Effects Of Focus On Form And Focus On Meaning On Second Language Vocabulary Acqusition

The present study attempts to compare the effects of FonF and FonM on second language vocabulary acquisition and to find a more efficient and effective approach of vocabulary acquisition in EFL instructed setting. The current research addresses two research questions as follows:1. Do Focus on Form (FonF) group acquire more words than Focus on Meaning group?2. Do Focus on Form (FonF) group retain more words than Focus on Meaning (FonM) group?Altogether three intact classes of seventy-nine middle school students of Grade 9 participated in the experiment and they were randomly assigned to three different groups:control group, FonF group and FonM group. The control group, which consisted of 25 learners, received no treatment at all. FonM group of 28 learners and FonF group of 26 learners received different treatments in accordance with the experimental condition it was assigned to. After reading the text, the FonM group performed content-oriented tasks which did not require attention to the target items. Different from the FonM group, the FonF group not only read the materials with the target items underlined but also performed text-based vocabulary tasks which focused the target items. After the treatments, the three groups unexpectedly received immediate and delayed post-test with an interval of one month. The data gained from the experiment is processed with the help of the soft SPSS 17.0. The results of the present study show that the FonF group scored higher than FonM group and the control group either on immediate post-test or on delay post-test. On the basis of the results, we generate the following conclusions:(1) Both FonM and FonF can promote second language vocabulary acquisition, while the latter is more effective and efficient. It is not the best way to learn second language vocabulary in purely meaning-focused instruction. In spite of the importance of comprehensible input, vocabulary instruction should incorporate a FonF component.(2) Even though FonF is superior to FonM in L2 vocabulary learning, we should not neglect FonM, purely in support of FonF. Teachers should decide type of learning according to the language feature they want to focus on. In fact, FonF and FonM are complementary activities, each one enhancing the learning that comes from the other. A well balanced language learning programme has an appropriate balance of opportunities to learn from message-focused activities and from attention-focused activities.