Eva Alcón Soler Universitat Jaume I

1. INCIDENTAL FOCUS ON FORM DURING DECISION MAKING TASKS AND THE EFFECTS ON ORAL AND WRITTEN PERFORMANCE Eva Alcón Soler Universitat Jaume I

2. THEORETICAL BACKGROUND: Research on focus on form instruction A definition of focus on form: …interactional moves directed at raising learner awareness of forms by briefly drawing students’ attention to linguistic elements (words, collocations, grammatical structures, pragmatic patterns, and so on), in context, as they arise incidentally in lessons whose overriding focus is on meaning, or communication.” Long (1996:40)  TBLT 2009, Lancaster 14, 2009. Eva Alcon, UJI

3. Research on focus on form instruction  1. Describe types of focus on form in language classrooms: • Planned versus incidental • Reactive versus pre-emptive • Explicit versus implicit TBLT 2009, Lancaster 14, 2009. Eva Alcon, UJI

4. 2. Measure the effectiveness of focus on form by focussing on: • The silence of exchanges and its relation to L2 learning (Loewen, 2004, 2006; Alcón, 2007; Alcón and García Mayo, 2008) • The relationship between type of feedback, uptake and L2 development (Lyster, 1988, 2001, 2002; Lyster & Ranta, 1997; Mackey & Oliver, 2002; Tsang, 2004; Mackey & Silver, 2005; Loewen and Philp, 2006) TBLT 2009, Lancaster 14, 2009. Eva Alcon, UJI

5.  Findings from research: • Incidental focus on form occurs in meaning focus interaction and it facilitates learners’ noticing • Participant output during task performance is influenced by type of feedback TBLT 2009, Lancaster 14, 2009. Eva Alcon, UJI

6. Few studies measure the effect of interaction in intact EFL classrooms. 4. Few studies compare learners’ gains of target linguistic items in subsequent oral and written production tasks. TBLT 2009, Lancaster 14, 2009. Eva Alcon, UJI

7. AIM • To examine how incidental focus on form is accomplished during decision-making tasks carried out in EFL classrooms. • To study the relationship between lexically-oriented focus on form episodes (FFEs), noticing, learner uptake and subsequent lexical gains in EFL learners’ written and oral production tasks TBLT 2009, Lancaster 14, 2009. Eva Alcon, UJI

8. RESEARCH QUESTIONS • What features of focus on form influence learner uptake and noticing in lexically oriented focus on form episodes? • Is there a relationship between learners’ reports of noticing lexical items and their subsequent use in oral and written decision-making tasks? TBLT 2009, Lancaster 14, 2009. Eva Alcon, UJI

9. PARTICIPANTS • 12 Spanish speakers (7 females and 5 males) studying English as a compulsory subject for six years at school, and their age ranged from 14 to 15. • A female English language teacher who had 8 years’ teaching experience and an MA in Applied Linguistics took part in the study. TBLT 2009, Lancaster 14, 2009. Eva Alcon, UJI

10. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS • The data for this study were obtained from intact EFL classrooms throughout a whole academic year. • 17 45-minute audio-recorded lessons • 204 learners’ diaries (17 sessions × 12 learners) reporting what they had learned after each conversational class. TBLT 2009, Lancaster 14, 2009. Eva Alcon, UJI

11. 6 post-production tasks: 3 oral and 3 written production tasks created on the basis of the items reported in learners’ diaries. • Oral decision-making tasks required learners to reduce the number of objects or actions from a maximum of 10 to a minimum of 2. • Written production tasks required learners to explain why different objects and actions were needed to go to the moon, to travel to India and to live in an isolated village. TBLT 2009, Lancaster 14, 2009. Eva Alcon, UJI

12. The sequence of the research process could be summarized as follows: • Identifying incidental lexically oriented FFEs. • Coding types of FFEs: Reactive, pre-emptive, teacher initiated, student initiated, level of complexity of the negotiation sequences, and learner uptake in response to interactional feedback. • Measuring the impact of type of feedback and complexity of the negotiation sequence on learner uptake (Rates of agreement 93% for complexity and 90% for explicitness of feedback) TBLT 2009, Lancaster 14, 2009. Eva Alcon, UJI

13. Measuring the impact of type of feedback on noticing by comparing the words learners reported they had learnt after each lesson (noticing) with their occurrence in FFEs. • Measuring learning outcomes by comparing learners’ noticing of lexical items with their performance in tailor-made oral and written post-tasks. TBLT 2009, Lancaster 14, 2009. Eva Alcon, UJI

14. RESULTS RQ1 What features of focus on form influence learner uptake and noticing in lexically oriented focus on form episodes? TBLT 2009, Lancaster 14, 2009. Eva Alcon, UJI

15. Figure 1. Types of FFEs and learner’s uptake in FFEs TBLT 2009, Lancaster 14, 2009. Eva Alcon, UJI

16. Learner uptake Implicit feedback Complexity Explicit feedback Learner uptake 1.0000 Implicit feedback -0.657 1.0000 Complexity 0.711 -0.921 1.0000 Explicit feedback 0.904 -0.812 0.764 1.0000 Table 1. Pearson Correlation Matrix for learner uptake, type of feedback and complexity of the negotiation sequence TBLT 2009, Lancaster 14, 2009. Eva Alcon, UJI

17. Type of feedback has an influence on uptake (Lyster and Ranta, 1997; Mackey and Philp, 1998). Recasts do not trigger successful uptake TBLT 2009, Lancaster 14, 2009. Eva Alcon, UJI

18. Noticing Implicit feedback Complexity Explicit feedback Noticing 1.0000 Implicit feedback 0.561 1.0000 Complexity 0.083 -0.921 1.0000 Explicit feedback 0.672 -0.812 0.764 1.0000 Table 2. Pearson Correlation Matrix for noticing, complexity and type of feedback TBLT 2009, Lancaster 14, 2009. Eva Alcon, UJI

19. These findings suggest the potential benefits of recasts to facilitate learner noticing, even if they do not trigger uptake (Mackey and Oliver 2002; Mackey and Silver 2005, and Loewen and Philp, 2006). TBLT 2009, Lancaster 14, 2009. Eva Alcon, UJI

20. RQ2 Is there a relationship between learners’ reports of noticing lexical items and their use in subsequent oral and written production? TBLT 2009, Lancaster 14, 2009. Eva Alcon, UJI

21. Lexical items in FFEs Noticing Written post-task lexical use Oral post-task lexical use Lexical items in FFEs 0.824 (Sig. .000) 0.438 (Sig. .123) 0.265 (Sig. .125) Noticing 0.511 (Sig. .126) 0.518 (Sig. .128) Written post-task lexical use 0.246 (Sig. .256) Oral post-task lexical use Table 3. Pearson Correlation Matrix for lexical items used in FFEs, noticing, and subsequent lexical use in written and oral delayed post tasks. TBLT 2009, Lancaster 14, 2009. Eva Alcon, UJI

22. Explicit knowledge can be obtained from focus on form instruction, and lexical gains are observed across modalities. • Whether learning follows noticing or is dependent on noticing should be tested in further experimental studies on task performance. TBLT 2009, Lancaster 14, 2009. Eva Alcon, UJI

23. Tasks as instruments of data collection • Oral tasks elicited more negotiation of meaning and a focus on the managing of interaction. • Written tasks elicited more accurate use of the items and a focus on outcomes TBLT 2009, Lancaster 14, 2009. Eva Alcon, UJI

24. Task familiarity: more accurate use of the items in delayed written production tasks than in delayed oral tasks (Alcón, in press) TBLT 2009, Lancaster 14, 2009. Eva Alcon, UJI

25. Other research issues: • We equate learners’ recall of lexical words with noticing, but how can we explain accurate use of items in subsequent production while learners do not report noticing. 2. Information about learners’ capacity for mental processing 3. Tasks were designed to trace lexical items in FFEs and their impact on subsequent oral and written performance: spontaneous language use/post testing tasks. TBLT 2009, Lancaster 14, 2009. Eva Alcon, UJI

26. THANK YOU