A quasi-experimental study of form-focused instruction at Hanoi University of Industrial Fine Arts = Nghiên cứu giả thực nghiệm về phương pháp dạy chú trọng dạn

VIETNAM NATIONAL UNIVERSITY, HANOI
UNIVERSITY OF LANGUAGES AND INTERNATIONAL STUDIES
FACULTY OF POST-GRADUATE STUDIES





NGUYỄN THỊ THỊNH




A QUASI-EXPERIMENTAL STUDY OF FORM-FOCUSED
INSTRUCTION AT HANOI UNIVERSITY
OF INDUSTRIAL FINE ARTS
(Nghiên cứu giả thực nghiệm về phương pháp dạy chú trọng dạng thức
ngôn ngữ ở Trường Đại Học Mỹ Thuật Công Nghiệp Hà Nội)


M.A THESIS






FIELD: ENGLISH METHODOLGY
CODE: 601410

HANOI- 2010



VIETNAM NATIONAL UNIVERSITY, HANOI
UNIVERSITY OF LANGUAGES AND INTERNATIONAL STUDIES
FACULTY OF POST-GRADUATE STUDIES





NGUYỄN THỊ THỊNH




A QUASI-EXPERIMENTAL STUDY OF FORM-FOCUSED
INSTRUCTION AT HANOI UNIVERSITY
OF INDUSTRIAL FINE ARTS
(Nghiên cứu giả thực nghiệm về phương pháp dạy chú trọng dạng thức
ngôn ngữ ở Trường Đại Học Mỹ Thuật Công Nghiệp Hà Nội)


M.A THESIS

FIELD: ENGLISH METHODOLGY
CODE: 601410
SUPERVISOR: NGUYEN THI VUONG, M.A





HANOI- 2010



iii
TABLE OF CONTENT

Page
Acknowledgements i
Abstract ii
Table of content iii
List of Abbreviations vi
List of figures vii
CHAPTER ONE: INTRODUCTION 1
1.1. Introduction 1
1.2. Rationale for the study 1

1.3. Aim of the study 2
1.4. Research question 2
1.5. Significance of the study 2
1.6. The scope of the study 3
1.7. The structure of the study 3
CHAPTER TWO: REVIEW OF LITERATURE. 5
2.1. Introduction 5
2.2. Definition of terminologies 5
2.2.1. Grammatical competence 5
2.2.2. Form-Focused Instruction (FFI) 5
2.2.3. Focus-on-forms vs. Focus-on-form. 6
2.2.3.1. Focus-on-forms (FoFs) 7
2.2.3.2. Planned focus on form 8
2.2.3.3. Incidental focus on form 9
2.3. Advantages and Disadvantages of FFI 11
2.3.1. The Advantages of FFI 11
2.3.2. The Disadvantages of FFI 12
2.4. The summary 17
CHAPTER THREE: THE STUDY 18
3.1. Introduction 18
3.2. The rationale of using a quasi-experimental method 18


iv
3.2.1. Definition of a quasi-experimental method 18
3.2.2. The rationale of using a quasi-experimental method 18
3.3. The study 19
3.3.1. The subjects 19
3.3.2. Procedures 20
3.3.2.1. Pre-treatment test 20

3.3.2.2. Post-treatment test 20
3.3.2.3. Interview 20
3.3.3. The treatment 21
3.3.3.1. Activities used in the treatment 21
3.3.3.2. Process of the treatment 22
3.4. Results 24
3.4.1. Scoring procedures……………………………………………………………… 24
3.4.2. Results of pre-test and posttest 25
3.4.3. Data from interviews 28
3.5. The findings 30
3.5.1. The answer for hypothesis 30
3.5.2. The findings from the interview 30
3.5.2.1. Students’ perceptions of the differences between FFI and their conventional
learning 30
3.5.2.2. Levels of motivating among the students when adopting FFI 31
3.5.2.3. Students’ evaluations towards the FFI method 32
3.6. The summary 32
CHAPTER FOUR: CONCLUSION 34
4.1. Introduction 34
4.2. Summary of the major findings 34
4.3. Conclusion 36
4.4. Recommendation of the application of the FFI method 36
4.5. Limitations and suggestions for future studies 36
REFERENCES 38




v
APPENDIX 1A I

APPENDIX 1B IV
APPENDIX 2A VIII
APPENDIX 2B XV
APPENDIX 3 XX

vi
List of Abbreviations:


EFL: English as Foreign Language
FFI: Form-Focused Instruction
FonFs: Focus-on-Forms
FonF: Focus-on-Form
L1: Native language
L2: Target language
N: Number

vii
List of tables
Table 3.1 Students’ mean score in pre-test and post test ……………………… 28
Table 3. 2: Descriptive statistics of the post-treatment test…………… 29
Table 3.3: Results on the five criteria…………………………………………… 31

List of graphs
Graph 3.1: Frequency distribution of the Experimental class………………… 29
Graph 3.2: Frequency distribution of the Control class…………………………30

1
CHAPTER ONE: INTRODUCTION

1.1.Introduction
Firstly, this chapter presents the rationale for conducting the study. This part then will be
followed by the aim of the study, research questions, significance, and the scope of the
study. Finally, the structure of the study will be presented so that the reader will have an
overall look of order of the study.

1.2.Rationale for the study.
Grammar is one of the most controversial issues in teaching a language. At first, grammar
was taught through a traditional way in which, according to Long and Robinson (1998),
discrete points of grammar are presented one at a time. Whereas, Fotos (1998) write that
what EFL learners really need is a not grammatical feature, but opportunities for
communicative language uses. Therefore, a meaning-focused approach to language
teaching, according to Maley (1986) and Littlewood (1981) that concentrates on language
use, appropriateness, fluency, learner-centeredness and integration of language skills
(Cited in Gao 2009, p.46), has appeared. However Brown (1994:77) suggests that teachers
working in the communicative context try to implement “real life” communication in the
language classroom in order to help learners develop linguistic fluency not just accuracy.
As a result, fluency without appropriateness would cause serious misunderstandings in
communication (Dai, 2002)

Recently there has been a call for an integration of focus on forms and focus on meaning in
the second language classroom that is focus on form. As for Long and Robinson‟s opinion

(1998:23), focus on form often consists of an occasional shift of attention to linguistic code
features - by the teacher and/or one or more student - triggered by perceived problems with
comprehension or production. They argue that focus on form is the third option which
attempts to capture the strengths of an analytic approach while dealing with its limitation.
According to Long this approach to grammar is more effective. Long (1991: 45-46) claims
that through focus on form, learners will be encouraged to achieve more accuracy in using
language. Rod Ellis (1994:659) also acknowledges that formal instruction results in


2
increased accuracy and accelerates progress through developmental sequences and its
effects are to some extent durable.

Studies on focus on form, which were conducted in various contexts, showed positive
results. However, this question has not been adequately studied in Vietnam, especially in
the context where English is taught as a sub-subject at the university.

For all these reasons, I decided to conduct a quasi-experimental study of Form-Focused
Instruction in HUIFA. This study aims at investigating the effectiveness of focus on form
approach in teaching grammar toward students‟ grammar achievements at HUIFA.

1.3.Aim of the study
This study attempts to examine the effect of form-focused instruction on improving
students‟ grammatical competence

In order to achieve the above aim, a quasi-experimental method was used in this study. The
hypothesis to be tested in this study was Form-focused Instruction (FFI) improves
students‟ grammatical competence significantly in comparison with the traditional focus-
on –forms approach. (FonFs)

1.4.Research questions
1, To what extent does FFI lead to the improvement of students‟ grammatical competence?
2, Is there any difference in terms of students‟ grammatical competence between FonFs
and FFI approach to grammar

1.5.The significance of the study
The result of this study will provide empirical information about the effectiveness of FFI
on students‟ grammatical competence in the context of English as a sub-subject taught at a
Vietnamese university. The significance of the study will therefore lie in its contributions
to the understanding of how FFI works in an English-as-a-foreign language context.



3
1.6.The scope of the study
The study is limited to the examination of the causal relationship between form-focused
instruction and students‟ grammatical competence at Hanoi University of Industrial Fine
Arts.

1.7.The structure of the study
The study consists of four chapters:

Chapter 1: Introduction
Firstly, this chapter presents the rationale for conducting the study. This part then will be
followed by the aim of the study, research questions, significance, the scope of the study.
Finally, the structure of the study will be presented so that the reader will have an overall
look of order of the study.

Chapter 2: Literature review
This chapter deals with an overview of the literature. It starts with the definition of

terminologies including grammatical competence and FFI. It is then concerned with FonF
vs. FonFs. Next part is about the advantages and disadvantages of FFI. This chapter will
finish with a summary

Chapter 3: The study
This chapter presents the research design, research procedures, and the result of the study.
Firstly, the rationale for using a quasi-experimental design is presented. This will be
followed by the description of the procedures and the treatment. Lastly, the findings will be
summarized and discussed.

Chapter 4: Conclusion
This chapter includes the summary of the main findings, the conclusions, the
recommendations, and the limitations and the suggestions for future studies. Firstly, the
summary of the main findings from the treatment is focused on. This will be followed by


4
the conclusions and recommendation of the study. This chapter will end with the
limitations of the study and suggestions for future studies

5
CHAPTER TWO: REVIEW OF THE LITERATURE

2.1. Introduction
This chapter deals with an overview of the literature. It starts with the definition of
terminologies including grammatical competence and FFI by FonF vs. FonFs and the
advantages and disadvantages of FFI. At last, chapter will be finished with a summary

2.2. Definition of terminologies
This section focuses on definitions of grammatical competence, FonFs, and FFI

2.2.1. Grammatical competence
Grammatical competence is one of the four components of communicative competence.
Other components are discourse competence, sociolinguistic competence, and strategic
competence (Canale & Swale, 1980). Grammatical competence encompasses “knowledge
of lexical items and of rules of morphology, syntax, sentence-grammar semantics and
phonology (1980, p.29). According to these authors, grammatical competence is the ability
to recognize and produce the distinctive grammatical structures of a language and to use
them effectively in communication. Grammatical competence is the primary focus of study
in most academic language courses.

2.2.2. Form-focused instruction
The term “form-focused instruction” (FFI) was defined by numerous linguists basing on
different aspects. With its strong point that deals with limitation of focus on forms that,
according to Gao (2009, p.46), emphasis on language knowledge teaching than students‟
comprehensive abilities of using foreign language and capture the strengths of analytic
approach (Long & Robinson, 1998), FFI is a third option to grammar teaching approach

In some other works, focus on form or Form-Focused Instruction FFI is a dual approach
which focuses on both meanings and forms (Spada, 1997). FFI refers to any pedagogical
effort, which is used to draw the learners' attention to language form either implicitly or
explicitly that occur within meaning-based approaches.


6

According to Long (1991), FFI is a type of instruction that holds up the important of
communicative language teaching principles such as authentic communication and student-
centeredness, and, on the other hand, maintains the value of the occasional and overt study
of problematic L2 grammatical forms, which is more reminiscent of non-communicative

teaching.

Ellis (2001:2) states that FFI is a cover term for terms such as “analytic teaching, focus on
form, and focus on forms, corrective feedback/error correction and negotiation of form”.

2.2.3. Focus-on-forms (FonFs) vs. Focus-on-form (FonF)

Doughty (2001:221) points out that FonFs and FonF are “not polar opposites…” She
further stresses that “FonF entails a focus on formal elements of language, whereas FonFs
is limited to such a focus…”According to Doughty, a fundamental feature of FonF is that
at the time when learners‟ attention is focused on a linguistic form, they must already be
familiar with the meaning and the appropriate usage of that form. If information about
meaning and usage is lacking, the attention to form would be considered FonFs.

Doughty and William‟s definitions of “FonF”, “FonFs” and “FFI” can be represented
schematically as follows:










Form-
Focused
Instruction

Focus
On form
Focus on
forms


7
2.2.3.1. Focus on forms (FonFs)
According to Long (2000) FonFs is a traditional teaching approach in which teachers
present the learners with pre-selected and sequenced linguistic items. Echoing Long
(2000), Sheen (2002) writes that FonFs is equated with the traditional teaching of discrete
points of grammar in separate lessons. Sheen (2003) further mentions that FonFs provides
the understanding of the grammar by a variety of means, including explanation in the L1,
pointing out differences between the L1 and the L2, and aural comprehension activities
intended to focus students‟ attention on the forms being used.

In Ellis‟ words (2001) “FonFs is characterized by a primary focus on form and intensive
treatment of pre-selected forms” (p.16)

Carter and Nunan (2001) argue that FonFs has some weak points. For example, FonFs only
emphasizes formal aspects rather than meaningful activities. Also, Doughty and William
(1998) maintain that FonFs always entails isolation of linguistic features from context or
from communicative activity. As a result, the students have no chance to practice speaking
and listening. The problem of FonFs is to lay emphasis on knowledge language teaching
than student‟s comprehensive abilities of using foreign language. Student becomes almost
“structurally competent but communicatively incompetent.” (p.4) That is because language
form that is only one component of overall language knowledge native speakers possess,
and thus communicative competence should incorporate sociolinguistic and contextual
competence as well as grammatical competence.

Besides, All these limitations are summed up by Long (1997) that FonFs instruction has
two major limitations are as follows:

i) There is no need to identify a particular learner‟ or group of learners‟
communicative needs, and no means analysis to ascertain their learning styles
and preferences. It is one-size-fits-all approach



8
ii) Linguistic grading, both lexical and grammatical, tends to result in pedagogic
materials of the basal reader variety and textbook dialogues and classroom
language use which are artificial and stilted

iii) Despite the best efforts even of highly skilled teachers and textbook writers,
FonFs tends to produce boring lessons, with resulting declines in motivation,
attention, and student enrolments

Despite these limitations FFI has recently been promoted as a more effective approach to
grammar since this approach focuses on both the meaning and the form. According to Ellis
(2001) FFI is an umbrella term which is defined as “any planned or incidental instruction
activities that is intended to induce language learners to pay attention to linguistic form.”
These two instructional strategies are further discussed in the sections that follow:

2.2.3.2. Planned focus on form
Ellis (2001) identifies two types of planned focus on form, namely enriched input and
focused communicative tasks
Enriched input uses input that has been carefully modified with the aim that learners will
notice the target forms in the input. Ellis mentions two ways to enriched input that is input

flood and input enhancement.

Input flood is achieved when input is purposefully enriched with numerous examples of
target forms, but without any means of drawing learners‟ attention to the forms that are
being targeted. The rationale with input flood is that acquisition will take place because of
frequent exposure to targeted forms.

Input enhancement is similar to enriched input, but with the important difference that with
input enhancement there will be some means of drawing learner‟s attention to the form
being focused on. This is achieved by simple mechanisms such as highlighting the targeted
forms in texts

Focused communicative tasks


9
Focused communicative tasks are tasks that have become widely used since the advent of
the task-based approach to second language teaching. According to Ellis (2001:21) the aim
with focused communicative tasks is to provide opportunities for learners to produce a
particular target form. This is done by designing tasks around a communicative setting that
is typically based on real-world events.

The crucial element of focused communicative tasks is that while performing the tasks,
learners‟ attention should be focused on meaning and not form. Acquisition of target forms is
considered incidental and not the intended purpose as is the case with functional language
teaching. Ellis (2001) states that the distinction between focused communicative tasks and
functional language teaching lies in the perspective that with the former learners see
language as a tool which can be used to communicate in a near real-world communicative
situation. With functional language teaching, the perspective falls more heavily on the
language and on the particular form or forms that need to be dealt with in order to complete

an activity successfully.

2.2.3.3. Incidental focus on form
Two kinds of incidental focus on form have been identified: pre-emptive and reactive
(Ellis, 2001: 22).

Pre-emptive focus on form
During pre-emptive focus on form the teacher or the learners decide to turn the attention
away from a communicative activity to focus conversation on linguistic form for a short
while before resuming the communicative activity. This kind of focus on form is referred
to by Ellis et al. (2002b) as unfocused tasks. Therefore, the shift is not result of an error in
production that has occurred or of a problem with meaning that has been encountered.
With pre-emptive focus on form either teacher or the learners feel need for clarification
around some structural point in order to facilitate understanding of the meaning-focused
activity that will follow. Examples of pre-emptive focus on form would be if the teacher
overtly asked the learners if they were experiencing any problems that are form related and
if the teacher verbalized a grammatical rule. Ellis a al (2002b: 427) state that pre-emptive
focus on form can be conversational or didactic in nature. Conversational pre-emptive


10
focus on form takes place when the teacher or the learners initiate focus on form that has
arisen because of a communicative need. According to Ellis et al. this kind of focus on
form is rare, as opposed to didactic focus on form which occurs frequently. During didactic
pre-emptive focus on form, the teacher or the learner interrupt the otherwise
communicative activity to focus on linguistic structure. The form that is being focused on
then becomes the topic of discussion.

Reactive focus on form takes place when the teacher provides negative feedback to actual
or perceived errors made by the learners (Ellis 2001:23). The nature of the feedback can

vary from implicit to explicit negative feedback.

Implicit negative feedback
According to Ellis (2005) implicit negative feedback takes place when the learners supply
a linguistically incorrect response, the teacher tends to avoid direct, explicit, overt negative
evaluation. Teachers will display a general preference and rely extensively on recast.
Moreover, teachers also use other implicit options such as requests of classifications and
repetitions.

Explicit negative feedback
Explicit negative feedback views errors positively. It reflects a sociolinguistic need on the
parts of teachers to protect the face of their students. Ellis (2001) mentions options of
explicit negative feedback: explicit correction (provides the correct form), meta-linguistic
feedback (consists of comment, information, or questions related to the well-formedness of
the student‟s utterance, elicitation (attempt to directly elicit the correct form from student)

Ellis et al. (2002b:423) distinguish between conversational and didactic reactive focus on
form.

Conversational reactive focus on form happens when a linguistic error made by the student
leads to a communication problem, to which the teacher responds by engaging the student
in negotiation of meaning. Conversational reactive focus on form can be achieved by
means of requests for confirmation or requests for clarification. The teacher can negotiate


11
meaning by requesting information form the student, who typically repeats the problematic
item or phrase with or without reformulating it. With requests for clarification, negotiation
of meaning is achieved because the learner has to first figure out why the teacher is not
understanding the utterance, and then come up with a way to reformulate the utterance in

such a way that the teacher will understand.

Didactic reactive focus on form occurs when the teacher choose to react to an error in
linguistic form that a learner has made even though the error has not led to communication
problems during conversation. Ellis et al. (2002b:424) calls this kind of error treatment a
“pedagogic „time-out‟” and state that this kind of focus on form is more often in adult
second language classrooms than conversational reactive focus on form.
2.3. Advantages and Disadvantages of FFI
Language teaching through FFI has been controversial issues among linguists. As for them,
there have existed both strong points and weak ones with FFI method to grammar teaching.

2.3.1. The Advantages of FFI
There are some main advantages of FFI as follows:
Firstly, according to Ellis and his colleagues, FFI helps draw learners‟ attention to form
while they are engaged in communicative activities which is not easy to achieve because
learners find it difficult to attend to meaning and form at the same time. (Ellis et al.,
2001:422). Similarly, as for Dekeyser and Johnson‟s view (cited in Ellis, 2001:8), with
given enough opportunities to use language in communicative activities and provided
instruction with attention to form (e.g. negative feedback) during communicative activities,
learners will become able to use their conscious knowledge of grammatical structures
automatically, or unconsciously.

Secondly, Ellis (1994:659) argues that this approach results in increased accuracy and
accelerates progress developmental sequences and its effects are to some extent durable.
He further explains that without instruction in the linguistic elements of the second
language, learners are not likely to achieve very high levels of linguistic competence



12

Sharing the opinion with Ellis, Long (1991: 45-46) points out that using FFI in the
classroom allows the teacher to instruct students to both accuracy and fluency. It
emphasizes the accuracy of language forms in communicative classrooms. Although FFI is
not likely to alter sequences of development, it does appear to speed up the rate of learning,
help learners in their learning processes, gain long-term accuracy and raise the ultimate
level of attainment. It also maintains a balance between the focus on forms and focus on
meaning, calling on teachers and learners to attend to form when necessary (Long, 1991.,
& Long and Robinson, 1998)

Thirdly, as for Doughty and Williams (1998:2), some attention to formal aspects embedded
in activities that are primarily meaning focused will improve the limited effectiveness of
purely communicative classroom practice. They refer to a strong and a weaker claim
regarding the need for attention to linguistic form within a communicative approach to
second language teaching. According to the strong claim, learners need to be provided with
FFI in order to develop their ability in communicative competence, and to achieve target-
like command of the second language. According to the weaker claim, FFI will provide
learners with “a more efficient language learning experience” because it is believed that
FFI “can speed up natural acquisition processes” (Doughty & Williams, 1998:2)

Some researchers (e.g. Ellis, 1999; Long, 2000) found that FFI is most effective when it is
focused on raising learners‟ awareness of how a structure is formed, what it means, and
how it is used rather than on practicing drills for accuracy. From the discussion above it is
clear that the current language teaching and learning literature is generally in favor of some
form of focus on linguistic form.

The results of the majority of these studies also indicate that some models of focus on form
are effective for language instruction.

For instance, in an exploratory study, Lightbown and Spada (1990) investigated the
influence of differences in the amount of FonF activity in four intact classes of French

learners of English, in grades 5 and 6 (aged 10- 12). Analyses of the classroom data using
the Communicative Orientation of Language Teaching (COLT) observation scheme


13
revealed that FonF activities “were almost always reactions to learners‟ errors or to student
requests for assistance with some aspect of language use” (1990, p.437) and rarely
involved explicit grammar teaching. Lightbown and Spada found that using suppliance in
obligatory context analysis of production data obtained from a picture-description task,
learners in the class who received the most focus on form were most accurate in their use
of the progressive –ing and at a higher developmental level in their use of the possessive
determiners his and her.
Next, in a quasi-experimental study isolating just one of the instructional features
subsumed by functional-analytic teaching, the use of visual input enhancement, Leeman,
Arteagoitia, Fridman, and Doughty (1995) examined the effects of focus on form on the
learning of preterit and imperfect tenses in Spanish during content-based instruction. They
contrasted performance by a group receiving a purely communicative treatment and a
group receiving an integrated focus on form. The treatment was delivered in two 50-minute
periods of instruction. Before the first period, both groups were assigned the same reading
and questions on a topic in Spanish history. The target forms were highlighted, underlined,
and color-coded for the treatment group. Subjects were instructed to read and answer
questions in preparation for a discussion. In addition to input enhancement, the treatment
group as also told to pay special attention to how temporal relations were expressed in the
material. During the first class discussion session, the treatment group, in contrast to the
communicative controls, received corrective feedback targeted at the use of preterit and
imperfect tenses. This varied from recasts, through presentation of models, to the use of
gestures and expressions to indicate errors. The second class session consisted of a debate,
during which the treatment group was again told to be careful when expressing temporal
relations and was given corrective feedback. The communicative group was not so
instructed or corrected. This treatment was, therefore, brief and administered outside the

classroom (reading texts for homework), as well as inside the classroom (receiving
corrective feedback). Comparing pretest and posttest scores on three measures, a cloze
completion task, a written essay, and an analysis of production during two in-class debates,
Leeman et al. found a significant pretest to posttest gain for accuracy and suppliance
(amount of use) pf preterit and imperfect forms during the debates.



14
To test the effectiveness of FFI in a communicative classroom, an experiment was carried
out by Qian (2006) in the course of “Integrated Skills of English” in Gongshang University
in 2003. Subjects were the 72 English majors, 19 males and 53 females who are freshmen
in 2003. As the classes had already been organized before students came to the university,
we could not choose the samples from different classes and then reorganize new classes.
Class 0302 (with 23 students) was the experimental class and was to be treated with the
integrated method. Class 0301 (with 24 students) was one control class to be treated with a
dominantly form-focused method. Another control class, class 0304 (with 25 students),
was to be treated with a highly meaning-based method without explicit instruction on
language forms. These three classes were chosen out of nine classes because the subjects‟
EFL scores in the university entrance examinations were not very different. The course
was last for four semesters and the results of the treatments were to be assessed by the
nationwide Test for English Majors-Band Four (TEM-4) in 2005. The classroom
instruction was tasked-based but with a focus on the language forms at the end of each
unit. The teaching units are divided by topics. For each topic students are first engaged in
communicative interaction by doing brainstorming to activate prior knowledge, dialogues,
role-play, top-down processing of the text, post-reading discussion for high-order thinking,
presentations to share ideas, etc. After all these have been done, there are awareness-
raising activities to draw students‟ attention to language aspects and grammar exercises are
assigned for students to practice. Students got corrective feedback from the teacher when
they made errors. Judging from the means, the proficiency level of class 0302 was higher

than both of the control classes. The improvement difference between class 0302 and class
0304 was significantly different but the performance difference between class 0302 and
class 0301 cannot be viewed as significantly different. There was no significant difference
between class 0301 and 0304. These results have proved that FFI is helpful for the
development of students‟ inter-language system.

Ellis et al (2002a) also mentioned Doughty and Varela‟s evidence to show that planned
focus on form promotes acquisition even when this is measured in terms of spontaneous
oral production. In this investigation, they provided reactive focus on form directed at past
tense verbs in the context of students producing oral and written science reports. The
reactive focus on from consisted of corrective recasting, where the teacher first repeated a


15
learner‟s utterance containing a past tense error, highlighting the error through emphasis,
and then, if this did not result in a learner self-correction, the teacher recast the utterance
using the correct verb form. As a result, the students showed marked improvements in
posttest through oral and written science reports.
In summary, FFI has some major advantages such as drawing learners‟ attention to form
while they are engaged in communicative activities; increasing accuracy and accelerating
progress developmental sequences and its effects are to some extent durable; improving the
limited effectiveness of purely communicative classroom practice.

2.3.2. The disadvantages of FFI
Besides good points, FFI also suffers from some disadvantages.

Sheen (2003) shows that the advocacy of FFI as the most effective on teaching strategy is
only theoretically motivated, and lacks credibility in terms of the empirical evidence
available. She argues that FFI actually entails the contributive use of a FonFs. Further,
FonFs is consistently just as effective or more than other options.

In alignment with Sheen‟s view, Poole (2005) highlights the fact that FFI has not been
empirically tested in a variety of instructional contexts.

In terms of empirical, studies on FFI have taken place in settings that appear to be well-
funded, adequately supplied with teaching and learning material, and generally free of
classroom discipline problems, notably the United States, New Zealand, and Japan. In fact,
not a single empirical study can be found that took place in a setting in which classes were
overcrowded with up-to-date materials. Even though FFI has been investigated in many
settings, it appears to be currently undoable in many circumstances due to curricular
constrains. In particular, in many schools and language programs, teachers are obligated to
teach certain forms in a specific order by using government- mandated materials.
According to Sheorey and Nayar (2002), “Teachers have little say in designing the
curriculum, choosing the materials and textbooks, or developing assessment techniques, of
all which are controlled by Boards of Studies composed of senior members of the English
faculty” (p.18). If the textbooks and materials provided focus on the explicit learning of L2


16
grammatical forms and marginalize authentic oral and written communication make no
allowance for occasional grammar study, teachers will be left without resources with
which they can both promote real-life interaction

Another problem with FFI is its practicality, especially in educational settings where the
class size is large (Poole, 2003b). According to Long (1991) and Long and Robinson
(1998), FFI is suited to small-sized classrooms, where instructors can verbally address their
students‟ problematic forms, presumably via classroom discussion, question- answer
sessions, and impromptu and planned public speaking events. In many settings, however,
classes are large and individual attention and student-student interaction is not impossible.

In addition to curricular problems, Long (1991) and Long and Robinson (1998) have noted
that conception of focus on form instruction obliges teachers to have native- like or near
native-like competence fluency. More specifically, in oral situations, they would need to be
able to spontaneously recognize students‟ form-based errors and provide them with the
correct ones. However, many English language teachers lack a high level of L2 oral
proficiency and do not have opportunities for developing it, particularly in the area of oral
grammar. Yu‟s report (2001) revealed that Grammar-translation method is the only option
for EFL teacher in China because they can basically teach English in Chinese (p.197).

Personally, the researcher does not agree that FFI requires teachers to have native-like
competence fluency in order to be able to recognize and correct students‟ errors. Also, the
use of students‟ L1 does not prevent the use of FFI if we take Ellis‟s (2001) definition of
FFI which has been presented earlier in this chapter.

Another linguistic problem with FFI is the language spoken by English learners and their
teachers. As Poole (2003b) has pointed out, in many settings, the students and the teachers
often share a common first (or second, or third) language and culture, and thus can easily
code-switch in order to overcome communicative difficulties or fill communicative gaps.
However, if problematic grammatical forms can be addressed using another language and
then FFI could be seen by teachers and learners as either unnecessary or impractical. Long
(1991) and Long and Robinson (1998) do not address how the issue of code-switch should


17
be approached. For the researcher, code-switching is a natural phenomenon and it does not
affect the adaptation of FFI

And a final problem with FFI is cultural. As for Alex Poole (2005) focus on form is highly
individualistic in that errors are frequently, although not exclusively, addressed on an
individual basis. Therefore, a successful FFI would need to take place in a cultural

atmosphere that allows students to actively participate in daily activities. Moreover,
administrators, teachers, parents, and students would need to feel some degree of comfort
with letting students be active participants- and sometimes leaders- in the content and
manner in which they study. However, in many cultures, such student-centeredness be
considered disrespectful and/or a break of tradition (Poole, 2003b). In fact this problem is
more related to teachers‟ attitudes
R. Ellis (2002) found that seven of the eleven studies were effective in improving accuracy
scores and identified three key variables that might impact on such success, namely the
complexity of the target feature, the extent of the instruction and the availability of the
target feature in non-instructional input.

2.4. Summary
In this chapter, FFI has been defined. Also, the advantages and disadvantages of FFI have
been reviewed. The major drawbacks or limitations of FFI are the large classes, the
teachers‟ proficiency in the target language, and the students‟ learning culture. All these
factors the researcher believes are dynamic and the appropriate adaptation of this approach
to grammar may be more effective regardless of those contextual factors. This belief
motivates the researcher to undertake this quasi- experimental study with a view to testing
the impact of FFI on students‟ grammatical competence. The next chapter will present the
study that was conducted at Hanoi university of Industrial Fine Art.







18
CHAPTER THREE: THE STUDY

3.1. Introduction
This chapter includes the research design, research procedures, and the result of the study.
Firstly, the rationale for using a quasi-experimental design is raised. This will be followed
by the description of the procedures and the treatment. Lastly, the findings will be
mentioned and discussed.

3.2. The rationale of using a quasi-experimental method.
Before getting to know why quasi-experiment method is used for this study, the researcher
would like to provide its definition with an aim at more understanding this type of method.

3.2.1. Definition of a quasi-experimental method.
Quasi-experimental method is a method designed basing on situations which already exist
in the real world (Campell and Stanley 1963). These researchers labeled this research
method “quasi-experimental” because they are conducted under conditions in which it is
difficult to control many of the variables and in which subjects cannot be assigned to
special groups for the purposes of the research. (Herbert W Seliger & Elana Shohamy
1989).

Quasi-experimental studies examine outcome; however they do not involve randomly
assigning participants to treatment and control groups. A quasi-experimental study might
compare outcomes for individuals receiving program activities with outcomes for similar
group of individuals not receiving program activities. This type of study also compared
outcomes for one group of individuals before and after the group‟s involvement in the
program (known as pre-test, post-test design). Quasi-experimental studies also inform
discussions of cause and effect (Moore, 2008)

3.2.2. The rationale of using a quasi-experimental method
Quasi- experimental research is probably more representative of the conditions found in
educational contexts, (Campell & Stanley 1963) where laboratory-like research conditions