The Effect of Form versus Meaning-Focused Tasks on the Development of Collocations among Iranian Intermediate EFL Learners

Abstract

This study attempts comprehensively to investigate the effect of form versus meaning-focused tasks on the development of collocations among Iranian Intermediate EFL learners. To this end, 65 students of Mashhad High schools in Iran were selected as the participants. A general language proficiency test of Nelson (book 2, Intermediate 200A) was used to measure their general language ability. Moreover, a teacher-made collocation test was implemented to examine the participants' collocation knowledge. Participants were divided into: form-focused instruction group (FFI), meaning-focused instruction (MFI) group, and a control group. The FFI group performed dictogloss task (DT) which focused on both target items and meaning. The MFI group assigned communicative task (pair /group discussion task) which did not required attention to the target items. The control group is designated as the Conventional Group, simply to reflect the fact that they did not receive focus-on-form instruction but rather received combination of explaining collocation or new vocabulary and reading a text silently to mention its main idea or answer to comprehension questions. The results revealed the fact that FFI group (dictogloss task) significantly outperformed the other two groups on the collocation test.

The Effects of Feedback Types on Learners’ Recognition of Lexical Collocations

“…Some of the findings of this study are similar to those of the previous studies (Moehkardi, 2002;Nesselhauf, 2003;Pishghadam et. al., 2011;Shokuhi & Mirsalari, 2010;Wei, 1999;Ying, 2009) in that they, like the present study, put emphasise on improving learners' knowledge of collocations for communicating easily and fluently.…”

Approaching the Direct Object Pronouns: How Much Grammatical Form Is Necessary in Instruction?

“…The answer is yes, there was a significant difference seen between the FoF group and the FoM group, in favor of the FoF group for the sentence completion task. This is a key result because it supports the finding that meaning-based instruction on its own does not appear to be sufficient for learners to make progress in using direct object pronouns (Lightbown & Spada, 1990;Doughty & Varela, 1998;Han, 2002;Lyster, 2004;Spada, Lightbown, & White, 2005;Grim, 2008;Pishghadam, Khodadady, & Rad, 2011). In comparing FoF to more traditional FoFS approach, a significant difference was not found.…”

“…Looking at the significant difference between the FoF and FoM groups, the findings support the theory that L2 learners will benefit from more attention to form when completing meaningful activities which encourage the use of that form. As was seen in prior research (Lightbown & Spada, 1990;Doughty & Varela, 1998;Han, 2002;Lyster, 2004;Spada, Lightbown, & White, 2005;Grim, 2008;Pishghadam, Khodadady, & Rad, 2011) the FoF group, which received the greater explanation and attention to form, performed significantly better than the communicative (FoM) group immediately following instruction. As in these prior studies, the FoM group did not show any significant improvement after instruction.…”

“…It was from studies such as those that the need for attention to form in the language classroom was highlighted by researchers and instructors alike. This need has been supported by research in that results of studies comparing FoM to FoF have been positive for FoF over FoM (Lightbown & Spada, 1990;Doughty & Varela, 1998;Han, 2002;Lyster, 2004;Spada, Lightbown, & White, 2005;Grim, 2008;Pishghadam, Khodadady, & Rad, 2011). Overall, L2 learners receiving FoF instruction significantly improved in the structure being acquired and significantly improved more than the FoM learners.…”