6th International Young Scientist Congress (IYSC-2020) will be Postponed to 8th and 9th May 2021 Due to COVID-19. 10th International Science Congress (ISC-2020).  International E-publication: Publish Projects, Dissertation, Theses, Books, Souvenir, Conference Proceeding with ISBN.  International E-Bulletin: Information/News regarding: Academics and Research

The role of proactive focus on form teaching technique on teaching English prepositions

Author Affiliations

  • 1University of Benghazi, Libya
  • 2University of Benghazi, Libya
  • 3University of Benghazi, Libya

Res. J. Language and Literature Sci., Volume 6, Issue (3), Pages 1-5, September,19 (2019)


The effect of explicit and implicit teaching strategies on different areas of grammar have been examined by several studies. There were different findings and opinions about their effect on teaching learners of English as a second language. This study is an attempt to test two teaching strategies, namely, input flood and deductive teaching, to find out which one has the most influence on learning English prepositions. The study was conducted on 40 female third-year high school students in Benghazi. They were divided into two classes: 20 students in each. One class received deductive teaching strategy (Control Group), and the other class received input flood teaching strategy (experimental group). The results showed that although both groups developed from pre-test to post-test 1 , the improvement of the experimental group in post-test 2 remained one month after the treatment was conducted.


  1. Chomsky N. (2006)., Language and mind (3rd ed.)., Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
  2. Machin L., Hindmarch D., Murray S. and Richardson T. (2013)., A complete guide to the level 4 certificate in education and training., England: Critical Publishing Ltd.
  3. Omar Y.Z. (2018)., Syntactic theory perception on language acquisition., Journal of Faculty of Arts, 42, 378-391.
  4. Goodman K. (1986)., What’s whole in whole language?., Portsmouth, New Hampshire: Heinemann.
  5. House C.H. and Harman S.E. (1982)., Descriptive English grammar (2nd ed.)., USA: Prentice-Hall, INC.
  6. Chomsky N. (2006)., Language and mind (3rd ed.)., Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
  7. Kamiya N. (2012)., Proactive and reactive focus on form and gestures in EFL classrooms in Japan., System, 40, 386-397.
  8. Baleghizadeh S. (2010)., Focus on form in an EFL classroom., Native Royal Journal, Retrieved on Sep. 15, 2018 from http://www.novitasroyal.org.
  9. Hanaoka O. and Izumi S. (2012)., Noticing and uptake: Addressing pre-articulated covert problems in L2 writing., Journal of Second Language Writing, 21(4), 332-347.
  10. Ellis R. (2009)., Corrective feedback and teacher development., L2 Journal, 1(1)
  11. Ling Z. (2015)., Explicit Grammar and Implicit Grammar Teaching for English Major Students in University., Sino-US English Teaching, 12(8), 556-560.
  12. Norris J.M. and Ortega L. (2000)., Effectiveness of L2 instruction: A research synthesis and quantitative meta‐analysis., Language Learning, 50(3), 417-528.
  13. Omar Y. (2012)., Synthesis of whole language and learning English as a foreign language., Missouri Bulletin English. 1.
  14. Wong W. (2004)., Processing instruction in French: The roles of explicit information and structured input., Processing instruction: Theory, research, and commentary, 187-205.
  15. Han Z., Park E.S. and Combs C. (2008)., Textual enhancement of input: issues and possibilities., Applied Linguistics, 29(4), 597-618.
  16. Van Patten B., Williams J. and Rott S. (2004)., Form-meaning connections in second language acquisition., In B. Van Patten, J. Wlliams, S. Rott, & M. Overstreet (Eds.), Form-meaning connections in second language acquisition, 1-26. Mawah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
  17. Fey M.E. and Finestack L.H. (2009)., Research and development in children’s language intervention: A 5-phase model., In R. G. Schwartz (Ed.), Handbook of child language disorders, New York: Psychology Press, 513-531.
  18. Tezi Y.L. (2014)., Using inductive and deductive methods in teaching grammar to adult learners of English., Unpublished MA Thesis. University of Ataturk.
  19. Trahey M. and White L. (1993)., Positive evidence and pre-emption in the second language Classroom., Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 15(2), 181-204.
  20. Bouffard P. (2015)., The effect of input flooding and explicit instruction on learning adverb placement in L3 French., The Canadian Journal of Applied Linguistics, 18(2), 1-27.
  21. Ballard B. (2013)., The frameworks of English: Introducing language structures., USA: Palgrave Macmillan.
  22. Fang A.C. (2000)., A lexicalist approach towards the automatic determination for the syntactic functions of prepositional phrases., Natural Language Engineering, 6(2), 183-201.
  23. Quirk R., Greenbaum S., Leech G. and Svartik J. (1985)., A comprehensive grammar of the English language., London: Longman.
  24. Elwerfally I. (2013)., The acquisition of the English article system by Libyan learners of English: A comparision between dedcutive teaching and textual enhanced input strategies., Unpublished doctoral dissertation. Northumbria University, Newcastle.
  25. Arani S. and Yazdanimoghaddam M. (2016)., The impact of input flooding and textual enhancement on Iranian EFL learners’ syntactic development., Teachers College, Columbia University Working Papers in TESOL & Applied Linguistics, 16(1), 25-37.