treatable or not (Ferris, 1999). Ferris suggests that treatable errors are those whose correct usage can be sought and consulted in reference materials such as grammar books. Treatable errors are the errors made on verb tense and form, subject-verb agreement, article usage, plural and possessive noun endings, to name just a few. What they have in common is that they are all rule-governed. Untreatable errors, on the contrary, are 19.

(26) those whose usage cannot be easily guided or manipulated in reference materials. It would be ideal if treatable errors can be treated with direct CF. This view has been examined in some CF studies (Ashwell, 2000; Butler, 2002; Chandler, 2003; Sheen, 2007). So far, the result is positive. For instance, Bitchener et al. (2005) found that the combination of full, explicit written feedback and one-to-one conference feedback enabled the learners to use the past simple tense and the definite article with significantly greater accuracy in new pieces of writing than was the case with their use of prepositions. It can be inferred that the use of prepositions is relatively untreatable, compared with definite articles and verb tense, which are rule-governed. The efficacy of CF can also be influenced by the number of forms that are targeted in a given pedagogical session (one vs. two or more). In reviewing existing CF literature, Sheen (2007) found that some CF studies did not yield positive result and that this disparate finding might be attributed to the fact that “the linguistic feedback was not sufficiently focused and intensive” (Sheen, 2007). Multiple targeted forms would distract learners’ attention than single targeted form. With insufficient attention to form, there will be little subsequent processing, which in turn affects learning. Such processing issues have not been extensively studied in the CF literature. It is assumed that upon receiving CF, learners’ attention to the content would be directed 20.

(27) to the linguistic form (the input), and that if attention is successfully directed, intake of the target form will follow. However, input cannot be transformed into intake without noticing and processing (Schmidt, 1990). Although techniques aimed at directing learners’ attention to the target form are a prerequisite for noticing and processing of the form, they do not necessarily guarantee that learners would linguistically process the target form. Therefore, while literature suggests that CF is facilitative of the perceptual saliency of the target form, it cannot be assumed that it also speaks to learner processing. Furthermore, given the fact that there is not always a match between external saliency (consciousness raising feedback provided by teachers, e.g., CF) and internal saliency (learners’ attention determined by learning agenda, readiness of linguistic development), CF does not always ensure that learners are able to proactively and actively analyze the enhanced input, turning it into intake. In other words, CF is a necessary but insufficient condition for learning the target form. Some researchers, particularly psycholinguists (VanPatten, 1990), argue that the enhanced input needs to be carefully structured to cater to learners’ universal processing strategies, so as to create an optimal encoding/decoding environment for the learners. Such a view will be reviewed in section 2.4, processing instruction in focus on form. 21.

(28) 2.3 Input enhancement in focus on form. Similar to CF, the input enhancement (IE) was defined as “a deliberate attempt to make specific features of L2 input more salient in order to draw learners’ attention to these features” (Smith 1991, p. 118). The first half of this definition concerns input saliency, which is usually achieved by typographical modification, when input is manifested in texts. The latter half of the definition is about arousal of learners’ attention, to facilitate noticing and processing. However, it was indicated that... …the bulk of the [input enhancement] research…focuses mainly on the effect of instructional modification as measured by the relationship between the input learners receive and their subsequent linguistic performance. Lacking in this line of research is the investigation of the learners’ processing of input. (Jourdenais, Stauffer, Boyson, Doughty, 1995) In short, the efficacy of IE in arousing noticing and processing is seldom examined. Lack of involvement in probing noticing and processing may not lead to satisfying results in empirical studies. White’s (1998) study yielded such insight. She sought to find out whether typographically enhanced input and extensive reading and listening would make learners progress further in the acquisition of third person singular pronouns and possessive determiners. Three groups were formed. Group E+ (N=27) received a typographically enhanced input flood in addition to extensive reading and listening. Group E (N=30) received a typographically enhanced input 22.

(29) flood. Group U (N=29) received a typographically unenhanced input flood. The result did not support the hypotheses of this study. In White’s discussion on the result, (the between-group differences were reduced and thus no significant statistical evidence was generated to support her hypothesis) a few possible reasons were given. The first is about the salience created by the multiple-choice test given to all the three groups that contrasted possessive determiners (PDs) of his and her. The test given was supposedly a source of input which aroused learners’ attention across three groups. The second is about the similarity between enhanced input and unenhanced input. Due to the similarity between English (L1) and French (L2) and the fact that learners were not provided with information about PD agreement, “interlingual contrast” did not enter the learners’ awareness because “none of the treatments focused the learners’ attention” (White, 1998). White suggested that more explicit pedagogical technique such as brief rule explanation could be applied at the beginning of the input enhancement period or part of the way through it to help learners structure the input. The findings suggest that, although drawing the learners’ attention to a linguistic feature may be sufficient to speed up acquisition of that feature, implicit FonF instruction (such as IE) may not be adequate in cases involving L1-L2 contrast. For 23.

(30) cases that involve such contrasts, therefore, …Learners may need somewhat more explicit information about the L1-L2 contrasts in order to progress to more advanced developmental stages. The ways in which this information can be combined with … increased salience are in need of further investigation.” (p. 106). In short, learner noticing of the L1-L2 contrast and subsequent processing should not be overlooked. Other IE studies that do consider learner processing strategies when designing input in input manipulation have observed positive effect. The Jourdenais et al.’ study in 1995 is a case in point. The aim of the study was to find out whether IE would promote learner noticing of the target forms and subsequently affect production of writing. Fourteen native speakers of English were involved in this study. Learners were required to read a script (enhanced and unenhanced for experimental group and comparison group). Then they were asked to compose and meanwhile they had to verbalize what they were thinking simultaneously. The whole procedure was taped and recorded. The finding supported the hypothesis. The results suggested that the input modification created a difference between the two groups. The two groups differed significantly in their percentage of explicit mentions of preterit and imperfect verbs in the enhancement participants’ protocol. The analysis of the written production also demonstrates a striking difference between the two groups in their overall use of the 24.

(31) past tense. The enhancement group “simply provided more target forms in obligatory contexts in their written production” (Jourdenais et al. 1995). Contrary to the previous finding, Park (2004) did not reach positive result. Park assigned handouts of model passage for learners in both control and experimental groups to read before they wrote. The contents of the passages in both groups were identical. The difference was that, in the handout for experimental group the target structure was printed in boldface. The typographical saliency is where the input enhancement was manipulated. The result shows that increased perceptual saliency does not necessarily lead to learner noticing of the form(s). Noticing is largely dependent on internal, cognitive factors, such as learner readiness, L1 knowledge and L2 learning experience. Also, there is the attentional capacity to consider. Learners tend to process input for meaning before they process it for form. In addition, due to the fact that attentional capacity is limited, the target structure should be minimally enhanced for facilitation of learner processing. Park (2004) concludes that… FonF studies should pay special attention to the learner’s limited attentional capacity with regard to the nature of the target linguistic form as well as the FonF technique employed. (p. 20). That is to say, taking limited attentional capacity into consideration, the target structure should be minimal and learner processing cannot be overlooked. This latter 25.

(32) point leads us to one proactive FonF technique, processing instruction.. 2.4 Processing instruction in focus on form. Processing instruction (PI) might be questioned as to whether it should truly be regarded as one FonF technique, in that it is mainly featured with pedagogical emphasis on learner processing. To clarify the doubt, it is necessary to have a glance at what PI is. There is a set of procedure that is consisted of a few steps (see Van Patten, 2005): 1. Learners are given information about a linguistic structure or form. 2. Learners are informed about a particular input processing strategy that may negatively affect their picking up of the form or structure during comprehension. 3. Learners are pushed to process the form or structure during activities with structured input—input that is manipulated in particular ways so that learners become dependent on form and structure to get meaning (i.e., learners are pulled away from their natural processing tendencies toward more optimal tendencies).. The initial explicit teaching is a move to inform learners of their non-target forms and of their previous habitual (less optimal) processing strategy. External stimuli that push the learners out of the less optimal strategy are then given by engaging learners in structured task-essential activities. Structured task-essential input activities are those specifically manipulated in a particular way involving written and aural endeavors, in which learners are propelled to get meaning from form and structure. Structured input activities can be divided into referential and affective activities. 26.

(33) Referential structured input activities are those which involve only right or wrong answers and for which the learner must rely on the targeted grammatical form to get meaning. Here is one example: Students’ instructions: Listen to each sentence. Then indicate when the action takes place by answering each question. 1. Did John jog sometime in the past, or does John jog as a habit? 2. Did Mary go to bed late or does she go to bed late? Affective structured input activities are those where learners express an opinion, belief, or some other affective response and are engaged in processing information about the real world. Here is one example: In this activity, you will compare and contrast what George did in the winter vacation and what he does in everyday life with what your classmate(s) did in the winter vacation and what your classmate(s) do in everyday life. To optimize the efficacy of PI and to provide learners with an optimal encoding environment for the target structure, Van Patten contends that referential structured input activities, which are more controlled, need to precede affective structured activities, which are more open-ended. While not the entire PI procedure matches the FonF principle, a crucial and vital part which accounts for the major efficacy of PI does fit FonF. Regardless of the differences in implementation sequence, both referential and affective structured activities aim at directing learners’ attention to the target form with focus on 27.

(34) contextualized meaning-oriented activities. In this regard, the structured input provided in PI neatly corresponds to the FonF framework. The efficacy of PI is supported by a few studies (VanPatten & Wong, 2004; Cheng, 2002; Wong, 2004; Benati, 2004). VanPatten and Wong (2004) conducted a study to see whether PI is superior to traditional instruction (TI), which was defined and operationalized as a presentation of explicit information concerning the form or structure, followed by a move from mechanical, through meaningful, and finally to communicative exercises. The comparison between PI and TI was made on two facets: the interpretation and production of target form, the French causative. Final research question concerned whether the efficacy, if any, would hold to a delayed posttest or not. Participants from two universities (U1 and U2) were divided into Processing group (U1 n=18, U2 n=11), Traditional group (U1 n=11, U2 n=9), and Control group (U1 n=14, U2 n=14). Both experimental groups received explicit information about the French causative. The result showed that, in terms of interpretation, there was a difference between the three groups, with the Processing superior to the Tradition, which was in turn superior to the Control. In terms of production, both experimental groups were superior to the Control group. When test-taking strategy is taken into account, however, the Processing group is superior to the Traditional group. The difference between Processing and Traditional was that, in the 28.

(35) explicit-information-giving phase, the Processing group received information about the word order problem that learners of French are confronted with, while the Traditional did not. In the activity phase, the differences can be summarized as follows: Structured input activities in the processing group required participants to attend to both meaning and form to successfully complete the activities but they were never required to produce the target structures; activities in the traditional packet always required participants to produce the target forms. (p. 104). In other words, structured input activities were of crucial status that distinguished the different outcomes of the experimental groups (Traditional Teaching vs. Processing Instruction). Since structured input activities aim to treat how learners process what they learn, it is not difficult to generate that PI particularly concerns learner processing, as compared with TI. As the researchers indicated, “If subjects in a traditional group are given the chance to process before practice as in Allen’s study, one might expect no difference between the two groups on the interpretation test after treatment” (VanPatten & Wong, 2004). VanPatten thus suggested that PI is overall superior than TI and that future studies could generate PI to other structures to further examine its pedagogical value (2004, p. 113). The significance of structured input activities was further examined and supported by VanPatten and Oikkenon (1996). They recruited 59 participants studying Spanish at a high school in Champaign, Illinois, and divided them into three groups: a 29.

(36) control group with regular processing instruction (17 participants), a group which received explanations only (22 participants), and a group which received structured input activities (20 participants). After receiving the treatments, the participants were assessed in terms of interpretation and production. The results showed that the significant improvement on the interpretation test was due to the presence of structured input activities but not to the explicit information provided during the explanation phase. As for the production test, although the explicit information could also be attributed for the improved performance, it was not as significant as the structured input activities. Therefore, “explicit information may enhance performance on the production test…[and] structured input significantly on both interpretation and production measures” (VanPatten & Oikkenon, 1996). PI partially matches the principles of FonF, and differs from TI with greater efficacy in fostering learner noticing and processing. It can be expected that PI may have a great effect on raising learners’ accuracy in using form, considering the fact that CF and IE have not touched processing issue as much as PI has. Yet, this is in need of empirical backup. Examined thus far, each of these three aforementioned FonF techniques has pedagogical values. In order to compare them further and find out whether there would be an alternative to CF in writing, it would be necessary to recognize the 30.

(37) limitations.. 2.5 Constraints of focus on form. Considering that each pedagogical technique has its value, in order to probe deeper into the efficacy of application in writing training, the limitations are to be examined as well. To decide which FonF technique should be used for a specific target structure, it should be clarified first which target forms are more amenable to FonF than others. There are certain constraints when considering the target structure for FonF intervention. First of all, there is the issue of the nature of enhanced form—“not all linguistic elements are created equal” (Han et al., 2008, P607). Some elements are more amenable to FonF than others. As DeKeyser (1998) indicated, among the many facets of language learning, morphosyntax is a complex area of concern when applying FonF. As some researchers indicated, for example, Hulstijn and De Graaff (1994), simple rules are not necessarily the best candidates for FonF, because they assume that the easier rules are precisely the ones that students can discover for themselves. DeKeyser also suggested, “…instead of giving up on more difficult rules, teachers may have to put the most emphasis on them” (1998, p. 44). Where positive evidence alone is not 31.

(38) sufficient for the learners, FonF comes in. He identified that there are a few issues to discuss when considering significance of linguistic variables. One of them is the degree of complexity. On degree of complexity, different researchers brought up issues like formal/functional complexity (Krashen, 1982), underlying rules (DeKeyser, 1994), and communicative value (VanPatten, 1996), to name just a few. Krashen (1982) highlighted the division of formal and functional complexity and categorized certain rules as easy to learn but hard to acquire. This principle can serve as a basic guideline for selecting structure to undergo FonF. The past tense would then be a candidate for FonF intervention in that it is taught in early English education and yet is not easy to master even after years of instruction. Addressing the complexity issue from a different perspective, VanPatten (1996) introduced the concept of communicative value, which can be classified into high, medium and low, based on semantic value and structural redundancy. The semantic value that the past tense possesses varies in different contexts. In contexts where time clue is clear, the semantic value of the past tense is low and it would be structurally redundant. For instance: “Last night, Ginger played computer games.” The time clue “last night” clearly indicates that the action is in the past. 32.

(39) Listeners/readers do not have to rely on the past tense to understand the time frame. However, in contexts where there is vague or even no time clue, the past tense would be necessary for time reference, and thus structurally non-redundant. For example: “Ginger stayed up late and thus dozed off in class this morning.” There is no time clue in this sentence. Listeners/readers are pushed to interpret the time of the action with the aid of the past tense marker. The semantic value of the past tense thus differs, depending on the context. Due to this complexity, the past tense is not easy to acquire. The complexity can be further discussed from the following perspective. A structure might be formally simple, and yet functionally complex, as the formal simplicity and functional complexity of third person singular –s, indicated by DeKeyser (1998): …one morpheme expresses several semantic concepts at the same time (the present tense, singular, third person), and the rule has a number of high-frequency exceptions (modals). Many inflectional morphemes (at least in inflectional as opposed to agglutinative languages) show such complexity in their form-function relationship.. Similarly, the past tense can be viewed as functionally complex, despite the fact that it appears simple. Specifically, the form of the past tense implies many concepts. “[I]t is the complexity of the rule and not its surface realization that will determine how hard it is to learn” (DeKeyser, 1998). In the learning of English the past tense involves many concepts, like the semantic value of time reference, and the relevant 33.

(40) linguistic knowledge that it should be the main verb in the sentence and there should be no auxiliary (modals) verbs. The regular and irregular forms of the past tense are another possible source of confusion for the students; their confusion is further complicated by the fact that the passive voice and perfect tense share the same form. Besides constraints that influence what target is amenable to FonF, there are also constraints that determine the efficacy of FonF: the learners’ prior knowledge, learner readiness (developmental readiness) and attention allocation mechanism. The prior knowledge (or lack thereof) of the enhanced form would make it more or less salient for the learners to notice. As Han et al. reviewed, three main findings have been offered in this respect: First, simple enhancement is more effective for learners with some prior knowledge of the form in question (Park 2004) than for learners without (Alanen 1995). Second, simple enhancement may induce noticing (i.e. low-level awareness, following Schmidt 1990) but not understanding (i.e. high-level awareness) in learners with little prior knowledge (Shook 1994); however, it may incite understanding as well as noticing in learners with some prior knowledge (Lee 2007). Third, compound enhancement (i.e. TE in combination with other attention-getting strategies such as CF) is more effective than simple enhancement in inducing noticing, and further processing of, the target form in both types of learners.. It has been brought forth by researchers that learners tend to notice forms that they are ready to learn. This learner readiness, or developmental readiness (Park, 2004), is similar to “internally generated input enhancement” (Han et al., 2008). Han et al. (2008) pointed out that learners possess their own natural learning agenda and 34.

(41) processing mechanisms which decide what to focus on when processing input information. When exposed to externally enhanced input, learners may or may not notice the target form, or may even notice it partially, all contingent on whether or not they are developmentally ready for it (Han et al. 2008). Relevant to the issue of developmental readiness, learners’ attention allocation mechanism also affects whether a given structure will be further attended and processed in the Working Memory. As Park suggested, learners are more likely to notice forms that they are ready to learn and internalize, and that aiming at target structures which are too advanced for learners may not be effective. Besides, …how focal attention is allocated is something that is negotiated by the teacher and the students and not directly observable. The intended outcome of focus on form is what Schmidt (1993b and elsewhere) calls noticing. (Long, 1998). Noticing concerns learners’ consciousness, and “questions concerning the role of consciousness in learning, however difficult to answer, are important to all” (Schmidt, 1995). Noticing and subsequent processing of target form influence the efficacy of FonF to a great extent, since learners have to go through a procedure of exposure (input), registering (intake), and analysis of the form, before they achieve the linguistic competence (uptake). To have a clear picture of what essential differences there are, if any, among the three FonF techniques mentioned above (CF, IE and PI), issues concerning attention and awareness have to be examined. 35.

(42) 2.6 Attention and awareness in focus on form. The role of conscious and unconscious processes in second language learning is one of the most controversial issues often brought up by SLA researchers (Schmidt, 1990). Conscious processes emphasize rule comprehension, and unconscious processes emphasize natural uptake through meaningful language use for communication. Conscious and unconscious processes are “a series of a wide pendulum swinging over the past century” (Schmidt, 1995). Schmidt identified a few dimensions of consciousness with slight differences in 1990 and 1994. In the latter version, four levels of consciousness were presented: consciousness as intention, consciousness as attention, consciousness as awareness and consciousness as control (Schmidt, 1994b). Based on Schmidt, Al-Hejin (2004) summarizes each construct: …intention, …refers to a deliberateness on the part of the learner to attend to the stimulus. Intention is often associated with intentional versus incidental learning. … attention, …basically refers to the detection of a stimulus. … awareness,…refers to the learner’s knowledge or subjective experience that he/she is detecting a stimulus, …often associated with explicit versus implicit learning. …control, …refers to the extent to which the language learners output is controlled, requiring considerable mental processing effort, or spontaneous, requiring little mental processing effort. (p. 2). Among the detailed levels within each category, attention and awareness probably speak to the current interest, since they influence how much cognitive resource is deployed to enable the transformation of input into intake and how much input would 36.

(43) be transformed into intake. Awareness is further divided into three crucial levels: awareness as perception, awareness as noticing, and awareness as understanding (Schmidt, 1990). Schmidt (1990) proposed that “all perception implies mental organization and the ability to create internal representations of external events” (p. 132). Perception usually occurs first. Generally one can perceive surrounding stimuli and is not necessarily conscious of them. Noticing, on the other hand, is featured with subjective experience, and thus is private, subject to certain conditions. Understanding refers to a higher mental processing of stimuli, involving analysis, comparison, reflection, comprehension, and insight gained, which are commonly thought of as thinking, embracing problem solving capability (Schmidt, 1990). When reading, for instance, aside from the content being read, there might be the radio, the hustle and bustle from outside the window, and so on. One can decide to (1) simply perceive the buzzing in the environment but without further processing (awareness as perception), or (2) to (briefly) attend to the buzzing or the input information (awareness as noticing); or (3) to attend to the input information and analyze it drawing on existing/prior knowledge (awareness as understanding). Among the three levels of awareness, awareness at the level of noticing and awareness at the level of understanding are of great significance to one’s linguistic 37.

(44) development, helping learners transform input into intake. Schmidt proposed that “intake is that part of the input that the learner notices,” and “noticing is the necessary and sufficient condition for converting input into intake” (Schmidt, 1990). Thus, noticing serves as a middle phase between the input, “what is available for going in,” and the intake, “what goes in” (Corder, 1967:165). Input refers to stimuli such as what has been discussed, CF and enhanced texts. Intake, on the other hand, refers to the actual content/information registered. With the constraints inherent in enhancement technique that generates different degrees of noticing at work, what is presented to the learner (input) may or may not equal what is ultimately registered (intake). The imbalance between the enhanced input and the actual intake encircles a site for the role of attention. Attention to information pending for processing involves mental energy that is compared as selection and capacity (Robinson, 1995). In a selection model, “filter theories of attention were based on pipeline models of information processing, in which information is conveyed in a fixed serial order from one storage structure to the next.” Stimulus is either selected and attended, or dropped and ignored. In a capacity model, mental resource is viewed as “spotlight, with a variable focus, which can be narrowed and intensified, or broadened and dissipated.” Stimulus is either at the brightest center and focally attended, or in the peripheral shadow and partially perceived. Whether selection or capacity, attention is not 38.

(45) limitless. Drawing on the capacity model, Kahneman (1973) proposed that mental resource is limited and confined to one “pool.” Incoming stimuli will be allocated with limited cognitive resources from one pool of cognitive resources that varies as a function of the participant’s state of arousal (cited in Robinson, 1995, p. 290). Though attention pool is limited, divided attention does not necessarily lead to decrements in performance, given sufficient arousal and given that the demands of the tasks performed concurrently are not excessive. Based on this concept of “pool,” Wickens (1980, 1984, 1989) expanded the attentional resource allocation into multiple pools, rather than single one. These pools occupy different points on three intersecting dimensions of resource systems: (a) the dimension representing perceptual/cognitive activities versus response processes; (b) the dimension representing processing codes required by analog/spatial activities versus verbal linguistic activities; and (c) the dimension representing processing modalities: auditory versus visual perception and vocal versus manual response. He indicated that attentional demands of tasks and the corresponding difficulty will be magnified when tasks draw on the same pool of resources. Consequently, Wicken’s model also implies that noticing the form of the language input would be more likely in such labeled object assembly, or one-way picture description tasks than in tasks drawing simultaneously on the visual verbal encoding resource pool, such as the L2 task described in Doughty (1991). The latter required learners to read for 39.

(46) meaning, while simultaneously noticing the form of input made salient through highlighting (both drawing on the verbal visual encoding resource pool). Such distinctions between the attentional demands of tasks, made possible by Wicken’s model, are rarely examined by second language researchers, despite the important relationship between attention, resource allocation, noticing, and intake (Robinson, 1995).. In other words, “tasks drawing simultaneously on the visual verbal encoding resource pool”, such as the aforementioned FonF techniques, CF and IE, which are implemented in written context, are less likely to arouse learner noticing of the form than tasks drawing on different pools. The efficacy of CF and IE would be undermined; since only verbal visual encoding resource pool is drawn upon, the attention load will be heavy. As Bandar Al-Hejin (2004) observed, it is more difficult to perform two tasks if both require controlled processing (high attention). This adds to further limitations of IE and CF. Due to the processing constraints, “forms may be noticed perceptually, but not linguistically” (Leeman, Arteagoitia, Fridman, & Doughty, 1995, p. 219). As Han et al. (2008) noted, “Enhanced forms may attract attention but may fall short of further processing” (p. 602). VanPatten (2002) also observed, “a learner could notice a form but not process it.” That is to say, enhanced forms may also fall short of arousal of awareness at noticing level, inducing learners to process the target form at the perceptual level, but not at the linguistic level. In the worst scenario, learners may not be even able to discern the intended content from the text written in target language, let alone linguistic information. In short, input cannot 40.

(47) be transformed into intake without noticing (Schmidt, 1990), and subsequent processing can only be activated after input is transformed into intake. PI, on the other hand, which involves oral/written input as evidenced in the referential and affective structured activities, can avoid such problem, providing learners with input from different modalities, thereby reducing cognitive processing load. With the aforementioned review in mind, these three techniques have pedagogical values in writing training, in that writing requires formal accuracy. With language use at the center of overriding focus in class, occasional and timely shift of attention to form for the purpose of increasing learners’ competence in accurate use of form may serve as a starting point when considering alternative ways to error treatment. A rough comparison among the three techniques will be necessary before forming the research questions. The issues addressed in CF and IE are largely tackled with caution in PI. For directness issue (see page 8), PI applies explicit instruction in advance, and oral plus written activities afterwards. For focused target structure, PI emphasizes the importance of “one thing at a time,” which caters to people’s universal processing predilection (i.e., processing form before meaning; processing meaning after meaning is clarified). Prior knowledge is activated from the beginning and overall comprehension has to be kept in mind and ensured throughout the instruction. The explicit reactivation of prior knowledge, demonstration of habitual incorrect 41.

(48) processing strategy, and subsequent structured activities facilitate considerable learner noticing, and more importantly, processing. Last but not least, due to PI’s instructional nature: oral lesson, preaching, demonstration, structured activities, learners’ different attentional pools are activated. What will be lessened is the processing load on decoding language and getting the information encoded. Both moves are from sight-reading (single attentional pool) as in IE and CF, and thus processing load in reactive FonF is much heavier. To examine whether there will be alternatives to CF that achieve equal or better efficacy in writing, therefore, the research interest lies in the comparison of different FonF techniques in terms of efficacy, and the possible insight of the significant roles that noticing and processing play in dealing with writing instruction. The research questions are thus as follows: 1. Do the techniques commonly used in the FonF framework (i.e., CF, IE & PI) serve as effective consciousness-raising activities in directing high-school students’ attention to the English past tense in an immediate writing practice? 2. If so, is there any significant difference among the three FonF techniques (if entirely so), or between the FonF techniques at focus (if partially so)? 3. Can the observed effects sustain over time?. 42.

(49) CHAPTER THREE METHODOLOGY. There are seven sections in this chapter: (1) target structure, (2) setting and participants, (3) design and stimuli, (4) procedures and instruments, (5) operationalizations and (6) correction guidelines. The target structure will include the chosen form, and the rationale behind the choice. The setting will present the teaching environment where this study took place. A brief description will be given on the information of the high school, the educational policy regulating English instruction, and general background information about the learners. The participants are the learners who received the intervention from this study. The estimated number of the learners, the number of intact classes to which learners belong, proficiency background, grouping strategy, and relevant information about the learners will be provided in this section. The design of the study will present the sequence of steps which were taken. Procedures and instruments will specify the overall scaffold of the study, and detailed depiction based on the design. Operationalizations will include the grouping, and exact conduction of the treatments relevant to each group. Finally, the correction guidelines are the referential criterion according to which the assessment and evaluation of the learners’ performance will be carried out. 43.

(50) 3.1 Target structure. The past tense was targeted in the current study for a few reasons. The past tense is widely applied in picture-story writing, a major trend for English writing test in GST. Owing to the nature of a story, the description of events usually takes the form of the past tense. Instead of adopting the past tense, however, learners often apply the present tense, ignoring time reference in composing stories. More often than not, they apply the present tense to narrate cases that happened in the past. Another reason for selecting the past tense was its complex underlying regulations, such as the irregular form, or the distance (DeKeyser, 1998) between the verb and the time clue (or lack thereof). For a target form which is not simple, positive evidence alone is insufficient for building learners’ competence. The complexity of the past tense thus requires treatments in FonF, a concept whose manifested treatments are for form that is not straightforward to the learners. In addition, FonF is a pedagogical treatment that can be embedded (and thus serve as intervention) in regular English courses. It aims at remodeling learners’ existing knowledge which is yet to be completed. The target structure for FonF intervention thus should not be brand new to learners. Due to the fact that the past tense is taught quite early in English learning, learners already have partial knowledge of it. 44.

(51) Weighing all these conditions, the English the past tense was chosen as the target structure.. 3.2 Setting and participants. This study was conducted in three classes from First Manka Senior High School. Students beginning the first year in First Manka Senior High School were in normal distribution, and were divided into sixteen classes averaging forty to forty-two in each, according to their academic performance in junior high school. They would not be separated into liberal-arts oriented and science-engineering oriented classes until the second year. Each week, the freshmen had six periods of English class in total, with four required, one elective, and one additional course, which was supplementary in essence, offered at the last period of a day, to enhance what students learn in their regular programs. One hundred and sixty first-grade students from four intact classes participated in this study, randomly distributed into four groups: the Control group, the IE group, the CF group, and the PI group. The students were generally between 15 to 16 years old. They had received English courses since grade three. The total years for learning English amounted to seven years.. 45.

FonF教學對以英語為外語青年學習者 寫作中使用英語動詞過去式之效益

FonF教學對以英語為外語青年學習者寫作中使用英語動詞過去式之效益