Cover not available
Article published In:
TASK
Vol. 4:1 (2024) ► pp.111–133

Focus on form in the uptake, stability and transfer of relative clause use across tasks

| Southwest Petroleum University, China | Curtin university, Australia
| Curtin university, Australia
This study compares the effectiveness of two instructional interventions on the uptake and transfer of relative clauses (RCs) during picture-based oral narrative tasks: (1) Focus on Form (FonF), which involves incidental focus on language problems as they arise naturally in learners’ language during meaning-focused task-based communication, and (2) Focus on Forms (FonFs), which involves explicit attention to specific forms felt by the teacher or materials planner to be natural, useful or essential to the performance of a task (Long, 2015). A third treatment, focus on meaning (FonM), which involved no form-focused instruction at all, provided a baseline to compare the relative effects of these two instructional interventions. Thirty-six Chinese ESL learners participated in the study. The study employed a pre-test, post-test, and delayed post-test design. Results revealed that FonM did not promote uptake or transfer of RCs, and that FonFs and FonF had comparable effects on the uptake, stability, and transfer of RCs to novel versions of oral narrative tasks. The study demonstrates that: (1) form-focused instruction was essential in promoting uptake and transfer of challenging task-relevant language; and (2) FonF was at least as effective as FonFs for promoting Chinese ESL learners’ use and acquisition of task-relevant structures. The results of the study provide support for the use of FonF in instruction as consistent with the principles of task-based language teaching.
Keywords: Task-Based Language Teaching (TBLT), Focus on Form (FonF), corrective feedback, relative clauses, Chinese learners of English as a second language
Article outline
  • Introduction
    • Tasks in language teaching
    • Relative clauses (RCs)
    • The present study
  • Methods
    • Design
    • Participants
    • Materials
    • Procedures
      • Pre-tests
      • Treatments
      • FonFs treatment
      • FonF treatment
      • FonM treatment
      • Immediate post-tests
      • Delayed post-tests
    • Analysis
  • Results
    • RC tokens
    • RC types
    • Accurate RC use
  • Discussion
  • References
Published online: 12 September 2024
DOI logo
https://doi.org/10.1075/task.00028.che
References (42)
References
Abdolmanafi, S. (2012). Effects of form-focused instruction on the learning of relative clauses. The Journal of Language and Linguistic Studies, 8 (1), 192–210. [URL]
Cai, J. (2020). Research on the main conflicts in College English Education in the new era. China University Teaching, ( 1 ), 51–55.Google Scholar
Carless, D. (2009). Revisiting the TBLT versus P-P-P Debate: Voices from Hong Kong. Asian Journal of English Language Teaching, 19 1, 49–66.Google Scholar
Cohen, J. (1988). Statistical power analysis for the behavioural sciences (2nd ed.). Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.Google Scholar
DeKeyser, R. (1998). Beyond focus on form: Cognitive perspectives on learning and practicing second language grammar. Focus on form in classroom second language acquisition, 28 1, 42–63.Google Scholar
(2020). Skill acquisition theory. In B. VanPatten, G. D. Keating & S. Wulff (Eds.), Theories in second language acquisition: An introduction (3rd ed., pp. 83–104). Routledge. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Deng, C., & Carless, D. (2009). The communicativeness of activities in a task-based innovation in Guangdong, China. Asian Journal of English Language Teaching, 19 1, 113–134.Google Scholar
Diessel, H., & Tomasello, M. (2005). A new look at the acquisition of relative clauses. Language, 81 1, 882–906. [URL]
Ellis, R. (2005). Planning and task-based research: Theory and research. In R. Ellis (Ed.), Planning and task-performance in an L2 (pp. 3–34). John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
(2016). Focus on form: A critical review. Language Teaching Research, 20 (3), 405–428. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Ellis, R., Skehan, P., Li, S., Shintani, N., & Lambert, C. (2020). Task-based language teaching: Theory and practice. Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Givon, T. (1985). Function, structure and language acquisition. In D. Slobin (Ed.) The crosslinguistic study of language acquisition, Vol. 2: Theoretical issues (pp. 1005–1027). Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.Google Scholar
Harris, J., & Leeming, P. (2022). The impact of teaching approach on growth in L2 proficiency and self-efficacy: A longitudinal classroom-based study of TBLT and PPP. Journal of Second Language Studies, 5(1), 114–143. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Hoey, M. (1983). On the surface of discourse. George, Allen and Unwin.Google Scholar
Lambert, C. (2019). Task-induced second language development: A micro-genetic study. In E. Wen & M. Ahmadian, M. (Eds). Researching L2 task performance and pedagogy (pp. 279–302). John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
(2023). Practice in Task-Based Language Teaching. In Suzuki, Y. (Ed.). Practice and automatization in second language research: Theory, methods, and pedagogical implications (pp. 144–159). Routledge. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Lambert, C., Aubrey, S., & Leeming, P. (2021). Pre-task preparation and second language speech processing. TESOL Quarterly 55 (2): 331–365. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Lambert, C., & Engler, S. (2007). Information distribution and goal orientation in second language task design. In P. del García Mayo (Ed.) Investigating tasks in formal language learning (pp. 27–43). Multilingual Matters.Google Scholar
Lambert, C., Kormos, J., & Minn, D. (2017). Task repetition and second language speech processing. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 39 (1), 167–196. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Lambert, C., & Minn, D. (2007). Personal investment in L2 task design and learning: A case study of two Japanese learners of English. ELIA: Estudios de Lingüística Inglesa Aplicada, 7 1, 127–148.Google Scholar
Lambert, C., & Robinson, P. (2014). Learning to perform narrative task: A semester long study of task sequencing effects. In M. Maralt, R. Gilabert, & P. Robinson (Eds.), Task sequencing and instructed second language learning (pp. 207–230). Bloomsbury.Google Scholar
Li, S., Ellis, R., & Shu, D. (2016). The differential effects of immediate and delayed feedback on learners of different proficiency levels. Foreign Languages and Foreign Language Research, 286 1, 1–15. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Li, S., Ellis, R., & Zhu, Y. (2019). The associations between cognitive ability and L2 development under five different instructional conditions. Applied Psycholinguistics, 40 (3), 693–722. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Long, M. (2015). Task-based language teaching and second language acquisition. Wiley & Sons.Google Scholar
Long, M., & Robinson, P. (1998). Focus on form theory, research and practice. In C. Doughty & J. William (Eds.), Focus on form in classroom second language acquisition (pp. 15–41). Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Loschky, L., & Bley-Vroman, R. (1993). Grammar and task-based methodology. In S. Gass. & G. Crookes (Eds.) Tasks and language learning (pp. 123–167). Multilingual Matters.Google Scholar
Ministry of Education of the People’s Republic of China (MOE). (2022). Yiwu Jiaoyu Yingyu Kechen Biaozhun [Curriculum Standards for teaching English in Compulsory Education]. Beijing Normal University Publishing Group.Google Scholar
Nippold, M., Hesketh, L., Duthie, J., & Mansfield, T. (2005a). Conversational versus expository discourse: A study of syntactic development in children, adolescents, and adults. Journal of Speech, Language, and Hearing Research, 48 1, 1048–1064. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Nippold, M., Ward-Lonergan, J., & Fanning, J. (2005b). Persuasive writing in children, adolescents, and adults: A study of syntactic, semantic and pragmatic development. Language, Speech and Hearing Services in Schools, 36 1, 125–138. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Norris, J. M., & Ortega, L. (2000). Effectiveness of L2 instruction: A research synthesis and quantitative meta-analysis. Language learning, 50 (3), 417–528. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Pang, F., & Skehan, P. (2014). Self-reported planning behaviour and L2 performance in narrative retelling. In P. Skehan, (Ed.), Processing perspectives on task performance (pp. 95–128). John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Plonsky, L., & Oswald, F. L. (2014). How big is “big”? Interpreting effect sizes in L2 research. Language learning, 64 (4), 878–912. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Samuda, V., & Bygate, M. (2008). Tasks in second language learning. Palgrave Macmillan. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Sheen, R. (2006). Focus on forms as a means of improving accurate oral production. In A. Housen, & M. Pierrard (Eds.), Investigations in instructed second language acquisition. (pp. 271–309). Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar
Shintani, N. (2015). The incidental grammar acquisition in focus on form and focus on forms instruction for young beginner learners. TESOL Quarterly, 49 (1), 115–140. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Soongpankhao, W., Aubrey, S. & Lambert, C. (2023). Impact of goal-tracking on engagement in language use in an online TBLT module for Thai university students. System (early view) DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Suzuki, Y. (2021). Optimizing fluency training for speaking skills transfer: Comparing the effects of blocked and interleaved task repetition. Language Learning, 71(2), 285–325. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Trondheim, L. (2007). Mr. I. Nantler, Beall and Minoustchine.Google Scholar
Wang, Z. (1999). The trends of EIT in China. Foreign Language, 124 (6), 36–41.Google Scholar
White, R., & Robinson, P. (1995). Current approaches to syllabus design: A discussion with Ron White. RELC Guidelines, 17 (1), 93–101.Google Scholar
Xu, J. (2020). Corpora and Chinese learners’ spoken English. Foreign Language Teaching and Research Press.Google Scholar
Yu, L. (2001). Communicative language teaching in China: Progress and resistance. TESOL Quarterly, 35 (1), 194–198. DOI logoGoogle Scholar