Advertisement

Form-Focused Instruction: Providing the Theoretical Basis

  • Olga Trendak
Part of the Second Language Learning and Teaching book series (SLLT)

Abstract

Although the overwhelming part of the volume is devoted to the concept of language learning strategies, it seems fitting to present the notion of grammar in greater detail. The most important reason is that the empirical part of this work pertains to grammar learning strategies (GLS) which learners opt for when they learn the target language (TL). Therefore, this chapter will serve as a theoretical introduction outlining the most significant issues connected with grammar instruction.

Keywords

Target Language Explicit Knowledge Implicit Learning Target Feature Implicit Knowledge 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.

References

  1. Alanen, R. (1995). Input enhancement and rule presentation in second language acquisition. In R. Schmidt (Ed.), Attention and awareness in foreign language learning and teaching (pp. 259–302). Honolulu, HI: University of Hawai’i, Second Language Teaching and Curriculum Centre.Google Scholar
  2. Allwright, R. (1975). Problems in the study of language teachers’ treatment of errors. In M. Burt & H. Dulay (Eds.), On TESOL ’75: New directions in second language learning, teaching and bilingual education (pp. 95–109). Washington, DC: TESOL.Google Scholar
  3. Anderson, J. (1983). The architecture of cognition. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
  4. Anderson, J. (1993). Rules of the mind. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.Google Scholar
  5. Basturkmen, H., Loewen, S., & Ellis, R. (2004). Teachers’ stated beliefs about incidental focus on form and their classroom practices. Applied Linguistics, 25, 242–272.Google Scholar
  6. Batstone, R. (1994). Product and process: Grammar in the second language classroom. In M. Bygate, A. Tonkyn, & E. Williams (Eds.), Grammar and the language teacher (pp. 224–236). Hertfordshire: Prentice Hall International.Google Scholar
  7. Beretta, A., & Davies, A. (1985). Evaluation of the Bangalore Project. ELT Journal, 39, 121–127.Google Scholar
  8. Bialystok, E. (1978). A theoretical model of second language learning. Language Learning, 28, 69–83.Google Scholar
  9. Borg, S. (1999). The use of grammatical terminology in the second language classroom. Applied Linguistics, 20, 95–126.Google Scholar
  10. Cadierno, T. (1995). Formal instruction from a processing perspective: An investigation into the Spanish past tense. The Modern Language Journal, 79, 179–193.Google Scholar
  11. Carroll, J. (1966). The contributions of psychological theory and educational research to teaching of foreign languages. In A. Valdman (Ed.), Trends in language teaching (pp. 93–106). New York: McGraw-Hill.Google Scholar
  12. Carroll, S., & Swain, M. (1993). Explicit and implicit negative feedback: An empirical study of the learning of linguistic generalizations. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 15, 357–386.Google Scholar
  13. Carroll, S., Roberge, Y., & Swain, M. (1992). The role of feedback in adult second language acquisition: Error correction and morphological generalization. Applied Psycholinguistics, 13, 173–189.Google Scholar
  14. Chaudron, C. (1977). A descriptive model of discourse in the corrective treatment of learners’ errors. Language Learning, 27, 29–46.Google Scholar
  15. Dakowska, M. (2003). Current controversies in foreign language didactics. Warszawa: Wydawnictwo Uniwersytetu Warszawskiego.Google Scholar
  16. Day, E. M., & Shapson, S. M. (1991). Integrating formal and functional approaches to language teaching in French immersion: An experimental study. Language Learning, 41, 25–58.Google Scholar
  17. De Graaff, R. (1997). The eXperanto experiment: Effects of explicit instruction on second language acquisition. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 19, 249–297.Google Scholar
  18. DeKeyser, R. (1995). Learning second language grammar rules: An experiment with a miniature linguistic system. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 17, 379–410.Google Scholar
  19. DeKeyser, R. (1997). Beyond explicit rule learning: Automatizing second language morphosyntax. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 19, 195–221.Google Scholar
  20. DeKeyser, R. (1998). Beyond focus on form: Cognitive perspectives on learning and practising second language grammar. In C. Doughty & J. Williams (Eds.), Focus on form in classroom second language acquisition (pp. 42–63). Cambridge: CUP.Google Scholar
  21. DeKeyser, R. (2001). Automaticity and automatization. In P. Robinson (Ed.), Cognition and second language instruction (pp. 125–151). Cambridge: CUP.Google Scholar
  22. DeKeyser, R. (2005). What makes learning second-language grammar difficult? A review of issues. Language Learning, 55, 1–25.Google Scholar
  23. DeKeyser, R., & Sokalski, K. J. (1996). The differential role of comprehension and production practice. Language Learning, 46, 613–642.Google Scholar
  24. Doughty, C. (1991). Second language instruction does make a difference: Evidence from an empirical study of ESL relativization. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 13, 431–469.Google Scholar
  25. Doughty, C. (2001). Cognitive underpinnings of focus on form. In P. Robinson (Ed.), Cognition and second language instruction (pp. 206–257). Cambridge: CUP.Google Scholar
  26. Doughty, C., & Varela, E. (1998). Communicative focus on form. In C. Doughty & J. Williams (Eds.), Focus on form in classroom second language acquisition (pp. 114–138). Cambridge: CUP.Google Scholar
  27. Doughty, C., & Williams, J. (1998a). Issues and terminology. In C. Doughty & J. Williams (Eds.), Focus on form in classroom second language acquisition (pp. 1–11). Cambridge: CUP.Google Scholar
  28. Doughty, C., & Williams, J. (1998b). Pedagogical choices in focus on form. In C. Doughty & J. Williams (Eds.), Focus on form in classroom second language acquisition (pp. 197–261). Cambridge: CUP.Google Scholar
  29. Eisenstein, M. (1980). Grammatical explanations in ESL: Teach the student not the method. TESL Talk, 11, 3–13.Google Scholar
  30. Ellis, N. (1993). Rules and instances in foreign language learning: Interactions of explicit and implicit knowledge. European Journal of Cognitive Psychology, 5, 289–318.Google Scholar
  31. Ellis, R. (1994). The study of second language acquisition. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  32. Ellis, R. (1997). SLA research and language teaching. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  33. Ellis, R. (2000). Focusing on form: Towards a research agenda. Paper presented at an annual Regional English Language Centre Conference, Singapore.Google Scholar
  34. Ellis, R. (2001). Introduction: Investigating form-focused instruction. Language Learning, 51, 1–46.Google Scholar
  35. Ellis, N. (2002). Frequency effects in language processing. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 24, 143–188.Google Scholar
  36. Ellis, R. (2004). The definition and measurement of L2 explicit knowledge. Language Learning, 54, 227–275.Google Scholar
  37. Ellis, R. (2005). Measuring implicit and explicit knowledge of a second language. A psychometric study. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 27, 141–172.Google Scholar
  38. Ellis, R. (2006). Current issues in the teaching of grammar: An SLA perspective. TESOL Quarterly, 40, 83–107.Google Scholar
  39. Ellis, R., & Takashima, H. (2000). Output enhancement and the acquisition of the past tense. In R. Ellis (Ed.), Learning a second language through interaction (pp. 173–188). Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
  40. Ellis, R., Basturkmen, H., & Loewen, S. (2002). Doing focus on form. System, 30, 419–432.Google Scholar
  41. Erlam, R. (2003). The effects of deductive and inductive instruction on the acquisition of direct object pronouns in French as a second language. The Modern Language Journal, 87, 242–260.Google Scholar
  42. Fotos, S. (1993). Consciousness raising and noticing through focus on form: Grammar task performance versus formal instruction. Applied Linguistics, 14, 385–407.Google Scholar
  43. Fotos, S. (1994). Integrating grammar instruction and communicative language use through grammar consciousness-raising tasks. TESOL Quarterly, 28, 323–351.Google Scholar
  44. Fotos, S., & Ellis, R. (1991). Communicating about grammar: A task-based approach. TESOL Quarterly, 25, 605–628.Google Scholar
  45. Harmer, J. (2001). The practice of English language teaching. London: Longman.Google Scholar
  46. Hatch, E. (1978). Discourse analysis and second language acquisition. In E. Hatch (Ed.), Second language acquisition: A book of readings (pp. 401–475). Rowley, MA: Newbury House.Google Scholar
  47. Herron, C., & Tomasello, M. (1992). Acquiring grammatical structures by guided instruction. The French Review, 65, 708–718.Google Scholar
  48. Hulstijn, J. H. (2005). Theoretical and empirical issues in the study of implicit and explicit second-language learning. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 27, 129–140.Google Scholar
  49. Hymes, D. (1972). On communicative competence. In J. B. Pride & J. Holmes (Eds.), Sociolinguistics (pp. 269–293). Harmondsworth: Penguin.Google Scholar
  50. Johnson, K. (1996). Language teaching and skill learning. Oxford: Blackwell.Google Scholar
  51. Johnson, K. (2001). An introduction to foreign language learning and teaching. Harlow: Pearson Education.Google Scholar
  52. Jourdenais, R., Ota, M., Stauffer, S., Boyson, B., & Doughty, C. (1995). Does textual enhancement promote noticing? In R. Schmidt (Ed.), Attention and awareness in foreign language learning (pp. 183–216). Honolulu: University of Hawai’i Second Language Teaching and Curriculum Centre.Google Scholar
  53. Komorowska, H. (2002). Metodyka nauczania języków obcych. Warszawa: Fraszka Edukacyjna.Google Scholar
  54. Krashen, S. (1981). Second language acquisition and second language learning. Oxford: Pergamon.Google Scholar
  55. Krashen, S. (1982). Principles and practice in second language acquisition. Oxford: Pergamon.Google Scholar
  56. Krashen, S., & Terrell, T. (1983). The Natural Approach: Language acquisition in the classroom. New York: Prentice Hall.Google Scholar
  57. Kubota, M. (1994). The role of negative feedback on the acquisition of the English dative alternation by Japanese college students of EFL. Institute for Research in Language Teaching Bulletin, 8, 1–36.Google Scholar
  58. Kubota, M. (1995). Teachability of conversational implicature to Japanese EFL learners. Institute for Research in Language Teaching Bulletin, 9, 35–67.Google Scholar
  59. Kubota, M. (1996). The effects of instruction plus feedback on Japanese university students of EFL: A pilot study. Bulletin of Chofu Gakuen Women’s Junior College, 18, 59–95.Google Scholar
  60. Larsen-Freeman, D. (2001). Grammar. In R. Carter & D. Nunan (Eds.), The Cambridge guide to teaching English to speakers of other languages (pp. 34–41). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  61. Larsen-Freeman, D. (2003). Teaching language: From grammar to grammaring. Toronto: Thomson and Heinle.Google Scholar
  62. Larsen-Freeman, D., & Long, M. H. (1991). An introduction to second language acquisition research. London: Longman.Google Scholar
  63. Leeman, J., Arteagoitia, I., Fridman, B., & Doughty, C. (1995). Integrating attention to form with meaning: Focus on form in content-based Spanish instruction. In R. Schmidt (Ed.), Attention and awareness in foreign language learning (pp. 217–258). Honolulu, HI: University of Hawai’i Second Language Teaching and Curriculum Centre.Google Scholar
  64. Lightbown, P. (1983). Exploring relationships between developmental and instructional sequences in L2 acquisition. In H. Seliger & M. H. Long (Eds.), Classroom-oriented research in second language acquisition (pp. 217–243). Rowley, MA: Newbury House.Google Scholar
  65. Lightbown, P. (1992). Getting quality input in the second/foreign language classroom. In C. Kramsch & S. McConnell-Ginet (Eds.), Text and context: Cross-disciplinary perspectives on language study (pp. 187–197). Lexington, MA: D.C. Health and Company.Google Scholar
  66. Lightbown, P., & Spada, N. (1990). Focus on form and corrective feedback in communicative language teaching: Effects on second language learning. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 12, 429–448.Google Scholar
  67. Loewen, S. (2003). The role of negative feedback in experimental vs. analytic foreign language teaching. Paper presented at the Conference on Instructed Second Language Learning, Brussels, Belgium.Google Scholar
  68. Long, M. H. (1977). Teacher feedback on learner error: Mapping cognitions. In H. D. Brown, C. Yorio, & R. Crymes (Eds.), On TESOL ’77 (pp. 278–293). Washington, DC: TESOL.Google Scholar
  69. Long, M. H. (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.Google Scholar
  70. Long, M. H. (1996). The role of the linguistic environment in second language acquisition. In W. Ritchie & T. Bhatia (Eds.), Handbook of second language acquisition (pp. 413–468). San Diego: Academic.Google Scholar
  71. Long, M. H., & 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. 15–41). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  72. Long, M. H., Inagaki, S., & Ortega, L. (1998). The role of implicit negative feedback in SLA: Models and recasts in Japanese and Spanish. The Modern Language Journal, 82, 357–371.Google Scholar
  73. Loschky, L., & Bley-Vroman, R. (1993). Grammar and task-based methodology. In G. Crookes & S. Gass (Eds.), Tasks and language learning (pp. 123–167). Clevedon, Avon: Multilingual Matters.Google Scholar
  74. Lyster, R. (1994). The effect of functional-analytic teaching on aspects of French immersion students’ sociolinguistic competence. Applied Linguistics, 15, 263–287.Google Scholar
  75. Lyster, R. (1998). Negotiation of form, recasts, and explicit correction in relation to error types and learner repair in immersion classrooms. Language Learning, 48, 183–218.Google Scholar
  76. Lyster, R., & Ranta, L. (1997). Corrective feedback and learner uptake: Negotiation of form in communicative classrooms. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 19, 37–66.Google Scholar
  77. Mackey, A., & Philp, J. (1998). Conversational interaction and second language development: Recasts, responses and red herrings? The Modern Language Journal, 82, 338–356.Google Scholar
  78. Mystkowska-Wiertelak, A. (2010). Production-oriented and reception-based approaches to teaching English grammar: An empirical study (Unpublished doctoral dissertation). Adam Mickiewicz University, Poland.Google Scholar
  79. Mystkowska-Wiertelak, A., & Pawlak, M. (2012). Production-oriented and comprehension-based grammar teaching in the foreign classroom. Heidelberg: Springer.Google Scholar
  80. Nagata, N. (1993). Intelligent computer feedback for second language instruction. The Modern Language Journal, 77, 330–339.Google Scholar
  81. Nagata, N. (1998). Input vs. output practice in educational software for second language acquisition. Language Learning and Technology, 1, 23–40.Google Scholar
  82. Nobuyoshi, J., & Ellis, R. (1993). Focused communication tasks and second language acquisition. ELT Journal, 47, 203–210.Google Scholar
  83. Norris, J. M., & Ortega, L. (2001). Does type of instruction make a difference? Substantive findings from a meta-analytic review. In R. Ellis (Ed.), Form-focused instruction and second language learning (pp. 157–213). Oxford: Blackwell.Google Scholar
  84. Oliver, R. (1995). Negative feedback in child NS-NNS conversation. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 17, 459–482.Google Scholar
  85. Ortega, L., & Long, M. H. (1995). The effects of models and recasts on the acquisition of object topicalization and adverb placement in Spanish. Spanish Applied Linguistics, 1, 65–86.Google Scholar
  86. Panova, I., & Lyster, R. (2002). Patterns of corrective feedback and uptake in an adult ESL classroom. TESOL Quarterly, 36, 573–595.Google Scholar
  87. Pavesi, M. (1986). Markedness, discoursal modes, and relative clause formation in a formal and an informal context. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 8, 38–55.Google Scholar
  88. Pawlak, M. (2005). The feasibility of integrating form and meaning in the language classroom: A qualitative study of classroom discourse. Glottodidactica, 30, 283–294.Google Scholar
  89. Pawlak, M. (2006). The place of form focused instruction in the foreign language classroom. Kalisz-Poznań: Wydawnictwo WPA UAM.Google Scholar
  90. Pawlak, M. (2007). Rola nauczania form językowych w przyswajaniu języka obcego – podstawy teoretyczne. In J. Majer & J. Nijakowska (Eds.), Język—Poznanie—Zachowanie: Studia nad psycholingwistycznymi aspektami przyswajania języka (pp. 67–88). Łódź: Wydawnictwo Uniwersytetu Łódzkiego.Google Scholar
  91. Pica, T., Holliday, L., Lewis, N., & Morgenthaler, L. (1989). Comprehensible output as an outcome of linguistic demands on the learner. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 11, 63–90.Google Scholar
  92. Piechurska-Kuciel, E. (2005). The importance of being aware. Advantages of explicit grammar study. Opole: Wydawnictwo Uniwersytetu Opolskiego.Google Scholar
  93. Prabhu, N. S. (1987). Second language pedagogy. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  94. Robinson, P. (1996). Learning simple and complex second language rules under implicit, incidental, rule-search, and instructed conditions. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 18, 27–68.Google Scholar
  95. Robinson, P. (2002). Individual differences and instructed language learning. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
  96. Rodrigo, V., Krashen, S., & Gribbons, B. (2004). The effect of two comprehensible-input approaches to foreign language instruction at the intermediate level. System, 32, 53–60.Google Scholar
  97. Rosa, E., & O’Neill, M. D. (1999). Explicitness, intake, and the issue of awareness. Another piece to the puzzle. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 21, 511–556.Google Scholar
  98. Salaberry, M. (1998). The role of input and output practice in second language acquisition. The Canadian Modern Language Review, 53, 422–451.Google Scholar
  99. Schmidt, R. (1983). Interaction, acculturation, and the acquisition of communicative competence: A case study of an adult. In N. Wolfson & E. Judd (Eds.), Sociolinguistics and language acquisition (pp. 137–174). Rowley, MA: Newbury House.Google Scholar
  100. Schmidt, R. (1990). The role of consciousness in second language learning. Applied Linguistics, 11, 17–46.Google Scholar
  101. Schmidt, R. (1994). Deconstructing consciousness: In search of useful definitions for applied linguistics. AILA Review, 11, 11–26.Google Scholar
  102. Schmidt, R. (2001). Attention. In P. Robinson (Ed.), Cognition and second language instruction (pp. 3–32). Cambridge: CUP.Google Scholar
  103. Schmidt, R., & Frota, S. (1986). Developing basic conversational ability in a second language: A case study in of an adult learner. In R. Day (Ed.), Talking to learn: Conversation in second language acquisition (pp. 237–326). Rowley, MA: Newbury House.Google Scholar
  104. Schwartz, B. (1993). On explicit and negative data affecting and effecting competence and linguistic behavior. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 15, 147–164.Google Scholar
  105. Scott, V. (1989). An empirical study of explicit and implicit teaching strategies in French. The Modern Language Journal, 73, 14–22.Google Scholar
  106. Scott, V. (1990). Explicit and implicit grammar teaching: New empirical data. The French Review, 63, 779–788.Google Scholar
  107. Seedhouse, P. (1997). Combining form and meaning. ELT Journal, 53, 149–156.Google Scholar
  108. Seliger, H. (1983). The language learner as linguist: Of metaphors and realities. Applied Linguistics, 4, 179–191.Google Scholar
  109. Seliger, H. (1987). Inductive method and deductive method in language teaching: A reexamination. International Review of Applied Linguistics, 10, 201–231.Google Scholar
  110. Sharwood Smith, M. (1981). Consciousness-raising and the second language learner. Applied Linguistics, 2, 159–168.Google Scholar
  111. Sharwood Smith, M. (1991). Speaking to many minds: On the relevance of different types of language information for the L2 learner. Second Language Research, 7, 118–132.Google Scholar
  112. Steinberg, D. D., & Sciarini, N. V. (2006). An introduction to linguistics. Harlow: Pearson Longman.Google Scholar
  113. Stern, H. H. (1990). Analysis and experience as variables in second language pedagogy. In B. Barley, P. Allen, J. Cummins, & M. Swain (Eds.), The development of second language proficiency (pp. 93–109). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  114. Swain, M. (1998). Focus on form through conscious reflection. In C. Doughty & J. Williams (Eds.), Focus on form in classroom second language acquisition (pp. 64–81). Cambridge: CUP.Google Scholar
  115. Swan, M. (1994). Design criteria for pedagogic language rules. In M. Bygate, A. Tonkyn, & E. Williams (Eds.), Grammar and the language teacher (pp. 45–55). London: Prentice Hall.Google Scholar
  116. Thornbury, S. (2001). How to teach grammar. Harlow: Pearson Education.Google Scholar
  117. Tonkyn, A. (1994). Introduction: Grammar and the language teacher. In M. Bygate, A. Tonkyn, & E. Williams (Eds.), Grammar and the language teacher (pp. 1–14). Hertfordshire: Prentice Hall International.Google Scholar
  118. Trahey, M., & White, L. (1993). Positive evidence and preemption in the second language classroom. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 15, 181–204.Google Scholar
  119. VanPatten, B. (1996). Input processing and grammar instruction. Norwood: Ablex Publishing.Google Scholar
  120. VanPatten, B. (2002). Processing instruction: An update. Language Learning, 52, 755–804.Google Scholar
  121. VanPatten, B., & Cadierno, T. (1993). Explicit instruction and input processing. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 15, 225–243.Google Scholar
  122. VanPatten, B., & Oikkenon, S. (1996). Explanation versus structured input in processing instruction. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 18, 495–510.Google Scholar
  123. VanPatten, B., & Sanz, C. (1995). From input to output: Processing instruction and communicative tasks. In F. Eckman, D. Highland, P. Lee, J. Mileham, & R. Weber (Eds.), SLA theory and pedagogy (pp. 169–185). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.Google Scholar
  124. White, C. J. (1998). Getting the learners’ attention: A typographical input enhancement study. In C. Doughty & J. Williams (Eds.), Focus of form in classroom second language acquisition (pp. 85–113). Cambridge: CUP.Google Scholar
  125. Widdowson, H. G. (1990). Aspects of language teaching. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  126. Widdowson, H. G. (1998). Context, community and authentic language. TESOL Quarterly, 32, 705–716.Google Scholar
  127. Wilkins, D. (1976). Notional syllabuses. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  128. Williams, J. (1995). FonF: What kind of focus? Which form? Paper read at Annual AAAL Conference. California: Long Beach.Google Scholar
  129. Williams, J., & Evans, J. (1998). What kind of focus and on which forms? In C. Doughty & J. Williams (Eds.), Focus of form in classroom second language acquisition (pp. 139–155). Cambridge: CUP.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer International Publishing Switzerland 2015

Authors and Affiliations

  • Olga Trendak
    • 1
  1. 1.Zakład Języka Angielskiego i Językoznawstwa Stosowanego Wydział Filologiczny UŁUniversity of ŁódźŁódźPoland

Personalised recommendations