1. Pedagogical grammar 4
Ortega and Norris

2. 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?

3. 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,

4. 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

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

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

7. 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.

8. 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?

9. 165-166: How many studies? Criteria for inclusion?
Recent
Empirical
Clear statement of treatment
Outcomes clearly related to treatment

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

11. 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

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

13. 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

14. 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)

15. 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)

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

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

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

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

20. 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

21. 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

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

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

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

25. 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.