A Comparative Study of Two Teaching Methodologies for English Tense Acquisition Among First-Year Junior High School Students
Main Article Content
Keywords
form-focused instruction, communicative language teaching, grammar instruction, grammatical competence, quasi-experimental study
Abstract
This study examined the effects of two instructional approaches on junior high school students’ acquisition of English tense structures, including the simple present, simple past, and present progressive. Specifically, it compared the effectiveness of form-focused instruction (FFI) with the integration of form-focused instruction and communicative language teaching (FFI+CLT). Participants were 68 seventh-grade students from a private junior high school in northern Taiwan. A six-week quasi-experimental design was employed. Students’ grammatical competence was assessed using a grammaticality completion test and a sentence tense transformation test, and the data were analyzed with SPSS 31.0. The results indicated that students receiving FFI+CLT significantly outperformed those receiving FFI alone on both assessments, demonstrating greater gains in grammatical knowledge and controlled written production of English tense structures. These findings suggest that integrating attention to linguistic form with meaningful communication enhances learners’ grammatical development more effectively than form-focused instruction alone. The study supports the pedagogical value of combining FFI and CLT in English grammar instruction and provides implications for English language teaching and future research.
References
- [1] Richards, J. C., & Rodgers, T. S. (2014). Approaches and methods in language teaching (3rd ed.). New York: Cambridge University Press.
- [2] Celce-Murcia, M. (1991). Grammar pedagogy in second and foreign language teaching. TESOL Quarterly, 25(3), 459-480. https://doi.org/10.2307/3586980
- [3] Higgs, T., & Clifford, R. (1982). The push toward communication. In T. Higgs (Ed.), Curriculum, competence and the foreign language teacher (pp. 57-79). Stokie, IL: National Textbook Company.
- [4] Long, M. H. (1983). Does second language instruction make a difference? A review of research. TESOL Quarterly, 17(3), 359-382. https://doi.org/10.2307/3586253
- [5] Pica, T. (1996). Tradition and transition in English teaching methodology. In J. E. Katchen (Ed.), The fifth international symposium on English teaching (pp. 1-18). Taipei, Taiwan: Crane Publishing Company.
- [6] Richards, J. C., & Burns, A. (2021). The Cambridge Guide to Pedagogy and Practice in Language Teaching. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
- [7] Swain, M. (1998). Focus on form through conscious reflection. In C. Doughty & J. Williams (Eds.), Focus on form in classroom second language acquisition (pp. 64-82). Cambridge, England: Cambridge University Press.
- [8] Mujtaba, S., Barrot, J., Parkash, R., & Nawaz, M. W. (2023). Combining Sociocognitive-Transformative Approach and Form-Focused Instruction: Effects on L2 Learners’ Complexity, Accuracy and Fluency in Writing. 3L: The Southeast Asian Journal of English Language Studies, 29(3), 180-194. https://doi.org/10.17576/3L-2023-2903-13
- [9] Doughty, C., & Williams, J. (Eds.). (1998). Focus on form in classroom second language acquisition. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
- [10] Fotos, S. (1998). Shifting the focus from forms to form in the EFL classroom. ELT Journal, 52(4), 301-307. https://doi.org/10.1093/elt/52.4.301
- [11] Lee, A. H., & Lyster, R. (2023). The Effects of Different Types of Form-Focused Instruction on the Acquisition of Grammatical Gender by Second Language Learners of French. Language Awareness, 32(3), 508-529. https://doi.org/10.1080/09658416.2022.2149762
- [12] Li, C., & Xu, J. (2023). The Sustainability of Form-Focused Instruction in Classrooms: Chinese Secondary School EFL Teachers’ Beliefs and Practices. Sustainability, 15(7), 6109. https://doi.org/10.3390/su15076109
- [13] Long, M. H., & Robinson, P. (1998). Focus on form: Theory, research, and practice. In C. Doughty & J. Williams (Eds.), Focus on form in classroom second language acquisition (pp. 15-41). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
- [14] Muranoi, H. (2000). Focus on form through interaction enhancement: Integrating formal instruction into a communicative task in EFL classrooms. Language Learning, 50(4), 617-673. https://doi.org/10.1111/0023-8333.00142
- [15] Xu, J., & Li, C. (2021). The Effects of the Timing of Form-Focused Instruction on EFL Learners’ Learning of Difficult and Easy Grammatical Features: A Comparative Study. System, 101(3), 102612. https://doi.org/10.1016/J.SYSTEM.2021.102612
- [16] Xu, J., & Li, C. (2022). Timing of form-focused instruction: Effects on EFL learners’ grammar learning. Studies in Second Language Learning and Teaching, 12(3), 405-433. https://doi.org/10.14746/ssllt.2022.12.3.4
- [17] Larsen-Freeman, D. (1991). Teaching grammar. In M. Celce-Murcia (Ed.), Teaching English as a second or foreign language (pp. 279-296) (2nd ed.). Boston, Mass.: Heinle & Heinle Publishers.
- [18] Long, M. H. (1991). Focus on form: A design feature in language teaching methodology. In K. de Bot, R. Ginsberg, & C. Kramsch (Eds.), Foreign language research in cross-cultural perspective (pp. 39-52). Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
- [19] Ellis, R. (2001). Introduction: Investigating form-focused instruction. Language Learning, 51(supplement 1), 1-46. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-1770.2001.tb00013.x
- [20] Shao, Y., & Cho, Y. K. (2024). Effects of form-focused-instruction timing and grammatical complexity on grammar learning. Language Sciences Research, 108, 225-246. https://doi.org/10.21296/jls.2024.03.108.225
- [21] Woymo, T. H., Bachore, M. M., & Jobo, M. M. (2024). The effects of form-focused communicative grammar instruction on students’ pronunciation and grammar in speaking. Journal of Curriculum and Teaching, 13(1), 61-75. https://doi.org/10.5430/jct.v13n1p61
- [22] Robinson, P. (1996). Learning simple and complex second language rules under implicit, incidental, rule-search, and instructed conditions. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 18(1), 27-67. Retrieved July 26, 2026 from https://www.learntechlib.org/p/80918/.
- [23] Schenck, A. (2022). Form-focused instruction, technology, and limitations: An investigation of past research and future possibilities. Frontiers in Psychology, 13, 920818. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2022.920818
- [24] Chern, C. (2003). English language teaching in Taiwan today. In W. K. Ho & R. Y. L. Wong (Eds.), English language teaching in East Asia today: Changing politics and practices (pp. 427-437). Singapore: Eastern Universities Press.
- [25] Rao, Z. (2002). Chinese students’ perceptions of communicative and non-communicative activities in EFL classroom. System, 30, 85-105. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/S0346-251X(01)00050-1
- [26] Sun, G., & Cheng, L. (2002). From context to curriculum: A case study of communicative language teaching in China. TESL Canada Journal, 19, 67-86. https://doi.org/10.18806/tesl.v19i2.930
- [27] Azar, B. S. (2023). Fundamentals of English grammar (5th ed.). New Jersey: Pearson Education.
- [28] Azar, B. S. (2019). Understanding and using English grammar (5th ed.). New Jersey: Pearson Education.
- [29] Woodward, S. W. (2002). Fun with grammar: Communicative activities for the Azar grammar series. NY: Prentice Hall Regents.
- [30] Ur, P. (2025). Grammar Practice Activities: A Practical Guide for Teachers. Cambridge, England: Cambridge University Press.
- [31] Day, E., & Shapson, S. (1991). Integrating formal and functional approaches to language teaching in French immersion: An experimental study. Language Learning, 41(1), 25-58. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-1770.1991.tb00675.x
Article Sidebar
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.