The effects of implicit grammar intruction as operationalized by input enhancement on enghlish non majored students acquisition of the future tenses submitted to the faculty of english linguistics

VIETNAM NATIONAL UNIVERSITY – HOCHIMINH CITYUNIVERSITY OF SOCIAL SCIENCES AND HUMANITIES FACULTY OF ENGLISH LINGUISTICS & LITERATURE    THE EFFECTS OF IMPLICIT GRAMMAR INSTRUCTION AS

VIETNAM NATIONAL UNIVERSITY – HOCHIMINH CITY

UNIVERSITY OF SOCIAL SCIENCES AND HUMANITIES

FACULTY OF ENGLISH LINGUISTICS & LITERATURE

  

THE EFFECTS OF IMPLICIT GRAMMAR

INSTRUCTION AS OPERATIONALIZED BY INPUT ENHANCEMENT ON ENGLISH NON-MAJORED STUDENTS ‘ACQUISITION OF THE FUTURE TENSES

Submitted to the Faculty of English Linguistics & Literature

In partial fulfillment of the Master’s degree in TESOL

BY

LE THI MONG TUYEN Supervised by NGUYEN THU HUONG, Ph.D

This thesis could not have been completed without the kind help of manypeople to whom I would like to express my sincere appreciation and gratitude.First of all, I wish to send my deepest gratitude to my thesis supervisor, Dr.Nguyen Thu Huong for his whole-hearted guidance, valuable supports, helpfulcomments, and great encouragement I am indebted to him for his step-by-stepguidance throughout the research although his health has not been always in goodcondition He spent much time proofreading my thesis draft as well as instructed

me to analyze statistical data In addition, he also provided me with useful sources

of materials of my topic

Secondly, I would like to thank all of my lectures of the graduate program

in MA courses, who have inspired me with new ways to teach English and laidfoundation for this thesis

I am also grateful to the students from Ton Duc Thang University, whoparticipated in this research, for their enthusiastic cooperation in the process of myexperimental doing

I would like to send special thanks to my colleagues and my friends for theircomments, suggestions, and advice My deep gratitude goes to Mr Le Hung Vu, Ms

Le Nhu Thao and Ms Cu Nhat Suong for their careful proofreading the thesis

My heartfelt thanks and love will send to my Uncle Bi for his warmencouragement, unending help, and support

I am greatly indebted to my husband, Ty, who made too many sacrifices for me

to finish this thesis and was always by my side for great encouragement andmotivation

Last but wholeheartedly, this thesis was dedicated in memory of my late fatherwho had soon left my family and I while I was on the last stage of the thesis

STATEMENT OF ORIGINALITY

I certify that the thesis entitled:

THE EFFECTS OF IMPLICIT GRAMMAR INSTRUCTION AS OPERATIONALIZED BY INPUT ENHANCEMENT ON ENGLISH NON- MAJORED STUDENTS ‘ACQUISITION OF THE FUTURE TENSES

is my own study except the references included in the thesis This thesis hasnot been submitted for the award of any degree or diploma in any otherinstitutions

Ho Chi Minh City, February 2014

LE THI MONG TUYEN

RETENTION AND USE OF THE THESIS

I hereby state that I, LE THI MONG TUYEN, being the candidate for thedegree of Master of Arts in TESOL, accept the requirements of the Universityrelating to the retention and use of Master’s theses deposited in the Library

In terms of these conditions, I agree that the original of my thesis deposited inthe Library should be accessible for purposes of study and research, in accordancewith the normal conditions established by the Library for the care, loan, orreproduction of the thesis

Ho Chi Minh City, February 2014

LE THI MONG TUYEN

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Acknowledgements i

Certificate of originality ii

Retention and use of the thesis iii

Table of contents iv

List of abbreviations ix

List of tables x

List of charts xi

Abstract xii

CHAPTER 1: INTRODUCTION 1

1.1 Background to the study 2

1.2 Research aims 3

1.3 Research questions 3

1.4 Research hypothesis 4

1.5 Significance of the Study 4

1.6 Organization of the Study 5

CHAPTER 2: LITERATURE REVIEW 6

2.1 Theoretical Concepts 6

2.1.1 Overview of Grammar Instruction 6

2.1.2 Explicit and Implicit Grammar Instruction 9

2.1.2.1 Explicit Grammar Instruction 10

2.1.2.2 Implicit Grammar Instruction 11

2.2 Studies on Implicit Grammar Instruction 14

2.3 Conceptual Framework 21

2.4 Chapter Summary 24

CHAPTER 3: METHODOLOGY 25

3.1 Study Setting 25

3.2 Participants 25

3.3 Design of the study 27

3.4 Instruments 28

3.4.1 Proficiency test 28

3.4.2 Grammaticality judgment test (GJT) 29

3.4.2.1 Designing the GJT 29

3.4.2.2 Scoring the GJT 30

3.4.3.3 Piloting the GJT 31

3.4.3 Grammar test (GT) 32

3.4.3.1 Designing the GT 32

3.4.2.2 Scoring the GT 33

3.4.3.3 Piloting the GT 33

3.4.4 Questionnaire 34

3.4.4.1 Designing the questionnaire 34

3.4.4.2 Piloting the questionnaire 35

3.5 Reliability of the instruments 36

3.6 Pilot teaching stage 38

3.7 Treatment 39

3.7.1 Future tenses 39

3.7.2 Procedure 41

3.8 Data analysis 44

3.8.1 T-test 45

3.8.2 Bivariate Correlations 45

3.8.3 Frequency and Percentage 45

3.9 Chapter summary 45

CHAPTER 4: RESULTS 4.1 Statistical Analysis of Tests 46

4.1.1 Research question 1 46

4.1.2 Research question 2 49

4.1.3 Research question 3 52

4.1.4 Research question 4: Statistical Analysis of Questionnaire 53

4.1.4.1 The participants’ attitudes towards the interests of IGI 54

4.1.4.2 The participants’ attitudes towards the usefulness of IGI 56

4.1.4.3 The participants’ attitudes towards the way to achieve rules 57

4.1.4.4 The participants’ positive performance after treatment ……… 59

4.1.4.5 The participants’ suggestion for this method better applied 60

4.2 Chapter Summary 62

CHAPTER 5: DISCUSSION OF THE FINDINGS 63

5.1 Research Question 1 63

5.2 Research Question 2 65

5.3 Research Question 3 66

5.4 Research Question 4 67

5.5 Chapter Summary 68

CHAPTER 6: CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENCATIONS 69

6.1 Summary of Key Findings 69

6.1 Implications 70

6.2 Limitations 72

6.1 Recommendations 72

6.1 Chapter Summary 73

REFERENCES 74

APPENDICES 79

APPENDIX 1: Proficiency Test 79

APPENDIX 2A: Grammaticality Judgment Test (Pretest) 85

APPENDIX 2B: Grammaticality Judgment Test (Posttest) 88

APPENDIX 3A: Grammar Test (Pretest) 92

APPENDIX 3B: Grammar Test (Posttest) 94

APPENDIX 4A: Questionnaire (English Version) 96

APPENDIX 4B: Questionnaire (Vietnamese Version) 99

APPENDIX 5A: Lesson Plan (Experimental Group) 102

APPENDIX 5B: Lesson Plan (Comparison Group) 112

APPENDIX 6A: Independent Sample T-Test (Proficiency Test) 122

APPENDIX 6B: Independent Sample T-Test (Grammaticality Judgment Test) 123

APPENDIX 6C: Independent Sample T-Test (Grammar Test) 124

APPENDIX 7A: Paired-Sample T-Test (Grammaticality Judgment Test) 125

APPENDIX 7B: Pair-Sample T-Test (Grammar Test) 126

APPENDIX 8: Bivariate Correlations 127

LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS

sig (2-tailed) : significance (two-tailed)

LIST OF TABLES, FIGURES, AND CHARTS

Table

Table 3.2 The description of the participants in the proficiency test 26

Table 3.4.4.1 Summary of questionnaire’s contents……….34

Table 3.7.1 Summary of Future tense with Forms, Meanings, and Usages 40

Table 3.7.2a Teaching procedure for the experimental group in the treatment stage 41

Table 3.7.2.b Summary of the Treatment for the Experimental Group 43

Table 3.7.2.c Summary of the Treatment for the Control Group 44

Table 3.7.3 Summary of the Treatment for the Experimental Group and the Control Group .

Table 4.1.1.a Summary of the T-Test result for Post-GT 46

Table 4.1.1.b Summary of the T-Test result for Pre-GT 47

Table 4.1.1.c Summary of the T-Test result for Post-GJT 47

Table 4.1.1.d Summary of the T-Test result for Pre-GJT 48

Table 4.2.1 Summary of GT results among different forms of the future tenses within the experimental group 49

Table 4.2.2 Summary of GJT results among different forms of the future tenses within the experimental group 50

Table 4.3.a Correlation results between proficiency and GT 52

Table 4.3.b Correlation results between proficiency and GJT 53

Table 4.4.1 The participants’ attitudes toward interest and enjoyableness of IGI 54

Table 4.4.2 The participants’ attitudes toward the usefulness of IGI 56

Table 4.4.3 The participants’ attitudes toward way to achieve grammatical rules 58

Table 4.4.4 The participants’ positive performances after treatment of IGI 59

Table 4.4.5 Suggestions for the improvement of IGI 60

Figure 2.3 Conceptual framework 23

Chart Chart 4.1.1 GJT & GT scores between two groups 48

Chart 4.1.2 Mean difference of four domains of future tenses in the GT& GJT within the experimental group 51

Chart 4.1.4.1 Reasons for interests 55

Chart 4.1.4.2 Reasons for usefulness 57

Chart 4.1.4.3 Ways to achieve grammar rules 58

Chart 4.1.4.4 Participants’ positive performance after treatment 60

Chart 4.1.4.5 Suggestion for this method better applied 61

knowledge in the domain of the future tenses as exemplified through will, be going to, simple present and present continuous and their performance on the use of these four

forms A questionnaire was also implemented to survey students’ attitude towards thenewly grammar instruction

The results gained after the study demonstrated that students in the EGsignificantly outperformed those in the CG in terms of grammar knowledge andperformance on future tenses Besides, in a deeper analysis regarding four domains of

the future tenses, the present continuous was found to be least improved in comparison to will, be going to, and simple present In addition, the statistical results

revealed that the treatment applied in this study was effective because there was nocorrelation between the grammatical proficiency levels and their gains in the posttests

of GJT and GT Moreover, the data obtained from the questionnaire indicated that theexperimental students had positive attitudes toward implicit grammar instruction

In brief, the positive research findings have offered some implications for theapplication of implicit grammar instruction in teaching and learning grammar inuniversities in Vietnam

CHAPTER 1 INTRODUCTION

Grammar has been widely known as one of the most important domain ofEnglish teaching and learning It is at the heart of language use whether it involvesspeaking, listening, reading, or writing (Alderson & Bachman, 2004, as cited inPurpora, 2004) This demonstrates that grammar has significantly contributed to theintegration of the four English skills as well as helps learners achieve languagecompetence The question of how grammar should be taught has been controversialissues in the history of second language and foreign language teaching so far.Traditionally, grammar lessons mainly involve the transmission of grammatical rulesfrom teacher to student (i.e teacher-fronted teaching method) since many believe thatgrammar are best instructed deductively As a consequence, learners cannot acquirethoroughly all grammatical rules even though they were offered a great deal ofgrammar knowledge For instance, a large number of students believe the utterancebelow is correct, “My sister’s flight will arrive at 11:30 tomorrow” to talk about aflight’s schedule although they were provided with lots of rules of future tensesbefore

As a result, many school years elapsed and many generations of studentsfinished their English courses with a wide gap left in their grammar knowledge sincethey lack abilities to apply the real usage of grammar into reality situations Thereason is concluded that learners know grammar rules but they cannot recognizeconveyed meanings of the grammar structures Therefore, the teacher-fronted methodshoud be replaced by a reformed one in which students are not flooded with rules andstructures It is in this perspective that this research paper has been put forward

1.1 Background to the study

In the context of teaching and learning English in most universities in Vietnam,grammar is an obligatory subject in any training program with the predominantapplication of deductive approach This reality has persistently existed in almostsecondary and high school where grammar has been instructed traditionally for years.That means university students had to study English grammar via teacher –frontedinstruction the same as they were formerly treated in junior and senior high schools.Therefore, when asked, most students revealed they were unwilling to follow teachers’instruction because they were under the pressures of numerous midterms and finaltests Consequently, students always put up with passivity and fatigue of studyinggrammar when they were usually asked to memorize and recite definitions, rules,examples, and exceptions

From the problems discussed, it can be seen that EFL students are de-motivated

in learning grammar because they spend a great deal of time learning grammar, butthey cannot use them precisely Actually, there should be more tasks designed to getstudents involved in practical activities to help them find out grammar rulesthemselves instead providing them with grammar rules, definition, or exceptionsexplicitly Therefore, it is believed that grammar instruction involves tasks thatenhance learners’ attention on target forms, facilitate their comprehension on thoseforms, and foster their discovery grammatical rules will greatly benefit students’acquisition of the grammar knowledge as well as help them clear away unwillingfeeling in dealing with grammar

English grammar can be encapsulated in common tenses and aspects whichhave repetitively introduced to students since they first engaged in studying English.Among those common tenses, the future tenses are considered one of the mostpopularly used in many textbooks (in both oral and written forms) as well as invarious kinds of practical tests of the school’s testing framework Unexpectedly, the

majority of students’ mistakes involve this kind of tense, hence they could hardly usethe future tense properly although they were flooded with grammatical rules again andagain during a four-year course Thus, educators and teachers’ pedagogical purposemay fail because students could not apply what they were instructed to express whatthey would like to communicate Based on the reality of teaching and learninggrammar together with its existing shortcomings, the aim of the study and researchquestions are set up as follows.

1.2 Research aim:

The aim of the study is twofold First, it aims at investigating the effectiveness

of input enhancement - a form of implicit grammar teaching - at the practice stage onEnglish non-majored students’ acquisition of future tenses Second, the study aims toexplore the experimental students’ perceptions of the effectiveness and challenges ofthe treatment

1.3 Research questions

The thesis seeks the answers to the following questions:

1 Is there a significant difference between the experimental group and thecomparison group as a result of the treatment of implicit grammar instructionthrough the use of input enhancement as measured by grammar tests andgrammaticality judgment tests?

2 What are some aspects of future tenses that might present a problem forexperimental group after the treatment?

3 Is there a relationship between grammatical proficiency level and the acquisition

of future tenses gains as measured by grammar test and grammaticality judgmenttest?

4 What are experimental student’s perceptions of the effectiveness of the treatment?

To what extent do the experimental students have positive views towards thetreatment of implicit grammar instruction?

2 Students find it more challenging in dealing with simple present and present

continuous which are considered unusual/ignored domains of futurity

3 There will be a relationship between the grammar tests gained administered afterthe treatment with the students’ proficiency level

4 Students will have positive attitudes towards implicit grammar instruction

1.5 Significance of the study

Given the importance in English grammar to EFL learners, the future tenses arecommonly taken into the school syllabus of almost universities in Vietnam in generaland TDTU in particular Therefore, an investigation into how to better the reality ofteaching and learning the future tenses to EFL learners at TDTU is a great necessityfor both learners and teachers This study is to examine the effectiveness of implicitgrammar instruction on students’ acquisition of the future tenses The results of thisstudy prove its contribution to the improvement of learners’ language proficiency inthe way students can acquire the future tenses, use them properly and thus help themgain better marks in tests Besides, the research’s findings may persuade teachers ofthe importance of carefully organizing input rather than manipulating learners ‘output

in teaching grammar In addition, the thesis helps students clear up their indifferentfeeling as well as offers them a positive insight towards studying grammar Moreover,this study will provide groundwork for further research in the domain of grammar andrelated fields in which implicit grammar instruction can bring in many benefits

1.6 Organization of the study

The present study comprises of six chapters Chapter 1 starts the whole thesiswith the introduction in which six parts are included : the background of the problem,aim of the study, research questions, hypothesis, significance of the study andorganization of the study Chapter 2 is the literature review where theoreticalframework empirical studies and conceptual framework are discussed In theoreticalframework section, an overview of grammar instruction with the two main approaches

of explicit and implicit is presented Then related studies to the paper are brought in,and finally a conceptual framework for the study is formulated Chapter 3 presents theresearch design and methodology employed in the study This chapter consists ofstudy setting, descriptions of participants, research designs, instruments, pilot stages,and procedures of the study and method of analysis Chapter 4 is the data analysispart The data are collected from the proficiency test, pre-post grammaticalityjudgment tests, pre-post grammar tests, and the questionnaires Next, chapter 5 is putforward to have the findings results discussed Chapter 6 presents the conclusions,recommendations for further research and some limitations of the study

CHAPTER 2 LITERATURE REVIEW

This chapter reviews the literature of grammar instruction At first, anoverview of grammar teaching is presented Then it is followed by a reviewabout the two grammar instructions i.e explicit and implicit In the theoreticalframework of implicit grammar teaching section, the definitions andclarifications of input enhancement and its related components are alsodiscussed The next section is extended with related studies on implicit grammarinstruction Finally, a conceptual framework is put on view to close the chapter

of literature review

2.1 Theoretical concepts

The theoretical concepts for the study are presented respectively with anoverview of grammar instruction at first, the discussions of explicit and implicitgrammar instruction are followed, and details about the feature of inputenhancement technique are presented at the end

2.1.1 Overview of Grammar Instruction

Over the past decades, the role of grammar teaching has been andcontinues to be one of the most controversial issues in the domain of languageteaching An outstanding issue is which grammar teaching method best benefitssecond language learners Actually, grammar teaching has undergone differentperiods from grammar translation method (GTM), then direct method (DM),audio-lingual method (ALM), three Ps method (presentation-practice-productionmethod-PPP) to communicative language teaching approach (CLT) and recentapproaches Overviews of these grammar instructions are briefly presented asfollowed

First, in GTM, learners are instructed mainly through translation into thenative language and memorization of grammar rules and vocabularies (Hinkeland Fotos, 2002, p.2) Therefore, students cannot use grammar accurately as well

as cannot apply grammar knowledge in communication although they spent agreat deal of time studying them (Zainuddin et al, 2011).Put forward later thanthe GTM at the beginning of the 20th century, ALM and DM approaches are also

a reaction to the grammar translation methodology” (Hinkel and Fotos, 2002,p.2) Likewise, under the application of these two instructions, learners could notuse the language for communicative purpose even though they are flooded withgrammar rules, drilling, and repetitions for accurate production of the targetlanguage In the 1960s , Skehan (1998, p.94, as cited in Hinkel and Fotos, 2002,p.3) termed three Ps approach, i.e presentation-practice-production, whichpresents rules and drills for specific grammatical or functional aspects of alanguage in “a linear sequence from ‘easy’ to ‘difficult’ and stress immediateproduction of correct form” However, Schmidt (as cited in Thornbury, 2005,p36), suspected, “simply being taught and drilled a form was not enough” Oncemore, there was no opportunity for true “communication” to take place inclassroom

Then, in the 1970s, communicative language teaching approach (CLT)was introduced to satisfy communicative competence and to develop proceduresfor the teaching of the four language skills in communication However, CLTencountered limitations to students who are reluctant to participate incommunicative activities and low in English proficiency as Li, D (2001) stated.Therefore Brown’s concern “how to facilitate lifelong language learning amongour students, not just with immediate classroom task” (1994, p.77) is hardlycleared away despite the existence of CLT For that reason, other grammarteaching approaches have been worked out to meet the requirements of EFLclassrooms in teaching and learning grammar

Only since 1980s, task-based approach which has been prominent inteaching grammar at this time received great support from many researchers andcurriculum developers (Crookes & Gass, 1993a, 1993b; Dickins & Woods, 1988,Long, 1991; Long 7 Crookes, 1992; Nunan, 1989, 1993; Prabhu, 1987;Robinson, 1996; Skehan, 1996, 1998 as cited in Fotos, 2008, p.123) They

proposed that second/foreign languages could be effectively taught through this

kind of task For the popular use of task in language instruction, a number of

definitions of tasks have been put forward including 1 Long (1983), 2 Prabhu(1987), 3 Pica, Holliday, Lewis & Morgenthaler (1989), and 4 Nunan

(1989, 1993) Fotos (2002, p.126) respectively as followed cited those scholars’

definitions: Task(s) as 1 “a piece of work or activity from everyday life,

undertaken for self or other, done freely or based on reward”, 2 “interactive

activities that require learners to negotiate meaning and to arrive at an outcome”,

3.“activities carried out through language according to procedures for communication requiring the encoding and acting on of information; 4.

“classroom work requiring learners to comprehend, manipulate, produce, orinteract in meaning focused use of the target language” For Willis and Willis(2007, p.173), tasks are activities “where the target language is used by thelearners for a communicative purpose (goal) in order to achieve an outcome”.From these definitions, it can be seen that the primary focus of the tasksmentioned is on meaning rather than form In addition, they are consideredcommunicative activities in the classroom Obviously, it has been widely

recognized that task plays a central role in current SLA research and language

pedagogy because ‘interaction’ is the basis element of language acquisition(Ellis, 1997) Therefore, this task-based approach supplies learners with morecommunicative activities and has widely applied in EFL classrooms Besides,some other kinds of grammar instructions have been recommended in teachinggrammar

Input-oriented grammar instruction proposed by Ellis (1997) has receivedsupport from current theories of SLA This kind of approach involves grammartasks that “do not require learners to engage in production but instead focus theirattention on specific structures and help them to understand the meaning(s)which these structures realize” (p.87) It is to induce them to undertake a kind ofform-function analysis of language input, i.e the target structures For example,learners may be asked to listen to sentences (some of which are active and some

passive in voice) and then select the appropriate form of a series of sentences tomatch the meanings displayed in pictures This kind of grammar activities was

referred as an interpretation task, a means of input enhancement (Ellis, 1997,

p.88)

The aim of input processing activities in this approach is to “enhanceform-meaning connections” which compels learners to focus attention on thetarget structure and to process it for meaning(s) (Nassai & Fotos, 2011, p 28)

Therefore making input, i.e “language data through utterances or texts” (Sharwood Smith, 1994, p.8) comprehensible and turning it into intake, i.e “part

of input has actually been processed by the learners and turned into knowledge ofsome kind” (Sharwood Smith, 1993, p.167) are centrality in this approach.Hence, this instruction is considered beneficial communicative activities becauselearners are engaged in meaning-focused interaction For that reason, drawinglearners’ attention on the target structures is indispensible Then, SharwoodSmith (1991) proposed input-enhancement, which is considered “attention-drawing machine”, is one of the most optimal techniques through which the input

is intentionally enhanced Further details about this kind of technique will beclearly discussed in section 2.1.2.2

2.1.2 Explicit and Implicit Grammar Instruction

The previous part has outlined changes with many approaches proposedfrom traditional to recent ones to have grammar best taught Different attemptshave been made in helping learners acquire new grammatical structures Thefocus has been on how to guarantee students’ retentions of the input provided.Among suggested techniques, input enhancement seems promising in grammarteaching due to its special characteristics Prior to describing the significant roles

of this input-structure based approach, it seems useful to mention a little aboutthe term ‘instruction’, and the differences between ‘implicit and explicitgrammar instruction’ According to Ellis (2009, p16), the term instruction

“implies an attempt to intervene in interlanguage development” Nassaji and

Fotos (2011) distinguished two models of explicit and implicit instructions asfollowed: explicit grammar instruction is taken place when grammar is taughtexplicitly through a formal presentation of grammatical rules whereas grammar

is instructed implicitly through nature exposure to meaningful language use Thefollowing sub-sections will provide further information about these twoinstructions

2.1.2.1 Explicit Grammar Instruction (EGI)

Explicit grammar teaching is called deductive instruction (Cowan, 2008,

p.31), in which learners are supplies with a rule (or, perhaps, part of a rule)which they then apply, complete, or amend in a task that requires them to analyzedata that illustrate its use (Ellis, 1997, p.85) In another words, in EGI, “differentstructures are presented and then practical in different kinds of exercises andactivities including memorizing dialogs, reading simplified texts, doingtransformation, and getting explicit negative feedback i.e correction of errors bythe teacher”.(Cowan,2008, p.32) Long (1997 as cited in Cowan, 2008, p32)referred this traditional presentation-practice model as focus on forms andcriticized it does not result in learning and it teaches more than the learner needs

In addition, Spada (as cited in Nunan, 1999, p.47) reviewed that “explicitgrammatical instruction was superior to traditional classrooms that focusedheavily on grammar”

Before shifting to some descriptions of IGI, two drawbacks of EGI will bementioned in this piece of paragraph In EGI, mechanical pattern-practice drillsthat provide learners with opportunities to produce sentences containing thetargeted structure have traditionally conducted grammar teaching (Ellis, 1997,p.149) This method aims at requiring learners to produce the structure correctlyand repeatedly helps learners to learn it Therefore, Krashen (1982, as cited inEllis, 1997, p.149) pointed out such traditional method faces two problems

“First, there is a learnability problem: teaching learner to produce target

structures that they are not developmentally ready to produce may not work.

Second, asking learners to produce grammatical structures they find difficult and

then correcting them when they make mistakes may increase their anxiety and result in psycho-affective block to learning” Based on these critical thinking,

EGI seems ineffectual in grammar teaching and learning

2.1.2.2 Implicit Grammar Instruction (IGI)

While explicit grammar instruction relates to deduction, implicit grammarinstruction, which refers induction and a focus on form, involves having studentsformulate grammar rules from natural language without being presentedgrammatical explanations (Cowan, 2008, p.32) In IGI, grammar is instructedindirectly through carefully organizing the input instead forcing learners toproduce output (Ellis, 1997, p.88), it enables learners to infer grammar rules fromthe given input and the designed tasks with no teacher-fronted instruction orgrammatical explanations However, it requires an application of somepedagogical techniques to raise learners’ attention and/or noticing on input data.The technique commonly used in this approach is input enhancement whichNasaji and Fotos (2011) defined as “mechanisms that can help learners attend toaspect of input that may not be noticed under natural circumstances”

Before discussing the functions and characteristics of input enhancement,

it is worth elaborating the three notions: attention /noticing, input, and intakebecause they are all critical issues in input enhancement First, attention and/ornoticing is indispensible factor for learning to take place and it is considered

‘integral foundations for input-based language learning to work’ (Schmidt, 1994).Second, input is a decisive factor of SLA because learners use it in order toconstruct a mental representation of the grammar that they are requiring Theyprovide the necessary and sufficient condition for acquisition to proceed if theyare comprehensible (Gass,1997; Krashen, 1985, 1994, as cited in Vanpattern,2004) Third, Vanpatten (2004, p.6) defined intake as “a subset of input that hasbeen processed in working memory and made available for further processing”.Thus intake facilitation is “what the basis of language learning becomes” asNassaji & Fotos, (2011, p.21) stated According to Ellis (1997), intake facilitationrequires the use of interpretation tasks (a means of input enhancement) which

“emphasizes helping learners to notice grammatical features in the input,comprehend their meaning, and compare the forms present in the input with thoseoccurring in learners’ output”(Ellis 1995, p.87 and Ellis ,1997, p.149).

Input enhancement

Input enhancement was first known as consciousness-raising, whichmeans that “the language teacher tries to raise the language learners’consciousness of the new target forms” (Alssaddan, 2011) Before the term inputenhancement was coined by Sharwood Smith (1991), Sharwood Smith (1981)and Rutherford and Sharwood Smith (1985) used the term consciousness-raising

in their original discussion Then in his later publications, Sharwood Smith(1991, 1993) exchanged consciousness-raising term with input enhancementbecause he argued that “the term is misleading because it implies that learners’internal attentional mechanisms can be controlled or manipulated by the input,which is not true” Therefore, he prefers input enhancement as it is more accurateand suggests that what is controlled is external to the learner and can only berestricted to the material presented (as cited in Nasaji and Fotos, 2011, p.38)

According to Nasaji & Fotos (2011), input enhancement (visual or textualenhancement) is the process by which input, i.e target forms are made salient toattract learners’ attention on them while learners’ remains are focused onmeaning, therefore their language acquisition is promoted Textual enhancementprompts learners to notice and analyze the implicit rules and properties of target

structures by means of various typographic devices, such as bolding,

underlining, italicizing, CAPITALIZING, color coding or a combine of these inthe input via written contexts or spoken contexts (through making use of oralrepetition or stress) It is an external “attention-drawing device” whereby anyparticular feature of the oral or written input can be made perceptually salient toL2 learners so that they can notice the targeted forms without any grammaticalexplanation

The role of input enhancement has been emphasized in a number of

studies Sharwood Smith (1991, 1993) describes input-enhancement asdeliberate attempts to make specific features of L2 input more salient It isdifferent from teacher-fronted instruction in which grammatical rules andmetalinguistic explanations are directly instructed (Rutherford, 1987) Inaddition, N.Ellis (1993, 1995, as stated in Alsadhan, 2011, p.23) stated that inputenhancement is an effective option in language teaching… and it is ideal formeaning-based classroom that focus on meaning interaction” Indeed, the role ofenhanced input in drawing learners’ attention to L2 form has been expressed in aconsiderable amount of research (e.g Shook, 1994; Alanen, 1995; Jourdenais et

al , 1995) In short, as discussed, now that the role of attention and/or noticingare crucial in language teaching to facilitate form-meaning analysis, inputenhancement -a kind of implicit grammar instruction- is considered beneficial tolanguage teaching and learning in EFL classroom, especially in grammar class

In short, textual enhancement is employed to make the target forms more

salient through typographical modification such as bolding and italicizing to help

learners notice the forms and facilitate the form-meaning connections Actually,Jourdenais et al (1995, p.208) stated that “typographical modification can beused as an effective technique for enhancing salience of language features” As aresult, it is beneficial for language learners in the way it can draw their attention

to form while working on meaningful input In addition, it can be easilycombined with other focus on form strategies (Nasaji and Fotos, 2011).Therefore, it is popularly used in second language acquisition and it is promisingfor both enhancing noticing and facilitating meaning as well

As discussed above, input enhancement or textual enhancement is used

to help learners infer grammatical rules through noticing input under the form ofimplicit grammar instruction, which does not involve providing any grammaticalexplanations It is “almost completely meaning-focused”; however, there are “noother clues in the text” to help learners detect meanings except for highlightedmodifications on texts (Thornbury, 2005, p.40) As a result, learners mayencounter difficulties in learning language because their levels of language

proficiency are not all equal For that reason, “input enhancement alone may not

be able to bring about learning” (Nassaji & Fotos, 2011, p.46) The questionthen becomes how to optimize this technique to help learners achieve languageacquisition goals Ellis (1997, p.147) concludes, “where the goal is implicitknowledge that grammar teaching should focus on structuring the input to fosterintake” i.e it requires intake facilitation (p.149) In brief, to make textualenhancement most effective, it is important to promote the transformation ofinput to intake and Ellis (1997) suggested the use of interpretation as a means togain facilitate the intake

2.2 Studies on Implicit Grammar Instruction

A number of studies have examined the effectiveness of input enhancementtechnique on learners’ noticing to facilitate the acquisition of the grammar in asecond/foreign language However, mixed results have been reported concerningthe effects of textual enhancement (TE) Some researchers have found that TEhas positive effects on second language learners’ grammatical developmentwhile others have pointed out TE brings in partial effects and negative effects onlearners’ improvement The following section reviews five studies regarding tothe positive effects of textual input enhancement on L2 learners’ noticing andacquisition In the first three studies, each of the research targeted twogrammatical verb tenses The last two studies, on the other hands, focused ononly one grammatical structure in each

Jourdenais et al (1995) investigated the effects of textual enhancement onlearners’ noticing on Spanish preterite and imperfect past tense forms.Participants were ten English learners of Spanish, they were assigned into twogroups for the study: one enhanced group who received reading texts in whichthe target structures were highlighted and one unenhanced group who receivedthe same reading texts but the target structured were not typographicallymodified The two different targeted forms including 18 items in preterit and 10items in imperfect were distinguished by means of using the different TE formatsincluding bolding, underlining, and shadowing In the study, think-aloud

protocols and a picture-based production task were employed t o e v a l u a t e

Shook (1994)’s study examined the effectiveness of textual enhancement

in a second language context This study involved a greater number of subjects,i.e., 125 first and second year Spanish learners They were assigned into threegroups: two experimental groups, and one control group The two target featuresused in this study was the relative pronouns (que, quien) and the present perfect

of Spanish language The study consisted of two relatively short of one-hoursessions Shook applied multiple-choice recognition and fill in the blankproduction to measure learners’ intake Participants in the first group and thesecond group received the same passage containing six items for the relativepronoun forms and six items for the present perfect target structures all whichwere enhanced by means of textual modifications of CAPITALIZING and

bolding However, the first group was asked to pay attention to the salient forms

while the second group did not receive instruction to pay attention to theenhanced target structures Conversely, the third group (the control group)received nothing except the same reading passage, i.e without typographicalmodification or direction for paying to attention anything as well

The findings from Shook (1994)’s study showed that both the textualenhancement groups outperformed the controlled one in the way they were able

to recognize and produce the target form via the textual input enhancementmethod Besides, the study also reported that there were no significantdifferences between the first group who received direction to pay attention to theenhanced forms and the second group who did not received this instruction That

means it was sufficient for the participants to improve their production throughprocessing the enhanced texts without explicit instruction From the Shook’study, it can be seen that TE is beneficial, however the amount of exposure interm of time length for the study and the quality of the input are quite limited.Hence, the study’ results would be more convincing when a greater amount ofexposure to the input in terms of time and quality are taken in Further researchwould carry out to have this gap fulfilled.

Williams (1995b) conducted a study in which learners were exposed towritten texts containing an artificially increased incidence of the target forms.The study was to investigate the effects of input enhancement on the acquisition

of the two structures: participial adjectives (boring/ bored), and present passive.The participants were ESL university students who were attending a writing class

at intermediate level The participants in this study also assigned into threegroups: the first experimental group was exposed to written texts containing

target structures enhanced by typographical modifications (i.e italicizing), the

second treated group received the same written enhanced texts with metalingualexplanations and corrective feedback included The control group was onlyprovided with the same written material without textual modification as well asexplicit instruction The findings for this study showed that both enhanced groupdid better than the control group in tests of both target structures Besides, aslight difference was figured out that input enhancement may be more effectiveitself in teaching complex rules like the passive and it worked better inconjunction with explicit instruction for teaching easier rule like participlephrases

Similar to the two previous studies by Shook (1994) and Jourdenais et al.(1995), Williams’ study (1995b) targeted two grammatical structures to examinethe effects of input enhancement in each of the research Hence, the findings ofthese studies need further research which targeted one grammatical structure toexplore whether the L2 learners’ noticing and acquisition may remain In the

next two studies of White (1998), and Simard (2009), only one grammaticalstructure was targeted in each.

White (1998) reviewed the effects of textual enhancement on learningthird person singular possessives (i.e his or her) The participants were 86Francophone learners of English and were assigned into three groups.Participants in the first two groups were instructed in 10 hours and they wereexposed to textual enhanced target forms in their reading activities throughunderlining, italic, bolding, and CAPITALIZING typographic modifications Forthose two enhanced group, one group received input enhancement and extensivereading and listening tasks, another group was treated to input enhancement only

On the other hand, the untreated group received no input enhancement It foundthat textual enhancement promoted noticing of the target forms but did not have

a significant effect on developing learner knowledge of the target structures

A more recent study by Simard (2009) explored the effects of differentforms of textual enhancement on learners’ learning of English plural markers.The study examined and compared the influence of TE by enhancing the sametext by eight different conditions including italicizing, underlining, capitalizing,bolding, color-coding, 3-cues (i.e TE format), 5-cues, and control Thefindings from the study reported that the group that received capitaltypographical modification and three-cue group performed better than the othergroups among the differential effect of TE on learners’ acquisition of Englishplural markers In this study, on the other hand, combination of differenttypographical cues lead to different impacts on the intakes because thecombination of many typographical modifications might cause the distractionand confusion Therefore, it might not enhance the acquisition and promote theintake of the forms

After all, from the five studies of Jourdenais et al (1995), Shook (1994),Williams (1995b), White (1998) and Simard (2009), it can be seen that inputenhancement is effective in relation to the way it makes target features in writteninput more noticeable to learners otherwise they may easily miss That gives

learners better performance in recognizing and producing the target forms.However, those studies also encompassed some limitations First, most studiesapplied varying short-term treatment such as Shook (1994)’ study in two of one-hour sessions In some studies such as in Jourdenais et al (1995)’s study andWilliams (1995b)’s study, time length was not informed for how long the studywas carried out for both the enhanced groups and the unenhanced groups.Second, the frequent instances of the input exposed was quite limited or notmentioned in most of the studies that will somehow influence on learners’noticing Third, most of the empirical study targeted two forms, namely Shook(1994) with relative pronouns (que, quien) and the present perfect of Spanishlanguage, Williams (1995b) with participial adjectives (boring/ bored) andpresent passive, Jourdenais et al (1995) with Spanish preterite and imperfectverbs Therefore, the mixed choice of target forms will result in using more thanone TE formats to distinguish them might result in some difficulties for thestudy and make the learners confused because different target structures havedifferent learning difficulties.

Given a number of studies which accounted for the positive effects of TE

in the above parts, the following parts reviewed some studies which reportedmixed results on this kind of this technique in SLA The first three studies in thispart mentions the partial effects of TE while the last three others points out thenegative effects found through this kind of technique

In Alanen (1995)’s study, the effects of TE and explicit instruction on theacquisition of semi-artificial Finnish locative suffixes and consonant gradationswere investigated Thirty-six English participants were divided into 4 groupsincluding: one received textual enhancement only (TE group), one did notreceive enhanced texts but explicit information (EI group), one received bothenhanced texts and explicit information (TE-EI group), and one did not receivedany treatment (control group) In this study, the participants’ knowledge of targetforms was measured through sentence completion and grammaticality judgmenttask The results revealed that on the sentence completion test, TE group

performed better than non-TE group (i.e control group) However, the study alsofound that both EI groups performed significantly better than non-EI groups onboth target forms Then, the result of Alanen (1995) indicated that explicitgrammar instruction had greater positive impact than TE This is contradictedwith Shook’s (1994) study Through Alanen’s study, the results showed thepositive role of TE on the acquisition of L2 grammar when the performance of

TE group was significantly different from that of the control group insentence completion test However, compared to explicit rule presentationgroup, their performance was lower

Izumi (2002) investigated the comparative effects of TE and output onthe acquisition of English relative clause Participants of the study were 61 adultswith different L1 backgrounds Explicit information was given to the subjects todraw their attention on the highlighted form The results found that output-inputtask brought measurable gains in target form acquisition Izumi (2002) found thatthose who received TE treatment failed to show significant gains in acquisitiondespite the positive impact on the noticing of the target form

Wong (2001) examined the effects of TE on French gender agreement of pastparticiples Eighty-one university participants were chosen for the study Theywere respectively divided in four groups: (1)enhanced and simplified passages(TE-S group), (2) enhanced and unsimplified passages (TE-US group), (3)unenhanced and simplified passages (UE-S group), and (4) unenhanced andunsimplified passages (UE-US group) The findings after the treatments showedthat there were no significant effects gained on the intake of the target forms inTE-S group However, TE had significant positive effects on the contentcomprehension.

According to the findings from these three studies of Alanen (1995), Izumi(2002), and Wong (2001), it found that TE had partial effects in SLA Forexample, in Alanen (1995)’ study, TE group performed better than non-TE group

on the sentence completion test However, TE group was less effective than EIgroup in both target forms From Izumi (2002)’s finding, TE positively

influenced noticing of the target form but the treatment did not prove significantgains in acquisition In Wong (2001)’ study, TE had positive effects on contentcomprehension; however, there was not effectiveness gained on the intake foundfrom the treatment.

The studies by Leow (1997, and Overstreet (1998) reported no effectiveness

of TE First, Leow (1997)‘s study investigated the effects of TE and textuallength Participants were 84 college learners divided into four groups The firstgroup received an unenhanced long passage, the second group received anunenhanced short passage, the third group received an enhanced long passage,and the last group received an enhanced short passage After treatments, theresults from this study reported that TE has no effects on either comprehension

or intake of the targeted form In addition, another finding revealed that shortertext length improved comprehension but not the intake Moreover, studies ofLeow (2001) and Leow et al (2003) also reported that TE did not enhance theintake of the target forms although subjects did notice the target forms whenreading

Overstreet (1998) studied the acquisition of Spanish preterite and imperfectpast tense forms The participants chosen were 50 university learners Two TEtypographical modifications were put into practice of the study where theparticipants were given one story each, either enhanced or unenhanced However,

no significant improvements on learners’ intake in the study were found.Moreover, the study found that TE negatively affected comprehension Briefly, through the negative findings of these TE studies, it failed to demonstrate positiveimpact on learners’ comprehension and intake

In general, all previous empirical studies on textual input enhancementrevealed conflicting results through researchers’ findings From what has beenpresented in this part, textual enhancement has positive effects, partial effects, and

no effect on L2 acquisition of grammatical features From what has beendiscussed, obviously, learners need more help than the input provided From thebasis of these various results of both negative effects and positive ones, it is

necessary to built on different methodology to optimize effectiveness of TE andreduce its limitations therefore it can provide learners with more different input interm of quality and quantity in SLA.

2.3 Conceptual framework

From the literature reviewed on the basis of the previous studies, somecomments can be made First, many studies (Jourdenais et al, 1995; Shook, 1994;Williams, 1995b) have centered around two target structures at the same time.They may fail to focus learners’ noticing on the target structures Forworking on many TE’s typographical cues might “distract learners’attention from meaning” Nasaji& Fotos (2011, p.41) As such theysuggested, “Teachers should avoid highlighting many different targetstructures in the text because this would negatively affect the meaningprocess” Therefore, it would be more convincing to separate targetstructures to help learners notice the enhanced text Otherwise, highlightingmany different target structures in the text can reduce learners’ attention

Second, the skill selected in previous treatment was mostly readingwith written input without the application of visual aids as found in thosestudies by Jourdenais et al (1995), Shook (1994), White(1998), Leow (1997),and Overstreet (1998) Hence, the participants’ learning ability may berestricted since the tasks involved did not benefit their interactiveactivities and motivate their interest In addition, although TE promotesnoticing, it alone may not be able to bring about learning because learners’attention is drawn to forms implicitly and unobtrusively without anyexplicit instruction This is in line with Nasaji & Fotos’ (2011, p.47) ideasthat, “TE should be used in conjunction with other focus on formstrategies to make TE to be most effective” In other words, it is worthconsidering the combination of TE and another task type to fill this gap.Third, the role of proficiency was not considered in previous studies.Although proficiency is a factor that might be used for selecting subjects

in a study (McMillan & Schumacher, 2001), it should be considered toensure that it does not interfere in the treatment The results should reflectthe effect of the treatment, not the effect of proficiency level In addition,according to McMillan & Schumacher (2001, p.347) (see more in the nextchapter), ‘selection’ should be controlled to avoid weakening the effect ofthe treatment In other words, participants’ abilities and characteristicsbetween the two groups being compared should be controlled.

In addition, the studies reviewed (Shook, 1004; Jourdenais et al.,1995; White, 1995b; Alanen, 1995; Overstreet, 1998) mostly used short-term treatment with inadequate exposure to input Besides, time length andquantity of input of whether or not and to what extent they may impact onTE’s effect were not clearly stated in many studies(Williams, 1995b;

;Wong, 2001, Izumi, 2002; Leow, 1997; Simard, 2009)

Given the drawbacks mentioned, the present study was set up to bridgethese gaps in the previous studies and to gain further insights into the effects ofinput enhancement on grammar learning First, the target structures taken into

consideration in this research were the future tenses with four forms of will, be

going to , simple present, and present continuous which were chosen based on

the consideration that there was no study on these forms before In addition,learners receive minimal exposure to these four aspects of future tenses duringtheir previous English studies In this study, they were introduced to the learnersone after another separately to avoid highlighting more than one target structure.Second, interpretation tasks were employed to enhance the input of thefuture tenses with the application of more skill selected and visual aids In thiskind of focus on form strategy, students would be required to process the targetstructure to achieve language acquisition These task types involve focusinglearners’ attention to a both written and spoken input i.e the targeted structures

in enabling them to identify and comprehend the meaning(s) of the thesestructures In other words, interpretation tasks were used to optimize the effects

of TE on learners’ acquisition of the target structures

Third, the study employed a proficiency test to define the correlationbetween the samples prior to the treatments to assure the equality of the subjects’proficiency Moreover, the participants were asked to take the pretests whosemean score proved their level of proficiency was not different Besides that, theamounts of time for the study‘s procedure and the intensity exposure of the inputwere also provided in the present study as well.

In short, on the basis of theoretical framework provided as well as thestrengths and limitations of the studies presented, the present study attempts toinvestigate the effects of implicit grammar instruction as operationalized by inputenhancement by means of interpretation tasks on students’ acquisition of theEnglish future tense

2.4.

2.4 Chapter summary

This chapter has reviewed theoretical concepts and empirical studiesrelated to the present study First, an overall view of grammar teachingapproaches was reviewed Next, explicit and implicit grammar instruction havebeen identified and distinguished In the theoretical grounds of implicit grammar

MEANNING DRAWN

GRAMMATICAL COMPETENCE

GJT GT

Figure 2.3 Conceptual framework – Adapted from Ellis (1997)

teaching section, the definitions and clarifications of input enhancement and itsrelated components including input flood and textual enhancement are alsopresented in detail Then, empirical studies have been listed, classified, andcompared Finally, the conceptual framework for this study is put forward In thenext chapter, the research methodology employed for this study will bepresented.

CHAPTER 3 RESEARCH METHODOLOGY

In the previous chapter, the literature on the major issues relating to thetheoretical background of the study has been reviewed This chapter describes themethodology used in the research project The chapter also depicts the study setting,participants chosen, research design, instruments used, procedure of the study, andmethod of analysis Each of these sections will be discussed respectively

3.1 Study setting

The study was conducted at Campus 1 of Ton Duc Thang University, which

is located in Ho Chi Minh City, widely recognized as the most dynamic city in thearea. In accordance with the school’s orientation “For accomplishment in human

development and a society with sustainable, stable growth”, the university has been

supporting the development of the Vietnamese society and economy Thousands ofstudents who graduated from many fields of study were the rich human resourcesfor the whole countries The school consists of thirteen faculties including Faculty

of Accounting, Faculty of Applied Sciences, Faculty of Business Administration,Faculty of Civil Engineering, Faculty of Electrical & Electronics Engineering,Faculty of the Environment and Labour Safety, Faculty of Finance and Banking,Faculty of Foreign Languages, Faculty of Industrial Fine Arts, Faculty ofInformation Technology, Faculty of Labor Relations and Trade Unions, Faculty ofMathematics – Statistics, and Faculty of Social Sciences & Humanities

3.2 Participants

The participants involved in this study were 74 English non-majored studentswho all passed the mandatory final tests in three consecutive courses: English 1,English 2, English 3, and are attending the course of English 4 The participants’

native places were from all three regions-the North, the Middle, and the South ofVietnam, and the number of students was a combination of learners from differentfaculties due to the chronological order of their enrollments The participants werefirst chosen basing on the similarity in their sizes, such as the number of students ineach group, and the amount of studying time that they received during the course.Although there were total four groups chosen for the administration of theproficiency test (see Appendix 1), only two groups were selected for the researchpurpose On the basis of scores that the subjects gained in the proficiency test, theresearcher chose two groups which were not significantly different in mean scoresand assigned into experimental group and comparison group Experimental grouphad 37 participants with 14 males and 23 females whose mean scores were 5.64after the proficiency test On the other hand, the number of participants in thecomparison group was equal to the one in experimental group with 11 males and 26females, and 5.76 were their mean scores Specifically, the students’ proficiencywas categorized into four levels including below average (4.9), average (5.0-6.4),fair (6.5-7.9), and good (≥8.0) The numbers of students achieved below averageand average level were almost the same in both experimental groups (29) andcontrol group (28) Likewise, the numbers of students who gained fair and goodlevel were nearly equal with eight students in experimental group and ninestudents in the comparison one The subsequent table provided detail information ofthese two groups of participants in terms of group, the number of students, genders,scores achieved and means scores each group gained in the proficiency test (Table

3.2) Table 3.2 The description of the participants in the proficiency test

Group Number Gender Scores achieved in the Proficiency Test Proficiency Mean

Test

Male Female 4.9 5.0-6.4 6.5-7.9 ≥8.0 Experimental 37 (37.8%)14 (62.2%)23 (43.24%)16 (35.14%)13 (18.92%)7 (2.70%)1 5.64

Comparison 37 (29.7%)11 (70.2%)26 (40.54%)15 (35.14%)13 (21.62%)8 (2.70%)1 5.76

3.3 Design of the study

The design of the present study was a quasi-experimental one It isnonequivalent pretest-posttest experiment According to (McMillan & Schumacher,2001) “Quasi design-experimental design is very prevalent and useful in education,since it is often impossible to randomly assign subjects” (p 342) In the presentstudy, two groups were chosen, namely experimental group and comparison groupbased on their proficiency test score McMillan and Schumacher (2001, p 347)mentioned two threats to internal validity of nonequivalent pretest-posttest quasi-experiment including selection and maturation The former threat-the selectioncould be controlled because selection indicates systematic difference in participants’ability or characteristics between the two groups being compared Although thesubjects are not randomly chosen, they had some common characteristics (i.e age,level, and year spent on learning English) Then, the latter threat - the maturation

“refers to changes in the subjects of a study over time”(McMillan & Schumacher

2001, p 190) Some changes are “growing more experienced, tired, and bored” (p.319) Nevertheless, the maturational threat might not affect the results of the studybecause time allotment is not very long, the participants in both comparison andexperimental cannot be matured Therefore, participants might not be inducedtiredness and boredom Specifically, the total amount of instruction was 7 weeks andthe duration of the treatment is only forty-five minutes per week meeting Theexperimental group consisted of 37 participants, and the comparison groupcomprises 37 members as well Both of the groups were treated in the same process

by the researcher except the grammar instruction The former was received the newtreatment, i.e implicit grammar instruction while the latter was provided withtraditional method (without implicit grammar instruction) After giving proficiencytest (on August 20, 2013), the researcher then provided both groups with twopretests, namely grammaticality judgment test (GJT) and grammar test (GT) (on