A Comparison of the Effectiveness of Focus-on-form and Meaning ...

稻 江 學 報 第 四 卷 第 二 期
A <strong>Comparison</strong> <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> <strong>Effectiveness</strong> <strong>of</strong> <strong>Focus</strong>-on-form and
Meaning-focused Instructions in <strong>the</strong> English Classroom
Ying-Ying Chuang
Department <strong>of</strong> Applied Foreign Languages, Cheng Shiu University
Abstract
One <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> ra<strong>the</strong>r recent topics which preoccupied <strong>the</strong> language teaching circles for a while is
<strong>the</strong> <strong>Focus</strong>-on-form (FOF) instruction originally proposed by Long (1991). Many language teachers,
educators, and researchers “praised it as if it were <strong>the</strong> miracle method <strong>the</strong>y had always been searching
for” (Poole, 2005, p. 47) and many research projects have tried to prove it being more effective than
meaning-focused (MF) instruction and some researches also attributed <strong>the</strong> effectiveness <strong>of</strong> FOF
instruction to <strong>the</strong> way it is performed and <strong>the</strong> personality factors <strong>of</strong> learners and teachers. This study
aimed to investigate <strong>the</strong> effectiveness <strong>of</strong> FOF and MF instruction in EFL settings especially for <strong>the</strong>
beginning learners who were in a more crucial need <strong>of</strong> developing a grammatical competence in L2.
Therefore, <strong>the</strong> effectiveness <strong>of</strong> FOF and MF instruction was examined to see if any significant
difference existed in <strong>the</strong> effect <strong>of</strong> meaning-focused and focus-on-form activities on Taiwanese junior
high school students’ learning grammatical points in <strong>the</strong> English classroom. The researcher chose two
classes randomly and assigned <strong>the</strong>m as two groups: experimental and control groups, and <strong>the</strong>
instructors used FOF instruction in <strong>the</strong> experimental group and MF instruction in <strong>the</strong> control group to
teach <strong>the</strong> same grammar unit (relative clauses) for a four-week period. After that, a reading test was
conducted to see if any significant difference occurred in <strong>the</strong> scores <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong>se two groups. However,
<strong>the</strong> result did not reach <strong>the</strong> statistic significance, but <strong>the</strong> greater means <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> experimental group on <strong>the</strong>
total and <strong>the</strong> two subsections <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> test imply that FOF instruction may bring about more satisfactory
results. The study implied <strong>the</strong> confirmation <strong>of</strong> previous research which has shown <strong>the</strong> effectiveness <strong>of</strong>
FOF over MF instruction in grammar teaching <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> Taiwanese junior high school English class.
Keywords: English as a foreign language; focus-on-form instruction; meaning-focused activity;
explicit and implicit instructions.
1

稻 江 學 報 第 四 卷 第 二 期
比 較 「 形 式 為 中 心 」 與 「 意 義 為 中 心 」 英 語 教 學 法 於 國 中 生
英 語 課 堂 的 文 法 教 學 成 效 之 研 究
莊 媖 纓
正 修 科 技 大 學 應 用 外 語 系
摘 要
「 形 式 為 中 心 」 教 學 法 是 一 種 在 最 近 幾 年 受 到 注 意 的 新 形 態 外 語 教 學 模 式 , 它 得 到 許 多
教 師 及 研 究 學 者 的 重 視 並 推 崇 其 理 念 。 從 許 多 國 外 的 研 究 報 告 中 , 幾 乎 都 可 獲 得 證 實 : 在 英 語 課
堂 教 學 過 程 中 及 學 生 的 學 習 效 果 中 , 它 比 起 「 意 義 為 中 心 」 教 學 法 , 更 來 得 有 效 果 。 本 研 究 的 目
的 , 是 要 就 實 施 「 形 式 為 中 心 」 及 「 意 義 為 中 心 」 教 學 法 於 臺 灣 國 中 一 年 級 學 生 的 英 語 課 堂 , 尤
其 是 在 英 語 初 學 者 的 文 法 學 習 成 效 中 , 來 比 較 這 兩 種 教 學 法 是 否 有 達 到 顯 著 差 異 , 及 是 否 與 國 外
研 究 報 告 有 相 似 之 結 果 。 筆 者 將 兩 班 學 生 各 分 配 為 實 驗 組 及 對 照 組 , 兩 班 分 別 施 以 不 同 教 學 法 ,
在 四 星 期 的 期 間 來 教 授 同 樣 的 文 法 單 元 ( 關 係 子 句 ), 最 後 再 以 初 級 英 檢 題 目 之 閱 讀 測 驗 來 評 量 兩
組 學 生 的 學 習 成 效 。 本 研 究 所 得 到 的 結 論 , 由 兩 組 學 生 的 英 語 閱 讀 評 量 測 驗 成 績 中 , 雖 未 達 統 計
學 上 的 顯 著 差 異 , 但 較 高 的 平 均 值 仍 顯 示 「 形 式 為 中 心 」 教 學 法 在 國 中 生 英 語 課 堂 的 文 法 教 學 上 ,
比 「 意 義 為 中 心 」 之 教 學 法 是 有 更 好 的 學 習 效 果 。
關 鍵 字 : 英 語 學 習 ; 形 式 為 中 心 教 學 法 ; 意 義 為 中 心 教 學 法 ; 演 繹 法 ; 文 法 規 納 教 學 法 。
2

稻 江 學 報 第 四 卷 第 二 期
I. Introduction
Teaching and learning a foreign language is influenced by a plethora <strong>of</strong> factors. One <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong>
major controversies in learning especially <strong>the</strong> syntactic component <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> language is over <strong>the</strong> explicit
(direct) or implicit (indirect) instruction <strong>of</strong> grammatical rules. In fact, <strong>the</strong> extent to which knowledge
obtained from explicit instruction could over time become part <strong>of</strong> a foreign language learner's
underlying system <strong>of</strong> implicit knowledge and <strong>the</strong>refore available for spontaneous language production
was still an open question (Lyster, 2004). While on <strong>the</strong> assumption that foreign language learning was
like first language acquisition, experiential approaches to L2 acquisition proposed that language
developed principally out <strong>of</strong> experience with real-life communication and pure meaningful activities, as
Nassaji (1999) maintains that many second language acquisition researchers believed in <strong>the</strong> inadequacy
<strong>of</strong> pure meaning-focused activities in which <strong>the</strong> learners exposure to language for developing L2
competence.
However, Long (1983) questioned about Krashen’s (1985) and Prabh’s (1987)
meaning-focused position, and later he argued that instead <strong>of</strong> more focus on message-based activities.
There should be some room for referring to <strong>the</strong> problems that language learners have with linguistic
forms. This position was known as ‘focus-on-form’ position, and it had been widely noticed by many
researchers (e.g. Nassaji, 2000; Muranoi, 2000; Ellis, Badturkmen & Loewen 2001; Burgess &
E<strong>the</strong>rington, 2002; Basturkmen, Loewen & Ellis, 2002; Chan & Li, 2002, Ellis, Basturkmen & Loewen,
2002; Sheen, 2002; Loewen, 2003; Lyster, 2004; Poole, 2005). Poole (2005) said that it presented “a
source <strong>of</strong> great enthusiasm for English language teachers and researchers so much so that many have
praised it as if it were <strong>the</strong> miracle method <strong>the</strong>y had always been searching for” (p. 47). Therefore, this
study aims to investigate <strong>the</strong> effectiveness <strong>of</strong> focus-on-form and meaning-focused instruction, and to
see if any significant difference exists in <strong>the</strong> effect <strong>of</strong> meaning-focused and focus-on-form activities on
Taiwanese junior high school students’ learning grammatical points in <strong>the</strong> EFL classroom.
II. Review <strong>of</strong> Literature
2.1. Theoretical Foundations <strong>of</strong> <strong>Focus</strong> on Form
Researchers endorsing focus on form position in language instruction usually justify <strong>the</strong>ir
position by resorting to interactive and cognitive epistemological perspectives on language acquisition.
2.1.1. Interactive View
Interactive or interactionist approaches to second language acquisition, which were based on
functional views <strong>of</strong> language as a symbolic system that developed from communicative needs (Gass,
2003), focus on <strong>the</strong> relationship between learner internal and external processes in L2 acquisition
(Norris and Ortega, 2003). Long’s (1991) interaction hypo<strong>the</strong>sis held that negotiation <strong>of</strong> meaning was
particularly beneficial for learning in second language because it involved learners in having to pay
closer attention to linguistic forms when <strong>the</strong>re was a breakdown in communication. In his account,
3

稻 江 學 報 第 四 卷 第 二 期
during meaningful interaction <strong>the</strong> learners used different communicative strategies, ranging from
modifying and adjusting input to using facilitative strategies such as requests for clarification, requests
for repetition, and comprehension checks (Nassaji, 1999). Referring to Schmidt’s (1990) emphasis on
<strong>the</strong> role <strong>of</strong> attention in learning, Gass (2003) maintained that “it is through interaction (e.g. negotiation,
recasts) that a learner’s attention is focused on specific part <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> language, especially on those
mismatches between target language forms and learner-language forms” (p. 244). While this
negotiation <strong>of</strong> meaning took place in everyday communication, Long (1991) argued that it can also
occur in <strong>the</strong> classroom and identifies this as focus- on-form. In addition, Lyster (2004) pointed out
that resolving communication breakdowns through negotiation for meaning involved <strong>the</strong> use <strong>of</strong>
communication strategies; <strong>the</strong>refore, did not aim to effect changes in a learner’s underlying
inter-language system. Thus, he concluded, <strong>the</strong> interaction hypo<strong>the</strong>sis was “an unlikely candidate for
explaining instructed L2 development, especially in classroom contexts where mutual comprehension
<strong>of</strong> inter-language forms reduces <strong>the</strong> need to negotiate for meaning” (2004, p. 323).
2.1.2. Cognitive View
The <strong>the</strong>oretical foundation <strong>of</strong> focus-on-form position in cognitive views was justified by
McLaughlin (1987) and Skehan (1998). According to McLaughlin (1987), learning an L2 involved
two cognitive processes: automatization and restructuring. ‘Automatization’ refers to quick and
effortless responses to linguistic stimuli, initiated with controlled processes which <strong>the</strong>n turn into
routinized and automatized responses through subsequent practice. ‘Restructuring’ has to do with
sudden moments <strong>of</strong> insight and refers to <strong>the</strong> time when <strong>the</strong> learner understands <strong>the</strong> input in a different
way. It is characterized as a total, discontinuous, or qualitative change in an already existing cognitive
patterning. In restructuring view, L2 development not only involved moving from controlled to
automatized processes, but also it was a constant process <strong>of</strong> reorganizing, refining, and integrating new
information into previous internal representations (Nassaji, 1999, 2000; Lyster, 2004). Central to
restructuring process was attention to form, and it argued that restructuring <strong>of</strong> grammar principally took
place when learners attended to and notice features in input and <strong>the</strong>re was no learning without attention
(Schmidt, 1990; Nassaji, 1999; Gass, 2003).
In Skehan’s (1998) information processing model, <strong>the</strong> learner’s conscious awareness <strong>of</strong> rule
based representations was identified as a key factor in inter-language development. In this model,
noticing plays a central role in converting input to intake during input processing and is triggered by
input qualities such as frequency and salience and by input features that have been contrived for
instructional purposes (Lyster, 2004). Intake reached a central processing mechanism that operated a
dual mode system composed <strong>of</strong> two interrelated representational systems: an ‘analytic rule-based’ and a
‘memory-driven exemplar-based’ system. Skehan (1998) argued that, during online communication,
communicative pressure and <strong>the</strong> need for fact access would make <strong>the</strong> exemplar-based system <strong>the</strong>
system <strong>of</strong> choice. While <strong>the</strong> exemplar-based system was especially useful for spontaneous oral
production in interactional contexts, Skehan argued that inter-language change was more effectively
4

稻 江 學 報 第 四 卷 第 二 期
activated through rule-based system and <strong>the</strong> conscious awareness predisposed learners towards such
rule-based perspective. In addition, Ellis, et al. (2001) also referred to Felix’s (1985) and Schachter’s
(1989) claim that since L2 learners did not have access to <strong>the</strong> same acquisitional mechanisms as
children’s acquiring <strong>the</strong>ir L1, i.e. a specific language faculty which operated solely on <strong>the</strong> basis <strong>of</strong>
positive evidence, adult L2 learners needed to call on general inductive learning mechanisms which
made use <strong>of</strong> negative evidence. On this account, <strong>the</strong>y argued that “form-focused instruction that
makes such evidence available is not only helpful but even necessary for adult learners to acquire an
L2” (p. 408-409).
2.2. Dichotomies on <strong>Focus</strong> on Form
2.2.1. <strong>Focus</strong>-on-Form vs. <strong>Focus</strong>-on-Forms
<strong>Focus</strong>-on-form position was <strong>of</strong>ten contrasted with what was called focus-on-forms position.
<strong>Focus</strong>-on-form as defined by Long (1991) was a type <strong>of</strong> instruction in which <strong>the</strong> primary focus was on
meaning and communication, with <strong>the</strong> learners’ attention being drawn to linguistics elements only as
<strong>the</strong>y arised incidentally in lessons. Here, <strong>the</strong> teacher and <strong>the</strong> learner were primarily concerned with
using language communicatively, not with learning about <strong>the</strong> language. Despite this focus on
meaning, occasions might arise when <strong>the</strong> participants chose or needed to focus on form.
<strong>Focus</strong>-on-form <strong>the</strong>n provided learners with “opportunity to take time-out from focusing on message
construction to pay attention to specific forms and <strong>the</strong> meaning <strong>the</strong>y realize” (Basturkmen, Loewen &
Ellis, 2002, p. 2). Long (1991) made a distinction between this position and what he called
focus-on-forms which consisted <strong>of</strong> pre-planned presentation <strong>of</strong> discrete linguistic items as in a
traditional grammar lesson. As Basturkmen, Loewen and Ellis, (2002) referred to
‘structure-<strong>of</strong>-<strong>the</strong>-day approach,’ it was in accordance with a syn<strong>the</strong>tic syllabus. <strong>Focus</strong>-on-forms
position assumed that “classroom foreign or second language learning derives from general cognitive
processes and thus entails <strong>the</strong> learning <strong>of</strong> a skill–hence its being characterized as a ‘skills leaning’
approach” (Sheen, 2002, p. 303) in which providing understanding <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> grammar by variety <strong>of</strong> means,
including even explanation in <strong>the</strong> L1 or pointing out <strong>the</strong> differences between L1 and L2 may be
effective.
According to Spada’s (1997) explanation that “Long’s definition <strong>of</strong> focus on form is restricted
to meaning-based pedagogical events in which attention is drawn to language as a perceived need
arises ra<strong>the</strong>r than in predetermined ways” (p. 73), she <strong>the</strong>refore preferred <strong>the</strong> term form-focused
instruction which referred to pedagogical events which occured within meaning-based approaches to
L2 instruction but in which a focus on language is provided in ei<strong>the</strong>r spontaneous or predetermined
ways. Spada (1997) <strong>the</strong>refore introduced a new dichotomy: planned vs. incidental focus on form.
2.2.2. Form-focused and Meaning-focused Instructions
The acquisition <strong>of</strong> language knowledge was influenced by <strong>the</strong> type <strong>of</strong> instruction <strong>the</strong> learner
receives. Trosborg (1994) drew a clear distinction between form-focused and meaning-focused
5

稻 江 學 報 第 四 卷 第 二 期
instructions. She explained that in form-focused instruction, learners were engaged in activities that had
been specially designed to teach specific grammatical features. In contrast, in <strong>the</strong> case <strong>of</strong>
meaning-focused instruction, <strong>the</strong> learners were engaged in communication where <strong>the</strong> primary effort
involved <strong>the</strong> exchange <strong>of</strong> meaning and where <strong>the</strong>re was no conscious effort to achieve grammatical
correctness. Moreover, <strong>the</strong> two types <strong>of</strong> instructions differred with regard to <strong>the</strong>ir communicative
properties: meaning-focused instruction was likely to afford <strong>the</strong> learners more opportunities to listen to
and to perform a greater range <strong>of</strong> language functions than form-focused instruction.
The meaning-focused approach to second language instruction corresponded with <strong>the</strong>
non-interface view, as Norris and Ortega’s (2001) explanation, by providing exposure to rich input and
meaningful use <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> target language in context, which was intended to lead to incidental acquisition
<strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> target language. A Form-focused instructional approach could be widely found in
contemporary English language classrooms, in techniques such as Krashen and Terrell’s Natural
Approach, some content-based ESL instruction and immersion programs (Ellis, 1994).
Park (2000) investigated if forms-focused, meaning-focused, or forms and meaning-focused
instruction affected L2 learners participating in communication to explore <strong>the</strong> relationship between
instructional approach and phonological acquisition. Her results indicated that both <strong>the</strong> forms-focused
group and forms and meaning-focused group showed significant improvement after treatment.
However, analysis also showed that <strong>the</strong> forms and meaning-focused group obtained significantly more
improvement than <strong>the</strong> forms-focused group. It can be stated that forms and meaning-focused
instruction had <strong>the</strong> most effect on L2 learners’ phonological acquisition.
2.2.3. Reactive vs. Pre-emptive <strong>Focus</strong> on Form
Ellis, Basturkmen and Loewen (2001) maintained that whe<strong>the</strong>r <strong>the</strong> focus-on-form was
proactive (planned) or incidental a fur<strong>the</strong>r distinction could be made between reactive and preemptive
focus-on-form. Reactive focus-on-form which was also known as error correction or negative
evidence/feedback occurred when in <strong>the</strong> context <strong>of</strong> meaning-based activities, learners’ attention was
drawn to errors in <strong>the</strong>ir production. Preemptive focus-on-form, on <strong>the</strong> o<strong>the</strong>r hand occurred when
ei<strong>the</strong>r <strong>the</strong> teacher or a learner initiated attention to form even though no actual problem in production
had been arisen. Loewen (2003) believed while reactive focus on form had been investigated
extensively, preemptive focus on form had received much less attention.
2.2.4. Teacher-initiated vs. Student-initiated <strong>Focus</strong> on Form
Student-initiated focus-on-form was when learners raised questions about linguistic items, and
teacher-initiated focus on form was when teachers ei<strong>the</strong>r asked questions or provided unsolicited
information about specific linguistic items. It had been suggested that student-initiated focus on form in
particular might be more beneficial for L2 learners because students <strong>the</strong>mselves were actively
participating and topicalizing linguistic items (Slimini, 1989 cited in Loewen, 2003). Loewen (2003)
believed student-initiated focus-on-form was one way in which learner autonomy such as involving
learners in taking more responsibility <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong>ir learning was possible. However, it was possible that <strong>the</strong>
6

稻 江 學 報 第 四 卷 第 二 期
cultural differences in <strong>the</strong> norms <strong>of</strong> classroom conduct in general and in <strong>the</strong> predisposition to ask
questions in particular could affect <strong>the</strong> number <strong>of</strong> focus on form episodes students raise.
2.3. <strong>Focus</strong>-on-form and Second Language Acquisition Studies
<strong>Focus</strong>-on-form instruction as already stated has been welcomed with great enthusiasm by
researchers and many research projects have been instigated to investigate and corroborate its
effectiveness. First <strong>of</strong> all, Loewen (2003) in a study on <strong>the</strong> role <strong>of</strong> focus on form instruction on
learner autonomy found that student-initiated focus-on form-accounted for over 26.6% <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> episodes.
Second, Loewen (2003) in a thorough study on <strong>the</strong> variation in FOF suggested that cultural background,
classroom atmosphere and personality factors all might play role in how focus-on-form occurred in <strong>the</strong>
classroom. He fur<strong>the</strong>r assumed teachers’ beliefs about <strong>the</strong> effectiveness <strong>of</strong> implicit focus-on-form and
about <strong>the</strong>ir role in <strong>the</strong> classroom could affect <strong>the</strong> frequency with which FOF is applied in <strong>the</strong> classroom.
In addition, Basturkmen, Loewen and Ellis (2002) in a study found that meta-language occurred in
focus-on-form and that it was largely <strong>of</strong> a non-technical nature and was more likely to be used by
teachers. They also found that meta-language occurred variably. It occurred more frequently in
preemptive focus-on-form than in reactive focus-on-form.
Lightbown and Spada (1990) observing communicative ESL courses in Quebec reported
positive effects <strong>of</strong> focus-on-form. Long (1996) took <strong>the</strong> view that instruction that included focus on
form had at least two advantages over purely meaning-focused instruction: it can increase <strong>the</strong> salience
<strong>of</strong> positive evidence, and it could provide <strong>of</strong>ten essential evidence in <strong>the</strong> form <strong>of</strong> direct or indirect
negative feedback. Also, Muranoi (2000) in his study on focus-on- form concluded that having even
a limited number <strong>of</strong> students participate in focus-on-form tasks could be beneficial to <strong>the</strong> entire class.
Moreover, focus-on-form treatments involving both implicit and explicit formal instruction can help
learners improve <strong>the</strong>ir performance on not only oral tasks but also written tasks. These studies
provided strong support for <strong>the</strong> assumption that “a timely combination <strong>of</strong> formal instruction and
communication-oriented instruction is highly beneficial to L2 learners” (Muranoi, 2000, p .623).
III. The Method
The main objective <strong>of</strong> this study was to investigate <strong>the</strong> effect <strong>of</strong> teacher-initiated preemptive
focus-on-form instruction and focus-on-meaning instruction on <strong>the</strong> learning <strong>of</strong> grammatical points in
an EFL classroom with Taiwanese elementary students and <strong>the</strong> effectiveness <strong>of</strong> both instructions.
Since ‘relative clause’ has already been used in SLA studies, (e.g., Schachter, 1974; Schachter and
Rurherford, 1978 studied relative clause formation by Farsi speakers <strong>of</strong> English, cited in Schachter,
1996; Doughty, 1991, cited in Muranoi, 2000) and on <strong>the</strong> ground that learners participating in this
study were not taught <strong>the</strong> relative clause formation yet, it was decided to choose this grammatical point
for <strong>the</strong> study. In this study, <strong>the</strong> researcher would like to test that if <strong>the</strong>re was any significant difference
between <strong>the</strong> effectiveness <strong>of</strong> focus-on-form and focus-on-meaning instruction in learning relative
clauses by <strong>the</strong> beginning-level EFL students.
7

稻 江 學 報 第 四 卷 第 二 期
3.1. Participants <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> Study
The participants in <strong>the</strong> study were ninety-five first graders <strong>of</strong> Chi-Shen Junior High School,
Kaohsiung City, who formed two intact groups. These classes were selected from <strong>the</strong> ten available
classes on <strong>the</strong> ground that <strong>the</strong> teacher judged <strong>the</strong>se two classes as homogeneous in terms <strong>of</strong> language
abilities based on previous performance in <strong>the</strong> class and on achievement tests.
3.2. Instrument
The material used in <strong>the</strong> study was an English reading test including four reading passages.
The reading passages were selected from <strong>the</strong> elementary level <strong>of</strong> General English Pr<strong>of</strong>iciency Test. The
passages were fur<strong>the</strong>r modified in order to simplify <strong>the</strong> structures which are not familiar to students and
to enrich <strong>the</strong> texts with relative clauses. The test used in <strong>the</strong> study included two main parts which
totally were composed <strong>of</strong> twenty items. The first section (eight items) was a recognition part in which
students were required to underline <strong>the</strong> part which functioned as an adjective (<strong>the</strong> relative clause); <strong>the</strong>
second section (twelve items) was a production part which required students to produce relative clauses
in response to questions.
3.3. Procedure
The two classes in <strong>the</strong> study were randomly assigned into two groups. One group was taught
through teachers-initiated preemptive focus-on-form activities and <strong>the</strong> o<strong>the</strong>r group was taught through
focus-on-meaning activities for four weeks in <strong>the</strong> second semester <strong>of</strong> school year 2007, and each week
included a 2-instructional hour session. At <strong>the</strong> end both groups were asked to write <strong>the</strong> test which was
mentioned above. In <strong>the</strong> production part <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> test, <strong>the</strong> teacher tried to clarify <strong>the</strong> instruction for
students and even provided examples in Chinese language to make sure that students understand <strong>the</strong>
task <strong>the</strong>y were required to perform.
3.4. Data analysis
This study aims to investigate <strong>the</strong> effectiveness <strong>of</strong> focus-on-form and meaning-focused
instruction, and to see if any significant difference exists in <strong>the</strong> effect <strong>of</strong> meaning-focused and
focus-on-form activities on Taiwanese junior high school students’ learning grammatical points in <strong>the</strong>
EFL classroom. Therefore, an independent sample t-test was used to compare <strong>the</strong> performance <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong>
two classes on <strong>the</strong> test. The significance level was set at p< .05 for all statistical analyses. To
analyze <strong>the</strong> data, <strong>the</strong> researcher utilized <strong>the</strong> Statistical Package for <strong>the</strong> Social Science (SPSS) 13.0 for
Windows for all <strong>the</strong> data processing.
8

稻 江 學 報 第 四 卷 第 二 期
IV.
Results and Discussion
Having collected <strong>the</strong> data, an independent t-test was performed to test if any significant
difference exists between <strong>the</strong> effectiveness <strong>of</strong> focus-on-form and focus-on-meaning instruction in
learning relative clauses by beginning-level EFL students. Table 1 showed <strong>the</strong> descriptive statistics
and <strong>the</strong> results.
Table 1
Descriptive Statistics for FOF and MF Groups’ Performance on <strong>the</strong> Test
Group Number (N) Mean (M) Standard Deviations (SD) Sig.
<strong>Focus</strong>-on-form
Instruction
<strong>Focus</strong>-on-meaning
Instruction
49 14.25 .86 .08
46 12.42 .99 .08
Since <strong>the</strong> significance level <strong>of</strong> t value (p= .08) for this result was greater than .05, it indicated
that no significant difference existed between <strong>the</strong> effectiveness <strong>of</strong> focus-on-form and focus-on-meaning
instruction in this study. In o<strong>the</strong>r words, although <strong>the</strong> FOF group had a greater mean, this difference
was not statistically significant. But as it was explained before, <strong>the</strong> test used in <strong>the</strong> study had two
major sections: a recognition part in which students were required to underline <strong>the</strong> relative clauses and
multiple choice items where students needed to choose <strong>the</strong> best alternative for <strong>the</strong> relative pronoun.
In <strong>the</strong> second section, students were required to produce adjective clauses in response to
combination items and reading comprehension items. So, to see whe<strong>the</strong>r <strong>the</strong> performance <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> two
groups had been different on different sections <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> test, <strong>the</strong> researcher tried to test if any difference
existed between FOF and MF groups’ performance on <strong>the</strong> recognition part <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> test, and if <strong>the</strong>re was
any difference between FOF and MF groups’ performance on <strong>the</strong> production part <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> test.
Table 2
Descriptive Statistics for FOF and MF Groups’ Performance on <strong>the</strong> Recognition Part <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> Test
Group Number (N) Mean (M) Standard Deviations (SD) Sig.
<strong>Focus</strong>-on-form
Instruction
<strong>Focus</strong>-on-meaning
Instruction
49 6.86 1.05 .96
46 6.84 .95 .96
Table 2 depicted <strong>the</strong> descriptive statistics and <strong>the</strong> results. According to <strong>the</strong> data, no
significant difference existed—<strong>the</strong> result showed that <strong>the</strong> two groups had very close performance on
<strong>the</strong> recognition part <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> test. This indicated that FOF and MF instruction could not bring about
differences in grammatical knowledge as far as recognition tests could measure.
9

稻 江 學 報 第 四 卷 第 二 期
Table 3
Descriptive Statistics for FOF and MF Groups’ Performance on <strong>the</strong> Production Part <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> Test
Group Number (N) Mean (M) Standard Deviations (SD) Sig.
<strong>Focus</strong>-on-form
Instruction
<strong>Focus</strong>-on-meaning
Instruction
49 7.14 .97 .053
46 5.58 .98 .052
Table 3 displayed <strong>the</strong> descriptive statistics and results <strong>of</strong> t-test. The significance level <strong>of</strong>
t-value in table 4 (p= .053) showed that statistically <strong>the</strong>re was no significant difference between <strong>the</strong>
performance <strong>of</strong> FOF and MF groups on <strong>the</strong> production part <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> test. Despite this, with regard to <strong>the</strong>
significance level <strong>of</strong> t- value (p= .053), one might conclude that although <strong>the</strong> difference between <strong>the</strong>
two groups was not statistically significant, <strong>the</strong> FOF group had a better performance and <strong>the</strong>re was
even a trace for significant difference between <strong>the</strong> performance <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> two groups. In sum, <strong>the</strong>
results seemed to support <strong>the</strong> claim by Van Patten, (1990, cited in Basturkmen, Loewen, & Ellis, 2002)
that in beginning-level FOF can render better effects because <strong>the</strong>se students cannot simultaneously
focus on both form and meaning.
V. Conclusion
One <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> current concerns <strong>of</strong> applied linguists was centered on <strong>the</strong> most effective form <strong>of</strong>
grammar instruction in <strong>the</strong> second/foreign language classroom (Lightbown, 2000; Norris & Ortega,
2003). The debate has revolved around <strong>the</strong> degree to which language teachers need to direct students’
attention to understanding grammar while retaining a focus on <strong>the</strong> need to use <strong>the</strong> target language.
<strong>Focus</strong>-on-form instruction derived from an assumed degree <strong>of</strong> similarity between first and second
language acquisition positing that <strong>the</strong> two processes were both based on an exposure to comprehensible
input arising from natural interaction, while focus-on-meaning instruction was based on <strong>the</strong> assumption
that classroom second or foreign language learning derived from general cognitive processes, and thus
involved <strong>the</strong> learning <strong>of</strong> a skill—a skills-learning approach (Sheen, 2002).
Concerning <strong>the</strong> effectiveness <strong>of</strong> using focus-on-form and meaning-focused instruction in
beginning-level English class <strong>of</strong> junior high school in Taiwan, according to <strong>the</strong> results <strong>of</strong> this study,
<strong>the</strong>re was no significant difference. However, <strong>the</strong> greater means <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> focus-on-form group on <strong>the</strong>
total and <strong>the</strong> two subsections <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> test imply that focus-on-form instruction might bring about more
satisfactory results. Although <strong>the</strong> results in this study could not reach statistical significance, <strong>the</strong>
findings <strong>of</strong> previous studies in literature review have attested <strong>the</strong> effectiveness <strong>of</strong> focus-on-form
instruction. The reason may be <strong>the</strong> fact that <strong>the</strong> amount <strong>of</strong> exposure to comprehensible input for <strong>the</strong>
learners in a foreign language settings is inadequate and especially in beginning levels this paucity <strong>of</strong>
comprehensible input and <strong>the</strong> low pr<strong>of</strong>iciency level which make simultaneous attention to both
meaning and form difficult (Van Patten, 1990 cited in Basturkmen, Loewen, & Ellis, 2002) for learners
may lead to a more promising role for focus-on-form instruction. In sum, this indicates <strong>the</strong> necessity
10

稻 江 學 報 第 四 卷 第 二 期
<strong>of</strong> providing ample grammatical support for all language learners to compensate for <strong>the</strong> paucity <strong>of</strong>
comprehensible input. As Long (2000) proposed <strong>the</strong> focus-on-form method which integrated <strong>the</strong>
strengths <strong>of</strong> both focus-on-forms and focus-on-meaning approaches since focus-on-form method was
concerned with how attentional resources were allocated and involved briefly drawing students’
attention to linguistic elements in context as <strong>the</strong>y arised incidentally in lessons whose overriding focus
was on meaning or communication. Finally, language teachers should keep in mind as Norris and
Ortega (2003) pointed out that focus-on-form should meet <strong>the</strong>se criteria: designing tasks to promote
learners’ engagement with meaning prior to form, seeking to attain and document task essentialness or
naturalness <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> target language forms, and seeking to ensure that instruction was unobtrusive.
11

稻 江 學 報 第 四 卷 第 二 期
References
Akbari, R., Ghafar Samar, R., & Asadi, A. (2006). Who can guess better? The relationship between
word class and learning style. Journal <strong>of</strong> English Language and Literature Society <strong>of</strong> Iran,
1(1), 1-24.
Bachman, L. (1990). Fundamental considerations in language testing. Oxford: Oxford University
Press.
Basturkmen, H., Loewen, S., &Ellis, R. (2002). Metalanguage in focus on form in <strong>the</strong> communicative
classroom. Language Awareness, 11(1), 1-13.
Brown, H. D. (1993). Principles <strong>of</strong> language learning and teaching. USA: Prentice Hall Inc.
Burgress, J., & E<strong>the</strong>rington, S. (2002). <strong>Focus</strong> on grammatical form: Explicit or implicit. System, 30,
433-458
Case, R. (1974). Structures and strictures: Some functional limitations on <strong>the</strong> course <strong>of</strong> cognitive
growth. Cognitive Psychology, 6, 544-574.
Chan, Y. W., & Li, D. (2002). Form-focused remedial instruction: An empirical study. International
Journal <strong>of</strong> Applied Linguistics, 12(1), 24-44.
Chapelle, C., & Green, P. (1992). Field independence/dependence in second language acquisition
research. Language Learning, 42(1), 47-83.
Chastain, K. (1988). Developing second language skills: Theory to practice. New York: Harcourt
Brace Jovanovich
Elliott, A. R. (1995). Field independence/dependence, hemispheric specialization, and attitude in
relation to pronunciation accuracy in Spanish as a foreign language. The Modern Language
Journal, 79(3), 356-369.
Ellis, R. (1994). The study <strong>of</strong> second language acquisition. New York: Oxford University Press.
Ellis, R., Basturkmen, H., & Loewen, S. (2001). Preemptive focus on form in <strong>the</strong> ESL classroom.
TESOL Quarterly, 35(3), 407-432.
Ellis, R., Basturkmen, H., & Loewen, S. (2002). Doing focus-on-form. System, 30, 419-432.
Gass, S. (2003). Input and interaction. In C.J. Doughty, & M.H Long,. (Eds.), The handbook <strong>of</strong>
second language acquisition (pp.224-255). UK: Blackwell Publishing.
Ghonsooly, B., & Eghtesadi, A. R. (2006). Role <strong>of</strong> cognitive style <strong>of</strong> field-dependence/independence in
using cognitive and metacognitive reading strategies by a group <strong>of</strong> skilled and novice Iranian
12

稻 江 學 報 第 四 卷 第 二 期
students <strong>of</strong> English literature. Asian EFL Journal, 8(4). 119-150.
Johnson, J., Prior, S., & Artuso, M. (2000). Field dependence as a factor in second language
communicative production. Language Learning, 50(3), 529-567.
Krashen, S. (1982). Principles and practice in second language acquisition. Oxford: Oxford University
Press.
Larsen-Freeman, D., & Long, M. A. (1991). An introduction to second language acquisition research.
New York: Longman.
Loewen, S. (2003). Variation in <strong>the</strong> frequency and characteristics <strong>of</strong> incidental focus on form.
Language Teaching Research. 7(3), 315-345.
Long, M. H. (1983). Does second language instruction make a difference? A review <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> research.
TESOL Quarterly, 17(3), 359-382.
Long, M. H. (1991). <strong>Focus</strong> on form: A design feature in language teaching methodology. In K. de Bot,
R. Ginsberg, & C. Kramsch, (Eds.), Foreign language research in cross-cultural perspective
(pp. 39-52). Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
Lyster, R. (2004). Research on form-focused instruction in immersion classrooms: Implications for
<strong>the</strong>ory and practice. French Language Studies. 14, 321-341.
McLaughlin, B. (1987). Theories <strong>of</strong> second language learning. London: Edward Arnold.
Muranoi, H. (2000). <strong>Focus</strong> on form through interaction enhancement: Integrating formal instruction
into a communicative task in EFL classrooms. Language Learning. 50(2), 617-673.
Nassaji, H. (1999). Toward integrating
form-focused instruction and communicative interaction in <strong>the</strong>
second language classroom: Some pedagogical possibilities. The Canadian Modern Language
Review. 55(3), 250-275.
Nassaji, H. (2000). A reply to Sheen. The Canadian Modern Language Review. 56(3), 505-513.
Norris, J. M., & Ortega, L. (2001). Does type <strong>of</strong> instruction make a difference: Substantive findings
from a meta-analytic review. In R. Ellis (Ed.), Form-focused instruction and second language
learning (pp. 157-213). New York: Blackwell.
Norris, J. M., & Ortega, L. (2003). Defining and measuring SLA. In
C. J. Doughty, & M. H. Long,
(Eds.), The handbook <strong>of</strong> second language acquisition (pp. 224-255). UK: Blackwell
Publishing.
Nuttall, C. (1998). Teaching reading skills as a foreign language. Oxford: Macmillan Heinemann.
13

稻 江 學 報 第 四 卷 第 二 期
Oh, Y. S. (2001). Two types <strong>of</strong> input modification and ESL reading comprehension: Simplification
versus elaboration. TESOL Quarterly, 35(1), 69-96.
Park, J. K. (2000). The effects <strong>of</strong> forms and meaning-focused instruction on EFL learners’
phonological acquisition. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, <strong>the</strong> University <strong>of</strong> Pennsylvania.
Poole, A. (2005). <strong>Focus</strong> on form instruction: Foundations, applications and criticisms. The Reading
Matrix. 5(1), 47-57.
Prabhu, N. (1987). Second language pedagogy. Oxford University Press.
Scardamalia, M. (1977). Information processing capacity and <strong>the</strong> problem <strong>of</strong> horizontal decalage: A
demonstration using combinatorial reasoning tasks. Child Development, 48(1), 28-37.
Schachter, J. (1996). Maturation and <strong>the</strong> issue <strong>of</strong> universal grammar in second language acquisition. In
W. C. Ritchie, & T. K. Bahtia, (Eds). Handbook <strong>of</strong> second language acquisition (pp. 150-193).
UK: Academic Press.
Schmidt, R. W. (1990). The role <strong>of</strong> consciousness in second language learning. Applied Linguistics,
11(2), 129-158.
Sheen, R. (2002). <strong>Focus</strong> on form and focus on forms. ELT Journal, 56(3), 303-505.
Spada, N. (1997). Form-focused instruction and second language acquisition: A review <strong>of</strong> classroom
and laboratory research. Language Teaching, 30, 73-85.
Stansfield, C., & Hansen, J. (1983). Field-dependence/independence as a variable in second language
cloze test performance. TESOL Quarterly, 17(1), 29-38.
Trosborg, A. (1994). Interlanguage pragmatics: Requests, complaints and apologies. New York:
Mouton De Gruyter.
Ur, P. (1996). A Course in language teaching: Practice and <strong>the</strong>ory. Britain: Cambridge University
Press.
Witkins, H., Oltman, P. K., Raskin, E., & Karp. S. (1971). A Manual for <strong>the</strong> embedded figures test.
Palo Alto: Consulting Psychologists Press.
14