The Effects of Explicit and Deductive English Grammar Instruction on the Grammatical Language Skills of Dutch Secondary School Pupils
MA thesis English Language and Culture: Communication and Education, Utrecht University
Name: Manon van Beelen Student Number: 3650804 Supervisor: Dr. Roselinde Supheert Second reader: Prof. Dr. Rick de Graaff Completed on: 10 July 2014 2
Table of Contents
Introduction 4
Chapter 1: Theoretical Framework 6
1.1 The Interface Debate 6
1.2 Factors Influencing the Internalisation of Language Structures 10
1.3 Grammar Education 16
1.4 Earlier Research 20
1.5 Summary 23
1.6 This Study and Hypotheses 24
Chapter 2: Method 27
2.1 Subjects 27
2.2 Materials 29
2.3 Procedure 31
Chapter 3: Results 35
3.1 Comparison of Grammaticality Judgement Test, Gap Filling Task, and Controlled Production Test 35
3.2 Grammaticality Judgement Test 37
3.3 Gap Filling Task 40
3.4 Controlled Production Test 44
3.5 Main Findings 47
Chapter 4: Discussion 50
4.1 Comparison of Grammaticality Judgement Test, Gap Filling Task, and Controlled Production Test 50
4.2 Results of Grammaticality Judgement Test, Gap Filling Task, and Controlled Production Test Set against the Language Input Pupils Receive 51
3
4.3 Results of Grammaticality Judgement Test, Gap Filling Task, and Controlled Production Test Set against the Pupils’ Attitudes towards English 54
4.4 Implications for the Teaching Practice 55
Conclusion 59
Works Cited 62
Appendices 64
Appendix A: Grammaticality Judgement Test 64
Appendix B: Gap Filling Task 66
Appendix C: Controlled Production Test 68
Appendix D: Questionnaire 70
Appendix E: Pages from New Interface 72
4
Introduction
Grammar education has become a controversial issue within foreign language education.
Should pupils learn grammar rules by heart or do they learn grammatical constructions unconsciously by using and by being exposed to the target language frequently? In the context of this discussion, explicit and implicit language knowledge should be distinguished; whereas explicit knowledge denotes declarative and conscious knowledge about a second language, implicit knowledge can be defined as procedural or acquired knowledge (Hulstijn 130-131).
The question then remains whether explicit knowledge can turn into implicit knowledge. The so-called interface debate addresses this issue extensively, and three different views can be distinguished; the non-interface position, the weak interface position, and the strong interface position. Whereas the weak and strong interface position suggest that explicit knowledge can indeed turn into implicit knowledge, the non-interface position proposes the exact opposite
(Andringa 7; Han & Finneran 2). As the interface debate focuses on the relationship between explicit and implicit knowledge, it also sheds more light on the role of explicit language instruction in the acquisition of a second language in a formal setting. The question then remains whether grammar instruction can be valuable to second language development.
Ellis and Andringa address this issue extensively. Both researchers state that explicit grammar instruction can be valuable to second language development, but at the same time, it is not more effective than implicit grammar instruction (Andringa 202-209; Ellis, Form- focused Instruction 233). Both during explicit and implicit grammar instruction L2 learners receive grammar lessons. However, whereas explicit grammar instruction focuses on form and the explanation of grammar rules, implicit grammar instruction focuses on meaning.
Although explicit grammar instruction is not more effective than implicit grammar instruction, Andringa states that this does not mean that explicit grammar instruction should be banished from foreign language teaching, as it does provide pupils with more intensive 5 language input (202-209). Unfortunately, not much research has been conducted with regard to the relationship between explicit grammar instruction and the acquisition of implicit L2 knowledge, especially when it comes to young secondary school pupils learning a second language.
The purpose of this study is to investigate the extent to which Dutch secondary school pupils in a 3 havo/vwo class (one of the highest education levels in the Netherlands) have internalised certain grammatical features after at least three years of explicit language instruction. In addition, this study also aims to investigate whether pupils perform better on grammar tasks when they receive more language input, and when they have a more positive attitude towards (learning) the English language. Three different types of grammar tasks and a questionnaire will be used in this study to investigate these issues. The results of this study may help to identify implications for the English foreign language classroom with regard to grammar education.
6
Chapter 1: Theoretical Framework
1.1 The Interface Debate
In the history of second language acquisition (SLA) research, there has been much debate about the relationship between explicit and implicit knowledge. According to Hulstijn, explicit knowledge denotes declarative, conscious knowledge about a second language. The use of explicit knowledge is therefore often intentional and effortful. Implicit knowledge, on the other hand, can be defined as procedural or acquired knowledge, which enables the language learner to use the second language properly in spontaneous situations.
Consequently, the use of implicit knowledge, can be seen as automatic and effortless (Hulstijn
130-131). Three different views can be distinguished when it comes to the relationship between explicit and implicit knowledge, which is often referred to as The Interface Debate
(Andringa 7; Han & Finneran 2). As this debate focuses on the connection, or even overlap, between these two types of knowledge, it also sheds more light on the role of explicit knowledge in the acquisition of a second language in a formal setting. The three positions within this debate are (1) the non-interface position, (2) the weak interface position, and (3) the strong interface position, and will be described below (Andringa 2).
1.1.1. The Non-interface Position
The non-interface position is strongly associated with Krashen’s view on second language acquisition. This position posits that there is no relationship between explicit and implicit knowledge (Andringa 9; Han & Finneran 4). Krashen draws a distinction between acquiring and learning a language; the acquisition of a language is a subconscious process that leads to implicit knowledge, whereas learning a language is a conscious process resulting in explicit knowledge (Krashen, Principles 10). Furthermore, there is a predictable order in which the 7 grammatical structures of a language are acquired. However, this “natural order” (Krashen,
Principles 12) only appears under certain conditions. First of all, the input has to be comprehensible, and it has to fit the language learner’s current level of competence. More specifically, if a learner’s current level of competence is i, a necessary condition for acquisition to take place is that the learner must receive input containing i + 1 qualities
(Krashen, Principles 20-21). Secondly, affective factors relate to the SLA process as well.
Three affective variables influence the success of second language acquisition:
(1) motivation; language learners who are highly motivated, do better in SLA.
(2) self-confidence; language learners with self-confidence and a good self-image tend
to perform better in SLA.
(3) anxiety; low anxiety leads to better performance in SLA.
Language learners who have a high or strong affective filter will tend to seek less input, and even if they understand the message, the input will not reach the part of the brain which is responsible for language acquisition. On the other hand, those who have a low or weak affective filter will seek and obtain more input (Krashen, Principles 30-31). In short,
Krashen’s fundamental principle in SLA can be summarised as follows: “people acquire second languages only if they obtain comprehensible input and if their affective filters are low enough to allow the input ʻin’” (Krashen, Input 4).
Nevertheless, Krashen does acknowledge that explicit knowledge obtained via learning may be advantageous. First of all, produced utterances in the L2 do not only come from acquired competence, but also from conscious, explicit knowledge. This knowledge serves as an editor and “changes the output of the acquired system before we speak or write”
(Krashen, Input 2). As a result, more grammatical accuracy is accomplished (Krashen, Input
1-2). Secondly, teaching grammatical structures might also be advantageous to the learner’s affective filters. For instance, once learners have more knowledge of the structure of a 8 language, this could positively influence their self-confidence, which would then result in a low affective filter. Finally, teaching grammatical structures may also help to make the input language learners receive more comprehensible, which will consequently stimulate the acquisition process. For instance, once a language learner has received grammar instruction on a particular subject, the L2 learner will recognise these learned structures in the L2 input, which may make the input more comprehensible (Andringa 10).
1.1.2 The Weak Interface Position
The weak interface position is found in Ellis’s view on second language acquisition, and states that implicit and explicit knowledge are two separate systems, but that it is possible for explicit knowledge to turn into implicit knowledge (Andringa 13; Han & Finneran 3).
However, this depends on the grammatical element the L2 learner is dealing with, and moreover, the learner needs to be developmentally ready to turn explicit knowledge into implicit knowledge. According to Ellis, language input becomes implicit knowledge when the learner “notices the form, compares the form to their own interlanguage, and then integrates the new form” (qtd. in Pinto 96). This is why language instruction focusing on form can be very useful as this can raise the learners’ consciousness of the differences between the L2 grammar and their own interlanguage. However, language learners will not internalise certain language structures if they are not developmentally ready to do so. This means that language instruction will only be useful if it matches the stage of development of the L2 learner. If a language learner is not developmentally ready to internalise certain grammatical structures, language instruction focusing on form is not effective as it will “impede production because of incorrect usage” (Ellis as qtd. in Pinto 97). If language learners are not ready to internalise grammatical structures, it will be effective for the L2 learners to be provided with comprehension-based activities including tasks that relate the language to the learner, rather 9 than explicit grammar instruction. Furthermore, Ellis also argues that learning can take place on both an explicit and an implicit level. During explicit learning, the learner focuses on new forms and their meaning, whereas implicit learning is incidental and takes place during other activities, focusing on meaning only (Ellis as qtd. in Pinto 97).
1.1.3 The Strong Interface Position
The strong interface position takes its origin from cognitive psychology, and states that there is a strong relationship between explicit and implicit knowledge. According to Andringa, there are two variants of the strong interface position. The first variant is in line with
Bialystok’s view on SLA. Bialystok argues that linguistic knowledge starts as implicit knowledge and becomes more explicit as the L2 learner becomes more proficient. The second variant is mostly based on DeKeyser’s view on acquiring a second language, and states that linguistic knowledge starts out to be explicit and becomes more implicit as a result of automatising explicit knowledge (Andringa 11). In other words, whereas Bialystok argues that L2 learners need to develop a certain awareness of L2 structures, DeKeyser argues that language learners need to become less aware of language structures to use them automatically. Both variants will be discussed below.
Bialystok argues that L2 proficiency develops along two dimensions: the analysed dimension and the automatic dimension. The analysed dimension refers to the awareness of a language structure which the L2 learner needs to develop. As soon as this awareness is developed, the L2 learner can use it in new contexts. Without this awareness, however, the language structure of the L2 still functions as a pattern or a routine. In principle, the L2 learner’s knowledge starts out as implicit unanalysed knowledge and turns into explicit analysed knowledge after the process of analysis (Bialystok 33). The automatic dimension refers to the differences in fluency between L2 learners. Language learners may differ in their 10 ability to access information. To put it differently, L2 learners may differ in the extent to which they use the second language automatically and effortlessly. For instance, fluent conversation requires better access to the relevant linguistic information than writing a text in the L2. In the latter case, the L2 learner may consult other sources to aid the writing process when (s)he is not able to access certain linguistic information from his/her memory (Bialystok
36).
The second, better known, variant of the strong interface position is founded in
DeKeyser’s account of SLA. DeKeyser’s theory is mostly based on Anderson’s ACT-theory in which the distinction between declarative and procedural knowledge is fundamental
(Anderson 369-370). DeKeyser suggests that acquiring a second language proceeds through three stages. First of all, the learner goes through the declarative stage during which (s)he develops factual knowledge of language structures. This is also referred to as “knowing-that” knowledge. Secondly, the learner goes through the procedural stage during which (s)he learns to act on the declarative knowledge, developing so-called “knowing-how” knowledge.
Finally, the learner goes through a stage of automatisation, during which procedural knowledge becomes fluent, spontaneous and effortless (Andringa 12; Han & Finneran 3). In other words, explicit knowledge turns into implicit knowledge by means of these three stages.
1.2 Factors Influencing the Internalisation of Language Structures
Each view within the interface debate attributes a different role to explicit language instruction, and predicts when and how grammar teaching is most effective within the SLA process. For instance, the role of explicit language instruction is the most prominent in the strong interface position. Because of these different views on language teaching, the interface debate also addresses different factors which may strengthen or weaken the effect of language instruction. These factors are thus related to the interface debate, and are relevant to explicit 11 second language instruction. Important to bear in mind is that each factor may have a different position within each view of the interface debate. The different factors will be described below.
1.2.1 Target Structures
The type of target structure can be a potential constraining factor for effective explicit grammar instruction. This means that some structures of the L2 are more difficult to acquire than others. With respect to the interface debate, this implies that the effectiveness of explicit language instruction varies between different target structures. The non-interface position and the weak interface position recognise the relevance of target structures (Krashen, Principles
12; Ellis as qtd. in Pinto 97). The strong interface position does not pay much attention to the role of target structures, as this position suggests that there is a strong relationship between explicit and implicit knowledge at all times (Andringa 12; Han & Finneran 3). One of the factors determining whether or not a certain target structure can be taught is the developmental readiness of the language learner. As stated before, developmental readiness is in line with the “natural order of acquisition” (Krashen, Principles 12). According to Krashen, all learners acquire grammatical structures in a predicable order, and the L2 learner will only internalise a certain structure when (s)he is developmentally ready to do so (Krashen,
Principles 12). Consequently, the timing of the instruction may be of significant importance.
This also implies that there is no use in providing language learners with explicit instruction when they are not at the right stage of acquisition. However, it is extremely difficult to determine the learner’s exact stage of acquisition (Andringa 15). Besides, within the foreign language classroom, there are multiple pupils who might be at a different stage of the acquisition process each. Nonetheless, despite the fact that explicit instruction may not always be immediately effective to the acquisition process, “once the learner does reach the proper 12 stage, the knowledge that was taught previously may [still] facilitate the acquisition process”
(Andringa 15); the moment a language learner is ready to internalise a particular structure,
(s)he may still profit from previous language instruction, which is also referred to as “delayed learning effects” (Andringa 16).
Furthermore, whether or not a particular target structure can be taught depends on differences in structure complexity as well. According to various researchers, different criteria determine the learning difficulty of a grammatical structure (Ellis, Modelling 435). First of all, features that occur frequently in the input will be easier to acquire than features that occur infrequently. Secondly, some grammatical features can be more salient than others. Whether or not a grammatical feature is salient depends on the extent to which a certain structure is easy to notice in the language input. If a grammatical structure is relatively easy to notice, it is less difficult to learn. Thirdly, the functional value of a grammatical feature is of importance as well. Forms that realise a single function, and that are non-redundant are considered easier to learn than forms that realise multiple functions, and that are (often) redundant. Fourthly, regularity determines the learning difficulty of a grammatical feature as well. Regular structures will be easier to acquire than irregular structures. Finally, the extent to which a grammatical feature is easy to process is of importance (Ellis, Modelling 435-436). According to Ellis, some structures are more difficult to process than others, and he proposes a
“hierarchy of processing procedures” (Ellis, Modelling 436). For instance, the use of not as a lexical marker of negation is considered as a feature which is fairly easy to process (Ellis,
Modelling 436).
Hulstijn and De Graaff identify two more factors that influence the effectiveness of explicit grammar instruction. These factors are related to the regularity of a particular grammatical feature. According to Hulstijn and De Graaff, many language rules “can differ in scope and reliability” (103). Hulstijn and De Graaff first of all argue that the scope of a rule 13 can be either large or small, and this depends on whether a rule applies to more or less than 50 cases. Secondly, the reliability of a rule can be either high or low, and this depends on whether the rule covers more or less than 90% of the cases (Hulstijn and De Graaff 103). On the basis of these definitions, Hulstijn and De Graaff have classified four tendencies in terms of scope and reliability; (1) rules with a large scope and high reliability, (2) rules with a small scope and high reliability, (3) rules with a large scope and a low reliability, and (4) rules with a small scope and low reliability (104). It is assumed that explicit grammar instruction should be restricted to rules with both a large scope and a high reliability. In the three remaining cases, learners should not be taught the rules (Hulstijn and De Graaff 104).
In sum, in an ideal situation, a grammatical feature should be taught when (1) the L2 learner is developmentally ready; (2) the target structure is relatively easy to learn, and (3) the rules of the target structures have a large scope and a high reliability.
1.2.2 Individual Differences
Another notion that frequently occurs in the interface debate is the notion of individual differences. It is possible that L2 learners may differ with respect to their ability to use explicit knowledge for acquiring implicit knowledge. Both the non-interface position and the strong interface position address this issue. Within the strong interface position, Bialystok argues that L2 learners may differ in the extent to which they can access information about the L2. Consequently, L2 learners may differ in the extent to which they can use the target language automatically and effortlessly (Bialystok 33). Within the non-interface position, the notion of individual differences is addressed more explicitly. Krashen relates individual variation to The Monitor Hypothesis (Krashen, Principles 15). This hypothesis suggests that the acquisition of a language and the learning of a language work in different ways. Whereas acquisition “initiates” (Krashen, Principles 15) utterances in a second language and is 14 responsible for fluency, learning has the function of a monitor. This monitor will correct the form of an utterance before, during or after the L2 learner speaks or writes in the L2, and results from the learning of certain language rules (Krashen, Principles 15). The extent to which a language learner is able to use this monitor may differ. Some performers might use conscious knowledge whenever possible. These performers are referred to as “overusers”
(Krashen, Principles 19) and are often so concerned with the correctness of their L2 output that they are not able to speak with fluency at all times. Other performers never monitor their output, and these performers are referred to as “underusers” (Krashen, Principles 19).
Underusers rely completely on the acquired system. Successful monitor users will edit the second language output when it does not interfere with communication; these performers are referred to as “optimal users” (Krashen, Principles 19). Based on this hypothesis, Krashen argues that the extent to which language users utilise their monitors, may account for individual differences between language learners (Krashen, Second Language 12).
In addition, Krashen relates individual differences to the concepts of aptitude and attitude as well. Aptitude measures the extent to which a language learner is able to learn explicitly. More specifically, it measures grammatical sensitivity, which is defined as “the individual’s ability to demonstrate his awareness of syntactical patterning of sentences in a language” (Krashen, Second Language 19). Attitude, on the other hand, is more related to the learner’s motivation, and the extent to which a learner is encouraged and open to acquire a second language. A positive attitude will enhance the process of second language acquisition.
Differences in attitude and aptitude may predict differences between individual learners.
However, whereas both language aptitude and attitude are relevant to second language acquisition, they are not related to each other. It is possible to have low aptitude and high attitude, or the other way around. Furthermore, language aptitude is believed to be directly 15 related to conscious learning, whereas language attitude is more closely linked to unconscious acquisition. (Krashen, Second Language 19-20).
Furthermore, some researcher argue that the age of a language learner may affect SLA as well. According to Bley-Vroman, “younger is better” (22); whereas older learners may need explicit language instruction to learn a second language successfully, younger learners can do without it. Remarkably, teenagers in the age of 10 to 15 often achieve native speaker competence: “they progress more rapidly and perform with greater accuracy in the early stages of learning than their younger counterparts” (Bley-Vroman 22). However, it is important to bear in mind that age itself is not a predictor of second language acquisition, as
SLA also depends on other factors such as a proper amount of comprehensible input
(Krashen, Princples 43).
In sum, some language learners may have advantages over others in learning a second language. These advantages seem to be related to monitoring, language attitude, language aptitude, and age.
1.2.3 The Role of the First Language (L1)
Another factor influencing the SLA process is the relationship between the first and the second language of the L2 learner. However, it remains difficult to predict how the L1 may affect L2 acquisition in the foreign language. According to Andringa, “cross-linguistic influence may both undermine and strengthen particular instructional efforts” (17). With respect to the weak interface position, Ellis and Shintani discuss a similar argument; on the one hand, using the L1 may help learners to communicate if their knowledge of the L2 is too limited. On the other hand, using the L1 in the classroom could also deprive learners of the opportunity to communicate in the L2, as they might become dependent on the L1 (Ellis and
Shintani 225). 16
1.3 Grammar Education
Grammar instruction has been part of foreign language education for a long time. Over the past decades, however, grammar instruction has become a controversial issue. Perhaps this has been the result of the issues raised in the interface debate with respect to teaching language structures. In Western Europe, there has been a shift of focus within grammar education; whereas grammar used to hold a prominent role within foreign language education, it should now merely serve as an aid to stimulate and enhance the communicative skills of the language learners (Kwakernaak 332-333). Because of the different views on grammar education, there are also different ways of teaching grammar. In addition, different grammar tasks which are used to practise pupils’ grammar skills are part of grammar education as well.
Different types of grammar tasks can be distinguished on the basis of the extent to which the
L2 learner has mastered a certain grammatical structure. All these aspects of grammar education will be described below.
1.3.1 Grammar Instruction
Within grammar education, there are different ways of instructing grammar. First of all, grammar can be instructed explicitly and inductively, which means that pupils will derive grammar rules from language input (Arends et al. 18; Kwakernaak 345). During this type of grammar instruction, pupils will usually go through four different steps. The language learner will first indicate a particular language structure (1), after which (s)he will gather more examples of the same phenomenon (2). Subsequently, the language learner will sort out the examples (s)he has found during the second step (3). Finally, the language learner will have to recognise a certain pattern in the language input (s)he has gathered and organised, after which
(s)he will formulate a grammar rule (4) (Kwakernaak 343). During this type of grammar instruction, pupils will thus be activated to discover grammar rules themselves. Secondly, 17 grammar can be instructed explicitly and deductively during which the teacher will provide the pupils with grammar rules. The pupils will thus not discover the grammar rule themselves, but they will have to listen to the teacher’s instruction and understand the grammar rule afterwards. Thirdly, grammar can be taught implicitly, which means that pupils internalise grammatical knowledge of the target language unconsciously without being made aware of the grammar rules. Teaching grammar implicitly often overlaps with teaching grammar incidentally. This means that pupils will incidentally encounter and learn grammatical structures during another task, such as reading (Arends et al. 18). Evidently, these types of instruction are often combined; teachers may explain certain grammar rules, but pupils will also learn grammatical structures while listening to, or reading the target language. The different types of language instruction are also displayed in table 1 below.
Table 1: Different types of instruction (based on Arends et al. 18). Type of instruction Characteristics of instruction With raising awareness of Explicitly and inductively Pupils will derive grammar grammar rule rule from language input Explicitly and deductively Teacher will provide pupils with grammar rule Without raising awareness Implicitly Pupils will acquire of grammar rule grammatical structure unconsciously Incidentally Pupils will encounter and learn grammatical structure during another task.
An important aspect of grammar education is providing pupils with feedback.
Different types of feedback can be distinguished; first of all, pupils can be provided with corrective feedback, which means that the teacher will indicate the pupil’s mistake explicitly.
The teacher may also provide the student with metalinguistic feedback which will subsequently result in the correct answer, as illustrated in (1) (Ellis and Shintani 249). 18
(1) Pupil: I went to the shop and buy some juice.
Teacher: That is incorrect, use the past tense consistently.
Pupil: I went to the shop and bought some juice.
Secondly, pupils may also be provided with interactional feedback. This type of feedback can be classified in two variants; recasts and prompts. In the case of recasts, the teacher will implicitly reformulate the pupil’s utterance, as illustrated in (2).
(2) Pupil: I went to the shop and buy some juice.
Teacher: Oh, you went to the shop and bought some juice?
Prompts, on the other hand, will guide pupils in the right direction. There are different ways to accomplish this; the teacher could repeat the pupil’s sentence and emphasise the error in it, or the teacher could provide the pupil with metalinguistic clues or mnemonic aids (Lyster and
Mori 271).
It is important to bear in mind that feedback can only be effective under certain conditions. Kwakernaak distinguishes three conditions (37); First of all, pupils should be provided with the right amount of feedback; that is, they should not be provided with a large amount of feedback in a short amount of time. Secondly, it is important to use the right type of feedback during different situations. For instance, Lyster and Mori’s study has shown that recasts are a more effective form of feedback when focusing on the form of language, whereas prompts are more effective when focusing on communicative tasks (295-296).
Thirdly, feedback should be presented to pupils when they are at the right stage of the learning process. When language learners are not developmentally ready to use a particular grammatical structure, there is no use in correcting them (Kwakernaak 37). Not only teachers but also pupils are capable of providing one another with feedback as well. Kwakernaak argues that during both productive and receptive tasks, collaboration between pupils can be 19 very useful and effective, as it will keep pupils more alert. Moreover, revising one another’s work will enhance the pupils’ learning process as well (Kwakernaak 38).
1.3.2 Levels of Mastery
Within grammar education, different types of tasks can be distinguished based on the extent to which a language learner has mastered a particular grammatical structure. Kwakernaak distinguishes three levels of mastery; first of all, pupils can master a grammatical feature on a receptive level, which means that the language learner understands the meaning of a particular feature, but is not able to use it in a productive task. Secondly, language learners can master a grammatical structure on a productive level, but in a controlled environment. This means that pupils can merely apply the grammar rule in a highly controlled production task, such as filling in blanks in sentences. Thirdly, pupils can master a grammatical structure on a productive level, but in a free environment, meaning that pupils are capable of producing grammatically correct free language. Within the last two levels, Kwakernaak also distinguishes written and spoken form of language; a language learner is likely to master written language skills faster than spoken language skills (Kwakernaak 337).
Based on these levels of mastery, different types of tasks can be distinguished. As the level of mastery increases, the difficulty of the tasks increases as well. Table 2 below illustrates examples of grammar exercises, linked to the different levels of mastery.
20
Table 2: Different types of grammatical tasks (based on Kwakernaak 337). Level of mastery Type of task Receptive level (1) recognising certain grammatical features by underlining them. (2) indicating whether language input is grammatically correct or incorrect. Productive level – in controlled (3) completing sentences by using the correct grammatical environment structure. Productive level – in free (4) writing a letter, using grammatically correct language environment structures. (5) having a conversation with a fellow pupil or teacher, using grammatically correct language structures.
Additionally, inductive grammar tasks and deductive grammar tasks can be distinguished as well. Inductive grammar tasks often consist of analytic exercises. During these exercises, pupils will be guided to discover a grammar rule themselves. Usually, pupils will first be asked to indicate a particular grammatical feature by underlining it in a text, for example. Subsequently, pupils will recognise a pattern after which they will have to formulate a grammar rule. Afterwards, pupils can be provided with a controlled production task to apply the rule a few times. On the other hand, deductive exercises are more form-focussed, and often offer pupils the grammar rule beforehand. Coursebooks often contain a grammar index, which pupils are then referred to. After they have read the grammar rules, pupils will be asked to apply the rules in controlled production tasks (Kwakernaak 356-359).
1.4 Earlier Research
Some earlier research has been conducted with regard to the relationship between explicit language instruction and the acquisition of implicit knowledge in a formal setting. If it can be demonstrated that explicit knowledge can lead to the development of L2 proficiency, then that would provide a strong argument in favour of the weak- and strong interface position.
However, not many studies have addressed this issue. According to Andringa, this is the result of the fact that “form-focused instruction research has had little recognition for the idea 21 that explicit and implicit knowledge are separate knowledge systems” (36). Moreover, the measurement of L2 knowledge is an extremely difficult task to perform. More specifically, it is difficult to measure explicit and implicit knowledge separately. According to Rod Ellis,
“any activity that calls for unplanned language use directed at fulfilling some communicative purpose” (as qtd. in Andringa 37) can be considered a measurement of implicit knowledge.
Oral and written proficiency tests are examples of such communicative tasks. Explicit knowledge, on the other hand, is tested in isolated contexts because L2 learners will then be forced to search their memories for solutions. During these tests, L2 learners are unlikely to use their implicit knowledge (Andringa 37). Two studies addressing the effectiveness of explicit language instruction will be discussed below.
In his paper “Does Form-focused Instruction Affect the Acquisition of Implicit
Knowledge,” Rod Ellis reviews studies that have assessed how explicit language instruction affects the development of implicit language knowledge. Eleven studies are reviewed, and
Ellis analysed these based on the following categories:
(1) The effectiveness of instruction (i.e. did the instruction lead to significantly greater
gains in the use of the target language?)
(2) The age of the subjects (young learners were defined as those aged 12 years or
below)
(3) The nature of the target structure (i.e. formulaic, morphological, or syntactic)
(4) The extent of the treatment (i.e. extensive or limited)
(5) Type of instruction
(6) Measure of acquisition (i.e. oral vs. written free production) (Ellis, Form-Focused
Instruction 229).
The results revealed that seven out of eleven studies report results that show form-focused instruction was successful. Language learners obtained higher scores on free productive tests 22 after language instruction. Ellis therefore concludes that language instruction seems to have an influence on implicit knowledge (Ellis, Form-focused Instruction 233). However, these conclusions must be interpreted cautiously, as the studies included in Ellis’s review did not always involve explicit language instruction merely focusing on form. Rather, the instruction was often realised in meaningful or communicative ways. For instance, some studies included explicit instruction, but it was embedded in communicative tasks, such as role plays, or reading and writing activities (Ellis, Form-focused Instruction 226-228).
Furthermore, Andringa investigated how useful explicit grammar instruction is within second language education. He investigated L2 learners of Dutch, with an average age of 14.
The test group received both explicit and implicit grammar instruction via a computer program. The explicit grammar instruction aimed to teach the L2 learners the grammar rules of a particular target structure explicitly. The implicit instruction, on the other hand, aimed to teach the L2 learners target structures in meaningful contexts. In addition, there was also a control group who did not receive any grammar instruction. Different grammar tests were administered for this study, testing the L2 learners’ explicit and implicit knowledge of the target structures. The test group was tested at three different moments; before the grammar instruction, immediately after the instruction, and two months after the last test session. The results revealed that implicit and explicit grammar instruction were equally effective.
However, explicit instruction was more effective than implicit instruction for L2 learners with a resembling structure in the L1. Although explicit grammar instruction is not always more effective than implicit language instruction, Andringa concludes that grammar education remains effective as this provides pupils with more intensive language input, which ultimately makes the language input more comprehensible (202-209).
23
1.5 Summary
To summarise, the extent to which explicit language instruction is valuable to the development of second language proficiency has been the main concern of this chapter. This issue was first of all addressed by the interface debate. Three different positions have been identified; the non-interface position, the weak interface position, and the strong interface position. Each position proposes a different role for explicit knowledge in the course of L2 development; whereas the weak and strong interface position suggest that explicit knowledge can become implicit knowledge, the non-interface position proposes the exact opposite.
Within the interface debate, many other factors which may strengthen or weaken the effect of language instruction are addressed. First of all, the interface debate is related to different L2 target structures, but this factor is only recognised by the non-interface position and the weak interface position. Another notion that occurs in the interface debate, is the notion of individual differences. Both the non-interface position and the strong interface position address this issue explicitly. Furthermore, the first language of the L2 learner may influence explicit instruction as well, which is argued within the weak interface position.
Finally, grammar education itself was addressed in this chapter as well. It could be argues that grammar instruction may have become controversial issue because of the interface debate. Of special interest is the best way to teach grammar. First of all, four different ways of grammar teaching have been discussed:
(1) Explicit and inductive grammar instruction
(2) Explicit and deductive grammar instruction
(3) Implicit grammar instruction
(4) Incidental grammar instruction
Secondly, the role of feedback within grammar education has been discussed. Different ways of providing pupils with feedback were identified. However, feedback can only be effective 24 under certain conditions. Finally, different levels of mastery were also addressed in this chapter. Within grammar education, different types of tasks can be distinguished based on the extent to which a language learner has mastered a particular grammatical structure. Pupils can master a grammar structure on a receptive level, on a productive level in a controlled environment, and on a productive level in a free environment. Whereas receptive tasks are considered relatively easy, free productive tasks are considered the most difficult as these tasks require pupils to produce grammatically correct free language.
1.6 This Study and Hypotheses
This study aims to investigate the extent to which Dutch secondary school pupils in a 3 havo- vwo class (for more information on this type of education, see also Chapter 2 below) have internalised certain grammatical features after explicit grammar instruction. The pupils who participated in this study have received at least three years of English explicit grammar instruction. Pupils were tested on their knowledge of five different tenses in the English language, namely, present simple, present continuous, past simple, past continuous, and present perfect. Three types of tasks were used to investigate the pupils’ knowledge of these tenses, and all tasks were administered in class. The first task consisted of a grammaticality judgement test to test the pupils’ receptive grammatical knowledge. The second task consisted of a gap filling task, to test the pupils’ productive grammatical knowledge, but in a highly controlled environment. Finally, the third task comprised a controlled production task to test the pupils’ productive grammatical knowledge, only in a freer environment than in the gap filling task. After three years of explicit and deductive grammar instruction, it will be interesting to see how pupils perform on these tasks. It is important to bear in mind that the first two tasks tested the pupils’ explicit knowledge of the grammatical tenses, as these tasks were form-focused. The third controlled production test, on the other hand, tested the pupils’ 25 implicit knowledge of the grammatical tenses as this was a communicative task, focusing on meaning rather than on form. The different types of tasks will examine the extent to which explicit grammar instruction has been effective. For instance, pupils might be able to apply their explicit knowledge in a gap filling task, whereas they fail to do so in a controlled production task. In addition, all subjects had to fill in a questionnaire as well to find out more about the pupils’ background, their use of English in everyday life, and their interest in
(learning) the English language. This way, the results of the tests could be compared to the results of the questionnaire. Besides language instruction, there are other ways to receive language input as well. For instance, pupils who have regularly received input via reading
English books or watching English television, may obtain higher scores on the tests than those who never read English books or watch English television. The results of this study will therefore also be analysed on the basis of language input. Before the tests were administered, a pilot was conducted to test the validity and effectiveness of the different types of tasks.
Based on the literature discussed above, the following hypotheses are formulated for this study:
(H1) All pupils are expected to perform better on the grammaticality judgement test
than on the gap filling task and controlled production task, as pupils master receptive
language skills earlier than productive language skills. Moreover, receptive grammar
tasks are considered easier than productive grammar tasks (Kwakernaak 337)
(H2) Secondly, all pupils are expected to perform better on the gap filling task than on
the controlled production task, as pupils master productive language skills in a
highly controlled environment earlier than in a freer environment (Kwakernaak 337).
(H3) Thirdly, based on the fact that grammar tasks increase in difficulty as they 26 become freer, all pupils are expected to perform more poorly on the controlled production task than on the grammaticality judgement test and the gap filling task
(Kwakernaak 337).
(H4) Furthermore, pupils who received language input more frequently are expected to outperform pupils who have received less input on all tasks (Ellis, Modelling 435;
Krashen, Principles 20).
(H5) Lastly, pupils who will have a positive attitude towards (learning) the English language, and are more motivated to learn English, are expected to perform better on all tasks, as a positive attitude and high proportion of motivation enhances the SLA process (Krashen, Principles 4; Krashen, Second Language 19).
27
Chapter 2: Method
This chapter aims to describe the methodology of the current study. This chapter is divided into three sections; first of all, the subjects of this study will be discussed, after which the materials used in this research project and the procedure will be discussed.
2.1 Subjects
The subjects of this study were pupils at a Dutch secondary school, R.S.G. Pantarijn in
Wageningen, an urban environment in the centre of the Netherlands. All pupils were enrolled in the third year of havo/vwo education, which is one of the higher levels of education in the
Netherlands. Furthermore, all subjects were native speakers of Dutch, of which two pupils were bilingual (Dutch-Portuguese and Dutch-Frisian). The class consisted of 31 pupils; however, four pupils dropped out of the project due to illness. In total, there were 27 pupils
(11 male, 16 female) with an average age of 14.8 years (range: 14 - 16).
As part of their regular coursework, pupils received in the first half of the year two
English lessons of 70 minutes per week, and in the second half of the year one English lesson of 70 minutes per week. During these lessons, pupils are generally not required to speak
English; they only speak English during presentations, short dialogues, or when reading a text out loud in class. Furthermore, the teacher does not always speak English during class either.
The method used during these lessons is called New Interface; some relevant pages from this method are included in Appendix E. Each chapter consists of eight lessons which offer the pupils new vocabulary and grammatical subjects. The first five lessons focus merely on vocabulary and grammar tasks, whereas the final three lessons focus on communicative tasks such as writing, reading, speaking, and listening. The coursebook offers the pupils an overview of all grammatical subjects which are discussed. Usually, this overview provides pupils with grammar rules and examples of when to apply these rules, which means that this 28 is a deductive method. Pupils are often referred to this overview when they have to do an exercise focusing on grammar. The grammar exercises are usually deductive tasks and focus merely on form (see Appendix E). For these exercises, pupils often have to fill in blanks in sentences by using the correct grammatical structure. Beforehand, pupils are provided with the grammar rules which are explained by the teacher as well. The teacher’s instruction is therefore explicit and deductive, merely focusing on form, rather than on meaning. After each chapter, pupils are tested on the vocabulary and grammar discussed in the chapter by means of deductive exercises. This method does not offer the pupils inductive ways of learning
English grammar. Considering that this method is used in the first three years of education at this school, all pupils have received grammar instruction merely focusing on form. Moreover, the grammar tasks that the pupils have had to complete merely consisted of deductive exercises focusing on form. Besides these exercises, pupils have had to do writing assignments such as writing a short letter. During these tasks, pupils have had to practise their grammar skills as well. Although pupils have only received this explicit and deductive grammar instruction for the past three years, it is also possible that they have learned certain grammatical structures incidentally during another task such as listening to or reading the
English language.
The average grade for English of this class was 7.2 out of 10 (range: 5.6 - 9.1) at the time of the experiment. Several aspects are reflected in this grade, such as vocabulary, grammar, writing, listening, and reading. Furthermore, the tasks were administered during school hours, so pupils did not participate in this study voluntarily. The pupils were aware of the fact that the tasks were part of a research project.
29
2.2 Materials
This study consisted of three tasks that were administered to the whole group at the same time. In addition, all subjects had to fill in a questionnaire as well. All tasks were created for the purpose of this study, on the basis of the regular course materials. It is important to bear in mind that no reliability test was conducted to test the validity and reliability of the different tasks. All stimuli are provided in appendices A-D.
2.2.1 Grammaticality Judgement Test
Andringa argues that grammaticality judgement tasks do not test the language learner’s communicative and productive language skills. Rather, this type of task tests the learner’s explicit knowledge about a language. More specifically, a grammaticality judgement test shows whether or not a L2 learner understands the rule of a second language rather than knowing how to apply these rules in a more communicative task (37-38). The grammaticality judgement test was therefore used in this study to test the pupils’ receptive knowledge of five different tenses used in the English language, namely, present simple, present continuous, past simple, past continuous, and present perfect. Of special interest was the question whether pupils performed better on this task than on productive tasks, as receptive tasks are considered to be easier (Kwakernaak 337). For this task, pupils had to indicate whether a sentence was grammatically correct or incorrect. The task consisted of 25 sentences, so the highest score that could be obtained was 25. For each error, one point was deducted from the maximum score of 25. Considering that different maximum scores could be obtained for all three tests, the end score of each test was divided by the maximum score, and this number was multiplied by 100. This way, each pupil could obtain an end score of 0 to 100 on each test, and the results of all tests could be compared properly. For example, if a pupil obtained 15 out of 25 points on the grammaticality judgement test, the end score would be: 15/25 = 0.6 x 100 = 60. 30
2.2.2 Gap Filling Task
The gap filling task was used to test the pupils’ productive knowledge on the abovementioned tenses in a highly controlled environment. For this task, pupils had to complete sentences by filling in the correct form of the verb. The gap filling task consisted of 20 sentences, so the highest score that could be obtained was 20. For each error, one point was deducted from the maximum score of 20. An answer was correct under two conditions; first of all, the right tense had to be used, and secondly, the right form of the verb had to be used. For instance, if the right answer had to be has worked, *has workd was counted as one error; despite the fact that the right tense is used in this example, the form of the verb is used incorrectly. As with the grammaticality judgement test, the end score was divided by the maximum score, and this number was multiplied by 100. For example, if a pupil obtained 10 out of 20 points on the gap filling task, the end score would be: 10/20 = 0.5 x 100 = 50.
2.2.3 Controlled Production Test
The controlled production task, like the gap filling task, was used to test the pupils’ productive knowledge on the five different tenses. In this task, however, the productive knowledge was tested in a less controlled environment. In addition, this task was used to test whether pupils performed better on the grammaticality judgement test and the gap filling task.
For this task, pupils had to write an advertisement on the basis of several Dutch instructions.
These instructions were created to trigger the pupils to use the right tense when writing the advertisement. In total, the pupils had to apply the correct tense 14 times, so the highest score that could be obtained was 14. For each error, one point was deducted from the total score of
14. As with the gap filling task, an answer was considered correct if two conditions were met; firstly, the right tense had to be used, and secondly, the right form of the verb had to be used.
Spelling errors, incorrect sentence structures, and vocabulary errors did not count as errors 31 because this test solely focused on the right use of different grammatical tenses. Furthermore, as with the grammaticality judgement test and the gap filling task, the end score was divided by the maximum score, and this number was multiplied by 100. For example, if a pupil obtained 8 out of 14 points on the controlled production test, the end score would be: 8/14 =
0.57 x 100 = 57.
2.2.4 Questionnaire
As part of this research project, all subjects had to fill in a questionnaire as well. The first questions of this questionnaire concerned pupils’ backgrounds; pupils were asked about their age, gender, and whether or not they were bilingual or dyslexic. Furthermore, the questionnaire was also used to find out more about the pupils’ use of English in everyday life; they were asked how many years they had received English lessons1, but also how often they read English books or watched English films. Finally, some questions also concerned the pupils’ motivation to learn English. Pupils were asked to what extent they liked English, but also to what extent they considered the English language useful or difficult.
2.3 Procedure
As all tests were created for the purpose of this study, a pilot was conducted first, to test the validity and effectiveness of the tasks. Like the actual test group, the pilot group was a third year havo/vwo class, receiving two English lessons per week in the first half of the year, and one English lesson per week in the second half of the year. Due to practical complications, all three tasks and the questionnaire were administered within one test session, which took place on the 7th of May 2014. Just like the actual group, the pilot group did not participate in this project voluntarily. The results of the pilot showed that some items had to be adjusted in the
1 In the Netherlands, children are taught English from age 10 onwards. This means that children already receive English lessons in primary school. 32 gap filling task and the controlled production task. For the gap filling task, there were some sentences allowing for alternative answers, so these sentences were adjusted. Furthermore, for the contolled production task, some of the Dutch instructions were adjusted, as these might have influenced the pupils’ results too much. Moreover, some of the instructions were too extensive, causing pupils to forget to include certain items in their end products. These instructions were therefore split into more concise, separate instructions. Finally, some of the questions on the questionnaire were rather confusing to the pupils, so these were adjusted as well.
The actual test group was tested in two separate sessions. The first session took place on the 14th of May 2014, and contained the questionnaire, the grammaticality judgement test, and the gap filling task. The second session took place on the 21st of May 2014, and consisted of the controlled production task. The tasks were administered in this particular order because the level of difficulty increased with every task this way. Moreover, the controlled production task was administered in a separate session as pupils might be influenced by the previous tests. In both instances, the tests were administered during a regular English lesson. Before each task, the pupils received clear instructions, and between the tasks a small break of a few minutes was inserted to preserve the pupils’ concentration.
2.3.1 Grammaticality Judgement Test
At the beginning of the grammaticality judgement test, pupils were informed that they would be presented with 25 English sentences. Subsequently, they were instructed to indicate which sentence they considered grammatically correct or incorrect. Furthermore, pupils were also instructed to complete the task individually, and told that that it did not matter how many mistakes they made, as long as they completed the task on their own. In total, the 33 grammaticality judgement test took the pupils approximately 10 minutes. All pupils were willing to cooperate.
2.3.2 Gap Filling Task
For the gap filling task, pupils were instructed to complete 20 English sentences by filling in the blanks. All pupils were familiar with this type of exercise because they had to do similar exercises as part of their regular coursework. Furthermore, pupils were informed to use one of the five tenses which were explicitly mentioned above the exercise. This to prevent pupils from using alternative grammatical structures. As with the grammaticality judgement test, pupils were instructed to complete the task individually. In total, the gap filling task took the pupils approximately 15 minutes. Most pupils were not motivated to complete this task because they had to do similar exercises during regular English lessons quite often. Moreover, some of the pupils experienced difficulties in choosing the right tense to complete the sentences. Despite the fact that pupils were not motivated to complete this task, they were willing to cooperate.
2.3.3 Controlled Production Test
For the controlled production task, pupils were instructed to write an advertisement on the basis of several Dutch instructions. In addition, pupils were instructed to include all elements of the Dutch instructions to make sure they would not forget any test elements of the task.
Furthermore, pupils were not informed that this task focused on the grammatical tenses they would use. This to prevent pupils from paying too much attention to this part of the task. As with the first two tasks, pupils were instructed to complete the task individually. In total, it took the pupils approximately 15 minutes to complete the task. Pupils did not mind doing this task, and were willing to cooperate. 34
2.3.4 Questionnaire
At the beginning of the questionnaire, pupils were informed to answer all questions on their own. Considering that there were also questions asking for pupils’ opinions, it was necessary to prevent pupils from influencing each other’s answers. In total, it took the pupils approximately 5 to 10 minutes to complete the questionnaire.
35
Chapter 3: Results
This chapter will expound the results of the grammaticality judgement test, the gap filling task, the controlled production test, and the questionnaire that were included in this study.
The results of the three tests will first be compared and contrasted to one another after which the results of each test will be linked to the results of the questionnaire. A more elaborate discussion of the results will follow in the next chapter.
3.1 Comparison of Grammaticality Judgement Test, Gap Filling Task, and Controlled
Production Test
Table 3 below first of all presents the mean scores for the grammaticality judgement test, the gap filling task, and the controlled production test. The three tests are presented in one table to be able to compare and contrast the scores between the different tests.
Table 3: Mean scores of grammaticality judgement test, gap filling task, and controlled production test. Mean score Mean score gap Mean score grammaticality filling task controlled judgement test (max. score 100) production test (max. score 100) (max. score 100) Pupils (n=27) 84.89 74.07 70.29
Range: 48-100 Range: 35-100 Range: 14-86
36
100 90 80 70 60 50 40 Mean scores 30 20 10 0 Grammaticality Gap filling task Controlled judgement test production test
Figure 1: mean scores, visually presented
As can be seen, all pupils performed better on the grammaticality judgement test than on the gap filling task and the controlled production test. Furthermore, all pupils obtained higher scores on the gap filling task than on the controlled production test. This means that all pupils performed more poorly on the controlled production test than on the grammaticality judgement test and the gap filling task. The first hypothesis (H1) was confirmed as the difference between the mean scores of the grammaticality judgement test and the gap filling task proved significant, as assessed on the basis of a paired samples t-test: t(26) = 4.71, p = .000. Similarly, the difference between the mean scores of the grammaticality judgement test and the controlled production test was significant, as revealed by a paired samples t-test: t(26) = 7.67, p = .000. Although there was a difference between the mean scores of the gap filling task and the controlled production task, this difference was not significant (p = .096), which means that H2 was rejected. This indicates that pupils may have performed more poorly on the controlled production test than on the other two tests due to chance.
37
3.2 Grammaticality Judgement Test
The tables below present the mean scores of the grammaticality judgement test, set against the
English language input pupils receive in daily life. To be more specific, language input means both input pupils receive during their English lessons at school, and the input they receive outside of school. Furthermore, the mean scores will also be presented set against the pupils’ attitudes towards the English language. Table 4 below first of all presents the results of the grammaticality judgement test, set against the number of years of English instruction pupils have received.
Table 4: Mean scores of grammaticality judgement test, set against the number of years of English lessons pupils have received Years of Mean scores English instruction 3 (n=2) 92.00
4 (n=4) 92.00
5 (n=17) 83.00
6 (n=4) 82.00
The fourth hypothesis (H4) stated that pupils who received language input more frequently were expected to perform better on all tasks. Considering that pupils receive language input during English lessons, pupils who have received more years of English instruction were expected to perform better on all tasks than pupils who have received fewer years of English instruction. Remarkably, table 4 shows that pupils who have received more years of English instruction did not perform better on this task than those who have received fewer years of
English instruction. This means that the fourth hypothesis was rejected for this test when it comes to receiving language input via language instruction. 38
Furthermore, table 5 below shows the mean scores of the grammaticality judgement test, set against the English input pupils receive outside of school. On the questionnaire, pupils could indicate how many English books they read per year, how many hours per week they watched English television, and how many hours per week they played English computer games. Pupils could not specify whether they watched English television with or without
Dutch subtitles.
Table 5: Mean scores of grammaticality judgement test, set against the English input pupils receive in daily life Number of English Number of hours of Number of hours of books read per year English TV playing English programmes / films computer Games (per week) (per week) Never 83.53 (n=17) 88.00 (n=3) 80.31 (n=13)
1 – 3 times 86.50 (n=8) 78.29 (n=7) 82.00 (n=4)
More than 3 times 90.00 (n=2) 87.06 (n=17) 92.00 (n=10)
As can be seen, pupils who read English books on a regular basis obtained a higher score on the grammaticality judgement test than those who read no, or fewer than three books a year.
Similarly, pupils who regularly play English computer games, obtained higher scores on this test than other pupils who never play English computer games. Remarkably, pupils who regularly watch English television, did not obtain a higher score on this test than those who never watch English television, which is counterintuitive (H4). Although pupils who regularly read English books and played English computer games obtained higher scores on this test than those who did not, these differences did not prove significant, which means that H4 was rejected when it comes to receiving language input outside of school. 39
In addition, table 6 below presents the mean scores for the grammaticality judgement test set against how often pupils communicate in English. When communicating in English, pupils receive language input, and moreover, they also use the language themselves. Based on the fourth hypothesis (H4), pupils who communicate in English more often were therefore expected to obtain higher scores on this test than those who did not communicate in English
Table 6: Mean scores of grammaticality judgement test, set against how often pupils communicate in English. Communicating in Mean scores English Never (n=9) 84.44
Less than once a month 74.40 (n=5)
Once a month (n=2) 88.00
More than once a 89.46 month (n=11)
In general, pupils who communicate in English more than once a month, performed better on the grammaticality judgement test than those who never communicate in English. However, this difference did not prove significant. In addition, pupils who communicate in English less than once a month obtained a lower score than those who never communicate in English, which is counterintuitive (H4). Hypothesis 4 was thus rejected for this test when it comes to receiving language input by means of communicating in English.
Furthermore, pupils were also asked to what extent they considered English useful or difficult, and to what extent they liked the English language. Pupils had to indicate this on a scale of one to ten. Table 7 below presents the mean scores of the grammaticality judgement test, set against the pupils’ attitudes towards the English language.
40
Table 7: mean scores grammaticality judgement test, set against the pupils’ attitudes towards the English language Scale 1-10 Extent to which Extent to which pupils Extent to which pupils pupils liked English considered English considered English (mean scores) useful (mean scores) difficult (mean scores) Pupils who 88.22 (n=18) 86.31 (n=26) 68.00 (n=3)
rated >= 8
Pupils who 78.22 (n=9) 48.00 (n=1) 87.00 (n=24)
rated < 8
Pupils who liked the English language, and who considered English useful and relatively easy, obtained a higher score on the grammaticality judgement test than pupils who did not like English and who considered English not useful and difficult. In fact, pupils who considered English useful and relatively easy, performed significantly better on the grammaticality judgement test than those who did not, as revealed by means of independent samples t-tests:
Pupils who considered English useful: t(25) = 3.44, p = .002.
Pupils who considered English relatively easy: t(25) = -2.65, p = .014.
The difference between pupils who liked English and those who did not, was not significant
(p = .058). As some of the differences between the mean scores of the different groups of pupils did not prove significant, H5 was partly rejected and partly confirmed for this task.
3.3 Gap Filling Task
As with the grammaticality judgement test, the tables below present the mean scores of the gap filling task, set against how often pupils use the English language in everyday life.
Furthermore, the mean scores are also presented set against the pupils’ attitudes towards the 41
English language. Table 8 first of all presents the results of the gap filling task set against the number of years of English instruction the pupils have received.
Table 8: Mean scores of gap filling task, set against the number of years of English lessons pupils have received Years of Mean scores English instruction 3 (n=2) 62.50
4 (n=4) 83.75
5 (n=17) 72.65
6 (n=4) 76.25
As can be seen, pupils who have received five or six years of English instruction performed better on the gap filling task than those who have received only three years of English instruction. However, pupils who received four years of English instruction obtained higher scores on this test than pupils who received five or six years of English instruction, which is counterintuitive (H4). Considering that none of the differences between the mean scores were significant, and that there were some counterintuitive results, H4 was rejected for this task when it comes to receiving language input via language instruction.
In addition, table 9 below presents the mean scores of the gap filling task, set against the English input pupils receive outside of school by means of reading English books, watching English television, and playing English computer games.
42
Table 9: Mean scores of gap filling task, set against the English input pupils receive in daily life Number of English Number of hours of Number of hours of books read per year English TV playing English programmes / films computer Games (per week) (per week) Never 72.94 (n=17) 71.67 (n=3) 67.69 (n=13)
1 – 3 71.87 (n=8) 67.14 (n=7) 78.75 (n=4)
More than 3 92.50 (n=2) 77.35 (n=17) 80.50 (n=10)
Table 9 shows that pupils who read more than three books per year obtained higher scores than those who read no, or fewer than three books per year. Furthermore, Pupils who watch
English television more than three hours per week perform better on this test than pupils who never watch English television, or only one to three hours per week. Finally, pupils who play
English computer games regularly, performed better on the gap filling task than those who do not play English computer games, or less often. Although there were visible differences between the different groups of pupils, none of these differences proved significant, which means that H4 was again rejected for this task.
Table 10 below shows the mean scores of the gap filling task, set against how often the pupils communicate in English.
Table 10: Mean scores of gap filling task, set against how often pupils communicate in English. Communicating in Mean scores English Never (n=9) 68.33
Less than once a month 66.00 (n=5)
Once a month (n=2) 75.00
More than once a 82.27 month (n=11) 43
As can be seen, pupils who communicate in English more than once a month outperformed all other pupils on the gap filling task. However, none of the differences between the groups of pupils proved significant, which means that H4 was rejected for this task when it comes to receiving language input by means of communicating in English.
Finally, table 11 below presents the mean scores of the gap filling task, set against the pupils’ attitudes towards the English language.
Table 11: mean scores gap filling task, set against the pupils’ attitudes towards the English language Scale 1-10 Extent to which Extent to which pupils Extent to which pupils pupils liked English considered English considered English (mean scores) useful (mean scores) difficult (mean scores) Pupils who 76.39 (n=18) 75.57 (n=26) 46.67 (n=3)
rated >= 8
Pupils who 69.44 (n=9) 35.00 (n=1) 77.50 (n=24)
rated< 8
Pupils who liked the English language, and who considered English useful and not difficult, outperformed the pupils who did not like English, and who considered English not useful and difficult. The difference between pupils who considered English useful and relatively easy, and those who did not, proved significant, as assessed by means of independent samples t- tests:
Pupils who considered English useful: t(25) = 2.42, p = .023.
Pupils who considered English relatively easy: t(25) = -3.30, p = .003.
Although there was a noticeable difference between pupils who liked English and those who did not, this difference was not significant (p = .353). As some of the differences between the pupils did not prove significant, H5 was partly rejected and partly confirmed for this test.
44
3.4 Controlled Production Test
As with the results of the previous two tests, the tables below present the mean scores of the controlled production test, set against how often pupils use the English language in daily life, and set against the pupils’ attitudes towards English. Table 12 below firstly presents the mean scores of the controlled production test, set against the number of years of English instruction the pupils have received.
Table 12: Mean scores of controlled production test, set against the number of years of English lessons pupils have received Years of Mean scores English instruction 3 (n=2) 67.50
4 (n=4) 78.50
5 (n=17) 68.94
6 (n=4) 69.25
The results of table 12 are again counterintuitive (H4); pupils who have received six years of
English instruction obtained a similar score on the controlled production test as pupils who have received only three years of English instruction. Moreover, pupils who have received four years of English instruction obtained the highest average score on this test, which means that H4 was rejected for this test when it comes to receiving language input via language instruction..
In addition, table 13 below presents the mean scores of the controlled production test, set against the English input pupils receive in daily life via English books, television and computer games.
45
Table 13: Mean scores of controlled production test, set against the English input pupils receive in daily life Number of English Number of hours of Number of hours of books read per year English TV playing English programmes / films computer Games (per week) (per week) Never 68.18 (n=17) 66.33 (n=3) 63.46 (n=13)
1 – 3 72.75 (n=8) 62.00 (n=7) 71.25 (n=4)
More than 3 78.50 (n=2) 74.41(n=17) 78.80 (n=10)
As with the grammaticality judgement test and the gap filling task, all pupils who read more than three English books per year, obtained the highest score on the controlled production test. Furthermore, pupils who watched English television and played English computer games more than three hours per week, obtained higher scores than their peers on the controlled production task. Although these results are in line with the expectations (H4), the differences between the mean scores obtained on the controlled production test were not significant, which means that H4 was rejected for this test.
Table 14 below shows the mean scores of the controlled production test, set against how often pupils communicate in English.
Table 14: Mean scores of controlled production test, set against how often pupils communicated in English. Communicating in Mean scores English Never (n=9) 64.20
Less than once a month 61.20 (n=5)
Once a month (n=2) 78.00
More than once a 77.55 month (n=11)
46
As can be seen, pupils who communicate in English once a month, or more than once a month, performed better on the controlled production task than those who never communicate in English, or those who communicate less than once a month in English. These results are in line with the expectations, but the differences between the scores were again not significant which means that H4 was rejected for this test when it comes to receiving language input by means of communicating in English.
Finally, the mean scores of the controlled production task, set against the pupils’ attitudes towards the English language, are presented in table 15 below.
Table 15: mean scores controlled production test, set against pupils’ attitudes towards the English language Scale 1-10 Extent to which Extent to which pupils Extent to which pupils pupils liked English considered English considered English (mean scores) useful (mean scores) difficult (mean scores) Pupils who 74.61 (n=18) 71.35 (n=26) 52.33 (n=3)
rated >= 8
Pupils who 61.67 (n=9) 43.00 (n=1) 72.54 (n=24)
rated < 8
Pupils who liked the English language, and who considered English useful and relatively easy, obtained a higher average score on the controlled production task than those who did not have this attitude towards the English language. The difference between pupils who liked
English, and who considered English relatively easy, and those who did not were significant, as revealed by means of independent samples t-tests:
Pupils who liked English: t(25) = 2.10, p = .046
Pupils who considered English relatively easy: t(25) = -2.20, p = .037. 47
Although pupils did obtain higher scores on the controlled production test when they considered English useful, the difference between this group and the group who did not consider English useful was not significant (p = .083). This means that H5 was partly confirmed and partly rejected for this test.
3.5 Main Findings
In sum, all pupils generally obtained high scores on all tests; the average score of all three tests was 76.41 out of 100. Furthermore, all pupils performed significantly better on the grammaticality judgement test than on the gap filling task and the controlled production test.
In addition, all pupils obtained higher scores on the gap filling task than on the controlled production test. The first hypothesis (H1), as stated in Chapter 1, was thus confirmed. The second hypothesis (H2) was not confirmed as the difference between the mean scores of the gap filling task and the controlled production test did not prove significant. The third hypothesis (H3) stated that pupils were expected to perform more poorly on the controlled production test than on the grammaticality judgement test and the gap filling task. However, pupils only obtained significantly higher scores on the grammaticality judgement test than on the controlled production test. The third hypothesis was thus partly confirmed and partly rejected.
When connecting the results of each test to the results of the questionnaire, the following conclusions can be drawn. First of all, pupils who received more years of English instruction, do not always perform better on each task than those who received fewer English lessons. When comparing the pupils’ mean scores of the three tests to the number of English lessons they have received, the results were extremely varied. For the grammaticality judgement test, pupils who received six years of English instruction did not outperform the pupils who received only three years of English instruction. Furthermore, for the gap filling 48 task, pupils who received four years of English lessons obtained higher scores than those who received five or six years of English instruction. These results may have been caused by the fact that only 27 pupils participated in this study. On the other hand, it may be the case that more years of English instruction does not lead to better results on the three grammar tests. As none of the differences between the mean scores proved significant, H4 was rejected for all tests when it comes to receiving language input via language instruction.
Secondly, pupils who received more English input in their daily lives by means of reading English books, watching English television, and playing English computer games, outperformed their peers on all tests, except for the grammaticality judgement test. On this test, pupils who watched English television more than three hours per week, did not perform better than pupils who never watched English television. Again, this may have been the result of the fact that only a limited numbers of pupils participated in this project. Although most of the results were in line with the expectations, none of the differences between the mean scores proved signigicant. This means that H4 was not confirmed with respect to receiving language input by means of reading English books, watching English television and playing English computer games.
Furthermore, pupils who communicated in English once a month, or more often than once a month, performed better on all tests than those who never communicated in English, or those who communicated less than once a month in English. However, the difference between the means scores obtained by pupils who communicated in English more often and those who did not, was not significant. In this respect, H4 was thus not confirmed.
Finally, pupils who liked English, and who considered English fairly easy and useful, obtained higher scores on all tests than those who did not have this attitude towards the
English language, which was expected. However, not all of the differences between the mean scores obtained by the pupils who had a positive attitude towards English, and those who did 49 not, proved significant. This means that H5 was partly confirmed and partly rejected. The hypotheses as formulated in Chapter 1, the results, and the tests involved in this study will be discussed and analysed more elaborately in the next chapter. 50
Chapter 4: Discussion
The focus of this study was on the extent to which Dutch secondary school pupils have internalised certain English grammatical features after English language instruction. The pupils who participated in this study have received at least three years of explicit grammar instruction in secondary school. Several tasks and a questionnaire were administered to a third-year havo/vwo class during two test sessions. This chapter aims to further discuss the results of this study stated in the previous chapter based on the hypotheses formulated in
Chapter 1.
4.1 Comparison of Grammaticality Judgement Test, Gap Filling Task, and Controlled
Production Test
As pupils master receptive language skills earlier than productive language skills
(Kwakernaak 337), all pupils were expected to perform better on the grammaticality judgement test than on the gap filling task and the controlled production test (H1). This hypothesis was confirmed by the results, as the findings showed that all pupils performed significantly better on the grammaticality judgement test than on the gap filling task and the controlled production test. All pupils also obtained higher scores on the gap filling task than on the controlled production task. This is in line with Kwakernaak’s theory, which argues that pupils master productive language skills in a more controlled environment earlier than in a freer environment (337). However, the as there was no significant difference between the mean scores obtained on the gap filling task and the controlled production task, H2 was still rejected. Pupils were also expected to perform more poorly on the controlled production task than on the grammaticality judgement test and the gap filling task (H3), but this hypothesis was only partly confirmed; whereas the difference between the scores obtained on the grammaticality judgement test and the controlled production test proved significant, this was 51 not the case for the difference between the scores obtained on the gap filling task and the controlled production test. In fact, pupils performed nearly as well on the gap filling task as on the controlled production test, which is counterintuitive. The absence of a significant difference might be ascribed to the fact that the controlled production task was perhaps still too structured; pupils wrote their advertisements on the basis of Dutch instructions or prompts. These instructions have probably influenced the results of the controlled production test. For instance, if a Dutch prompt instructed the pupils to write about something that happened in the past, a Dutch past tense was used in this instruction. This could have made it easier for the pupils to use the correct tense in their English end products as well. To test the pupils’ productive language skills in a free environment more accurately, different, and freer productive tasks should be administered in future research.
4.2 Results of Grammaticality Judgement Test, Gap Filling Task, and Controlled
Production Test Set against the Language Input Pupils Receive
This study also investigated whether pupils performed better on grammar tasks when they received more language input in everyday life (H4). According to several researchers, receiving language input facilitates the SLA process (Ellis, Modelling 435; Krashen,
Principles 20). For this study, pupils who received language input more frequently were therefore expected to outperform pupils who received less input on all tasks (H4). However, hypothesis 4 turned out to be rather problematic. In H4, language input meant both the input pupils received during their English lessons at school, and the input they received outside of school by means of reading English books, watching English television, playing English computer games, and communicating in English. Because of this wide definition of language input, no univocal conclusion can be drawn when it comes to the fourth hypothesis. Whereas pupils did not always perform better on the grammar tasks after having received more years 52 of English instruction, they did perform better on the tasks when they received more language input via reading English books, watching English television, playing English computer games, and communicating in English. However, none of the differences between the mean scores obtained by the different groups of pupils proved significant, which means that H4 was still rejected.
Although H4 was not confirmed, it remains relevant to discuss the results more elaborately. It is interesting to see that pupils did not always perform better on the grammar tests after having received more years of language instruction. However, it is important to bear in mind that H4 implied that pupils who received more years of English instruction were expected to outperform pupils who received fewer years of instruction, as these pupils have also received fewer years of language input. The fourth hypothesis did thus not imply that language instruction itself leads to better results, but that the language input pupils receive during these lessons may lead to better results. Nevertheless, the results were very inconsistent with regard to this aspect. This may have been the result of the fact that only 27 pupils participated in this study. As a result, there were only 2 pupils who had received 3 years of English instruction, 4 pupils who had received 4 years of English instruction, and 4 pupils who had received 6 years of English instruction. Most of the pupils (17) had thus received 5 years of English instruction. It may have been the case that the pupils who received six years of English instruction were weaker pupils, or that the pupils who received 4 years of
English instruction happened to be really competent. On the other hand, it could also be that more years of teaching does not immediately influence the pupils’ performance. Whatever the case may be, no valid conclusions can be drawn from these results. To test whether more years of teaching may lead to better results more accurately, a larger group should be investigated. 53
Receiving more language input outside of school, on the other hand, did seem to have a positive effect on the pupils’ grammar skills. However, it remains a fact that none of the differences between pupils who received language input outside of school frequently and those who did not were significant. In fact, some of the scores that were obtained by pupils who received more language input outside of school and those who did not were very similar.
It is therefore important to bear in mind that reading English books, watching English television, and playing English computer games does not necessarily lead to better results at all times. On the other hand, if this study were to be conducted on a larger scale, involving more subjects, the differences between pupils who received language input regularly and those who did not, may prove significant.
In addition, pupils also received English input outside of school by means of communicating in the English language. On the questionnaire, pupils could indicate whether or not they communicated in English with friends or family living abroad. This communication usually takes place via e-mail, online (video)chatting, or over the phone. This way, pupils did not only receive English input during their conversations, but they also used the English language themselves. Pupils who communicated in English more frequently, receiving more language input, were therefore expected to outperform pupils who did not communicate in English, or less often (H4). Again, the difference between the mean scores obtained by the pupils who communicated in English more frequently and those who did not did not prove significant which means that communicating in English on a regular basis does not necessarily lead to better results at all times.
In sum, no valid conclusions can be drawn from the abovementioned findings as these are extremely varied. Moreover, H4 was formulated in such problematic way that it became difficult to draw conclusions on the basis of this hypothesis. In principle, pupils who received more language input did not always obtain higher scores on the grammar tests. Moreover, 54 even if there was a difference between pupils who received more language input and those who did not, none of these differences proved significant. As stated before, these findings may have been the result of the fact that only a limited number of pupils participated in this study. With such a small test group, there are very few pupils to compare and contrast, which may have resulted in no significant differences between groups of pupils, and moreover, in counterintuitive and inconsistent results. On the other hand, it could also just be the case that receiving more language input does not immediately lead to higher performance. A larger test group should be investigated to truly test whether or not pupils who receive language input more frequently obtain higher scores on these types of grammar tasks.
4.3 Results of Grammaticality Judgement Test, Gap Filling Task, and Controlled Production
Test Set against the Pupils’ Attitudes towards English
Finally, this study also aimed to investigate whether pupils performed better on the grammar tasks when they had a positive attitude towards the English language. According to Krashen, a positive attitude and a high proportion of motivation enhance the SLA process (Input 4;
Principles 30-31; Second Language 19). Pupils who had a positive attitude towards the
English language, and who were more motivated to learn English were therefore expected to perform better on all tests (H5). The results indeed showed that pupils who liked English, and who considered English useful and relatively easy performed better on all tests. In fact, pupils who considered English useful performed significantly better on the grammaticality judgement test and the gap filling task than those who did not. Furthermore, pupils who considered English relatively easy obtained significantly higher scores on all three tests than those who considered English difficult. Finally, pupils who liked English generally performed better on all three tasks than those who did not like English. Nevertheless, this difference proved only significant for the controlled production test. This means that H5 was not always 55 confirmed considering that not all of the differences between the mean scores were significant. This was the result of the fact that a positive attitude depended on whether or not pupils considered English difficult, useful and whether they liked English. As different factors determined the pupils’ attitudes, H5 turned out to be partly confirmed and partly rejected.
Krashen states that “people acquire second languages only if ... their affective filters are low enough to allow the input ‘in’” (Input 4; Principles 30-31). These affective filters depend among other things on motivation (Krashen Input 4; Principles 30-31). Moreover, Krashen argues that language attitude influences the SLA process as well. Attitude is related to motivation, but also to the extent to which a language learner is open to acquire the second language. A positive attitude will enhance the process of second language acquisition (Second
Language 19). Pupils may become motivated to learn a second language once they like
(learning) this language, once they consider it useful to learn this language, but also when this learning process is relatively easy. It is interesting to see that the pupils involved in this study indeed performed significantly better once they considered English useful and relatively easy.
However, pupils who liked English only obtained significantly higher scores on the controlled production test. It is remarkable that there were significant differences between pupils who considered English useful and relatively easy and those who did not, whereas this difference was not significant between pupils who liked English and those who did not. This could suggest that liking the English language does not immediately have a positive effect on the language learner’s attitude or motivation.
4.4 Implications for the Teaching Practice
The results of this study could have important implications for the English foreign language classroom with respect to grammar education. The results revealed that pupils generally perform well on all grammar tasks that were involved in this study; the average score of all 56 three tests was 76.41 out of 100. This means that grammar instruction might be effective because this test group has received explicit and deductive grammar instruction for three years, and all pupils have shown that they know when to use which grammatical tense.
However, the question remains whether the test group involved in this study performs better on the grammar tasks than a group of pupils who did not receive three years of explicit and deductive grammar instruction. It is extremely difficult to investigate this issue and to answer this question, as it is compulsory for all Dutch children to go to secondary school and receive
English lessons there. On the other hand, it is possible to compare these results to the results of a group of pupils who have never received explicit and deductive language instruction, but implicit or inductive grammar instruction, for instance. This way, it can be investigated whether teaching pupils grammar rules explicitly is effective.
Furthermore, the interface debate focuses on the connection, or even overlap, between implicit and explicit language knowledge (Andringa 7; Han & Finneran 2). With respect to the interface debate, the results revealed that there may be a connection between explicit and implicit knowledge; even during the controlled production test, which mainly tested the pupils’ implicit knowledge, pupils knew how to use their explicit knowledge of the English language to produce grammatically correct sentences. Explaining grammar rules may thus be very effective in grammar education.
Nevertheless, grammar instruction is not the only aspect that may have caused the high scores that were obtained on the grammar tasks. This study also revealed that pupils who received English input more frequently performed better on all tasks. Although pupils who received English input more frequently did not obtain significantly higher scores on the tests than those who did not, it may still be effective to provide pupils with English input during school hours. This can first of all be accomplished by using the English language as a teacher.
However, it is important that the use of the target language is well-balanced during the 57 lessons. Providing pupils with as much language input as possible can be beneficial to the
SLA process. However, teachers also need to be able to provide pupils with language-focused instruction, tasks, and feedback (Kwakernaak 48). Furthermore, pupils should also be encouraged to read English books or watch English television. To accomplish this, reading books could be implemented in the curriculum from the very first year pupils attend secondary school. Furthermore, teachers should not only provide pupils with more input during the English lessons, but also stimulate pupils to use the language themselves. Results of this study have shown that pupils who communicated in English on a regular basis obtained considerable higher scores on the tests than those who never communicated in
English. Pupils could be stimulated to communicate in English during class, but also by means of playing English computer games online. Usually, these games offer players the possibility to communicate via chatting in both written and oral form. This might be both a fun and effective way for pupils to practise their language skills.
Finally, the results of this study also revealed that pupils with a positive attitude towards the English language obtained higher scores on the grammar tasks than those who did not have this attitude towards English. This implies that pupils should be motivated to learn
English to facilitate the learning process. Providing pupils with assignments that fit into their worlds might increase the pupils’ motivation to learn English as they may like these assignments more. Pupils could work in groups on such assignments to enhance the learning process; they will be able to provide one another with feedback. Working in groups and providing one another with feedback will not necessarily improve the pupils’ attitude, but it will improve their learning process (Kwakernaak 37; Lyster and Mori 295-296). Furthermore, teachers should state explicitly to pupils why they have to learn certain aspects of the second language and why they have to do certain tasks. This way, the teacher will put a meaning on learning the L2, which will enhance the SLA process (Ebbens and Ettekoven 20-22). 58
Consequently, pupils may start considering learning English useful. This could ultimately lead to a more positive attitude towards the English language, which also enhances the SLA process (Krashen Second Language 19).
59
Conclusion
This study aimed to investigate whether explicit English language knowledge, learned via explicit deductive grammar instruction, has a positive effect on the SLA process of Dutch secondary school pupils. Pupils of a third-year havo/vwo class, who received at least three years of explicit and deductive English grammar instruction participated in this study. To investigate the effects of explicit grammar instruction, three different types of grammar tasks were used; first of all, a grammaticality judgement test, secondly a gap filling task, and finally a controlled production test. In addition, all pupils had to fill in a questionnaire to find out about their background and use of English in everyday life. The results have shown that all pupils generally obtain high scores on the grammar tasks. Furthermore, all pupils performed significantly better on the grammaticality judgement test than on the gap filling task and the controlled production test. In addition, all pupils obtained higher scores on the gap filling task than on the controlled production test. When connecting the results of each test tot the results of the questionnaire, the following conclusions were drawn. First of all, pupils who received more years of English instruction, did not always perform better on the tasks than pupils who received fewer English lessons. Secondly, pupils who received more English input in their daily lives by means of reading English books, watching English television and playing
English computer games, generally obtained higher scores on the tests than their peers.
Thirdly, pupils who communicated in English once a month, or more often than once a month, performed better on all tests than those who never communicated in English, or less often. Finally, pupils who considered English fairly easy and useful, obtained significantly higher scores on the tests than those who did not have this attitude towards the English language. Moreover, pupils who liked (learning) English generally performed better on all tests as well. 60
Nevertheless, the results of this study must be interpreted cautiously, as this study was limited in some aspects. First of all, this was a small-scale study; only one class was investigated, which may have led to counterintuitive and inconsistent results. Secondly, all tests were created for the purpose of this study, and although a pilot was conducted to test the validity and effectiveness of these tasks, no reliability test was conducted. Furthermore, the controlled production test was incorporated in this study to test the pupils’ productive language skills in a freer environment. However, this test was still structured to some extent, providing pupils with Dutch instructions and prompts which may have made it easier for the pupils to use the correct grammatical tense during this task. Finally, no control group was involved in this study. Consequently, an answer to the question whether explicit and deductive grammar instruction is truly effective cannot be drawn from the results of this study.
Future research could first of all make use of a more challenging controlled production test to test the pupils’ productive language skills in a freer environment more accurately. In fact, a truly free production test should be included in future research. Oral proficiency tests would be a good alternative, as pupils will have fewer instructions before producing the free language during such a test. However, it may then be more difficult to trigger pupils to use particular grammatical features. Furthermore, the results in this study have shown that pupils generally obtain high scores on the grammar tests. It would therefore be interesting to include a control group in future research. For instance, the results of the group involved in this study could be compared to the results of pupils who have received implicit or inductive grammar instruction. This way the question whether explicit and deductive grammar instruction is truly effective can be answered. In addition, a larger test group should be included in future research to assess whether the significant differences between the results of the tests and the different groups of pupils will preserve in a large-scale study. Furthermore, if future research 61 were to make use of these types of grammar tests, a reliability test should be conducted first.
This way, it will be certain that the results of the tests are valid. It would finally be interesting to test pupils from lower educational levels to investigate whether explicit grammar instruction is more effective in higher or lower educational levels in the Netherlands. 62
Works Cited
Arends et al. “Effecitviteit van grammaticaonderwijs.” Levende Talen Magazine 97.7 (2010): 16-19. Web. 12 May 2014.
Anderson, John. “Acquisition of Cognitive Skill.” Psychological Review 89.4 (1982): 369 406. Web. 24 April 2014.
Andringa, Sible. Form-focused Intstruction and the Development of Second Language Proficiency. Diss. Rijksuniversiteit Groningen, 2005. Web. 24 April 2014.
Bialystok, Ellen. “The Fundamental Character of Foreign Language Learning.” Grammar and Second Language Teaching: A Book of Readings. Ed. William Rutherford and Michael Sharwood Smith. Boston: Heinle & Heinle Publishers, 1988. Print.
Bley-Vroman, Robert. “The Fundamental Character of Foreign Language Learning.” Grammar and Second Language Teaching: A Book of Readings. Ed. William Rutherford and Michael Sharwood Smith. Boston: Heinle & Heinle Publishers, 1988. Print.
Conford, A. et al. New Interface: Textbook 3. 2e ed. Amersfoort: ThiemeMeulenhoff, 2008. Print.
Conford, A. et al. New Interface: Workbook 3. 2e ed. Amersfoort: ThiemeMeulenhoff, 2008. Print.
Ebbens Sebo. & Ettekoven, Simon. Effectief Leren. Groningen: Noordhoff Uitgevers, 2013. Web.
Ellis, Rod. “Does Form-focused Instruction Affect the Acquisition of Implicit Knowledge?” Studies in Second Language Acquisition. 24.2 (2002): 223-236. Web 12 June 2014.
Ellis, Rod. “Modelling Learning Difficulty and Second Language Proficiency: The Differential Contributions of Implicit and Explicit Knowledge.” Applied Linguistics. 27.3 (2006): 431-463. Web. 29 April 2014.
Ellis, Rod & Shintani, Natsuko. Exploring Language Pedagogy through Second Language Acquisition Research. New York: Routledge, 2013. Web. 11 May 2014.
Han, ZhaoHong & Finneran, Rosette. “Re-engaging the interface debate: strong, weak, none, or all?” International Journal of Applied Linguistics (2013): 1-20. Web. 24 April 2014.
Hulstijn, Jan. “Theoretical and Emperical Issues in the Study of Implicit and Explicit Second-language learning.” Studies in Second Language Acquisition. 27.2 (2005): 129-140. Web. 24 April 2014.
Hulstijn, Jan & De Graaff, Rick. “Under what Conditions does Explicit Knowledge of Second Language Facilitate the Acquisition of Implicit Knowledge? A Research Proposal.” AILA Review. 11 (1994): 97-112. Web. 29 April 2014 63
Krashen, Stephen. Principles and Practice is Second Language Acquisition. New York: Pergamon Press Inc., 1982. Web. 24 April 2014.
Krashen, Stephen. Second Language Acquisition and Second Language Learning. New York: Pergamon Press Inc., 1981. Web 10 May 2014.
Krashen, Stephen. The Input Hypothesis. Issues and Implications. London: Longman, 1985. Web. 24 April 2014.
Kwakernaak, Erik. Didactiek van het vreemdetalenonderwijs. Bussum: Uitgeverij Coutinho, 2009. Print.
Lyster, Roy & Mori, Hirohide. “Interactional Feedback and Instructional Counterbalance. ” Studies in Second Language Acquisition. 28.2 (2006): 269-300. Web. 12 May 2014.
Pinto, David. “SLA Research and Language teaching by Rod Ellis.” Issues in Applied Linguistics. 10.1 (1999): 93-97. Web. 24 April 2014.
64
Appendices
Appendix A: Grammaticality Judgement Test
Grammaticality Judgement Test
Hieronder staan 25 Engelse zinnen. Lees ze goed door en bepaal voor elke zin of de dikgedrukte werkwoordsvorm in de juiste tijd staat. Kruis aan: goed of fout. goed fout □ □ 1. Look, it is raining! I hope it stops soon. □ □ 2. When it started to rain, we were lying on the beach. □ □ 3. Jake hasn’t turned up yet. □ □ 4. They live in Greece for three years now. □ □ 5. When my father fell down the stairs, I talked on the phone □ □ 6. I am always meeting my friends for drinks on Saturdays. □ □ 7. Every morning, John takes a shower. □ □ 8. He came back an hour ago. □ □ 9. I was burning my hand when I made some tea yesterday. □ □ 10. What is Jane doing? – She cleans her room at the moment. □ □ 11. We have known each other for a very long time. □ □ 12. The phone rang while we were playing tennis outside. □ □ 13. My sister is playing hockey twice a week. □ □ 14. Did you switch off your phone this morning? I tried to reach you! □ □ 15. Where is Lisa? – She is doing her homework over there. □ □ 16. I have walked to the bus station at eight o’clock this morning. □ □ 17. Sheila often loses a lot of money in the casino. □ □ 18. We have been friends since childhood. □ □ 19. I was having breakfast when the doorbell rang. □ □ 20. I closed the gate before I left. □ □ 21. What is that noise? They build new flats near the park. □ □ 22. I am doing the dishes now because I have to go to work later. □ □ 23. When my parents came home, Jake still watched TV. □ □ 24. I didn’t ride my bike since I was ten. □ □ 25. I go camping with my friends every summer.
65
Grammaticality Judgement Test – Key goed fout ■ □ 1. Look, it is raining! I hope it stops soon. ■ □ 2. When it started to rain, we were lying on the beach. ■ □ 3. Jake hasn’t turned up yet. □ ■ 4. They live in Greece for three years now. □ ■ 5. When my father fell down the stairs, I talked on the phone □ ■ 6. I am always meeting my friends for drinks on Saturdays. ■ □ 7. Every morning, John takes a shower. ■ □ 8. He came back an hour ago. □ ■ 9. I was burning my hand when I made some tea yesterday. □ ■ 10. What is Jane doing? – She cleans her room at the moment. ■ □ 11. We have known each other for a very long time. ■ □ 12. The phone rang while we were playing tennis outside. □ ■ 13. My sister is playing hockey twice a week. ■ □ 14. Did you switch off your phone this morning? I tried to reach you! ■ □ 15. Where is Lisa? – She is doing her homework over there. □ ■ 16. I have walked to the bus station at eight o’clock this morning. ■ □ 17. Sheila often loses a lot of money in the casino. ■ □ 18. We have been friends since childhood. ■ □ 19. I was having breakfast when the doorbell rang. ■ □ 20. I closed the gate before I left. □ ■ 21. What is that noise? They build new flats near the park. ■ □ 22. I am doing the dishes now because I have to go to work later. □ ■ 23. When my parents came home, Jake still watched TV. □ ■ 24. I didn’t ride my bike since I was ten. ■ □ 25. I go camping with my friends every summer.
66
Appendix B: Gap Filling Task
Gap Filling Task
Vul in de onderstaande zinnen de ontbrekende vorm van het werkwoord in. Kies uit de volgende tijden: present simple, present continuous, past simple, past continuous en present perfect.
Bijvoorbeeld:
We ...... (to eat) dinner every day. We eat dinner every day.
1. We ...... (to travel) to our country house every weekend. 2. Could you call us back? We ...... (to eat) dinner now. 3...... your cousin ...... (to live) in England all his life? – No, his family moved there in 2002. 4...... Mrs. Philips still ...... (to talk) about her dog when you arrived? 5. Karen ...... (to come by) last night to drop off my History books. 6. When the lights were out, I ...... still ...... (to write) my essay. 7. I usually ...... (to get up) at seven on Mondays 8. Mr. Collins ...... (to work) at our school since the beginning of term. 9. Is Lucy working on her history test? – No, she ...... (to help) mum in the kitchen. 10. Why ...... you still ...... (to watch) TV? We have to go! 11...... you ...... (to go) to Gwen’s party last Saturday night? 12. John ...... (to print) his project when he ran out of paper. 13. When ...... you ...... (to leave) the gym last night? I was worried! 14...... you ...... (to meet) my friend Jake already? He’s staying with us until next Sunday. 15. John ...... (to work) as a cleaner in the hospital on Saturdays. 16. What are you doing? – As a matter of fact, I ...... (to order) some pizza. 17. Joyce ...... (to help) me with my homework this morning. 18. My parents ...... (to walk) in the woods when it started to rain. 19. I normally ...... (not, to go) out on weekdays, but on Friday nights I often go to the movies with my friends. 20. The weather ...... (to be) cold and stormy for almost a whole week!
67
C. Gap Filling Task – Key
1. We travel to our country house every Present simple weekend. 2. Could you call us back? We are eating Present continuous dinner now. 3. Has your cousin lived in England all Present perfect his life? – No, his family moved there in 2002. 4. Was Mrs. Philips still talking about her Past continuous dog when you arrived? 5. Karen came by last night to drop off Past simple my History books. 6. When the lights were out, I was still Past continuous writing my essay 7. I usually get up at seven on Mondays Present simple 8. Mr. Collins has worked at our school Present perfect since the beginning of term. 9. Is Lucy working on her history test? – Present continuous No, she’s helping mum in the kitchen. 10. Why are you still watching TV? We Present continuous have to go! 11. Did you go to Gwen’s party last Past simple Saturday night? 12. John was printing his project when Past continuous he ran out of paper. 13. When did you leave the gym last Past simple night? I was worried! 14. Have you met my friend Jake Present perfect already? He’s staying with us until next Sunday. 15. Every Saturday, John works as a Present simple cleaner in the hospital. 16. What are you doing? – As a matter of Present continuous fact, I’m ordering some pizza. 17. Joyce helped me with my homework Past simple this morning. 18. My parents were walking in the Past continuous woods when it started to rain. 19. I normally don’t go out on weekdays, Present simple but on Friday nights I often go to the movies with my friends. 20. The weather has been cold and Present perfect stormy weather for almost a whole week!
68
Appendix C: Controlled Production Test
Controlled Production Task
Jullie kat is vermist dus je besluit een advertentie te schrijven die in de plaatselijke krant zal worden geplaatst. Je hoopt dat één van de lezers misschien de kat heeft gezien. Schrijf de advertentie op de volgende pagina en gebruik maximaal 150 woorden. De volgende onderdelen moeten in de advertentie staan:
1. Je schrijft dat jullie kat afgelopen zaterdag (op 21 april) vermist is geraakt. 2. Beschrijf hoe de kat eruit ziet (noem zijn naam, en twee kenmerken: bv. zijn kleur) en vermeld daar duidelijk bij dat hij altijd een blauw lintje met een naamplaatje om zijn nek draagt. 3. Zeg dat jullie de kat op zaterdagavond tijdens een hevige onweersbui nog thuis was. 4. Vertel hoe de kat is kwijtgeraakt: tijdens de storm verstopte hij zich nog onder de bank, maar toen jullie later de deur open deden, is hij ontsnapt. Zeg dat jullie hem sinds dat moment niet meer hebben gezien. 5. Zeg dat jullie hopen dat hij nog in leven is, omdat hij normaal gesproken gewoon naar huis komt. 6. Vraag of iemand het dier heeft gezien sinds zaterdagavond en vraag of de eventuele vinder de kat zo snel mogelijk terug wil brengen. 7. Schrijf dat de plaatselijke dierenbescherming momenteel ook helpt om jullie kat terug te vinden. Mensen kunnen dus ook bij hen terecht. 8. Schrijf dat er uiteraard een beloning is voor de persoon die de kat terug helpt vinden. 9. Vermeld je contact gegevens.
Controlled Production Task – Key
1. “Afgelopen zaterdag kwijtgeraakt” past tense + indication of time: past simple (went missing) 2. Present simple description of the cat, contains facts + “Hij draagt altijd een blauw lintje” always: fact. All sentences must be written in the present simple (he always wears, his name is, he has white paws, etc.) 3. A situation that took place in the past is described: a. “Voor het laatst gezien op zaterdagavond” indication of time = past simple (we saw) b. “Hij was zich toen aan het verstoppen” something was going on in the past = past continuous (was hiding) c. “Later op de avond” indication of time = past simple (opened, escaped) 69
d. “Sinds dien niet meer gezien” started in the past, is still going on and of importance = present perfect (haven’t seen him since) 4. “Normaal gesproken, altijd” fact = present simple (he always comes) 5. “Heeft iemand het dier gezien sinds zaterdagavond?” started in the past, is still going on and of importance = present perfect (has anyone seen) 6. “Momenteel” something is going on right now = present continuous (is helping) 7. “Er is een beloning” this is a fact = present simple (there is a reward)
Example:
Last Saturday, on the 21st of April, our cat went missing. His name is Simba and he is orange and has white paws. He always wears a blue ribbon with a nameplate around his neck. We saw him last on Saturday night during a heavy thunderstorm. He was hiding from the storm under the sofa. Later on, when we opened the front door, he escaped the house. We haven’t seen him since that moment. We hope that he is still alive because he usually always comes home. Has anyone seen Simba since last Saturday night? Please bring him back to us! At the moment, the local animal protection society is helping us find him as well, so you can also get in touch with them! Of course there is a reward for the person who can help us find him back.
Contact information
Word count: 145
70
Appendix D: Questionnaire
Questionnaire
1. Leeftijd: ………
2. Man / Vrouw (streep door wat niet van toepassing is).
3. Nationaliteit: ......
4. A) Ben je tweetalig? Dat wil zeggen, je spreekt twee talen vloeiend en op moedertaal niveau. Ja / nee (streep door wat niet van toepassing is).
B) Zo ja, geef aan welke talen je spreekt. ………………………………………………………………………………………… …………………………………………………………………………………………
5. Ben je dyslectisch? Ja / Nee (streep door wat niet van toepassing is).
6. Hoeveel jaar krijg je al Engels op school? Denk dus ook aan de basisschool en of je een keer bent blijven zitten! Vermeld duidelijk hoeveel jaar je op welke school (middelbare of basis) Engels hebt gekregen.
Aantal jaren in totaal (inclusief blijven zitten):...... Aantal jaren op de basisschool: ...... Aantal jaren op de middelbare school: ......
7. Hoeveel Engelse boeken lees je per jaar buiten school om? □ □ □ geen tussen de 1 en 3 boeken meer dan 3 boeken
8. Hoe vaak in de week kijk je Engelse tv-programma’s of films? □ □ □ nooit tussen de 1 en 3 uur meer dan 3 uur
9. Hoe vaak in de week speel je Engelse computergames? □ □ □ nooit tussen de 1 en 3 uur meer dan 3 uur 71
10. A) Heb je familieleden of vrienden in het buitenland wonen die een andere taal spreken en waarmee je wel eens belt/chat/e-mailt in het Engels? Ja / Nee (streep door wat niet van toepassing is)
B) Zo ja, hoe vaak per maand? □ □ □ minder dan 1 keer 1 keer meer dan 1 keer (ik spreek ze niet elke maand)
11. A) Geef aan in hoeverre je Engels een leuk vak vindt van schaal 1 op 10 (een 1 is dus heel stom en een 10 is juist heel leuk).
□ □ □ □ □ □ □ □ □ □ 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
B) Leg uit waarom je dit cijfer hebt gegeven: ………………………………………………………………………………………… ………………………………………………………………………………………… ………………………………………………………………………………………....
12. A) Geef aan in hoeverre je Engels een nuttig vak vindt van schaal 1 op 10 (een 1 is dus helemaal niet nuttig en een 10 is juist wel heel nuttig).
□ □ □ □ □ □ □ □ □ □ 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
B) Leg uit waarom je dit cijfer hebt gegeven: ………………………………………………………………………………………… ………………………………………………………………………………………… ………………………………………………………………………………………....
13. A) Geef aan in hoeverre je Engels een moeilijk vak vindt van schaal 1 op 10 (een 1 is dus heel makkelijk en een 10 is juist heel moeilijk).
□ □ □ □ □ □ □ □ □ □ 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
B) Leg uit waarom je dit cijfer hebt gegeven: ………………………………………………………………………………………… ……………………………………………………………………………………….... ………………………………………………………………………………………....
72
Appendix E: Pages from New Interface
Pages 8 and 9 of Textbook: organisation of New Interface (Cornford, A. et al, textbook 8-9).
73
74
Pages 108 and 109 of Textbook: extracts from grammar index (Cornford, A. et al, textbook
108-109)
75
76
Extract from page 7 of Workbook: grammar exercise, merely focusing on form (Cornford, A. et al, workbook 7)