The purpose of this study was to investigate the effectiveness of two experimental methods of teaching the present progressive verb tense based on four instructional principles: teach form-function relations, compare similar grammatical forms, promote learner autonomy, and provide opportunities for generative use. Ninety-nine Japanese first-year high school students participated in the study. A 3 (groups) x 1 (test) Analysis of Variance procedure revealed no statistical differences among the three groups at the beginning of the study; however, both an immediate and a delayed post-test showed statistically significant differences between the control group and the two experimental groups (p < .001). The findings support the idea that a communicative grammar explanation coupled with structure-based communicative tasks designed around specific instructional principles constitutes one effective approach to grammar instruction.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
Brown, H.D.2001Teaching by Principles: An Interactive Approach to Language Pedagogy (Englewood Cliffs, NJ:Prentice Hall Regents ).
2.
Bull, W.E.1960Time, Tense, and the Verb: A Study in Theoretical and Applied Linguistics with Particular Application to Spanish (Berkeley and Los Angeles: University of California Press).
3.
Celce-Murcia, M., and D. Larsen-Freeman1999The Grammar Book: An ESL/EFL Teacher's Course (Boston: Heinle & Heinle).
4.
Crookes, G.1997 'Second Language Acquisition and Language Pedagogy: A Socio-educational Perspective', Studies in Second Language Acquisition19: 93-116.
5.
Deci, E.L., and R.M. Ryan1985Intrinsic Motivation and Self-Determination in Human Behavior (New York: Plenum).
6.
Dekeyser, R.1998 'Beyond Focus on Form: Cognitive Perspectives on Learning and Practicing Second Language Grammar', in C. Doughty and J. Williams (eds.), Focus on Form in Classroom Second Language Acquisition ( Cambridge: Cambridge University Press): 42-63.
7.
Dörnyei, Z.2001Teaching and Researching Motivation ( Harlow, UK: Longman).
8.
Doughty, C.2001 'Cognitive Underpinnings of Focus on Form', in P. Robinson (ed.), Cognition and Second Language Instruction (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press): 206-257.
9.
Doughty, C., and J. Williams1998 'Pedagogical Choices in Focus on Form' in C. Doughty and J. Williams (eds.), Focus on Form in Classroom Second Language Acquisition (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press): 197-261.
10.
Forsyth, M., and S. Lavender1994Grammar Activities (Oxford: Heinemann).
11.
1995Grammar Activities (Oxford: Heinemann).
12.
Fotos, S., and R. Ellis1991 'Communication about Grammar: A Task-based Approach', TESOL Quarterly25: 605-28.
13.
Gardiner, J.M., and J.A. Hampton1985 'Semantic Memory and the Generation Effect: Some Tests of the Lexical Activation Hypothesis', Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition11: 732-41.
14.
Griffith, D.1976 'The Attentional Demands of Mnemonic Control Processes' , Memory and Cognition4: 103-108.
15.
Ishiguro, A.1999Forest Intensive English Grammar in 32 lessons (Tokyo: KiriharaShoten).
16.
Kumaravadivelu, B.1994 'The Postmethod Condition: (E)merging Strategies for Second/Foreign Language Teaching', TESOL Quarterly28: 27-48.
17.
Loschky, L., and R. Bley-Vroman1990 'Creating Structure-based Communication Tasks for Second Language Development', University of Hawaii Working Papers in ESL 9: 161-212.
18.
Mac Whinney, B.2001 'The Competition Model: The Input, the Context, and the Brain', in P. Robinson (ed.), Cognition and Second Language Instruction (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press): 69-90.
19.
McFarland, C.E., T.J. Frey and D.D. Rhodes1980 'Retrieval of Internally Versus Externally Generated Words in Episodic Memory', Journal of Verbal Learning and Verbal Behavior19: 210-25.
20.
Mombu Kagaku Sho.2001Gakushu shido youryou [Foreign language in junior high school and high school]. Retrieved June 6, 2001, from: http://www.mext.go.jp/.
21.
Noels, K.A., L.G. Pelletier, R. Clément, and R.J. Vallerand2000 'Why are You Learning a Second Language? Motivational Orientations and Self Determination Theory', Language Learning50: 57-85.
22.
Pica, T.1997 'Second Language Teaching and Research Relationships: A North American View', Language Teaching Research1: 48-72.
23.
Quirk, R., S. Greenbaum, G. Leech and J. Svartvik1985A Comprehensive Grammar of the English Language (London: Longman).
24.
Robinson, P.2001 'Task Complexity, Cognitive Resources, and Syllabus Design: A Triadic Framework for Examining Task Influences on SLA', in P. Robinson (ed.), Cognition and Second Language Instruction (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press): 183-205.
25.
Skehan, P.1998A Cognitive Approach to Language Learning ( Oxford: Oxford University Press).
26.
Skehan, P., and P. Foster2001 'Cognition and Tasks', in P. Robinson (ed.), Cognition and Second Language Instruction (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press): 183-205.
27.
Slamecka, N.J., and P. Graf1978 'The Generation Effect: Delineation of a Phenomenon', Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Learning and Memory4: 592-604.
Suh, K.H.1992 ' A Discourse Analysis of the English Tense-Aspect-Modality System (Unpublished PhD dissertation in Applied Linguistics; University of California , Los Angeles).
30.
VanPatten, B.1990 'Attending to Form and Content in the Input: An Experiment in Consciousness', Studies in Second Language Acquisition12: 287-301.
31.
Wittrock, M.C.1974 'Learning as a Generative Process', Educational Psychologist11: 87-95.
32.
1991 'Generative Teaching of Comprehension', Elementary School Journal92: 169-84.
