Dergiler / The Journal of Language Learning and Teaching / 2014 / Cilt: 4 - Sayı: 1

The Relative Impacts of Planned Preemptive vs. Delayed Reactive FonF on EFL Learners’ Lexical Resource

Sayfa
68–82
Yayın Tarihi
2016-07-14
DOI
—
🏛️Bu makalenin bibliyografik verileri ve tam metin bağlantısı DergiPark üzerinden sağlanmıştır.
DergiPark Kaydı ↗
✨

Yapay Zeka Hızlı Bakış & Çıkarımlar

AI Insight
⚡ TL;DR(1 Cümlede Hızlı Çıkarım)

One of the interesting findings of the present study was that preemptive focus on form can be planned in advance on the basis of teachers’ experience, which can lead to a blurred dichotomy between planned and incidental focus on form.

📌 3 Maddede Bu Makale

🎯
Amaç & Hipotez:SLA researchers contend that focus on form (FonF) instruction plays a pivotal role in L2 acquisition.
📊
Temel Bulgular & Veri:The participants of the study were a total of19 upper-intermediate adult all-female students.
💡
Sonuç & Katkı:One of the interesting findings of the present study was that preemptive focus on form can be planned in advance on the basis of teachers’ experience, which can lead to a blurred dichotomy between planned and incidental focus on form.
🔬Tür:Araştırma Makalesi
📍Kapsam:Genişletilmiş Akademik Örneklem
⚙️Değişkenler:Focus on form · meaning-oriented lessons · planned preemptive FonF

Abstract

SLA researchers contend that focus on form (FonF) instruction plays a pivotal role in L2 acquisition. Focus on form (FonF) instruction is learner-centered and is consistent with the learner’s internal syllabus. There has been an ongoing query in the literature as to whether focus on form should occur prior toerror commitment or be reactive to the actual errors of the learners during the task. In this regard, this study tried to explore the effectiveness as well as the relative impacts of planned preemptive vs. delayed reactive focus on form on lexical resourceof EFL learners’ oral production in meaning-oriented interviews. The study adopted a pretest-posttest quasi-experimental design including two experimental groups, each receiving a distinct treatment during the whole semester. The participants of the study were a total of19 upper-intermediate adult all-female students. Paired-samples t-test and independent-samples t-test were utilized to evaluate and compare the differing effects of two treatments respectively. The findings of the study demonstrated that both types of form-focused instructions are conducive to learners’ oral production lexical resource. One of the interesting findings of the present study was that preemptive focus on form can be planned in advance on the basis of teachers’ experience, which can lead to a blurred dichotomy between planned and incidental focus on form.

🔖

Bu Makaleye Atıf Yap

PANAHZADE, V. (2016). The Relative Impacts of Planned Preemptive vs. Delayed Reactive FonF on EFL Learners’ Lexical Resource. The Journal of Language Learning and Teaching, Cilt: 4 - Sayı: 1, 68–82. https://ajindex.com/articles/137721

📄 Tam Metin PDF Okuyucu

📄

PDF görüntüleyici hazırlanıyor...

Kaynakça (11)

  1. Ahangari, S. & Abdi, M. (2011). The effect of pre-task planning on the accuracy and complexity of Iranian EFL learners’ oral performance. Proceedings of the International Conference on Education and Educational Psychology, Procedia, 29, 1950- 1959.
  2. Birjandi, P. & Alipour, S. (2010). Comparing the effect of individual and group pre-task planning on EFL learners’ accuracy and complexity in speaking. JELS, 1(4), 1-22. Cambridge practice tests for IELTS (Vols. 1-8) (1996-2011).
  3. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
  4. Dabaghi Varnosfadrani, A. & Basturkmen, H. (2009). The effectiveness of implicit and explicit error correction on learners’ performance. System, 37(1), 82-98.
  5. Dabbaghi, A. (2006). A comparison of the effects of implicit/explicit and immediate/delayed corrective feedback on learners' performance in tailor-made tests. Unpublished Ph.D. Dissertation, the University of Auckland. Ellis, R. (2005). Planning and task-based performance: theory and research. In R. Ellis (Ed.), Planning and task performance in a second language (pp. 4-34).
  6. Philadelphia, PA: John Benjamins. Ellis, R., Basturkmen, H., & Loewen, S. (2001). Pre-emptive focus on form in the ESL classroom. TESOL Quarterly, 35(3), 407-432.
  7. Ellis, R., Basturkmen, H., & Loewen, S. (2002). Doing focus on form. System, 30(4), 419-432.
  8. Farrokhi, F. & Chehrazad, M. (2012). The effects of planned focus on form on Iranian EFL learners‘ oral accuracy. World Journal of Education, 2(1), 70-81.
  9. Housen, A. & Pierrard, M. (2005). Investigations in instructed second language acquisition. New York: Mouton de Gruyter. IELTS speaking band descriptors- public version (n.d.). Retrieved March 11, 2013, from http://www.ieltsessentials.com/pdf/BandcoreDescriptorsSpeaking.pdf IELTS Speaking Overview- teacher’s notes (n.d.). Retrieved March 11, 2013, from https://www.teachers.cambridgeesol.org/ts/digitalAssets/114847_IELTS_Speaking_Overview.pdf
  10. Lightbown, P., & Spada, N. (1990). Focus-on-form and corrective feedback in communicative language teaching: Effects on second language learning. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 12(4), 429-448.
  11. Loewen, S. (2011). Focus on Form. In E. Hinkel (ed.), Handbook of Research in Second Language Teaching and Learning (pp. 576-592). Routledge: New York. Long M. (1988). Instructed interlanguage development. In L. Beebe (ed.), Issues in Second Language Acquisition: Multiple perspectives. Rowley, MA: Newbury House. Long, M. (1991). Focus on form: A design feature in language teaching