Scribd
Upload
68 views3 pages

Sheen Focus On Form and Focus On Forms

Uploaded by

mbelenomuller
Copyright
© © All Rights Reserved
We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.
Available Formats
Download as PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd
68 views3 pages

Sheen Focus On Form and Focus On Forms

Uploaded by

mbelenomuller
Copyright
© © All Rights Reserved
We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.
Available Formats
Download as PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd
You are on page 1/ 3

key concepts in elt

‘Focus on form’ and ‘focus


on forms’
Ron Sheen

One of the current concerns of applied linguists is centred on the most


e¤ective form of grammar instruction in the communicative classroom
(Doughty and Williams 1998; Lightbown 2000; Norris and Ortega
2000). The debate revolves around the degree to which teachers need to
direct learners’ attention to understanding grammar whilst retaining a
focus on the need to communicate. Thus, on the one hand, there are
those who advocate minimal to no interruption in communication,
limiting attention to grammar by means of corrective feedback (Doughty
and Varela 1998); on the other, there are those who advocate separate
attention to grammar and subsequent integration of the knowledge
provided in increasingly communicative activity (DeKeyser 1998).
These two extremes have been encapsulated by Long’s (1988, 1991)
proposal that grammar instruction may be of two types: ‘focus on form’
and ‘focus on formS’. The former refers to drawing ‘… students’
attention to linguistic elements as they arise incidentally in lessons
whose overriding focus is on meaning or communication.’ (Long 1991:
45–6). The latter is equated with the traditional teaching of discrete
points of grammar in separate lessons, and as such also includes the
approach advocated by DeKeyser (1998).
In terms of the theoretical underpinnings of these two options, there is a
fundamental di¤erence. ‘Focus on form’ derives from an assumed
degree of similarity between first and second language acquisition
positing that the two processes are both based on an exposure to
comprehensible input arising from natural interaction. However, it is
also assumed that there are significant di¤erences in the two processes:
that exposure is insuªcient to enable learners to acquire much of the
second-language grammar, and that this lack needs to be compensated
for by focusing learners’ attention on grammatical features. ‘Focus on
formS’, on the other hand, is based on the assumption that classroom
foreign or second language learning derives from general cognitive
processes, and thus entails the learning of a skill—hence its being
characterized as a ‘skills-learning approach’. As such, it comprises three
stages:

ELT Journal Volume 56/3 July 2002 © Oxford University Press 303
1 providing understanding of the grammar by a variety of means
(including explanation in the L1, pointing out di¤erences between the
L1 and the L2;
2 exercises entailing using the grammar in both non-communicative
and communicative activities for both comprehension and production;
3 providing frequent opportunities for communicative use of the
grammar to promote automatic, accurate, use.
The di¤erence between these two approaches, therefore, would appear
reasonably clear-cut. Unfortunately, however, the use of the two terms in
the literature is not always consistent with these two definitions. Two
factors have created ambiguity such that it is not always clear which
approach is being referred to. The first of these is the tendency by some
(e.g. DeKeyser 1998; Lightbown 1998, 2000) to use ‘focus on form’ to
refer to any approach which includes grammar instruction, thus
including both ‘focus on form’ and ‘focus on formS’. The second derives
from an important article (Norris and Ortega 2000) which endeavours to
compare the eªcacy of the two approaches. They carried out an analysis
of relevant (but by no means all) studies, and define ‘focus on form’ as
that which meets the following criteria (p. 438): (a) designing tasks to
promote learner engagement with meaning prior to form; (b) seeking to
attain and document task essentialness or naturalness of the L2 forms;
(c) seeking to ensure that instruction was unobstrusive; (d) documenting
learner mental processes (‘noticing’). However, to take but one example,
proposals by VanPatten and Sanz (1995) are classed by Norris and Ortega
(ibid.) as ‘focus on form’. This study treats grammar as entailing discrete
forms (‘el’ and ‘ella’ forms of verbs in Spanish, for example) which it
teaches initially by means of explicit instruction in separate lessons, with
an emphasis on form (and is, thus, in the terms of Norris and Ortega,
obtrusive) before proceeding to aural comprehension exercises enabling
students to recognize form-meaning relationships. It is thus, if we follow
both Long’s criteria (see above), and criteria (a) and (c) of Norris and
Ortega themselves, clearly an exponent of a ‘focus on formS’. As a result
of this terminological confusion, Norris and Ortega’s conclusion that
‘… a focus on form and focus on forms are equally e¤ective’ should be
treated with some caution, and can in no way be considered an
endorsement of Long’s focus on form.
Given these di¤erent interpretations and the ensuing complexities and
ambiguities, the reading of attempts to provide an overview of the
relevant empirical studies may prove to be something of a daunting task.
One such endeavour can be found in the first and final chapters of
Doughty and Williams (1998), written by the two editors. They provide
an excellent summary of most relevant studies and it will repay the e¤ort
required to assimilate the abundance of descriptions and analyses
therein.

304 Ron Sheen


References Foreign Language Research in Cross-cultural
DeKeyser, R.M. 1998. ‘Beyond focus on form: Perspective. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
Cognitive perspectives on learning and practising Norris, J. M. and L. Ortega. 2000 ‘E¤ectiveness of
second language grammar’ in C. Doughty and J. L2 instruction: A research synthesis and
Williams (eds.). quantitative meta-analysis’. Language Learning
Doughty, C. and E. Varela. 1998. ‘Communicative 50/3: 417–528.
Focus on Form’ in C. Doughty and J. Williams VanPatten, B., and C. Sanz. 1995. ‘From input to
(eds.). output: Processing instruction and
Doughty, C. and J. Williams (eds.). 1998. Focus on communicative task’ in F. Eckman, D. Highland,
Form in Classroom Second Language Acquisition. P. Lee, J. Mileham, and R. Weber (eds.). SLA
Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Theory and Pedagogy. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence
Lightbown, P. 1998. ‘The importance of timing in Erlbaum.
focus on form’ in C. Doughty and J. Williams
(eds.). The authors
Lightbown, P. 2000 ‘Anniversary Article: Ron Sheen is a professor of applied linguistics and
Classroom SLA research and second language English at the University of Quebec in Trois
teaching’. Applied Linguistics 21/4: 431–62. Rivières, Canada. He has taught applied
Long, M.H. 1988. ‘Instructed interlanguage linguistics, English and French in various parts of
development’ in L. Beebe (ed.). Issues in Second the world and has published widely on the
Language Acquisition: Multiple Perspectives. New teaching of English and on the issue of
York: Newbury House. methodological choice in teaching foreign
Long, M. H. 1991. ‘Focus on form: A design languages.
feature in language teaching methodology’ in K. Email: [email protected]
de Bot, R. Ginsberg, and C. Kramsch (eds.).

Focus on form and forms 305

You might also like