Short Research Papers

The Effects of Explicit Form-Focused

Instruction on English Speaking SelfEfficacy
Shzh-chen Nancy Lee
Osaka University
While the effects of form-focused instruction on speaking proficiency development havebeen researched widely, the primary focus has centered on cognitive development, but it has
overlooked how it influences learner affect. In order to fill the gap, this study investigatedthe effects of explicit form-focused instruction on speaking self-efficacy by examining theeffects of grammar instruction on learners’ perception of their ability to perform different
English speaking tasks. A total of 104 first-year Japanese university students participated inthis study where they were divided into two intervention groups and one control group. The
two intervention groups received 10 minutes and 20 minutes of form-focused instruction,
respectively, each week. Surveys were administered before and after a seven-weekintervention period. Responses were collected and validated using Rasch analysis modeling.
One item was deleted from the preliminary analysis because it did not meet the minimum
infit MNSQ statistics criterion. Results suggest that explicit form-focused instruction did
not positively or negatively impact learners’ speaking self-efficacy because there was no
significant difference between the control and intervention groups. Meanwhile, all threegroups increased in speaking self-efficacy after seven weeks. This paper ends with somepedagogical implications for including form-focused instruction into task-based language
teaching.
Form-focused instructionが、スピーキング力の発達に及ぼす影響は広く研究されてきた。しかし、今までの先行文献が認知発達に焦点を当て、学習者スピーキン
グ自己効力感の影響に焦点を当てなかった。この研究では、７週間の文法指導を受けることにより、form-focused instructionが学習者のスピーキング自己効力感にどのような影響を及ぼすのかを調べた。日本人大学一年生104人が本研究に参加し、二つの実験群と一つの対照群に分けられた。二つの実験群は、それぞれ毎週10分と20分の文法指導を受けた。７週間の研究期間の前後にアンケート調査を配54

Effects of Explicit Form-Focused Instruction, OCJSI 3, pages 54-70
布した。ラッシュ測定理論 で一つの調査質問を削除した。結果として、三つのグループの間に有意差がなかったため、form-focused instructionが学習者のスピーキ
ング自己効力感を向上することができなかったが、有害な影響をもたらすこともしな
かった。また、時間の経過に伴い、全員のスピーキング自己効力感が向上した。

本研究は、タスク中心型指導方法(task-based language teachingに文法指導の導入を示唆した。

Task-based language teaching (TBLT) has flourished in the past several decades
as a prominent approach for developing learners’ speaking proficiency. It started
to gain wide recognition from teachers by offering learners the opportunity todevelop speaking proficiency through engagement in activities that resemble
real-life situations. Recent TBLT research has since progressed from its originalemphasis on incidental and meaning-centered learning to recognizing theimportance of form-focused instruction (FFI) (Ellis, 2009; Long, 2015), theimpacts of which have been extensively researched in the context of TBLT
classrooms. Most studies concerning the effects of FFI have demonstrated
significant gains in fluency (e.g., Ahmadian 2011; Ahmadian & Tavakoli,
2011; Bygate, 2001; Ellis, 2005). Some studies have produced gains in syntactic
complexity (e.g., Ahmadian, 2011; Bygate, 2001; Skehan, 2009), and a few studies
have produced gains in syntactic accuracy (e.g., Gass et al., 1999; Mochizuki &Ortega, 2008).
Form-focused instruction refers to both incidental and planned instructionthat directs learner attention to target linguistic forms (Ellis, 2001). It can beboth implicit and explicit, ranging from pedagogical activities such as planningand repetition, teacher modelling, teacher explicit explanations of target forms,
and teacher feedback (Norris & Ortega, 2000). Form-focused instruction canalso assist interlanguage development by encouraging learners to attend to target
forms that they have not yet acquired (Williams, 2005) and to compare theircurrent interlanguage rules with the target language rules (Doughty, 2001).
Direct comparisons between input and output are unlikely to happen unless
input has been noticed and processed (Schmidt & Frota, 1986). Therefore,
explicitness in FFI is needed as it directs learners’ attention to notice the target
forms and then process and compare them.
55

Lee

While many studies have been conducted on the effects of different types of
FFI on speaking proficiency, research has tended to take a cognitive perspective
looking at linguistic developments (Costa, 2015), leaving gaps in learner affectresearch such as anxiety, confidence, and desire to speak in the target language(see Van Batenburg et al., 2019, and Graus & Coppen, 2016 for exceptions).
Despite the scarce research concerning the effects of FFI on learner affect, Van
Batenburg et al. (2019) found FFI increases learner self-confidence in speaking
the target language by giving learners a combination of information gap tasks
with instruction for interactional strategies. Although how learners feel toward
speaking the target language does not always reflect in their performance(Incecay & Dollar, 2011), self-confidence can influence their behaviors andexperiences (Dörnyei, 2005; Loewen et al., 2009; Yashima, 2002) and increaseclassroom participation (Borg, 2003).
Researchers in second language acquisition have described learners’
perceptions of their own language performances using terms such as selfconfidence (Gardner et al., 1997), linguistic self-confidence (ClÃ©ment et al.,1994), self-perceptions, and self-ratings (MacIntyre et al., 1997). Bandura (1977)
introduced the term self-efficacy to describe learners’ personal judgments of theirown capabilities to attain specific goals. Unlike the aforementioned terms, selfefficacy is more task specific (e.g., able to give directions about the campus in
English to international students) and specific to the context of the situation(Taipjutorus et al., 2012). Self-efficacy beliefs are important because selfefficacious learners feel competent in their ability to accomplish challenging
tasks, and become more willing to engage in more difficult tasks in the futurefrom the positive experiences of successful task completion (Mills, 2014).
In addition, self-efficacy has direct and indirect positive and negative effects
on different aspects of language learning (Piniel & CsizÃ©r, 2013), such as
directly determining language learning success (Mills et al., 2006) and indirectly
increasing learner motivation, engagement, persistence, and effort (Bandura,
1988). Therefore, learners’ speaking self-efficacy deserves attention in research,
as it can facilitate teachers in understanding their learners and could also be
important for understanding learners’ cognitive processes (Swain, 2013).
56

Effects of Explicit Form-Focused Instruction, OCJSI 3, pages 54-70

While a number of self-efficacy studies have already been conducted in thefield of second language learning and teaching, very few studies have concerned
speaking with the exception of Apple (2011) and Leeming (2017). Leeming(2017) conducted a longitudinal study measuring changes in English speaking
self-efficacy with Japanese university students over one academic year using a
speaking self-efficacy questionnaire and student interviews. Leeming constructednine questionnaire items to measure his participants’ perceptions of their own
capabilities toward specific speaking-related tasks. He found significant growthin speaking self-efficacy over the academic year, although there were different
rates of growth for different individuals. Apple (2011), on the other hand,investigated perceived foreign language speaking self-competence to examine
learners’ perceptions of their abilities to perform specific classroom-related
speaking tasks. Learners’ self-perceived English speaking competence was foundto be influenced by personality characteristics such as extraversion/introversion,agreeableness, emotional stability, conscientiousness, and intellect/imagination
as well as by social situations such as past English classroom experiences andcurrent English classroom perception.
Among the small number of studies conducted on speaking self-efficacy,
very few focused on Japanese learners (Kobayashi, 2019). To my knowledge,
these studies examined the changes in Japanese university students’ speaking
self-efficacy from the effects of studying abroad (e.g., Klassen & Marx, 2020;
Miyauchi, 2019). Both studies found that Japanese learners’ speaking selfefficacy changed to some extent after studying abroad.
This study aimed to explore the effects of the provision of explicit FFI on
learners’ English speaking self-efficacy over time. In the context of this present
study, explicit FFI refers to grammar instruction through the delivery ofmetalinguistic explanations by the teacher. Specifically, this study examines
whether learners who receive more explicit FFI exhibit increases in speaking selfefficacy more than learners who receive less FFI and learners who do not receive
such instruction.

57

Lee

Methods

A classroom-based study was conducted where learners were given weekly
grammar instruction for seven weeks. A total of 104 first-year non-English major
Japanese university students participated in this study. The average TOEFL iBTscore of students at this university is 60, suggesting that students can be placedin the range of intermediate to high intermediate in terms of English writing
and reading proficiency; nonetheless, speaking proficiency varied considerably.
Participants came from five intact classes taught by the researcher. The classes
were 90-minute-long discussion-based classes that met weekly. The same syllabus
was standardized for these five classes to eliminate the potential effects of students
engaging in different tasks. The syllabus focused on the theme of global studies,so topics such as international terrorism, racism, and poverty were introduced
and discussed by participants in class each week. The participants engaged inmeaning-based task-based activities, including watching videos, doing pairwork, and conducting small group discussion tasks. Teacher-centered FFI was
minimized so that the role of the teacher was primarily that of a facilitator.
Participants were divided into one control and two intervention groups:
control (n = 25), FFI (n = 41), and FFI plus peer feedback (FFI + PF) (n = 38).
Table 1 lists a description of the intervention given to the three groups. The FFI
group participants received 10 minutes of grammar instruction every week where
they were given explicit metalinguistic explanations on the usage of three pasttense forms. This grammar instruction intervention included three components.
First, participants received a short consciousness-raising activity where the target
forms were written on the blackboard by the researcher, and their attention was
directed to the target forms by reading aloud sentences on the board. Second,participants completed an individual grammar worksheet on the target forms.
Third, they completed a pair speaking practice task where they orally produced
sentences using verbs in three past tense forms given by their partner. The FFI+ PF group participants received the same 10 minutes of grammar instruction
plus 10 minutes of peer feedback. For the peer feedback activity, participants
listened to another participant’s narration and produced feedback for improving
syntactic complexity, syntactic accuracy, and oral fluency. Participants in the58

Effects of Explicit Form-Focused Instruction, OCJSI 3, pages 54-70

FFI + PF group received training on how to conduct peer feedback prior to thestudy. Students in the control group did not receive grammar instruction, butthey engaged in small group discussion tasks mentioned above. Pre- and postintervention questionnaires were administered one week before and one week
after the seven-week intervention.
A total of 11 questionnaire items were developed by referring to survey itemsin the studies by Apple (2011) and Leeming (2017) (Appendix). The items
were reviewed by three English teachers for content clarification before they
were translated into Japanese and then back-translated into English to checktranslation clarification. A six-point Likert scale (1 = Strongly Disagree, 2 =Disagree, 3 = Slightly disagree, 4 = Slightly agree, 5 = Agree, 6 = Strongly agree)
was selected to increase measurement precision (Nemoto & Beglar, 2014). The
survey was delivered in Japanese using Survey Monkey and was completed byparticipants during class time.
Data collected from the pre- and post-intervention questionnaires werestacked and analyzed using WINSTEPS version 3.64.2 (Linacre & Wright,
2007). Rasch analysis was conducted to validate English speaking self-efficacy
as one latent construct. Item difficulty estimates, person ability estimates, andthe fit of items and persons to the Rasch model were investigated following
Linacre’s (2002) criteria. Item 1, I can order food in English in a restaurant,
Table 1
Intervention for Interventional and Control Groups
GroupIntervention

FFI(n = 41)• Blackboard grammar explanation• Individual grammar worksheet• Pair speaking practice of target forms

FFI + PF(n = 38)• Blackboard grammar explanation• Individual grammar worksheet• Pair speaking practice of target forms

Control(n = 25)• Peer feedback on each other’s narration• No intervention

Approx. Time (min)
10

20

0

Note. FFI = Form-focused instruction, FFI + PF = Form-focused instruction plus peer feedback.

59

Lee

was removed from further analysis because it did not meet the 0.50-1.50 infit
MNSQ statistics criterion (Linacre, 2002), possibly because it might have beendifficult for participants who have never travelled outside of Japan to respondto this item. Furthermore, item 1 differs from the other items because it is notdirectly related to English classroom tasks; rather, it is related to general English
skills needed outside the classroom. Finally, Rasch principal component analysis
of item residuals was conducted, and the dimensionality of speaking self-efficacy
as one latent construct was confirmed.

Results

After conducting the Rasch analysis of the English speaking self-efficacy construct,
the person ability estimates were exported into SPSS to confirm assumptionof normality. Normality of the distribution was checked by converting Raschperson ability estimates into z-scores and values above ±3.29 were deleted. A
normal distribution was assumed as the skewness and kurtosis statistics of all
three groups were under ±2.0 (George & Mallery, 2016). The homogeneity ofvariance assumption was met using Levene’s test. Lastly, the homogeneity-ofslopes assumption was checked and met for one-way ANCOVA analyses.
A one-way ANOVA was conducted on the pre-intervention survey toensure that there were no significant differences in English speaking self-efficacy
between the three groups before the research began. The independent variable
was group (three levels: control, FFI, and FFI + PF), and the dependent variable
was the pre-intervention speaking self-efficacy survey response (represented byRasch person ability estimates). The one-way ANOVA was not significant, F(2,96) = .96, p = .39, which confirmed that the three groups were not significantly
different in their English speaking self-efficacy prior to the research.
A one-way ANCOVA was conducted to investigate the effects of FFI by
setting the group as the independent variable (three levels: control, FFI, andFFI + PF) and post-intervention English speaking self-efficacy survey response(represented by Rasch person ability estimates) as the dependent variable. The
covariate was pre-intervention English speaking self-efficacy survey response.
The ANCOVA analysis was not significant, F(2, 95) = 1.92, p = .15, Î·2 = .04.
60

Effects of Explicit Form-Focused Instruction, OCJSI 3, pages 54-70

Nevertheless, all three groups demonstrated increases in English speaking
self-efficacy; the control group had the largest increase, followed by FFI , and FFI+ PF. Table 2 presents the descriptive statistics of the gains (post-intervention
survey response minus pre-intervention survey response) in English speaking
self-efficacy of the three groups.
Table 3 presents the gain (post-intervention survey response minus preintervention survey response) in the 10 English speaking self-efficacy itemsof the three groups. It indicates that all groups increased in all items (postintervention survey response minus pre-intervention survey response). The FFI+ PF group outperformed the other two groups in four items: I can introduce
myself in in English (M = .47), I can talk about my hobbies (M = .68), I can give
directions about the campus to international students (M = .63), and I can givea presentation in English in groups (M = .45). The control group outperformed
the other two groups in six items: I can give an individual English presentationin front of the class (M = 1.04), I can give a group English presentation in front
Table 2
Descriptive Statistics of English Speaking Self-Efficacy Gain of Three Groups
Control

FFI

FFI + PF

M

1.23

0.44

0.93

SE

0.36

0.21

0.29

95%CI

[0.53, 1.94][0.01, 0.89][0.44, 1.43]

SD

2.16

1.33

1.51

Skewness

1.23

0.26

0.25

SES

0.46

0.37

0.38

Kurtosis

1.88

0.81

0.68

SEK

0.90

0.73

0.75

Note. FFI = Form-focused instruction; FFI + PF = Form-focused instruction plus peer feedback;All statistics are based on Rasch logits; CI = 95% confidence interval; SK = skewness; KT =kurtosis; SES = Standard error skewness; SEK = Standard error kurtosis.

61

Lee

of class (M = .84), I can talk with classmates in English casually (M = .80), I cantalk with the teacher in English casually (M = .68), I can talk with international
students in English casually (M = .64), and I can give street directions in English
to foreigners (M = .44). The FFI group did not outperform any group in any
item.

Discussion

Because there was no significant difference found in the change of speaking
self-efficacy between the three groups after seven weeks of intervention period,
explicit FFI in the present study seemed to have no impact on English speaking
self-efficacy. This result differs from the previous study by Van Batenburg et al.
(2019), who found FFI to be effective at improving learner speaking self-efficacy.
There are fundamental differences in the learners of these two studies: the former
previous study looked at Dutch high school students attending vocational
Table 3Gain in Individual Speaking Self-Efficacy Items of Three Groups
Control

FFI

FFI+PF

2. I can introduce myself in English.

0.44

0.15

0.47

3. I can talk about my hobbies in English.

0.28

0.17

0.68

4. I can give a presentation in English in groups.

0.28

0.15

0.45

5. can give a group English presentation in front of the class.

0.84

0.68

0.55

6. I can give an individual English presentation in front of the class.

1.04

0.68

0.71

7. I can give street directions in English to foreigners.

0.44

0.05

0.34

8. I can give campus directions to international students.

0.56

0.17

0.63

9. I can talk with international students in English casually.

0.64

0.20

0.26

10. I can talk with the teacher in English casually.

0.68

0.56

0.21

11. I can talk with classmates in English casually.

0.80

0.10

0.21

Note. FFI = Form-focused instruction; FFI + PF = Form-focused instruction plus peer feedback.

62

Effects of Explicit Form-Focused Instruction, OCJSI 3, pages 54-70

schools, while the present study looked at Japanese university non-English major
students attending the researcher’s mandatory English classes, and many of whom
had gone through a grammar-focused high school curriculum.
Nevertheless, some reasons can still be considered for this discrepancy inresults. First, the former study used a combination of information gap tasks
with interactional strategies as instruction, and learners enjoyed those strategies
including compensation, meaning negotiation, and audience awareness strategies(Van Batenburg et al., 2019). Research shows that high levels of foreign language
enjoyment correlate positively with learner self-confidence (MacIntyre & Vincze,
2017). The present study used only teacher explanations of past tense grammar
as the intervention and therefore probably gave participants a lower level ofenjoyment. Second, some participants may have held negative impressions of theusage of FFI, as learners in general find receiving metalinguistic knowledge fromteachers to be ineffective for communicative development (Paulus, 1999). Someof the participants of the present study commented that they found grammar
explanation to be tedious. One participant commented, “I know past tense
grammar! I have studied it already in high school.” Because some participants
did not perceive grammar instruction to be effective, their feelings might havepre-determined its ineffectiveness on speaking self-efficacy. Third, it might not
be possible to examine the impacts of FFI on speaking self-efficacy in a shortamount of time because participants only received 10 minutes or 20 minutes ofinterventions. If longer intervention time had been in place, then FFI might have
had different impacts on speaking self-efficacy.
On the other hand, while grammar instruction did not positively increase
learners’ speaking self-efficacy, it also did not impose negative impacts asparticipants who received more intervention also did not exhibit more losses
in speaking self-efficacy than participants who received less intervention andparticipants who received no intervention. This result is different from previous
studies that found the inclusion of grammar instruction during meaning-focusedtasks to have negative impacts on learner affect (e.g., Loewen et al., 2009).
Participants who received more grammar instruction in this study did notexhibit lower speaking self-efficacy because different learners also have different
63

Lee

learning preferences, so some participants might naturally preferred explicit FFI(Graus & Coppen, 2016).
Finally, while the present study did not confirm the effects of FFI, allparticipants increased in speaking self-efficacy over time. All three groups
showed increases in all speaking self-efficacy items after the seven-week study
from doing weekly narration tasks. This results supports Leeming’s study (2017)that learners improve speaking self-efficacy over time. The more time learners
spend on speaking tasks, the better they would become and the more selfefficacious they would become.
Some implications for the classroom can be derived from the results of thisstudy. First, future language teachers could integrate more explicit FFI into
TBLT classrooms without being concerned of its possible negative impacts on
speaking self-efficacy. Results of this study found that while grammar instruction
did not increase learner speaking self-efficacy, it also did not negatively impact
speaking self-efficacy. This was an encouraging result as it counters the criticism
in the earlier literature (e.g., Krashen, 1981) of including grammar instruction inmeaning-focused classrooms. Second, learners need to engage in more speaking
tasks over longer period of time because the more they speak, the more likely
they would become more self-efficacious of their own speaking ability.
However, this study is not without limitations. First, it did not examine
other perspectives why FFI had no impact on speaking self-efficacy. There might
be reasons beyond the scope of this study such as whether or not the selectionof grammar for instruction was at the appropriate level of the participants orif there might be had been other flaws in the design of the research. Second,
the lack of multiple data collection methods limited variation of research
perspectives. The study only used pre- and post-intervention questionnaires,
so it lacked a qualitative description of learner voices. Future research should
include a qualitative description of how learners perceive their speaking ability
to change over time, such as over the course of one academic semester. Third,
the questionnaire instrument consisted of a limited number of items developed
from two existing surveys on speaking self-efficacy of which both included fewer
than 10 items. Therefore, more questionnaire items need to be developed and64Effects of Explicit Form-Focused Instruction, OCJSI 3, pages 54-70

validated in future research to try to capture multiple dimensions of English
speaking self-efficacy.

Acknowledgment

I would like to thank Jennifer Teeter for her help with proofreading and endlesssupport to make this paper happen.

References

Ahmadian, M. J. (2011). The effect of ‘massed’ task repetitions on complexity,
accuracy and fluency: Does it transfer to a new task? The Language
Learning Journal, 39(3), 269–280. https://doi.org/10.1080/09571736.20
10.545239
Ahmadian, M. J., & Tavakoli, M. (2011). The effects of simultaneous use of
careful online planning and task repetition on accuracy, complexity, andfluency in EFL learners’ oral production. Language Teaching Research,
15(1), 35–59. https://doi.org/10.1177/1362168810383329
Apple, M. T. (2011). The big five personality traits and foreign language speaking
confidence among Japanese EFL students [Doctoral dissertation, Temple
University]. Available from ProQuest Dissertations & Theses database(3457819).
Bandura, A. (1988). Self-efficacy conception of anxiety. Anxiety Research, 1(2),77–98. https://doi.org/10.1080/10615808808248222
Bandura, A. (1997). Self-efficacy: The exercise of control. Freeman.
Borg, S. (2003). Teacher cognition in language teaching: A review of researchon what language teachers think, know, believe, and do. Language Teaching,36(2), 81–109. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0261444803001903
Bygate, M. (2001). Effects of task repetition on the structure and control oflanguage. In M. Bygate, P. Skehan, & M. Swain (Eds.), Researching pedagogic
tasks, second language learning, teaching and testing (pp. 23–48). Routledge.
Clément, R., Dörnyei, Z., & Noels, K. A. (1994). Motivation, self confidence,and group cohesion in the foreign language classroom. Language Learning,
44(3), 417–448. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-1770.1994.tb01113.x
65

Lee

Costa, P. (2015). Reenvisioning language anxiety in the globalized classroom
through a social imaginary lens. Language Learning, 65(3), 504–532.
https://doi.org/10.1111/lang.12121
Dörnyei, Z. (2005). The psychology of the language learner: Individual differences
in second language acquisition. Erlbaum.
Doughty, C. (2001). Cognitive underpinnings of focus on form. In P. Robinson(Ed.), Cognitive and second language instruction (pp. 206–257). Cambridge
University Press.
Ellis, R. (2001). Introduction: Investigating form-focused instruction. Language
Learning, 51(s1), 1–46. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-1770.2001.
tb00013.x
Ellis, R. (2005). Analysing learner language. Oxford University Press.
Ellis, R. (2009). Task-based language teaching: Sorting out themisunderstandings. International Journal of Applied Linguistics, 19(3),
221–246. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1473-4192.2009.00231.x
Gardner, R. C., Tremblay, P. F., & Masgoret, A. (1997). Towards a fullmodel of second language learning: An empirical investigation,
The Modern Language Journal, 31(3), 344–362. https://doi.
org/10.1111/j.1540-4781.1997.tb05495.x
Gass, S., Mackey, A., Alvarez-Torres, M., & FernÃ¡ndez-GarcÃ­a, M. (1999).
The effects of task repetition on linguistic output. Language Learning,
49(4), 549–580. https://doi.org/10.1111/0023-8333.00102
George, D., & Mallery, P. (2016). IBM SPSS statistics 23 step by step a simple
guide and reference. Routledge.
Graus, J., & Coppen, P. (2016). Student teacher beliefs on grammar
instruction. Language Teaching Research, 20(5), 571–599. https://doi.
org/10.1177/1362168815603237
Incecay, V., & Dollar, Y. K. (2011). A foreign language learner’s beliefs about
grammar instruction and error correction. Procedia Social and Behavioral
Sciences, 15, 3394–3398. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.sbspro.2011.04.307
Klassen, M., & Marx, N. (2020). Anxiety, self-efficacy, and the role of study
abroad. In P. Clements, A. Krause, & R. Gentry (Eds.), Teacher efficacy,
66Effects of Explicit Form-Focused Instruction, OCJSI 3, pages 54-70

learner agency. JALT. https://doi.org/10.37546/JALTPCP2019-25
Kobayashi, D. (2019). We think we have to speak English perfectly. In D. Roy
and J. Blake (Eds.), The 2018 PanSIG Journal (pp. 130–138). JALT.
Krashen, S. (1981). Second language acquisition and second language learning.
Pergamon.
Leeming, P. (2017). A longitudinal investigation into English speaking selfefficacy in a Japanese language classroom. Asian-Pacific Journal of Secondand Foreign Language Education, 2(12), 1–18. https://doi.org/10.1186/
s40862-017-0035-x
Linacre, J. M. (2002). Optimizing rating scale category effectiveness. Journal ofApplied Measurement, 3(1), 85–106. http://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/viewdoc/
download?doi=10.1.1.424.2811&rep=rep1&type=pdf
Linacre, J. M., & Wright, B. D. (2007). WINSTEPS: Multiple-choice, rating
scale, and partial credit Rasch analysis [Computer software]. MESA.
Loewen, S., Li, S., Fei, F., Thompson, A., Nakatsukasa, K., Ahn, S., & Chen,
X. (2009). Second language learner’s beliefs about grammar instructionand error correction. The Modern Language Journal, 93(1), 91–104.
https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1540-4781.2009.00830
Long, M. H. (2015). Second language acquisition and task-based language
teaching. John Wiley & Sons.
MacIntyre, P. D., & Vincze, L. (2017). Positive and negative emotions inmotivation for second language learning. Studies in Second Language
Learning and Teaching, 7(1), 61–88. https://doi.org/10.14746/
ssllt.2017.7.1.4
MacIntyre, P. D., Noels, K. A., & ClÃ©ment, R. (1997). Biases in self-ratingsof second language proficiency: The role of language anxiety. Language
Learning, 47(2), 265–287. https://doi.org/10.1111/0023-8333.81997008
Mills, N. (2014). Self-efficacy in second language acquisition. In S. Mercer &M. Williams (Eds.), Multiple perspectives on the self in SLA (pp. 6–19).
Multilingual Matters.
Mills, N., Pajares, F., & Herron, C. (2006). A reevaluation of the roleof anxiety: Self-efficacy, anxiety, and their relation to reading and
67

Lee

listening proficiency. Foreign Language Annals, 39(2), 276–294.
https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1944-9720.2006.tb02266.x
Miyauchi, N. (2019). The impact of a study abroad program on college
students’ self-efficacy in English-speaking (Part II). Annual Review ofEnglish Learning and Teaching, 24, 1–22.
Mochizuki, N., & Ortega, L. (2008). Balancing communication and grammar
in beginning level foreign language classrooms: A study of guided
planning and relativization. Language Teaching Research, 12(1), 11–37.
https://doi.org/10.1177/1362168807084492
Nemoto, T., & Beglar, D. (2014). Developing Likert-scale questionnaires. In
N. Sonda & A. Krause (Eds.), JALT2013 Conference Proceedings (pp. 1–8).
JALT.
Norris, J. M., & Ortega, L. (2000). Effectiveness of L2 instruction: A research
synthesis and quantitative meta-analysis. Language Learning, 50(3),417–528. https://doi.org/10.1111/0023-8333.00136
Paulus, T. M. (1999). The effect of peer and teacher feedback on student
writing. Journal of Second Language Writing, 8(3), 265–289.
https://doi.org/10.1016/S1060-3743(99)80117-9
Piniel, K., & Csizér, K. (2013). L2 motivation, anxiety and self-efficacy: Theinterrelationship of individual variables in the secondary school context.
Studies in the Second Language Learning and Teaching, 3(4), 523–550.
https://doi.org/10.14746/ssllt.2013.3.4.5
Schmidt, R., & Frota, S. N. (1986). Developing basic conversational ability ina second language: A case study of an adult learner of Portuguese. In R. R.
Day (Ed.), Talking to learn: Conversation in second language acquisition (pp.
237–326). Newbury House.
Skehan, P. (2009). Modeling second language performance: Integratingcomplexity, accuracy, fluency and lexis. Applied Linguistics, 30(4), 510–532.
https://doi.org/10.1093/applin/amp047
Swain, M. (2013). The inseparability of cognition and emotion insecond language learning. Language Teaching, 46(2), 195–207.
https://doi.org/10.1017/S0261444811000486
68Effects of Explicit Form-Focused Instruction, OCJSI 3, pages 54-70

Taipjutorus, W., Hansen, S., & Brown, M. (2012). Investigating a relationshipbetween learner control and self-efficacy in an online learning environment.
Journal of Open, Flexible and Distance Learning, 16(1), 56–69.
Van Batenburg, E. S. L., Oostdam, R. J., Van Gelderen, A. J. S., Fukkink, R.
G., & de Jong, N. H. (2019). Oral interaction in the EFL classroom: The
effects of instructional focus and task type on learner affect. The Modern
Language Journal, 103(1), 308–326. https://doi.org/10.1111/modl.12545
Williams, J. (2005). Form-focused instruction. In E. Hinkel (Ed.), Handbook of
research in second language teaching and learning (pp. 671–691). Routledge.
Yashima, T. (2002). Willingness to communicate in a second language:
The Japanese EFL context. Modern Language Journal, 86(1), 54–66.
https://doi.org/10.1111/1540-4781.00136

Author Bio

Shzh-chen Nancy Lee, PhD in applied linguistics, has been teaching English andJapanese in Japan and Australia. She is currently teaching at Osaka University.
Nancy is currently interested in L2 speaking proficiency development from theeffects of form-focused instruction as well as L2 teacher self-efficacy. leenancy@lang.
osaka-u.ac.jp
Received: September 17, 2020
Accepted: November 4, 2021

69

Lee

Appendix
English Speaking Self-Efficacy Questionnaire(Japanese Version and English Version)
Directions: あてはまる数字を選んでください。
1

2

3

4

5

6

全くそう思わない

そう思わないあまりそう思わない

少しそう思う

そう思う

強くそう思う

1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
9.
10.
11.

レストランでの料理の注文を英語ですることができる。
英語で自己紹介することができる。
自分の趣味について英語で話すことができる。
グループの中で、英語で発表することができる。
クラス全体の前で、グループ発表を英語ですることができる。
クラス全体の前で、一人で発表を英語ですることができる。
外国の人に英語で道案内を示すことができる。
留学生に英語でキャンパス案内を示すことができる。
英語で留学生と気軽に会話をすることができる。
英語で先生と気軽に会話をすることができる。
英語でクラスメートと気軽に会話をすることができる。

1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
9.
10.
11.

I can order food in English in a restaurant.
I can introduce myself in English.
I can talk about my hobbies in English.
I can give a presentation in English in groups.
I can give a group English presentation in front of the class.
I can give an individual English presentation in front of the class.
I can give street directions in English to foreigners.
I can give campus directions to international students.
I can talk with international students in English casually.
I can talk with the teacher in English casually.
I can talk with classmates in English casually.
70