Pedagogical grammar 4 Ortega and Norris

Focus on form What is the difference between focus on form and focus on formS? In what different ways can focus on form take place in the classroom?

Type of instruction Norris, J. M. & Ortega, L.. (2001). Does type of instruction make a difference? Substantive findings from a meta-analytic review. Language Learning, 51, Supplement 1, 157-213.

pp. 158-159: six main topics Explicit / implicit – which is better? Metalinguistic awareness – does it help? Focus on Form versus focus on meaning Feedback on mistakes – does it help? Processing input vs. ‘traditional’ Comprehension vs. production

pp.159-60: Three main positions on language instruction Non- interface Weak interface Strong interface

pp. 160-161: three practical models of language teaching Task-based learning, focus on meaning Focus on form Focus on formS

pp. 163-164 What is meta-analysis? Primary vs. secondary research Secondary: various methods: Narrative Vote-counting Research synthesis Checking ‘effect size’ = the amount of difference a treatment made.

pp.164-165: Research questions L2 instruction effectiveness (at all!) Relative effectiveness of different types of instruction Does type of outcome measure affect results? Length of treatments? Durability?

165-166: How many studies? Criteria for inclusion? Recent Empirical Clear statement of treatment Outcomes clearly related to treatment

pp.167-168: independent variables? Explicit or implicit? Focus on meaning, focus on form or focus on formS

pp.168-169: Dependent variables and methodological features Various kinds of measures: Metalinguistic judgements (ability to judge correctness of a sentence) Multiple choice Controlled responses Free responses

pp. 173: who were the students, mostly? Mostly learning English Mostly adults Mostly low proficiency

pp.174-176: Methodological features? Wide variety of class size (5-300) Time – usually about 5 hours, sometimes up to 50 Pre-test and post-test (+delayed post-test) Some qualitative, mostly quantitative research method

pp. 176-177: How many studies? FonF / FonFS? Only 49 with sufficient effect size 56% focus on formS, 44% on form Of the focus on formS – 80% explicit Of the focus on form – 58% explicit (overall 70% explicit)

pp.177-178: explicit or implicit – which was more effective? Overall instruction – effective Explicit more effective than implicit FonF better than FonFS (but not so significantly)

p. 185: length of treatment? Not long! Brief treatment – 2 hours or less Medium or long – 3 hours or longer

pp.186-187: Short treatments produced more effect: why? Because tested immediately after Relative intensity of instruction

pp.190-191: Durability? On the whole yes, but small reduction in the delayed post-test

pp.192-194 How effective is L2 instruction overall relative to simple exposure? Very, significantly

pp.194-197: What is relative effectiveness of different types of instruction? Explicit gets better results than implicit No statistically significant difference between FonF and fonFS

pp.198-199: Does type of outcome measure affect the results? A specific measure may affect results But overall – there was a ‘spread’ of different measures, so probably didn’t affect final results

pp.199-200: does length of instruction affect observed effectiveness? Yes, the short treatments were relatively more effective: why?

pp.200-201: Durability? Yes, in general. It appears that the very short treatments resulted in less durable effects (the learners forgot more quickly).

Conclusions L2 instruction results in substantial gains. L2 instruction gains seem durable Inclusion of explicit leads to better results than implicit

Reservations: testing encourages explicit responses explicit usually more intensive and variaed, implicit may require more time research settings vary widely effect of use of different kinds of tests: easier to show progress if selected or constrtained response, more difficult if metalinguistic judement or free response shorter better results because of intensity test practice effects range of other variables: maturation, aptitude, learning style; the specific item being taught; pedagogical factors such as timing, duration, intensity of instruction;different kinds of populations, and contexts. Need more rigorous control over variables.