Applying Focus On Form In Efl Writing Classes

Öz

Son yıllarda ikinci dil edinimi alnında yapılan çalışmalar, Long (1991) tarafından sunulan ve öncelikli olarak anlama dayalı eğitim yapılan ortamlarda öğrencilerin dikkatini dilin dilbilgisel öğelerine çeken bir dil öğretim şekli olan “yapıya odaklanma” yönteminin etkinliğini kanıtlamıştır (Ellis, 2001). Bu nedenle bu çalışma, hangi tip yapıya odaklanma öğretiminin – Girdi Akışı, Girdi+Üretim yada Girdi+Üretim+Dönüt’ün – İngilizce’nin yabancı dil olarak öğrenilmesinde daha etkili olduğunu deneysel olarak incelemektedir. Bu amaçla, öntest-sontest uygulamasıyla, üç farklı yapıya odaklanma öğretimi, üç deneysel gruba iki hafta boyunca altı saat süreyle uygulanmıştır. Çalışmaya Anadolu Üniversitesi Yabancı Diller Yüksek Okulu’ndan orta düzey dil seviyesine sahip toplam 65 öğrenci katılmıştır. Hedeflenen dil yapıları şimdiki ve geçmiş zamana ait gerçeğe aykırı koşul tümceleridir

Anahtar Kelimeler

• -

Applying Focus On Form In Efl Writing Classes

Öz

Recent SLA research has lent support to the effectiveness of “focus on form” introduced by Long 1991 as a treatment which draws learners’ attention to linguistic features of language in primarily meaning based contexts Ellis 2001 In this regard the present study experimentally investigates which type of focus on form Input Flood Input Output or Input Output Feedback – is more effective in promoting the learning of English as a foreign language For this purpose a pretest posttest design was followed and the three different focus on form FonF henceforth treatments were delivered to three experimental groups throughout six hours in a two week period in Writing Classes Sixty five intermediate level learners at Anadolu University School of Foreign Languages participated in the study The targeted forms were the Present and Past Hypothetical Conditionals in English The statistical analysis of the data revealed that the Input Flood treatment is not effective while Input Output and Input Output Feedback treatments are significantly effective in learning the target forms Consequently the results provide support for the claim that output based FonF treatment whether complemented with corrective feedback or not has positive effects on learning English as a foreign language Key Words: Focus on Form Input Flood Output Feedback and Grammar Teaching ÖZET Son yıllarda ikinci dil edinimi alnında yapılan çalışmalar Long 1991 tarafından sunulan ve öncelikli olarak anlama dayalı eğitim yapılan ortamlarda öğrencilerin dikkatini dilin dilbilgisel öğelerine çeken bir dil öğretim şekli olan “yapıya odaklanma” yönteminin etkinliğini kanıtlamıştır Ellis 2001 Bu nedenle bu çalışma hangi tip yapıya odaklanma öğretiminin – Girdi Akışı Girdi Üretim yada Girdi Üretim Dönüt’ün – İngilizce’nin yabancı dil olarak öğrenilmesinde daha etkili olduğunu deneysel olarak incelemektedir Bu amaçla öntest sontest uygulamasıyla üç farklı yapıya odaklanma öğretimi üç deneysel gruba iki hafta boyunca altı saat süreyle uygulanmıştır Çalışmaya Anadolu Üniversitesi Yabancı Diller Yüksek Okulu’ndan orta düzey dil seviyesine sahip toplam 65 öğrenci katılmıştır Hedeflenen dil yapıları şimdiki ve geçmiş zamana ait gerçeğe aykırı koşul tümceleridir Elde edilen verilerin istatiksel çözümlemesi sonucunda Girdi Akışı öğretim tipinin etkili olmadığı fakat Girdi Üretim ve Girdi Üretim Dönüt öğretim tiplerinin aynı etkiye sahip olduğunu ve hedef yapıların öğrenilmesinde anlamlı derecede etkili olduğu bulunmuştur Sonuç olarak üretime dayalı yapıya odaklanma öğretim tipinin düzeltici dönüt ile desteklense de desteklenmese de İngilizce’nin yabancı dil olarak öğrenilmesinde etkili olduğu görülmüştür Anahtar Sözcükler: Yapıya Odaklanma Girdi Akışı Üretim Dönüt ve Dilbilgisi Öğretimi

Anahtar Kelimeler

• -

Kaynakça

1. Adams, R. (2003). L2 output, reformulation and noticing: implications for IL development. Language Teaching Research 7: 347-376.
2. Alanen, R. (1995). Input enhancement and rule presentation in second language acquisition. In Schmidt, R., editor, Attention and awareness in foreign language learning and teaching. New York: Cambridge University Press, 57-81.
3. Brown, H. D. (1994). Principles of language learning and teaching. USA: Prentice Hall Regents
4. Carroll, S., and Swain, M. (1993). Explicit and implicit negative feedback: an empirical study of the learning of linguistic generalizations. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 5: 357-366.
5. Doughty, C. and Varela, E. (1998). Communicative focus on form. In Doughty, C. and Williams, J., editors, Focus on form in classroom second language acquisition.
6. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 114-138. Doughty, C. and Williams, J., (1998). Pedagogical choices in focus on form. In Doughty, C. and Williams, J., editors, Focus on form in classroom second language acquisition. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 197-261.
7. Ellis, R. (1999). Input-based approaches to teaching grammar: a review of classroomoriented research. Annual Review of Applied Linguistics, 19: 64-80.
8. Ellis, R. (2001). Introduction: Investigating form-focused instruction. Language Learning. 51 (Suppl. 1). 1-46.

9. Ellis, R. (2002). Does form-focused instruction affect the acquisition of implicit knowledge? A review of the research. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 24: 223-236.
10. Ellis, R., Basturkmen, H. and Loewen, S. (2002). Doing focus-on-form. System, 30: 419-432.
11. Ç.Ü. Sosyal Bilimler Enstitüsü Dergisi, Cilt 15, Sayı 2, 2006, s.461-478 475 Fotos, S. (1993). Consciousness raising and noticing through focus on form: grammar task performance versus formal instruction. Applied Linguistics, 14: 389-407.
12. Fotos, S. (1994). Integrating grammar instruction and communicative language use through grammar consciousness-raising tasks. TESOL Quarterly, 28: 323-351.
13. Fotos, S. and Ellis, R. (1991) Communicating about grammar: a task-based approach. TESOL Quarterly, 25: 605-628.
14. Han, Z. (2002). A Study of the impact of recasts on tense consistency in L2 output. TESOL Quarterly, 36: 543-572.
15. Harley, B. (1998). The role of focus-on-form tasks in promoting child L2 acquisition. In Doughty, C. and Williams, J., editors, Focus on form in classroom second language acquisition. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 156-174.
16. Hulstijn, J. H. (1997). Second Language Acquisition Research in Laboratory: possibilities and Limitations. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 19: 131-143.
17. Iwashita, N. (2003). Negative feedback and positive evidence in task-based interaction. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 25: 1-36.
18. Izumi, S. (2002). Output, input enhancement, and the noticing hypothesis. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 24: 541-577.
19. Izumi, S. and Bigelow, M. (2000). Does output promote noticing and second language acquisition? TESOL Quarterly, 34: 239-278.
20. Leeman, J. (2003). Recasts and second language development: beyond negative evidence. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 25: 37-63.
21. Long, M. (1991). Focus on form: a design feature in language teaching methodology. In K. de Bot, Ginsberg, R., and Kramsch, C., editors, Foreign language research in cross-cultural perspective. Amsterdam: John Benjamins, 39-52.
22. Long, M., Inagaki, S. and Ortega, L. (1998). The role of implicit negative feedback in SLA: models and recasts in Japanese and Spanish. The Modern Language Journal, 82: 357-37.
23. Long, M. and Robinson, P. (1998). Focus on form: theory, research, and practice. In Doughty, C. and Williams, J., editors, Focus on form in classroom second language acquisition. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 15-41.
24. Muranoi, H. (2000). Focus on form through interaction enhancement: integrating formal instruction into a communicative task in EFL classrooms. Language Learning, 50: 617-673.
25. Norris, J. and Ortega, L. (2000). Effectiveness of L2 instruction: a research synthesis and quantitative meta-analysis. Language Learning, 50: 417-528.
26. Nunan, D. (1989). Designing tasks for the communicative classroom. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press
27. Schmidt, R. (1990). The role of consciousness in second language learning. Applied Linguistics, 11: 129-158.
28. Sharwood Smith, M. (1993). Input enhancement in instructed SLA: theoretical bases. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 15: 165-179.
29. Swain, M. (1995). Three functions of output in second language learning. In Cook, G. and Seidhofer, B., editors, Principles and practice in applied linguistics: studies in honour of H. G. Widdowson. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 125-144.
30. Swain, M. (1998). Focus on form through conscious reflection. In Doughty, C. and Williams, J., editors, Focus on form in classroom second language acquisition. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 64-81.
31. Swain, M. and Lapkin, S. (1995). Problems in output and the cognitive processes they generate: a step towards second language learning. Applied Linguistics, 16: 371- 391.
32. Trahey, M. and White, L. (1993). Positive evidence and preemption in the second language classroom. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 15: 181-204.
33. Van Patten, B. and Cadierno, T. (1993). Input processing and second language acquisition: a role for instruction. Modern Language Journal. 77: 45-57.
34. Van Patten, B. and Oikkenon, S. (1996). Explanation versus structured input in processing instruction. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 18: 495-510.
35. White, J. (1998). Getting the learners' attention: a typographical input enhancement study. In Doughty, C. and Williams, J., editors, Focus on form in classroom second language acquisition. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 85-113.
36. Williams, J. and Evans, J. (1998). What kind of focus and on which forms? In Doughty, C. and Williams, J., editors, Focus on form in classroom second language acquisition. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 139-155.
37. Willis, J. (1996). A framework for task-based learning. Harlow: Addison Wesley Longman Ltd.