1 / 28

Learner Autonomy in Focus-on-Form: Task Explicitness and Language Proficiency

Learner Autonomy in Focus-on-Form: Task Explicitness and Language Proficiency. Su Yunwen. Purpose. learner-generated attention to form focus-on-form instruction task explicitness & language proficiency. The Study — Focus-on-Form (FonF).

keene
Download Presentation

Learner Autonomy in Focus-on-Form: Task Explicitness and Language Proficiency

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. Learner Autonomy in Focus-on-Form:Task Explicitness and Language Proficiency Su Yunwen

  2. Purpose • learner-generated attention to form • focus-on-form instruction • task explicitness & language proficiency

  3. The Study — Focus-on-Form (FonF) Any instructional activities, no matter planned or incidental, reactive or preemptive, which are meaning-based but with a focus on language form

  4. The Study — Independent Variables • Task Explicitness • Learner Proficiency Level

  5. Task Explicitness U ←────────────→ O Input flood * Task-essential language * Input enhancement * Negotiation * Recast * Output enhancement * Interaction enhancement * Dictogloss * Consciousness-raising tasks * Input processing * Garden path * U: unobtrusive O: Obtrusive

  6. Task Explicitness • Picture Sequencing (PS) • Task-essential language (TE) • Dictogloss (DG)

  7. Language Proficiency • PL1: 24 1st year non-English majors from A classes • PL2: 24 2nd year non-English majors form CET-4 classes • PL3: 24 2nd year non-English majors from CET-6 classes

  8. The Study — Dependent Variable Learner Autonomy: Language-related Episode (LRE)

  9. Definition Discourse in which the learners talk or ask about language, or question, implicitly or explicitly their own language use or that of others. • Iris: Were moored on • Kim: Sorry, I reckon in River Thames • Iris: Why in? • Kim: On…yes on… on the River Thames on the Yarra not in the Yarra

  10. Typologies LREs of different exchange types • -Preemptive LREs (learner-initiated) • Learner-learner (LLP) • Learner-teacher (LTP) • -Reactive LREs (learner-learner) • Implicit (IR) • Explicit (ER)

  11. Typologies • LREs with different linguistic focuses • Phonological • Lexical • Syntactical

  12. Typologies • LREs with different move structures • With an uptake move • Without an uptake move

  13. Research Questions • Is individual proficiency level related to the extent to which learners pay attention to form? • Is explicitness of FonF task (planned/incidental) related to the extent to which learners pay attention to language form? • Is there any interaction of proficiency level and task type on learners’ attention to form? • How do LREs vary (number and type) at different proficiency level and in different FonF tasks?

  14. Results — Proficiency Level and Learner Autonomy

  15. Results — Task Type and Learner Autonomy

  16. Results — Interaction of Task Type & Proficiency Level

  17. Results — Investigation into LRE Types

  18. Results — Investigation into LRE Types

  19. LREs –Exchange Types • Significantly more preemptive LREs than reactive ones • The number of reactive LREs rises up as learners’ proficiency increases. • With the increase of explicitness of the task, the portion of reactive LREs in all the LREs found in the same FonF task rises.

  20. Results — Investigation into LRE Types

  21. Results — Investigation into LRE Types

  22. LREs –Linguistic Focuses • Significantly more lexical LREs than syntactical and then phonological ones • The number of all the three types of LREs rises as learners’ proficiency increases, with the number of syntactical LREs at the highest rate • Both lexical and syntactical LREs increase in number as the explicitness of the task rises, with the latter at a significantly higher rate.

  23. Results — Investigation into LRE Types

  24. Results — Investigation into LRE Types

  25. LREs –Uptake Move • Significantly more LREs with an uptake move than those without • LREs with uptake an move and LREs without am uptake move increase in number at almost the same rate when the proficiency level and/or the explicitness of the task increases.

  26. Discussion — Pedagogical Implications • Directing learners’ attention to language form without intervening with the process so much • Encouraging learners to make response to other’s language or feedback to increase awareness of language form and the association between form and meaning • Calling learner attention to other aspects of language other than lexical ones

  27. Discussion — Further Research Longitudinal studies that address the effectiveness of learner-generated attention to form are needed. Whether teacher intervention to increase attention to form can accelerate learners’ acquisitional processes. If so, how and when? Do learners’ perception of task difficulty and their beliefs in language learning influence their attention to form and in what way?

  28. THANK YOU

More Related