The Effects Of Three Instructional Options (FonFS, FonM, FonF) On Chinese Non-English Majors' Vocabulary Learning

Long has proposed that instructional options can be of three types, depending on whether instruction requires learners to focus on meaning, forms, or an integration of both meaning and forms. According to Long, instruction that is based on a focus on meaning (focus-on-meaning or FonM instruction, abbreviated to FonM) posits that exposure to rich input and meaningful use of the second language (L2) can lead to incidental acquisition of the L2 system. Instruction that expects learners to focus on forms in isolation (focus-on-forms or FonFS instruction, abbreviated to FonFS) assumes that the target L2 forms can and need to be taught one by one in a sequence externally orchestrated according to linguistic complexity. Finally, instruction that seeks to make learners focus on forms integrated in meaning (focus-on-form or FonF instruction, abbreviated to FonF) capitalizes on brief, reactive interventions that, in the context of meaningful communication, draw learners' attention to formal properties of a linguistic feature which appears to cause trouble on that occasion, is learnable given the learner's internal developmental state, and is likely to be useful in future communication.The present study attempts to investigate the effects of the above stated instructional options on Chinese non-English majors' vocabulary learning in terms of the comparison between these three instructional options. The experimental questions of the present study are stated as follows:(1) What are the effects of the tasks concerning FonM and FonF respectively on L2 learners' retention and retainment of the target words? Is L2 vocabulary really learnt by purely FonM?(2) What are the effects of the tasks concerning FonF and FonFS respectively on L2 learners' retention and retainment of the target words? Can L2 vocabulary be best learnt without FonFS?Altogether 107 freshmen participated in two experiments (FonM versus FonF in Experiment 1; FonF versus FonFS in Experiment 2) and they were randomly assigned to four groups. These four groups conduct four concerning tasks: reading comprehension in FonM group, reading comprehension with relevant glosses in FonF group, reading comprehension with relevant glosses to fill in target words in exercises for FonFS1 group, and sentences-making with target words for FonFS2 group. The material used in the present study was adopted from Huang's (2003) study for the purpose of validity. 10 important content words were selected as the target words but were replaced by corresponding non-word made by Gathercole and Papagno, to ensure every participant could have no chances to encounter these target words before. All the materials were collected when tasks were finished and participants had no idea to take a test on target words. Short- and long- term retention of ten target words was investigated on two (immediate and delayed) posttests at an interval of two weeks.In our design, we had two independent variables (task and span between the two posttests) and one dependent variable (subjects' scores of vocabulary tests carried out after the experiments). Results and analyses of significant difference by SPSS 11.5 were presented respectively for the two experimental questions in the paper. The results getting from the present study are summarized as follows:(1) Both FonM and FonF instructional options for L2 vocabulary learning are effective in actual classrooms, but FonF is more effective, and L2 vocabulary is not really learnt by purely FonM. FonF, an instructional option which adopts an integration of forms and meaning can help L2 learners more effectively in their vocabulary learning than FonM which stresses only on the meaning alone.(2) Contrary to what some proponents of FonF suggest, treating words as objects of study rather than as tools for communication, i.e. the instructional option of FonFS, is quite effective as a teaching method. Consequently, it is reasonable to say that L2 vocabulary can not be best learnt without FonFS. The results and analysis getting from the vocabulary learning strategies also indicate that L2 learners are actually preferable to use such vocabulary learning strategies as using word card, rote retention, practice and review, and memorizing word lists, all of which are featured as FonFS.(3) The present study has explored the necessity and possibility of a more balanced teaching approach: FonF integrates the traditional FonFS and FonM as well.