A Review of Domestic Studies on Focus on Form Instruction

Expand

Online published: 2024-04-28

Abstract

Focus on Form (FonF) combines the advantages of two teaching methods, i.e., Focus on Forms and Focus on Meaning. Hence, it is conducive to improving language learners’ accuracy and facilitating their language learning. An overview of the domestic studies on FonF can help promote in-depth research into this topic. The analysis of 76 domestic research articles on FonF between 2003 and 2022 leads to the findings that: empirical research has gradually become the dominant paradigm; the development trend presents a dynamic change; the research topics include comparisons between FonF instruction and other teaching methods, the effectiveness of FonF, the timing and means of FonF, learner uptake in FonF, and investigation of FonF instruction in China. Though some initial achievements have been made in the past twenty years, domestic studies are not immune to such problems as paucity of studies on FonF theories and biases in selecting the topics of the study. Therefore, future studies should aim to establish a theoretical system of FonF in the domestic context, further expand empirical research topics, and enrich research results.

Cite this article

GAO Yibo . A Review of Domestic Studies on Focus on Form Instruction[J]. Contemporary Foreign Languages Studies, 2024 , 24(2) : 100 -107 . DOI: 10.3969/j.issn.1674-8921.2024.02.009

References

[1] Ellis R., H. Basturkmen & S. Loewen. 2001. Preemptive focus on form in the ESL classroom[J]. TESOL Quarterly 35(3): 407-432.
[2] Long M. H. 1991. Focus on form: A design feature in language teaching methodology[A]. In K. DeBot, R. Ginsberg & C. Kramsch (eds.). Foreign Language Research in Cross-cultural Perspective[C]. Amsterdam: John Benjamins Publishing Company. 39-52.
[3] Lyster R. & L. Ranta. 1997. Corrective feedback and learner uptake: Negotiation of form in communicative classrooms[J]. Studies in Second Language Acquisition 19(1): 37-66.
[4] 蔡植瑜. 2008. 交际语言教学中的聚焦于形插曲——英语专业精品课程课堂教学个案研究[J]. 外语教学理论与实践(3): 20-28.
[5] 邓跃平. 2011. 重述和澄清要求与儿童外语发展[J]. 外国语文(5): 54-58.
[6] 刁亚军、 徐琴芳. 2008. 注重形式的教学对语言输出的影响[J]. 基础英语教育(1): 28-33.
[7] 高强、 李艳. 2006. 国外语言形式教学新近研究进展述评[J]. 外语教学(5): 53-58.
[8] 高强、 赵娜. 2007. Focus on form理论与中学英语语法教学[J]. 基础英语教育(4): 3-6.
[9] 何莲珍、 王敏. 2004. 交际课堂中的形式教学——国外近期研究综述[J]. 外语与外语教学(1): 23-27.
[10] 黄若妤. 2008. “讲授型外语学习”语境下的“计划性词汇教学”(PLI) 模式构架[J]. 外语与外语教学(4): 30-33,56.
[11] 黄燕. 2019. 任务聚焦度与二语水平对产出驱动下词汇习得的影响[J]. 当代外语研究(4): 37-47.
[12] 林琼. 2015. 二语互动环境下重铸有效性问题的内在机制研究[J]. 北京第二外国语学院学报(6): 13-18.
[13] 田丽丽. 2011. 形式教学对二语接受型词汇成绩的影响[J]. 外语与外语教学(2): 52-56.
[14] 王伟清. 2016. 二语教师口头修正性反馈的效果——对25项西方实证研究的元分析[J]. 外语教学与研究 (2): 274-286,321.
[15] 王伟清、 唐伟玲. 2015. 寓教于“行”:二语教师在修正性反馈中的非言语行为[J]. 当代外语研究 (1):39-45.
[16] 徐锦芬、 李昶颖. 2019. 初中英语教师形式聚焦教学实证研究[J]. 外语教学理论与实践(3):12-18.
[17] 徐锦芬、 李昶颖. 2020. 形式聚焦教学时机对不同英语水平学习者语法习得的效果研究[J]. 外语教学理论与实践(2):50-56.
[18] 俞洪亮. 2003. 国外以形式为中心的课堂教学研究:历史与现状[J]. 国外外语教学(4):1-8.
[19] 张凯、 王慧敏. 2017. 反馈时机对中国英语学习者口语准确性和流利性发展的影响[J]. 中国海洋大学学报(社会科学版)(1): 103-108.
[20] 赵永平、 彭洁. 2013. 形式教学视域中的语用教学实证研究[J]. 当代外语研究 (10): 33-37,77.
Outlines

/