195

Differential Effects of Focus on Form and Focus on

Forms on English Relative Clause by EFL Learners in Japan

Noriko Kimura, Tokyo Gakugei University, the United Graduate School of Education

assigned to Yokohama National University, Japan

Abstract: This study investigates differential effects of form-focused and

formS-focused instruction on learning of the English relative clause by adolescents in

Japan. Three intact classes were assigned to two experimental groups

(Focus-on-Form, Focus-on-FormS) and a control group. Focus-on-Form group

completed a problem-solving task and Focus-on-FormS group received an explicit

grammar rule explanation. This study employed an experimental design with pre-,

immediate post-, and delayed post-tests. To determine differential effects of the two

types of instruction, productive and receptive skill tests were deployed: a short writing

task and a set of grammar multiple-choice questions.

Results showed a significant difference between the two experimental groups.

Focus-on-Form group outperformed Focus-on-FormS group in the delayed post-test,

although these two groups gained almost the same scores in pre and immediate

post-tests. Consequently this indicates Focus-on-Form through TBLT promoted

learning of the English relative clause. The findings will be discussed in the context of

EFL in Japan.

1. Introduction

In Japan traditional grammar-translation method has widely been implemented in the

English education for a long time to obtain knowledge from other countries through

reading books written in English. However, as the communicative approach emerged in

1970s (Hymes, 1972), the Japanese education also began to shift toward communicative

language teaching. Since then grammar-translation method and the gradually

developing communicative approach have coexisted in the Japanese educational context

(EFL). Still grammar teaching for communication has been a neglected area in Japan,

even after Celce-Murcia and Larsen-Freeman (1991) stressed the importance of

form-meaning-use mapping for second language acquisition to occur.

196

Krashen (1985) maintained the significance of the “Input Hypothesis” among his five

hypotheses. He stressed the importance of comprehending the message that the input

conveyed for language acquisition to occur. His ideas were thus influential in

emphasizing the approach for learning languages with a focus on meaning. Some

examples of this include Communicative Language Teaching, Content-Based

Instruction, and immersion program.

Long (1983) agreed with Krashen’s comprehensible input but laid emphasis on

interaction, and explored how input could be made comprehensible though interaction.

Thus, Long proposed the Interaction Hypothesis, arguing that receiving interactionally

modified input ［italics added］is the important mechanism for making language

comprehensible: he emphasized that corrective feedback during interaction is important.

When interlocutors cannot understand each other, they have to negotiate the meaning.

“The negotiation will give them the opportunity for language development because they

can find better ways to communicate their messages” (Long, 1996, pp.451-452).

A meaning-centered approach, called the French immersion program, has been

implemented in Canada based on research results of Swain. Swain (1885, 1998, 2000)

proposed the comprehensible output hypothesis［italics added］, which includes three

roles of output: 1.Noticing function: Learners encounter gaps between what they want

to say and what they are able to say and so they notice what they do not know or only

partially know in L2. 2. Hypothesis-testing function: When learners say something there

is always a hypothesis underlying e.g. about grammar. By uttering something, learner

tests this hypothesis and receives feedback from an interlocutor. 3. Metalinguistic

function: Learners reflect about the language they are learning and hereby the output

enables them to control and internalize linguistic knowledge. This hypothesis

integrated these three roles results in good effects on overcoming French immersion

students’ underachievement in speaking and writing. She proposed “collaborative

dialogue”［italics added, which refers to how second language learners co-construct

linguistic knowledge while engaging production tasks, drawing their attention to both

form and meaning. While interacting with each other, learners will learn which forms

are best used to express their ideas. Therefore, language use mediates language

learning” (Swain, 2000, p.99).

Schmidt (1995) suggests that nothing is learned unless it has been noticed. “Noticing

197

does not itself result in acquisition, but it is an important starting point.” His

hypothesis called the “Noticing Hypothesis” says that second language learners cannot

begin to acquire a language feature until they become aware of it in the input.

To acquire a second language (L2), quite different from how to acquire the first

language (L1), it should be recognized that the relationship between form and meaning

is too complex. Therefore focus-on meaning（FonM）and focus-on formS (FonFS),

which had lain at the extremity of the language education, reached out to each other.

Attention to linguistic forms within the context of performing communicative activities

is termed “Focus on Form (FonF)” (Long, 1991). He defines the term as follows:

Focus on Form…overtly draws students’ attention to linguistic elements

as they arise incidentally in lessons whose overriding focus is on

meaning or communication. (Long, 1991)

Nowadays, FonF has been supported in ESL environment and the effects have been

investigated by many researchers. Since Norris and Ortega (2000) conducted a

meta-analysis of the effectiveness of form-focused and formS-focused instruction, a

great amount of research has been carried out. The study summarized that focused

instruction lead to large gains of targeted features and mentioned that explicit types of

instruction are more effective than implicit types, and that focus-on-form and

focus-on-formS interventions result in equivalent and large effects. However, there is

no consensus regarding the durability of the effects of L2 instruction. Norris and Ortega

mentioned as follows:

Thus, although both FonF and FonFS instructional approaches result

in large and probabilistically trustworthy gains over the course of an

investigation, the magnitude of these gains differs very little between

the two instructional categories. Finally, the order of effectiveness

observed for more specific instructional types ( explicit FonF＞

explicit FonFS＞implicit FonF ＞implicit FonFS ) is suggestive of

needed future research (Norris & Ortega, 2000).

Williams (1999) also demonstrates the effectiveness of FonF, whether or not learners

attended to form through communication with negotiation. She mentioned that

198

learner-generated attention to form relates to the proficiency of learners.

Learner-generated attention to form increases considerably with rising

proficiency and during specific activities. In general, the likelihood

of learner-generated attention to form seems to be linked to learners’

perception of the goals of the activity (Williams, 1999).

In Japan (EFL), the effectiveness of FonF through meaning-focused interaction should

be researched whether it is the same as that in ESL. The experimental result must

show all of the teachers what has influence on students to acquire form, not to

understand it. The issue that the more possibility will be laid on either FonF or FonFS

can interest English teachers. In this research, one thematic focus is on the differential

effect on a relative pronoun of FonF and FonFS in attending to form and getting ready

to notice form. In addition, this research aims at whether explicit FonFS is more

effective than implicit FonF confirming the results gained by research just as former

researchers expected. Therefore the research questions are as follows:

Research questions:

1. Which is more effective to attend to form for EFL learners, FonF or FonFS?

2. What incidental factors derive attention to form from learners and retain it in mind?

2. Method

2.1 Design

Accuracy in the using of the relative pronoun was measured over a period of a month by

means of a pre-, post- and delayed-post-test design. Three groups (two experimental and

one control) of low-intermediate EFL high school students participated in this study.

FonF group engaged in a communicative problem-solution activity, and FonFS group

received an explicit grammar explanation and completed sentence-combining excises. A

control group received a grammar-translation lesson.

2.2 Participants

The participants of this study are first year students who belong to the general course of

a senior high school in Japan. All the participants took the GTEC (Global Test of

English Communication) test to measure their initial stage of proficiency. Four students

were excluded from the data to eliminate ceiling effects. Then, the experimental group

was divided into two sub-groups: Group A (FonF, n=13) and Group B (FonFS, n=12).

199

The average scores of these experimental groups were on 315 and 318, which do not

indicate statistical significance from t-test. Furthermore, another group was allotted as a

control group (Group C, n=13) to examine the effectiveness of FonF and FonFS

treatment.

2.3 Procedure

Before the target lesson, a production test was administered to measure all the

participants’ knowledge of a subjective relative pronoun. The test included 5

picture-descriptions and 25 multiple choice questions. The participants were asked to

complete these questions in 20 minutes. After one week, both FonF group and FonFS

group received their treatment. The immediate post-test followed the treatment. After

five weeks, a delayed post-test was administered. Twenty minutes were given for the

pre-, immediate and delayed post-tests. The control group did not receive the targeted

treatment, but completed the three sets of tests in the same timeline provided in Table 1.

Table 1. Timetable for Procedures

-------------------------------------------------------------------

Day one Pretest

After one week Treatment

Immediate post-test

After 5 weeks Delayed post-test

--------------------------------------------------------------------

2.4 Treatment

FonF group experienced a communicative discussion activity in groups of three. First,

each group member received a card on which a small portion of information about the

situation and the problem was written with the target feature (a subjective relative

pronoun) written in red. The group members shared information and ideas to find a

solution to a problem written on each cue card. Fifty minutes were given to complete

this activity.

FonFS group received an explicit explanation about a subjective relative pronoun and

completed 5 sentence-combining exercises (explicit FonFS) in fifty minutes. The

control group received a grammar–translation lesson.

2.5 Instruments

Each of the five pieces of production (writing) test required a description of a picture.

200

Ten minutes were given to write five sentences. Another ten minutes was given to

choose the correct item to construct a correct sentence. Twenty-five multiple-choice

questions were completed. The full mark of pre-, immediate and delayed post-tests

was 50 points.

3. Results

3.1 Production tests

Table 2 below indicates the percentile scores of the descriptive statistics of the

experimental groups and the control group. Figure 1 shows a visual representation of

the mean percentages for the three testing periods for FonF, FonFS, and the control

group.

In the pretest, the production test indicates that the percentage of correct answers is

66 % in FonF and 70% in FonFS. In the immediate post-test, both FonF and FonFS

groups made a great development. After one month, the delayed post-test was

conducted to examine their acquisition of the target form. The percentage of the

correct answers of production accounted for 86% in FonF and 78% in FonFS.

Productive ability in FonF group gradually developed but that of FonFS group reached

the peak immediately after the treatment and dropped in Time 3 (delayed post-test).

While the upper control group showed 68 % in the production of the pre-test. The

score was similar to that of FonFS group. In the immediate and delayed post-tests,

their production test scores slightly gained from 68 to 71 and then to 72, but the gain

was statistically insignificant.

Table 2. Percentage of Correct Answers in Production Tests

Production FonF FonFS CGPre 66 70 68Immediate 78 78 71Delayed 86 78 72

Kinds of tests Points Time

Production 5 points× 5 questions 10 minutes

Multiple choice 1 point×25 questions 10 minutes

201

Figure 1. Percentage of Production Tests in the Pre Test, Immediate Post-test and

Delayed Post-test

3.2 Multiple choice Tests

The multiple choice tests showed quite different results. In the pretest, FonF

accounted for 83% and FonFS for 80%. The results of both groups increased sharply

from 83 to 89 and 80 to 92, but decreased greatly after the immediate post-test. FonFS

group made a greater development than FonF group. However, in the delayed post-test

their scores decreased and were almost the same, 83 % in FonF and 81 % in FonFS.

As a result, both treatment groups returned to the level at the pretest, and

multiple-choice test did not indicate any sign of durability of treatment effects. The

control group did not show development, moving from 76 % in the pre-test to 72 % in

the immediate post-test and to 66% in the delayed post-test. (Refer to Table 3 and

Figure 2)

Table 3. Percentage of Correct Answers in Multiple Choice Tests

Multiple Choice FonF FonFS CGPre 83 80 76Immediate 89 92 72Delayed 83 81 66

Figure 2. Percentage of Multiple Choice Tests in the Pre Test, Immediate

Post-test and Delayed Post-test

202

3.3 Repeated Measures ANOVA Results

One-Way Analysis of Variance investigated whether there was clear distinction among

three tests of both FonF and FonFS because the result would prove which method had

an effect on uptake of form for learners. The significant probability of the production

test in FonF is less than 0.05. (p＜.05). Therefore these means were significant. On the

other hand, the means of the multiple choice test did not show significant difference.

In FonFS, the means of both production and multiple choice tests were insignificant. As

a result, the influence of FonF on uptake of form is much more effective than that of

FonFS, specifically on production with the target form. FonFS group results showed

neither productive nor reactive influence in the long run. (Refer to Table 5)

Table 4. Descriptive Statistic Results of Production and Multiple Choice Tests in

FonF and FonFS

FonF Production FonFs Multiple Choice

M SD N M SD N

Pre 16.62 5.910 13 16.69 4.211 13

Immediate 19.62 4.735 13 16.00 17.80 13

Delayed 21.54 2.665 13 16.69 2.287 13

FonFs Production FonFS Multiple Choice

M SD N M SD N

Pre 17.50 5.108 12 15.92 4.209 12

Immediate 19.58 3.942 12 16.50 1.679 12

Delayed 19.42 3.423 12 16.25 2.667 12

Table 5. One-way Analysis of Variance of Production and Multiple Choice Tests

in FonF and FonFS

Fon F Production

SS df MS F ptests 160.051 2 80.026 7.852 ｐ＜.05subjects 528.769 12 44.064error 244.615 24 10.192Total 933.435 38

203

FonF Multiple Choice

SS df MS F ptests 4.154 2 2.077 0.23 p＞.05subjects 96.359 12 8.03error 217.179 24 9.049Ｔｏｔａｌ 317.692 38

FonFS Production

SS df MS F ptests 32.167 2 16.083 1.558 p＞.05subjects 359.667 11 32.697error 227.167 22 10.326Total 908.001 35

FonFS Multiple ChoiceFonFS Multiple Choice

SS df MS F ptests 2.056 2 1.028 0.17 p＞.05subjects 170.889 11 15.535error 133.278 22 6.058Total 306.223 35

A clear distinction by Multiple Comparison was among three tests in FonF. In the

production test, the clear distinction obviously existed between the pretest and the

delayed post-test. The significant probability between them is less than 0.05. (p＜.05).

(Refer to Table 6) Therefore FonF developed learners’ productive ability about the

target form after one month. On the other hand, FonFS did not show any significant

difference among three tests. (Refer to Table 7) It only affected the immediate

post-test after the target lesson. It was of no use in the long run.

The control group did not show improvement not only in the immediate post-test but

also in the delayed post-test. In other words, traditional grammar-translation method

did not give positive effects on the acquisition of the relative pronoun.

204

Table 6. Multiple Comparison of FonF by Bonferroni

Production Test Multiple Choice Test

Level I Level J Difference

of Means

Standard

error

p

Pre Immediate -3 1.33 0.131

Delayed -4.923※ 1.375 0.011

Immediate Pre 3 1.33 0.131

Delayed -1.923 1.022 0.253

Delayed Pre 4.923※ 1.375 0.011

Immediate 1.923 1.022 0.253

Level I Level J Difference

of Means

Standard

error

　 p

Immediate 0.692 1.313 1

Delayed 0 1.209 1

Pre -0.692 1.313 1

Delayed -0.692 0.996 1

Pre 0 1.209 1

Immediate 0.692 0.996 1

Pre

Immediate

Delayed

Table 7. Multiple Comparison of FonFS by Bonferroni

Production Test Multiple Choice Test

Level I Level J Difference

of Means

Standard

error

p

Immediate -2.083 1.345 0.449

Delayed -1.917 1.104 0.331

Pre 2.083 1.345 0.449

Delayed 0.167 1.461 1

Delayed Pre 1.917 1.104 0.331

Immediate -0.167 1.461 1

Pre

Immediate

Level I Level J Difference

of Means

Standard

error

p

Immediate -0.583 1.076 1

Delayed -0.333 1.047 1

Pre 0.583 1.076 1

Delayed 0.25 0.88 1

Pre 0.333 1.047 1

Immediate -0.25 0.88 1

Pre

Immediate

Delayed

4. Discussion

According to these experiments, form is acquired effectively through communicative

use of the target feature. Form is acquired in accordance with meaning and function in

a communicative context. VanPatten (2004) and stresses the importance of connecting

form and its meaning and function for language acquisition to occur. Thus, if the

connection does not occur, i.e., if the learner does not perceive nor notice the form, no

connection to meaning and function is made and the form is dropped from further

processing. Izumi (2009) states that meaningful substance should be provided in a

specific context for the reason that the context can play a role to connect linguistic form

in mind as “a hook” or “a spider’s thread” in the cerebral network.

FonF group noticed form in the given context and was prompted to recognize new

vocabulary through using words and interaction among one another. In other words,

the target form was established with the meaning and context of the tasks. The control

205

group with a traditional approach did not learn the target. The reason might be

retrieved from the learning condition that students make little use of the connection of

form, meaning and function in a communicative context.

FonF has durability of keeping form and has a better effect on developing accuracy than

repeating grammatical practice. FonF activities enable learners to notice the target

features through communicative tasks. In EFL environment like Japan, the effects of

FonF are much expected in terms of form acquisition.

5. Conclusion

In conclusion, one finding is that FonF increases the opportunities to notice partially

acquired grammar rules and unknown vocabulary. Another finding is that

Learner-Initiated FonF associated with Task-Based Language Teaching (TBLT)1 is more

effective than teacher-initiated grammatical lesson because learners are forced to derive

their knowledge of words, form, and structure from their interlanguage2 to use the

language to convey their messages for communicative purposes. It is obvious that FonF

contributed to the durability of learning. It can be interpreted that FonF is useful and

effective to the acquisition of forms. Further research should be conducted to

determine if other linguistic forms can be acquired effectively by way of FonF

approach.

Notes 1Task based-teaching is an approach to the teaching of second/ foreign languages

based on a syllabus consisting of communicative tasks and utilizing a methodology that

makes meaningful communication rather than linguistic accuracy primary. 2Selinker (1972) coined the term ‘interlanguage’ to refer to the systematic

knowledge of an L2 which is independent of both these learner’s L1 and the target

language. The term has come to be used with different but related meaning: (1) to refer

to the series of interlocking systems which characterize acquisition, (2) to refer to the

system that is observed at a single stage of development (‘an interlanguage’), and (3) to

refer to particular L1/L2 combinations (for example, L1 French/ L2 English versus L1

Japanese/ L2 English).

206

References

Clece-Marcia, M. & Larsen-Freeman, D. (1991). Teaching grammar. In M.

Celce-Murcia (Ed.), Teaching English Grammar as a Second or Foreign

Language 2nd edition (pp. 279-296). New York: Newbury House / Harper Collins.

Izumi, S. (2009). Focus-on form wo toriireta atarashii eigo kyouiku. ［The new English

education introducing Focus-on Form］Tokyo: Taishukan

Krashen, S. D. (1985). The input hypothesis: Issues and implications. London; New

York: Longman.

Long, M. (1983). Native speaker/non-native speaker conversation and the negotiation of

comprehensible input. Applied Linguistics 4/2: 126-41.

Long, M. (1991). Focus on form: A design feature in language teaching methodology. In

K. de Bot, C. Kramsch., & R, Ginsberb, & C. Kramsch (Eds.), Foreign Language

Research in Cross-cultural Perspective (pp. 39-52). Amsterdam: John Benjamins.

Long, M. (1996). The role of the linguistic environment in second language acquisition.

In W. Ritchie, & T. Bhatia (Eds.), Handbook of Second Language Acquisition. (pp.

413-468) New York: Academic Press.

Norris, J. M. & Ortega, L. (2000). Effectiveness of L2 instruction: A research synthesis

and quantitative meta-analysis. Language Learning, 50, 417-528.

Schmidt, R. (1995a). Consciousness and foreign language learning: A tutorial in the role

of attention and awareness in learning. In R. Schmidt (Ed.), Attention &

Awareness in Foreign Language Learning (pp. 1-64). Hawaii: University Hawaii

at Manoa.

Swain, M. (1985). Communicative competence: some roles of comprehensible input

and comprehensible output in its development. In S. Guss and C. Madden (Ed.),

Input in Second Language Acquisition. Rowley, Mass.: Newbury House.

207

Swain, M. (1998). Focus on form through conscious reflection in C. Doughty and J.

Williams (Ed.), Focus-on-form in Classroom Second Language Acquisition.

Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Swain, M. (2000). The output hypothesis and beyond: Mediating acquisition through

collaborative dialogue. In J. P. Lantolf (Ed.), Sociocultural Theory and Second

Language Learning. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

VanPatten, B. (2004). Input processing in second language acquisition. In B. VanPatten

(Ed.), Processing Instruction: Theory, research, and commentary (pp. 5-31)

Chicago: University of Illinois.

Williams, J. (1999). Learner-generated attention to form. Language Learning, 49,

583-625.