0% found this document useful (0 votes)
10 views9 pages

Understanding and Utilizing Form

Uploaded by

andreacastroupv
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
0% found this document useful (0 votes)
10 views9 pages

Understanding and Utilizing Form

Uploaded by

andreacastroupv
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/ 9

Special Extended Teaching Note

Understanding and Utilizing Form-


Focused Instruction in the Language
Classroom
Kunie Kellem & Andy Halvorsen, University of Oregon

Abstract
ESL/EFL teachers can face several challenges when it comes to a focus on language
forms in the classroom. How should teachers integrate the instruction of structural
language forms with meaning-based activities? How necessary is a focus on form for
student language learning? In what contexts is an explicit focus on form in the classroom
most appropriate? This article explores the answers to these questions and others. The
article begins by looking at some relevant background on the use of Form-Focused
Instruction (FFI) in the language classroom, and it considers FFI’s relevance for today’s
learners. The paper also provides pragmatic examples for how to make use of FFI in
practical and meaningful ways. In the end, the article argues that a theoretical and
pedagogical awareness of FFI should be part of a teacher’s repertoire of tools to
enhance student learning in certain classroom contexts.

Key Words: Form-Focused Instruction, FFI, Grammar instruction, Focus-on-Form,


Focus-on-Meaning

Introduction
English language teachers working in both ESL and EFL contexts are often faced
with a pedagogical dilemma centered around the longstanding debate over how and when
to include focused grammatical instruction in the classroom. Should teachers explicitly
focus learners’ attention on grammatical forms? If so, how and when should such explicit
instruction occur? Alternatively, should teachers simply focus on creating classroom
contexts where grammatical forms can be practiced in meaningful and authentic ways?
Does a focus on authentic communicative language in the classroom necessarily preclude
direct grammatical instruction?
These questions are not new to the field, nor have definitive answers been
established. Decisions about the extent to which teachers ought to focus clearly on
grammatical instruction in the classroom are largely contextual and vary from one class
27 ORTESOL Journal, Volume 35, 2018
type to another. This paper argues that teachers have a responsibility to understand and
engage with the debate around Form-Focused Instruction (FFI), and to develop their
pedagogic skill set to include ways to translate FFI theory into classroom teaching
practice.
This paper will provide a working definition of FFI and a general overview of the
various theoretical positions surrounding form-focused grammatical instruction. It will
also consider the different contexts in which FFI might or might not be appropriate in the
classroom, and present practical classroom applications of FFI as examples.

Definitions and Types of FFI


Collins (2012) identifies FFI as “any pedagogical practice undertaken by second
language (L2) teachers with the goal of drawing their students’ attention to language
form” (p. 2187). Language forms in this case may refer to spelling conventions,
punctuation, grammatical structures, or a range of other possibilities. Spada and
Lightbown (2008) make the distinction between integrated and isolated forms of FFI. In
integrated FFI, students’ attention is drawn to language forms during communicative
activities, whereas in isolated FFI, form-focused lessons are conducted independently and
place meaning in a secondary role. As Spada and Lightbown argue, if learners are beyond
early childhood and have exposure to English only in the classroom where learners share
the same L1, both integrated and isolated FFI can be valuable.
Evidence suggests that FFI helps learners pay attention to forms in the input, and
without the explicit focus, learners may fail to notice and take up new forms in the
language (Ellis, 2001; Ellis, 2016; Spada & Lightbown, 2008). Form in this case can be
lexical (phonological and orthographic), grammatical, or pragmalinguistic (Ellis, 2016).
There have been numerous attempts to distinguish FFI types, one of which is the
distinction made by Long (1998) who argues there are three types: (1) focus-on-forms, (2)
focus-on-meaning, (3) focus-on-form depending on the way attention to form or structure
is approached in the classroom.
In differentiating between these three focal types, Long (1998) notes that focus-on-
forms is now considered the traditional approach to grammatical instruction whereby
teachers and course designers create lessons, materials, and textbooks centered on
structural components of the language (phonemes, sentences patterns, grammatical
structures, etc.). Classroom instruction and practice emphasize student understanding of
the forms themselves and their related rules. Focus-on-forms instruction, where learning
a preselected target form is the primary focus, has options of explicit and implicit
instruction. Explicit focus-on-forms can be done deductively and inductively; the rule is
presented by a teacher deductively, or learners inductively analyze the input and discover
the rule by themselves (DeKeyser, 2003; Ellis, 2001, 2016). DeKeyser (1995) noted that

28 ORTESOL Journal, Volume 35, 2018


implicit learning allows students to infer and acquire rules without awareness. Focus-on-
forms can include a structured input approach (Ellis, 2001), with which learners are
exposed to sufficient examples of the target structure and asked to be engaged in the tasks
to notice and use the target structure. It is similar to the notion of isolated FFI and can be
incorporated as preparation for a communicative activity.
Focus-on-meaning, on the other hand, represents “a radical pendulum shift: a shift of
allegiance to Option 2, and an equally single-minded focus on meaning” (Long, 1998, p.
38). While a focus on meaning in the classroom has helped enable a transition toward
more communicative-based approaches to language instruction, it has also created
challenges, not the least of which is research suggesting that L2 learners progress more
quickly in their language development when emphasis is placed on specific language
forms (Ellis, 1994; Long, 1988).
The compromise then is what Long (1998) has termed focus-on-form. This approach
avoids the binary choices inherent in the form-meaning debate, and instead emphasizes
the act of drawing students’ attention to specific language forms within the context of
communicative and meaning-based activities. This might mean, for example, following
up an information gap activity with a focused discussion of a grammatical form that
emerged as a challenge during the activity. This approach allows for a level of
responsiveness to student needs in the classroom that is not possible when materials are
designed to address certain forms in isolation from one another. By embedding form-
focused instruction within communicative activities, instructors encourage students to
attend to both meaning and form. This focus-on-form can be either pre-emptive or
reactive. Reactive focus-on-form can occur as corrective feedback, such as recast,
clarification request and repetition. Pre-emptive focus-on-form instruction about what
form to use can be introduced briefly before communicative activities. Both focus-on-
form (pre-planned and incidental) correspond to integrated FFI (Spada & Lightbown,
2008), which draws learners’ attention to language form when they are engaged in
communicative activities.

Effectiveness of FFI
One of the pervasive findings from numerous studies is that the explicit use of FFI
can promote language learning (DeKeyser, 1998, 2003; Ellis, 2001; Norris & Ortega,
2001; Spada & Lightbown, 2008). In Norris and Ortega’s (2001) meta-analysis, effect
sizes were calculated based on a review of 49 research studies looking at explicit and
implicit instruction of language forms. The effect size of explicit instruction (both focus-
on-forms and focus-on-form) was shown to be significantly larger than that of implicit
instruction (both focus-on-forms and focus-on-form). In addition, Norris and Ortega
illustrate that the difference of the effect size between explicit focus-on-forms and
explicit focus-on-form instruction is small, which might suggest that any type of explicit

29 ORTESOL Journal, Volume 35, 2018


FFI works. Contrarily, according to Spada and Lightbown (2008), instruction in which
attention is drawn to both forms and meaning is the most effective. Taken as a whole, the
effectiveness of types of FFI depends on variables such as the difficulty of the target
structures (complexity, salience, variation from learner’s L1, etc.) and the learners’
proficiency level and language aptitude (DeKeyser, 2003; Spada & Lightbown, 2008).
As Ellis (2016) emphasizes, FFI is not an approach but a procedure or task design
feature. Therefore, teachers do not necessarily have to choose one specific FFI type, but
they should choose the appropriate one according to the contexts and sometimes combine
more than two types in one lesson. DeKeyser (1998) even argues that teachers should
avoid using exclusively either forms-focused instruction or meaning-focused instruction.
Form-and-meaning association should be made by making explicit knowledge
proceduralized and, in the end, automatized through both forms-focused and meaning-
focused instruction.
Research conducted by Jourdenais, Ota, Stauffer, Boyson, and Doughty (1995)
showed that “enhanced input” such as highlighting forms can help learners notice forms
and subsequently use them. More explicit input enhancement is thought to facilitate
learning more than less explicit input enhancement (Norris & Ortega, 2001; Takimoto,
2008). Ellis (2016) also states that if text enhancement is combined with other
techniques, its effectiveness can be increased. Inductive rule discovery is especially
beneficial because older learners can use their analytical ability better (DeKeyser, 2003),
and the explicit knowledge acquired through inductive instruction is considered to be
more accessible in communicative activities (Takimoto, 2008).

Conditions Affecting FFI Selection


There are conditions under which specific FFI types are considered to be more
effective. Simple but non-salient forms can be taught more efficiently in explicit and
isolated FFI because learners do not easily notice those forms in the input (DeKeyser,
2003; Spada & Lightbown, 2008). On the other hand, forms that are more complex and
difficult to describe can be taught more effectively in integrated FFI with the context
(DeKeyser, 1998, 2003; Spada & Lightbown, 2008).
In Norris and Ortega’s (2001) study, the review of both short and long-term FFI
interventions found short-term FFI to have a slightly greater impact on retention than
long-term FFI. In this sense, short-term, intensive FFI can be appropriate before using the
target structure meaningfully in a communicative activity. According to Jean (as cited in
Spada & Lightbown, 2008), vocabulary learning can be better enhanced if it is taught in
communicative activities. N. Ellis (1994b) also highlighted the value of implicit learning
as beneficial for vocabulary. In addition, other factors that can affect the effectiveness of

30 ORTESOL Journal, Volume 35, 2018


FFI types are the learner’s developmental stage and age, the nature of target structure
(DeKeyser, 2003; Ellis, 2001; Spada & Lightbown, 2008), and the materials (Ellis, 2001).
Another important consideration in the effectiveness of FFI is the sequencing of
tasks, both within a classroom lesson and across units or textbooks. As Ellis (2016)
argues, the focus-on-meaning, focus-on-form, and focus-on-forms types are not isolated
entities but more of a continuum of FFI. Thornbury (1999) and Doughty and Williams
(1998b) note that fluency activities (focus on meaning) should come before accuracy
activities (focus on forms). Ellis (2016) suggests that focus-on-form is at the center of
task-based language and teaching (TBLT). Focused communicative tasks are meaning-
focused, have a goal to attain, and have a real-world relationship (Ellis, 2001). Ellis
(2016) emphasizes that pre-teaching the target structures before a task can allow learners
to be aware of the forms while engaged in the communicative tasks, which can facilitate
more learning.
A final point in task sequencing is the notion of Skill Acquisition Theory (DeKeyser,
2007). This theory notes the inherent similarities in adult learning processes. At the
outset, adults begin the learning process through primarily explicit means, and, with
practice and time, can begin to internalize rules and move toward implicit mastery. This
can also be thought of as a progression from declarative knowledge to procedural
knowledge, with the later constituting an unconscious awareness of how an activity is
completed.

Classroom-Based Examples of FFI


To better understand how variations of FFI can be practically applied in classroom
settings, it can be helpful to consider a couple of real-life activities. The following two
examples each incorporate an FFI component in different ways. In the first example, a
jigsaw reading focuses students on meaning first, and this is followed-up by form-
focused and attention-raising activities. In the second example, FFI is integrated into
communicative discussion activities to enhance the students’ abilities to fully participate.

Example 1: Jigsaw reading to FFI (from meaning to form)


One example is a set of classroom activities whose task sequencing starts with a top-
down focus (on meaning) first through a jigsaw reading, and then shifts to a bottom-up
focus (on forms) afterwards. In the jigsaw reading, students read an allotted passage in
groups with guided questions provided by a teacher. Each group reads a different portion
of the overall text. They discuss the meaning of the passage in a group, individually
create a short summary of the passage, and peer assess their summary with a checklist in
groups. Then students form a new group with students who read a different allotted
passage. Each expert explains their part to other members, using the summary they
created. They confirm the understanding of the members, using guided questions. After

31 ORTESOL Journal, Volume 35, 2018


all the experts report their parts and students have the whole picture of the reading, the
teacher asks comprehension questions and each group answers them. Throughout the
whole jigsaw reading activity, student attention is drawn to meaning.
After this, students are given a homework handout that directs their attention to the
forms from the reading. For homework, students read numerous examples which include
the target structure (e.g., wherever/whenever/however structures), and they make
sentences using the structure and/or draw pictures describing the meaning. Example
sentences and sample pictures were given in the handout (e.g., Whenever you go out, it
always rains in the fall in Oregon). Then, in the next lesson, students in groups give a
quiz to each other showing pictures and have other members guess the sentence. Since
this form (wherever/whenever/however SV) is salient but hard to explain and
comprehend, the form-focused activity is contextualized with pictures and student-
created sentences, which helps students’ comprehension. Although students’ attention is
on the target structure, they are also engaged in the meaning, which gives the activity
both FFI and communicative components. At this point, the teacher may also wish to
provide some focused examples of the target forms as well. Finally, students have an
opportunity to read the passages again to solidify their comprehension of both meanings
and forms.
In example 1, meaning is foregrounded in the lesson, but the incorporation of FFI is
clear as well. Students are not so much explicitly taught rules related to the target forms,
but rather they are allowed to identify the forms independently and contextualize them
within their own writing and drawing. The activities are primarily student-centered,
allowing them to take some ownership of the learning process.

Example 2: Topic selection for presentation (FFI integrated into communication)


One example in classroom practice where FFI is integrated into Communicative
Language Teaching is a ranking activity conducted as students prepare to give a
presentation. In this activity, students are placed into groups and each group is required to
select a topic for a future group presentation. A ranking activity for choosing a topic for
the group presentation requires students to brainstorm, express their opinions, discuss and
negotiate meaning, and reach consensus in groups. It involves higher order thinking skills
such as analyzing, comparing, and synthesizing information.
For many students, it can be less challenging to brainstorm possible topics and
explain them because this is primarily a unilateral form of communication; students are
simply asked to share their own ideas and opinions. However, when it comes to
discussion, negotiation of meaning and reaching consensus, this bilateral form of
communication may be more challenging for some groups of students. This is
particularly true for students at the intermediate proficiency level and below who may

32 ORTESOL Journal, Volume 35, 2018


have limited discourse competence in their L2. Learners at this level can benefit from
having a fixed set of communicative structures as part of their overall repertoire.
These types of fixed structures are sometimes referred to as sentence frames or
communication frames. For example, students in this context might want to be aware of
the value of softening “I disagree” to “I’m not sure I agree.” To integrate FFI into this
component of the lesson, the teacher would simply monitor the group discussions and
take notes on common forms and structures that students are struggling with. After
several minutes of group discussion, the teacher might wish to pause the activity and give
a five-minute lecture on three or four forms that students could incorporate into their
discussion. Even after they learn useful chunks and expressions for discussion for the first
time, students should be reminded of them before discussion every time until they are
automatized. These forms might be placed on the board or projected onto the screen so
students can refer to them during subsequent conversation.
FFI of this nature, integrated as it is into discussion group activities, has the obvious
benefit of being responsive to student needs. The structures themselves are adaptable
depending on the activity and the students’ performance during that activity. Also, as the
presentation of the forms is necessarily short, the students are still allowed a significant
amount of time to internalize the new structures and begin to incorporate them into their
own productive language use.

Conclusion
FFI comes in a range of styles and approaches, and teachers should be aware of how
different types of FFI can be integrated into their teaching practice to best meet the needs
of their learners. As with most aspects of English language teaching, FFI does not present
a one-size-fits-all approach for teachers. Instead, decisions about how and when to
incorporate FFI into the classroom experience are context-based and impacted by a wide
range of factors including the students age and language proficiency level, the teacher’s
comfort level with instruction in specific forms, the lesson content, and the background
knowledge and experience of the students.
As was highlighted by the two examples given here, FFI’s advantages in the
classroom can be numerous. In a well-balanced pedagogical approach, students can be
encouraged to focus on both form and meaning in a given activity, and the form-focused
instruction can be customized to student needs and may only take a limited amount of
class time. Another advantage is that, in many EFL contexts in particular, there often
exists a tension between focus on meaning and focus on form. Many countries now have
a nationalized English language curricula that encourages communicative language
learning and an emphasis on meaning; however, these same countries continue to assess
students’ language proficiency based primarily on knowledge of the form and structure of

33 ORTESOL Journal, Volume 35, 2018


the language. FFI can provide a middle ground here, as it allows teachers and students to
develop their communicative skills in parallel with development of their knowledge of
specific language structures and forms.

References
Collins, L. (2012). Form-focused instruction. The Encyclopedia of Applied Linguistics.
New York: Blackwell Publishing.
DeKeyser, R. (1995). Learning second language grammar rules: An experiment with a
miniature linguistic system. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 17, 379-410.
DeKeyser, R. M. (1998). Beyond focus on form: cognitive perspectives on learning and
practicing second language grammar. In C. Doughty & J. Williams (Eds.), Focus on
form in classroom second language acquisition (Cambridge Applied Linguistics
Series, pp. 42-63). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
DeKeyser, R. M. (2003). Implicit and explicit learning. In C. Doughty & M. H. Long
(Eds.), The handbook of second language acquisition (pp. 313-340). Malden, MA:
Blackwell Pub.
DeKeyser, R. M. (2007). Skill acquisition theory. In B. Van Patten & J. Williams (Eds.),
Theories in second language acquisition: An introduction (pp. 97-113). New Jersey:
Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Inc.
Doughty, C., & Williams, J. (1998b). Issues and terminology. In C. Doughty& J.
Williams (Eds.), Focus on form in classroom second language acquisition (pp. 1-12).
Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Ellis, N. (1994b). Vocabulary acquisition: The implicit ins and outs of explicit cognitive
mediation. In N. C. Ellis (Ed.), Implicit and explicit learning of languages (pp. 211-
282). London: Academic Press.
Ellis, R. (2001). Introduction: Investigating form-focused instruction. Language
Learning, 51 (Supplement 1), 1-46.
Ellis, R. (2016). Focus on form: A critical review. Language Teaching Research, 20(3),
405-428.
Jourdenais, R., Ota, M., Stauffer, S., Boyson, B., & Doughty, C. (1995). Does textual
enhancement promote noticing? A think-aloud protocol analysis. In R. Schmidt (Ed.),
Attention and awareness in foreign language learning (pp. 183-216). Honolulu:
University of Hawai'i Press.
Long, M. (1988). Instructed interlanguage development. In L. Beede (Ed.). Issues in
Second Language Acquisition: Multiple perspectives. New York: Newbury House.

34 ORTESOL Journal, Volume 35, 2018


Long. M. (1998). Focus on form in Task-Based Language Teaching. University of
Hawai’i Working Papers in ESL, 16 (2), 35-49.
Norris, J. M., & Ortega, L. (2001). Does type of instruction make a difference?
Substantive findings from a meta-analytic review. Language Learning, 51, 157-213.
Spada, N., & Lightbown, P. M. (2008). Form-focused instruction: isolated or integrated?
TESOL Quarterly: A Journal for Teachers of English to Speakers of Other Languages
and of Standard English as a Second Dialect, 42(2), 181-207.
Takimoto, M. (2008). The effects of deductive and inductive instruction on the
development of language learners' pragmatic competence. Modern Language
Journal, 92(3), 369-386.
Thornbury, S. (1999). Chapter 6: How to practice grammar. In How to teach grammar
(pp. 91-112). Harlow, U.K.: Pearson-Longman.

Kunie Kellem is a graduate student at the University of Oregon. After working for senior
high schools in Japan as an English teacher for fourteen years, she came to UO to study
at the LTS (Language Teaching Studies) program. The focus of her study is to integrate
PBL and FonF under the constraints of MEXT-prescribed textbook.

Dr. Andy Halvorsen is currently a Senior Faculty member in the American English
Institute at the University of Oregon where he primarily trains language teachers in
both face-to-face and online contexts. He has a Ph.D. in Education from the University
of Illinois, with a focus on bilingualism and biliteracy development.

35 ORTESOL Journal, Volume 35, 2018

You might also like