The Use of L1 and the TL in Focus on Form and Its Impact on Uptake, Noticing and Language Development

<p>Since Long's (1991) coinage of the term focus on form (FonF) to refer to brief attention to form in a meaning-oriented classroom, a substantial amount of research has been conducted on the role of FonF in second language learning. Evidence from this research supports the beneficial effects of FonF on learner noticing and language development (e.g. Doughty & Varela, 1998; Ellis, Basturkmen, & Loewen, 2001a; Loewen, 2005; Lyster & Ranta, 1997; Mackey, 2006). However, some other aspects of FonF, especially in an English-as-a-foreign-language (EFL) setting, have received less attention. For example, it has been widely observed that in EFL settings where the teacher and learners usually share the first language (L1), teacher use of L1 to correct learners' errors is frequent (Anton & DiCamilla, 1999; Crawford, 2004; Gabrielatos, 2001; Macaro, 2001; Turnbull & Arnett, 2002). The effect of L1 versus the target language (TL) use on second language learning in the language classroom has long been an issue of concern for both teachers and researchers (Anton & DiCamilla, 1999; E. Chau, 2007; Crawford, 2004; Gabrielatos, 2001; Swain & Lapkin, 2000; Turnbull & Arnett, 2002). However, choice of the language of form-focused episodes (FFEs) by EFL teachers has received little attention in the FonF research literature. This research study investigates teacher use of L1 and the TL in FonF in an EFL setting in Vietnam and its impact on learner uptake, noticing and language development. The research consists of two studies: an observational/descriptive study followed by an experimental study. The observational study sought to identify general patterns of teacher use of L1 and the TL during FFEs in EFL classes through a close analysis of FFEs occurring in EFL classes in two private language institutions in Vietnam. Twelve class sessions across two proficiency levels with six Vietnamese EFL teachers were observed, audio-recorded and analysed. The results revealed that the amount of FonF and uptake in this setting was similar to amounts reported in other research although there was wide variation across the six class groups and the two proficiency levels. Over 18% of the teacher feedback moves were in L1, although again there was wide variety across classes and proficiency levels. When the L1 Vietnamese teachers gave explicit information to learners in multi-move FFEs, particularly on morphosyntax and lexical FFEs, they were more likely to use L1. These findings informed the experimental study which explored the relationship between the use of L1 and the TL in FFEs and learner uptake, noticing and language development. In this study, three interactive dyadic tasks were performed by individuals from two groups of learner participants with the researcher as interlocutor. Learners from one group received feedback in L1 (n= 20), learners from the other group in the TL (n=23). The analysis revealed that, overall, the amount of uptake was similar between the two groups, suggesting that choice of the language of FonF does not influence learner uptake. Furthermore, the results for noticing and learning suggest that the language of FonF (L1 or the TL) does not strongly influence learning outcomes. By shedding light on teacher use of L1 and the TL in FonF and how this affects uptake, noticing, and learning, this research increases our understanding of the efficacy of FonF in the under-researched setting of non-native English teachers teaching in an EFL context.</p>

The Use of L1 and the TL in Focus on Form and Its Impact on Uptake, Noticing and Language Development

<p>Since Long's (1991) coinage of the term focus on form (FonF) to refer to brief attention to form in a meaning-oriented classroom, a substantial amount of research has been conducted on the role of FonF in second language learning. Evidence from this research supports the beneficial effects of FonF on learner noticing and language development (e.g. Doughty & Varela, 1998; Ellis, Basturkmen, & Loewen, 2001a; Loewen, 2005; Lyster & Ranta, 1997; Mackey, 2006). However, some other aspects of FonF, especially in an English-as-a-foreign-language (EFL) setting, have received less attention. For example, it has been widely observed that in EFL settings where the teacher and learners usually share the first language (L1), teacher use of L1 to correct learners' errors is frequent (Anton & DiCamilla, 1999; Crawford, 2004; Gabrielatos, 2001; Macaro, 2001; Turnbull & Arnett, 2002). The effect of L1 versus the target language (TL) use on second language learning in the language classroom has long been an issue of concern for both teachers and researchers (Anton & DiCamilla, 1999; E. Chau, 2007; Crawford, 2004; Gabrielatos, 2001; Swain & Lapkin, 2000; Turnbull & Arnett, 2002). However, choice of the language of form-focused episodes (FFEs) by EFL teachers has received little attention in the FonF research literature. This research study investigates teacher use of L1 and the TL in FonF in an EFL setting in Vietnam and its impact on learner uptake, noticing and language development. The research consists of two studies: an observational/descriptive study followed by an experimental study. The observational study sought to identify general patterns of teacher use of L1 and the TL during FFEs in EFL classes through a close analysis of FFEs occurring in EFL classes in two private language institutions in Vietnam. Twelve class sessions across two proficiency levels with six Vietnamese EFL teachers were observed, audio-recorded and analysed. The results revealed that the amount of FonF and uptake in this setting was similar to amounts reported in other research although there was wide variation across the six class groups and the two proficiency levels. Over 18% of the teacher feedback moves were in L1, although again there was wide variety across classes and proficiency levels. When the L1 Vietnamese teachers gave explicit information to learners in multi-move FFEs, particularly on morphosyntax and lexical FFEs, they were more likely to use L1. These findings informed the experimental study which explored the relationship between the use of L1 and the TL in FFEs and learner uptake, noticing and language development. In this study, three interactive dyadic tasks were performed by individuals from two groups of learner participants with the researcher as interlocutor. Learners from one group received feedback in L1 (n= 20), learners from the other group in the TL (n=23). The analysis revealed that, overall, the amount of uptake was similar between the two groups, suggesting that choice of the language of FonF does not influence learner uptake. Furthermore, the results for noticing and learning suggest that the language of FonF (L1 or the TL) does not strongly influence learning outcomes. By shedding light on teacher use of L1 and the TL in FonF and how this affects uptake, noticing, and learning, this research increases our understanding of the efficacy of FonF in the under-researched setting of non-native English teachers teaching in an EFL context.</p>

SPEECH ACTS ANALYSIS OF PRE-SERVICE TEACHERS AND STUDENTS AT SMK NEGERI 1 SINGARAJA

This research aims to analyze the kind of speech act used by pre-service teachers and students of SMK Negeri 1 Singaraja in WhatsApp as learning media. Investigate the most dominant speech act used by pre-service teachers and students, and analyze the kind of instructional function used by the pre-service teachers. The data were analyzed using descriptive qualitative. The subject of this research is the pre-service teacher and students in SMK Negeri 1 Singaraja. The data were collected through observation and interview. The data from the observation was collected using an observation sheet which developed from Searle’s (1969) theory of speech act and Johnson’s (1997) theory of instructional function. The interview has been done semi-structured using an interview guide. The result shows that the pre-service teacher use four speech act in the learning activity; representative, directive, commissive, and expressive. The pre-service teacher uses directive speech to act dominantly to make the students active in the learning process. Meanwhile, the students use four speech act, including representative, directive, commissive, and expressive. The students use representative in dominant to be active and getting feedback in the learning activity. The kinds of the instructional function used by the pre-service teacher are control, organize, and motivational. It was found that the directive speech act functioned as control. Commissive functioned as organize. And expressive as motivational function

THE IMPLEMENTATION OF GOOGLE CLASSROOM TO TEACH ENGLISH AT SMPN 2 NGRONGGOT IN PANDEMIC ERA COVID19

The purpose of this study is to know how is the implementation of Google Classroom to teach English at SMPN 2 Ngronggot in pandemic era COVID 19 . Doing learning by using Google Classroom there are many advantages and disadvantages for all of the user excatly IX students at SMPN 2 Ngronggot.This study focused on four aspect. Teacher preparation, implementation of teaching, evaluation and the last students response. The reseacher use four instruments are interview, observation, documentation and students response. For preparation the teacher use lesson plan when she teach the students, for implementation the teacher also use English when she explain the material and sometimes the teacher use Indonesian because not all of the students understand what the teacher said to them, for evaluation the teacher give conclussion for material which them and sometimes the teacher give them homework and they must sumbit in Google Classroom and for the last students response some students still difficulty to use Google Classroom because they think this is new learning.The result of this research is implementation by using Goggle Classroom can be the first method to teach online learning at SMPN 2 Ngronggot and this research also reccomended for, first the students as the students should have motivation although there are many obstacless using Google Classroom one of it is limit in access internet, the handphone is broke or did not have mobile phone but the student must try to join with their friend in order to all of the material can be known, for the teacher should give another ways in order the all of students can follow the material and for next the readers teaching by using Google Classroom can be motivate to others.

Reproductive method in teaching Russian to foreign students and its innovative aspects

The reproductive method in the system of teaching Russian as a foreign language is aimed at reproducing the ways of activity by foreign students according to the algorithms presented by the teacher, at enriching them with knowledge, skills and abilities, as well as at forming the main mental operations: abstraction, analysis, synthesis, generalization, and others. When learning the «language of the profession», the main mental operations are formed: abstraction, analysis, synthesis, generalization, and others. The reproductive method, having the basis of algorithmization, integrated with the cognitive theory of learning, has reached a new level – the reproductivecognitive method. System analysis in combination with algorithmization becomes the basis of the reproductive and creative method. The methods outlined in the article enrich the knowledge, skills and abilities of students, which are most often carried out at the stages of correction, diagnosis and consolidation of knowledge, but do not guarantee the development of creative abilities, do not allow them to be systematically and purposefully formed. In particular, the concept of the reproductive-creative method is the principle of communicative orientation, which formed the basis of competence-based learning. In competence-based learning, the activity component, unlike other possible approaches, is considered from the viewpoint of competence, i.e., the ability of the student to effectively and independently, but with the help of the teacher, use the language being studied on the basis of the acquired experience in the form of knowledge, skills, and abilities. The knowledge obtained as a result of the use of the explanatory and illustrative method weakly forms skills and abilities. Therefore, thanks to the developed system of tasks, where the algorithmization of the educational process is clearly traced, the teacher organizes the students’ activities by repeatedly reproducing the knowledge communicated to them and the ways of activity shown.