to use explicit knowledge to facilitate the acquisition of implicit knowledge. This means there are some theoretical positions that support the view of discovery learning in focus on form. One of them is deep processing, in which learners are involved, the other one is self-investment since learners need to be motivated both instrumentally and integrative and this can be achieved through approaches which excite the curiosity of learners in relation to a language feature. The results of his study are supported by Nassaji and Fotos (2004) who believe that the positive effect of focus on form and meaning trait instruction on students’ post-test was significant compared to the control group. The post-test scores indicated that the focus on form and meaning strategy has been positively gained by the experimental group. The post-test scores of the experimental group indicated that the group had better improvement compared to the control one.
The results of this study are in line with Ellis (2009) who notes that focus on form refers to a method of teaching language is basically on linguistic structures while focus on meaning in teaching grammar of Wh-questions is based on the learners' understanding of grammar. Thus the language teachers should provide the learners with meaningful exposure to rich input and meaningful use of the L2 in context. This can be done implicitly or explicitly. This idea may be supported by Norris and Ortega (2001) who emphasized the teach grammar through focusing on forms in contemporary English language classrooms. Krashen and Terrell's (1983) the Natural Approach agrees on using some content-based ESL instruction and immersion programs which supports the results of this study because they found out that focus on form and forms activities led to better learning of Wh-questions.
6. Conclusion
The results of the present study highlighted the role of focus on forms (i.e., meaning) technique in improving learners’ grammatical learning (i.e., Wh-questions) and enhancing their grammar learning achievement. Based on the results of the statistical calculations pursued during this study, the study has yielded the conclusion that focus on forms technique programs are effective in teaching grammar rather than the traditional methods which focus on formal structures among Iranian EFL learners. The results also showed that the participants in the experimental group (i.e., focus on meaning in teaching grammar) has provided with meaningful drills and exercises rather than memorizing formulas. This shows that learning Wh-questions can be enhanced through focusing on meaning since the learners can see the grammatical patterns in a meaningful context rather than in isolated formulas. It seems most likely that the teachers need to meet their goals in teaching grammar in which the following elements are present: principles of grammar, i.e., for instance Wh-questions, can be taught explicitly or implicitly. Then meaningful activities rather than mechanical ones should be followed; and finally assessments either in pairs, peers or class can be taken place for the sake of checking the learners' output.
This study provided a reason to claim that focus on meaning in teaching grammatical structures of Wh- questions is necessary, especially in EFL context in which grammar without any explicit instruction is problematic. The problem is that grammar-based instructions just give some rules which should be followed in the conversations. This was what the teachers had in traditional approaches to language teaching. Thus it is highly recommended that the EFL teachers focus on form in a supplementary manner for meaningful sentences in order to promote grammatical points efficiently. Therefore, there is a need to do research on the rule of meaning-based instruction in other language skills and sub-kills.
REFERENCES
Vol. 6, Issue 9, December 2016 Page 83
Brown, H. D. (2000). Principles of language learning and teaching.Essex, UK: Pearson Education Ltd. Cowan, R. (2008). The teacher's grammar of English.Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Ellis, R. (2001). Investigating form-focused instruction.In R. Ellis (Ed.), Form-focused instruction and second language learning (pp. 1-46). Malden, MA: Black well publishers.Ellis, R. (2003). Task-based language learning and teaching. Oxford, England: Oxford University Press.
Ellis, R (Ed.) (2005). Planning and task performance in a second language. Amsterdam: John Benjamin’s.
Ellis, R. (2009). Task-based language teaching: Sorting out the misunderstandings. International Journal of Applied Linguistics, 19(3), pp. 229-246.
Farahani, A. K. &Sarkhosh, M. (2012). Do different textual enhancement formats have different effects on the intake of English subjunctive mood? Theory and Practice in Language Studies, 2(4), 688-698.
Farrokhi, F. &Rahimpour, M. &Papi, Z. (2011). Incidental focus on form techniques in Iranian EFL classroom: A comparison between expert and novice teachers. English Language Teaching, 1(1), 150-157.
Khatib, M. &Bagherkazemi, M. (2011). The potential of learner output for enhancing EFL learners' short-term and long-term learning of the English simple present tense. Theory and Practice in Language Studies, 1 (4),400-407.
Krashen, S. & Terrell, T. (1983).The natural approach. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Alemany Press, Regents/Prentice Hall.
Loewen, S. (2003). Variation in the frequency and characteristics of incidental focus on form. Language Teaching Research, 7, 315-345.
Loewen, S. (2005).Incidental focus on form and second language learning. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 27(3), 361-386.
Long, M. (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.
Long, M., & 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. 15-63). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Lyster, R., &Ranta, L. (1997). Corrective feedback and learner uptake: Negotiation of form in communicative classrooms. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 19, 37-66.
Milcic, A. (2014).Grammatical mistakes in a text.Foreign language research in cross-cultural perspective (pp. 39-52). Amsterdam: John Benjamin.
Nassaji, H. &Fotos, S. (2004). Issues in form-focused instruction and teacher education. In S. Fotos& H. Nassaji (Eds.), Form focused instruction and teacher education: Studies in honor of Rod Ellis (pp. 7-15). Oxford: OxfordUniversity Press.
Norris, J. M., & Ortega, L. (2000). Effectiveness of L2 instruction: A research synthesis and quantitative meta-analysis. Language Learning, 50, 417-528.
Pour Hosseini, A. & Ahmadi, S. (2011).Patterns of corrective feedback and uptake in an adult ESLclassroom.TESOL Quarterly, 36, 573-95.
Richards, J. C. &Renandya, W. A. (2002).Methodology in language teaching: Ananthology of current practice. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Panova, I., &Lyster, R. (2002).Patterns of corrective feedback and uptake in an adult ESLclassroom.TESOLQuarterly, 36, 573-95.
Pourhossein, A. &Ahmadi, S. M. (2011).Role of consciousness in SLA.Theory and Practice in LanguageStudies, 1(5), 435-442.
Vol. 6, Issue 9, December 2016 Page 84
Rahimpour, M. &Salimi, A. (2010).The impact of explicit instruction on foreign language learners'performance.Procedia- Social and Behavioral Sciences, 2, 1740-1746.Renou, M. (2000).Grammatical mistakes in a text.Foreign language research in cross-cultural perspective (pp. 39-52). Amsterdam: John Benjamin.
Ur, P. (1988). Grammar practice activities. New York: Cambridge University Press.