The broad theoretical background on which this research is based is that of classroom research. Following Nunan (2005:225), we can broadly define classroom research as ‗empirical
investigations carried out in language classrooms‘. There are clearly a number of aspects of a language classroom which might be researched but some examples which have commonly been investigated are teacher talk, student and teacher interaction and the effectiveness of the classroom methodology employed. Nunan (2005:226) defines this in comparison to what he terms ‗classroom oriented research‘, which takes place outside the classroom (perhaps in a
laboratory setting) but which may have relevance to the language classroom. Kasper and Roever (2005:322), term this type of methods comparison ‗interventional classroom research‘, meaning that in the field of pragmatics they investigate, the aim is to discover if and how different types of classroom intervention may help to teach pragmatics to English language learners.
Within this broad definition of classroom research, the research in this thesis can be placed within the area of instructed second language acquisition because we are interested in ‗how instruction makes a difference to the acquisition of a second language‘ (Nunan 2005:226) and more specifically, the effects of different teaching methods on the acquisition of DMs. Within the area of instructed second language acquisition, the research thus ‗fits‘ the long tradition of methods comparison studies, which investigate the effectiveness of different types of
instruction.
An early investigation of this sort was conducted by Scherer and Wertheimer (1964), who compared the effects of Audiolingualism to grammar translation, in a longitudinal study. The subjects were approximately three hundred college students learning German and each method was measured over two years through pre- and post-tests, interviews and questionnaires. Despite the considerable amount of data the study produced, it did not demonstrate that one method was superior to the other but that the emphasis of each method was reflected in the ability of each group of learners. This meant that learners taught using grammar translation were superior at reading, writing and translation, while the learners taught using
Audiolingualism were superior at listening and speaking. Similarly, Swaffar, Arens and Morgan (1982) compared Audiolingualism with cognitive code learning and also found inconclusive results.
These difficulties may be due in part to the idea that different methods help with different aspects of language learning, so that a method which emphasised, for example, listening, would improve that skill more than one which emphasised reading (Nunan 2005:227). It may also be because the dividing line between different classroom methodologies can be somewhat illusory. Methods, approaches and frameworks may be differently realised in the classroom than the way they are described in theory. In a broad discussion of methodology,
Kumaravadivelu (2005:166) suggests that ‗teachers who claim to follow a particular method do not adhere to its theoretical principles and classroom procedures at all‘ and ‗teachers who claim to follow different teaching methods often use the same classroom procedures‘. We might also suggest that many methodologies ‗borrow‘ elements from each other, so that the mechanical drills much favoured in Audiolingualism still feature in many classes taught using CLT. This means it can be hard to clearly distinguish differences between methodologies, making comparison somewhat problematic. Naturally, there are also a number of variables which can contribute to a learner‘s acquisition of language at any given time, such as the amount of exposure they have to English outside the classroom or their age, which means it can be difficult to claim definitively that it is only the chosen classroom methodology which influences language acquisition. This suggests that it may not be productive to try and reproduce a large scale study of the type Scherer and Wertheimer (1964) undertook but, as Brown and Rodgers (2002: 215) suggest, there is value in small scale methods comparison studies related to specific learning contexts. It is also clear that there are benefits if we undertake such research in an actual classroom, with real learners and real language (as opposed to artificial, invented language) because in the classroom we can bridge the gap between theory and practice (Brown and Rodgers 2002:11) and show that what we are attempting to find out is directly applicable to teaching. This is more difficult to achieve if we use a laboratory or artificial language. Clearly, there is a need to differentiate the methods being used as specifically as possible and resist the temptation to generalise the results from one learning context to all learners in all contexts. Nonetheless, using classroom research as a basis for methods comparison seems a logical choice.
There have also been a number of different studies within the broad field of instructed second language acquisition which have sought to compare the effect of different methods and investigate the effects of ‗form-focused instruction‘ (Ellis 2001a:1) (hereafter FFI). Such studies have investigated a number of different methodologies, often contrasting the effects of implicit and explicit instruction (Norris and Ortega 2001:167), as we discussed in chapter two. These differ from the large scale methods comparison studies described above and have tended to be on a smaller scale. Nevertheless, they are relevant to this study. Another common theme has been to investigate either focus on form (hereafter FonF) instruction, or focus on forms
(hereafter FonFS) instruction. These somewhat confusing terms have different interpretations (see Ellis 2001a, 2001b and Norris and Ortega 2001, for instance) but essentially the difference rests on what Long (1991) has suggested: FonF means a re-active focus on form in response to learner need, as it arises out of communicative tasks. FonFS means a pre-planned focus on form, as may occur in a traditional structural syllabus. Although Ellis (2001b) outlines many other distinctions, these only seem to blur the differences between the two types of FFI, as do the rather weak arguments that FonFS implies a focus on form and not meaning, while FonF implies a focus on meaning and not form. It is difficult, in fact near impossible, to see how we can have one without the other. For these reasons, in this study we will define FonF as a re- active focus on form and meaning, and FonFS as a pre-planned focus of form and meaning.
In an extensive review of FFI methods research between 1980 and 1999, Norris and Ortega (2000, 2001) note the wide range of research available and the difficulty in comparing vastly differing research designs. Despite this, they were able to reach some interesting conclusions. Overall, as we noted in the literature review, they found that explicit instruction was more effective when compared to implicit instruction or no instruction and that the effects of explicit instruction were both short-term and durable, as shown in immediate and delayed post-tests. Kasper and Rover (2005), in a discussion of classroom research concerned with teaching pragmatics, find agreement with these results. They report that the studies they reviewed demonstrated the overall benefit of explicit metapragmatic instruction (giving learners explicit information about form and function relationships), when compared to input and practice only.