Brief History Of English Language Teaching

Published Date: 02 Nov 2017

2.1) Introduction

This review begins with the theoretical background. Then a brief history of English language teaching will be dealt with. It also examines the relevant literature related to the content and various methodologies in using instruction in teaching grammar. To do so, I will review theories, concepts and studies that are relevant to the present investigation. I will provide a theoretical background of teaching grammar with a special focus on focus on forms. Finally, I will provide a summary of the chapter.

2.2) Theoretical background

Given the historical development of teaching non-native languages, including ESL/EFL, the pendulum of teaching approaches and methods have swung from one extreme to another, for instance, from teaching learners about the language to teaching learners to use the language (Celce-Murcia, 2001; Nunan, 1999). It is now clear that teaching learners' non-native languages synthetically leads to learners' incapability of using the target language fluently in communication. On the other hand, teaching non-native language learners to use the target language without attention to language form leads to learners' fluency in communicative language use, yet a lack of accuracy in linguistic features. Instead, some often cited studies on French immersion programs in Canada (e.g., Harley and Swain, 1984; Swain, 1985) have indicated that pure communicative language teaching is insufficient in developing learner native-like proficiency. SLA researchers and practitioners, thus, have been seeking more effective pedagogical alternatives. In the field of instructed second language acquisition, language teaching practice is often influenced by pedagogical trends of language teaching methods and approaches. In a particular EFL context such as, for example, teaching English as a foreign language curriculum is frequently affected by the current trends of teaching methodologies and theories (Chern, 2003; Shih, 1998), such as Grammar-Translation Method in the 1940s and the Communicative Approach from the mid-1990s onward. Currently CLT is still a predominate approach widely adopted in this context. Nevertheless, the learners' performance on standardized tests (e.g., ILETS, TOEFL IBT, TOEIC) in the past several years fell far behind most countries in the Asian region. Thus, it appears that purely CLT is not adequate to develop learners' high level of proficiency (Nassaji and Fotos, 2007), in either ESL or EFL contexts.

The inadequacy of purely communicative approaches to developing learners' high levels of proficiency has led to the rise of Focus on Form as L2 pedagogy, as Long (1991) has proposed it, as more effective pedagogical applications for developing L2 learners' proficiency. Based on the merits of CLT to develop learners' fluency, Focus on Form complements CLT by incorporating a focus on linguistic form when or during communicative interactions break down due to the occurrence of inaccuracy in communication. As a current trend in the L2 teaching approach, Focus on Form has demonstrated effectiveness with substantial empirical evidence (Doughty and Williams, 1998a; N. Ellis, 1995; R. Ellis, 2001, 2008; Fotos and Nassaji, 2007a; Norris and Ortega, 2000; Spada, 1997). On the other hand, there are arguments about advocating Focus on Form for lack of sufficient evidence of its effectiveness (e.g., R. Sheen, 2003, 2005). Furthermore, language learners, teachers, learner-teacher relationships, and learning contexts vary (H. D. Brown, 2007a). Thus, more empirical evidence of the effects of Focus on Form being implemented general and in the Iran context in particular appears to be needed to examine the feasibility of applications of the FonF approach for improving the EFL learners' performance in the context.

2.3) Brief History of English Language Teaching

Numerous anthologies and articles about the history of modern English teaching methodology describe a sequence of teaching approaches and methods (e.g., H. D. Brown, 2007b; Celce-Murcia, 2001; Howatt, 2004; Larsen-Freeman, 2000; Nunan, 1991; J. C. Richards and Rodgers, 2001). The methods and approaches frequently discussed are Grammar-Translation Method, The Direct Method, The Reading Approach, Audiolingualism, The Cognitive Approach, The Affective-Humanistic Approach, The Comprehension-based Approach, and communicative approaches. Of these methods and approaches, GTM was a primary means of L2 instruction prior to and in the early nineteenth century. However, as Richards and Rodgers (2001) pointed out, it is a method without theoretical basis and has no advocates. Instruction in GTM is mainly in students' native language, focusing on grammatical parsing, reading difficult texts, and translating sentences into and out of the target language (Celce-Murcia; J. C. Richards and Rodgers).

The Direct Method arose as a reaction to GTM. Theoretically based on the natural language earning principle of a direct link between forms and meanings (Franke, 1884 as cited in J. C. Richards and Rodgers, 2001), the Direct Method featured the exclusive use of the target language in classroom instruction, text materials in conversational style, and meanings conveyed in demonstration, pictures, and realia (Celce-Murcia, 2001; J. C. Richards and Rodgers). Then, in reaction to the shortcomings and limitations of the Direct Method, the Reading Method was advocated mainly with the recommendation of Coleman Report (J. C. Richards and Rodgers). During that time this method viewed reading as the most useful foreign language skill to acquire primarily due to the fact that few people traveled to the target environment to use the language learned, and that not many teachers used the target language well enough to teach it in the Direct

Method classroom. The Reading Method emphasized reading comprehension; vocabulary was controlled at beginning and then gradually expanded, and only the grammar related to reading comprehension was taught; and translation again was an important part of classroom procedure (Celce-Murcia, year?).

Based on structuralism in linguistics and behaviorism in psychology, the Audiolingual Method was a major trend in L2 teaching during the period from mid-1940s to 1960s in reaction to the lack of listening and speaking skills of The Reading Method. Audiolinguism used mimicry and memorization techniques and prevented learner errors from the beginning of language learning process based on the assumption that language was a habit formation. In the Audiolingual Method, language skills were sequenced—listening and speaking were primary; therefore, oral proficiency was stressed in the first place whereas reading and writing were postponed. Language materials usually started with dialogues and were manipulated through various drills in structural patterns regardless of meaning or context (Celce-Murcia, 2001; Larsen-Freeman, 2000). These L2 teaching methods above shared a common thread that, except GTM, each individual method reacted to the inefficiency and insufficiency of the prior method in language pedagogy, respectively and reflected the then-current linguistic, pedagogical and/or psychological thinking of the era.

In the late twentieth century, with the influence of Noam Chomsky's linguistic work, humanistic perspectives of linguistics and cognitive psychology on the language pedagogy, arose various "innovative" L2 teaching methodologies and approaches as those described in Blair (1991), Celce-Murcia (2001), Larsen-Freeman (2000), and Richards and Rodgers (2001). These methods and approaches include Community Language Learning, the Silent Way, Suggestopedia, Total Physical Response, the Natural Approach, the Functional-Notional Approach, the Lexical Approach, Content-Based Instruction, and Task-Based Instruction. The first four methods were commonly featured as humanistic methods for language learning and teaching (Stevick, 1990 as cited in Howatt, 2004; Kumaravadivelu, 2006) but were called "designer nonmethods" by Kumaravadivelu in a critical view, "because none of them...deserves the status of method" (p. 94). These four methods no longer exist as prominent L2 language pedagogy, whereas others such as the Lexical Approach, Content-Based Instruction and Task-Based Instruction remain as L2 language approaches under the umbrella of Communicative Language Teaching (CLT).

Communicative Language Teaching was fundamentally based on broader theories of language. Richards and Rodgers (2001) summarized four theorists of CLT. First, Hymes’ theory of communicative competence was defined as what a language learner needed to know to be competent in communication within a language society. Second, Holliday's theory of the functions of language use, which was concerned with the study of the speech acts through which to focus on all the functions of language and all the components of meaning. Third, Widdowson's view of the linguistic systems in relation to the communicative values of language, particularly the underlying ability of the communicative acts in using language for different purposes in various contexts. Last, Canale and Swain's application of communicative competence to second language pedagogy, which consists of grammatical competence, sociolinguistic competence, discourse competence, and strategic competence. In addition, Howatt (1984) differentiated between the "strong" and "weak" versions of CLT in the English language teaching. The weak version focused on providing opportunities for learners to use the learned English in communication. The strong version emphasized acquiring language through communication, thus stimulating the development of the language system. The former was described as learning to use English; the latter, using English to learn it.

Students in the CLT classroom often work in pairs or small groups negotiating meaning, and engage in role play, dramatization or language games to use the target language in different social contexts. Language skills are usually integrated from the beginning, and materials are often authentic to reflect the real-world situations (Celce-Murcia, 2001; Larsen-Freeman, 2000). Concisely summarizing the modern foreign language teaching history, Wilson (2008b) divided the development of L2 language teaching into three eras: pre-communicative, communicative, and post-communicative eras. The pre-communicative era includes GTM, the Direct Method, and Audiolingualism. The communicative era contains methods such as the Natural Approach, the Functional-Notional Approach, Total Physical Response, Suggestopedia, The Silent Way, and Community Language Learning. In the post-communicative era, in addition to the Lexical Approach, Content-Based Instruction and Task-Based Instruction, Wilson added in Focus on Form, a current trend of L2 pedagogy but not introduced in most volumes on L2 teaching methods and approaches such as those by Richards and Rodgers (2001) and Larsen-Freeman (2000). The theoretically prominent importance and empirical evidence of Focus on Form asL2 pedagogy are discussed in the section on Theories and Constructs of Focus on Form.

2.3.1) Some Current Trends in Second Language Pedagogy

As discussed above, SLA researchers (e.g., Doughty & Williams, 1998b; R. Ellis, 2008; Nassaji and Fotos, 2007; Swain, 1998) have pointed out that pure communicative approaches are inadequate to develop L2 learners to high levels of accuracy as the empirical evidence from French immersion programs in Canadian schools (Harley & Swain, 1984; Lyster, 1987; Swain, 1985) have shown. Thus, alternative approaches to L2 teaching with a focus on grammar pedagogy have been proposed. Among them are Focus on FormS, the Focus on Form approach, and Form-Focused Instruction, which will be discussed typologically below. Then theoretical constructs and empirical literature of the Focus on Form approach, which is the target approach the current research aims to investigate, will be explicated in the sections that follow.

2.3.2) Focus on FormS

Focus on FormS, distinguished by Long (1991) from Focus on Form, is the teaching of grammar lessons working on linguistic forms in isolation similar to the traditional grammar pedagogy. Although Focus on FormS teaches discrete grammar points out of communicative contexts, some researchers (Laufer, 2006; R. Sheen, 2005) have claimed that Focus on FormS is as effective as or more effective than Focus on Form as a pedagogical approach. (Empirical evidence for Focus on FormS is discussed in the section below on Counter Evidence—the Effectiveness of Focus on FormS).

2.3.3) Focus on Form

Focus on Form was first coined and proposed by Long (1991), who claims that learners' attention to linguistic forms when they occur incidentally is essential for accurate and fluent L2 production during meaning-focused activities or communication in SLA. Since then, researchers and experts in SLA, based on this reactive Focus on Form, have advocated and expanded this line of research to include pre-emptive Focus on Form and proactive Focus on Form (a variety of definitions of Focus on Form is explicated in the section below on Theories and Constructs of Focus on Form). Now researchers and practitioners alike have recognized the important role of Focus on Form in language learning theory and pedagogy (Fotos and Nassaji, 2007b).

2.3.4) Form-Focused Instruction

In reviewing FFI and SLA, Spada (1997) pointed out a problem with definition of terms which is that different terms have been used to express the same meaning and the same term has been used to express different meanings. The typology of form-focused pedagogy in the field is in order. Spada (1997) defined FFI as any pedagogical means used to draw the learner's attention to

language form either implicitly or explicitly. To differentiate FFI she defined from Focus on Form by Long (1991), Spada stated explicitly that FFI refers to pedagogical events occurring in meaning-based L2 instruction but focuses on language form in either spontaneous or predetermined ways. Spada's definition includes incidental and planned Focus on Form similar to Doughty and Williams' definition, which is discussed in the next section on Theories and Constructs of Focus on Form below.

In a similar vein, R. Ellis (2001) defined FFI as "any planned or incidental instructional activity that is intended to induce language learners to pay attention to linguistic form" (pp. 1-2) Used as an umbrella term, as R. Ellis stated, FFI covers analytic teaching, focus on form, focus on forms, corrective feedback/error correction, and negotiation of form. Therefore, it is broader in scope than Spada's FFI, which excludes discrete grammar instruction, focus on formS. Incorporating the definition of Focus on Form by Long (1991), Long and Robinson (1998), and Doughty and Williams (1998b) into that of FFI, Ellis classified FFI into three major types: focus-on-forms, planned focus-on-form, and incidental focus-on-form. Focus-on-forms emphasizes the teaching of discrete grammatical points similar to the GTM and the Audiolingual Method. Planned 6cus-on-form requires a focused task with the primary emphasis on meaning and is intensive. Incidental focus-on-form occurs when learner s' attention is drawn to form while they are performing an unfocused task; the major focus is also on meaning and is extensive (R. Ellis, 2006b, 2008). Planned focus-on-form is often referred to as proactive focus on form. Incidental focus on form, which can be preemptive or reactive, as R. Ellis (2006b) pointed out, closely corresponds to Focus on Form originally defined by Long (1991) and Long and Robinson (1998).

In addition, Spada and Lightbown (2008) suggest a distinction between isolated FFI and integrated FFI. The former separates from the online communicative use of language, but occurs in CLT and/or CBI (content-based instruction). That is, it may be used before or after a communicative activity if students have difficulty in a certain language feature which will be taught separately from the communicative activity. Isolated FFI appears to resemble focus on forms, although Spada and Lightbown claim that it is different. The latter draws the learners' attention to language form during communicative or content-based instruction, which, as they claim, is similar to Focus on Form as defined by Ellis (2002) and by Doughty and Williams (1998b).

There are still other researchers who define terms that refer to Focus on Form differently. For example, in perspectives of pedagogical procedures, Nassaji (1999) refers to planned Focus on Form as design method and incidental Focus on Form, as a process method. The former is to intentionally design grammar tasks embedded in communication activities which induce the learner attention to form to complete the task. The latter is to incidentally draw the learner attention to form during communication process. Although the above terms that the researchers employed are different typologically, there is similarity among them. As Nassaji and Fotos (2007) have pointed out, "although the types differ, they share the common assumption that some kind of attention to form is necessary in L2 classrooms" (p. 15). By reviewing empirical studies conducted, R. Ellis (2002, 2008), along with other SLA researchers such as Spada and Lightbown (2008), asserted that empirically there is sufficient evidence to support the effects of form-focused instruction (see Doughty and Williams, 1998a; N. Ellis, 1995; R. Ellis, 2001; Fotos and Nassaji, 2007a; Norris and Ortega, 2000; Spada, 1997).

2.4) Theories and Constructs of Focus on Form

Definitions of Focus on Form have been proposed and refined since the early nineties (Doughty, 2001; Doughty and Williams, 1998b; Long, 1991; Long and Robinson, 1998; Wilson, 2008b). Prominent theories and constructs of Focus on Form are described in the following sections.

2.4.1) Long's Definition

"Focus on form", as Long (1991) defined it, "overtly draws students' attention to linguistic elements as they arise incidentally in lessons whose overriding focus is on meaning, or communication" (pp. 45-46). In addition, an operational definition of Focus on Form is further proposed that "focus on form often consists of an occasional shift of attention to linguistic features—by the teacher and/or one or more students—triggered by perceived problems with comprehension or production" (Long and Robinson, 1998, p. 23). Thus, this definition of Focus on Form is primarily meaning-based and incidental and reactive type as well. The operational definition also provided researchers and practitioners with "greater direction for practical implementation" (Doughty and Williams, 1998b, p. 3).

2.4.2) Doughty and Williams' Definition

Grounding in and following the definition of Long (1991) and of Long and Robinson (1998) to clarify the term Focus on Form in research and pedagogy, Doughty and Williams (1998b) made the distinction between Focus on Form, Focus on FormS, and focus on meaning explicit by stating that: ‘focus on formS and focus on form are not polar opposites in the way form and meaning have often been considered to be. Rather, focus on form entails a focus on formal elements of language, whereas focus on formS is limited to such a focus, and focus on meaning excludes it’ (p. 4, italics in original). Based on Long's definition of Focus on Form, Doughty and Williams additionally includes planned Focus on Form in the definition which is made broader in scope.

2.4.3) Doughty's Cognitive Underpinnings of Focus on Form

Furthermore, Doughty (2001) proposes cognitive processes of Focus on Form, incorporating the definitional proposals of Focus on Form by Long (1991), Spada (1997), Long and Robinson (1998), and Doughty and Williams (1998) into psycholinguistic models of language processing by Cowan's cognitive constructs of memory, which consists of working memory, short-term memory and long-term memory (1995 as cited in Doughty, 2001), and Levelt's Production Model (1993 as cited in Doughty). Doughty points out that the proposed definitions indicate "the importance of what happens uniquely in working memory during focus on form" (p. 211), further stating that The factor that consistently distinguishes focus on form from the other pedagogical approaches is the requirement that focus on form involves learners briefly and perhaps simultaneously attending to form, meaning, and use during one cognitive event. This... joint processing... facilitate] the cognitive mapping among forms, meaning and use that is fundamental to language learning (p. 211). The psycholinguistic underpinnings of Focus on Form complement the linguistic and pedagogical perspectives of theoretical frameworks of Focus on Form posited by Long and other researchers mentioned previously.

2.4.4) Wilson's Eight Principles of Focus on Form

Moreover, Wilson (2008b) proposes eight principles to define Focus on Form based on SLA theory regarding psycholinguistics and sociolinguistics constructs, cognitive psychology, and language pedagogy. The eight defining principles are (a) The Input Principle, (b) The Output Principle, (c) The Noticing Principle, (d) The Interaction Principle, (e) The Fluency/Accuracy Principle, (f) The Contextualization Principle, (g) The Learnability Principle, and (h) The Continuum Principle, which will be described respectively below.

The Input Principle. Based on Krashen's (1982, 1985) Input Hypothesis, Wilson (2008b) states that input processing is initially crucial, but not exclusively to SLA The Input Principle claims that the input needs to be comprehensible at a little beyond the learner's current level to be effective so that the learners may form their hypotheses about the meaning and form of the language input to lead to the language acquisition process. However, comprehensible input is fundamental but not sufficient to allow the language processing to reach deeper incorporation of the input into acquisition. It is not enough for L2 learners to be simply exposed to the target language to acquire it. In other words, mere input is insufficient for acquisition, which disagrees with Krashen's claims. Output is also needed.

The Output Principle. The Output Principle is built on Swain's (1985, 1995, 2005) Comprehensible Output Hypothesis, which is viewed "as a complement to Krashen's Input Hypothesis" (R. Ellis, 2008, p. 260). According to Swain, negotiating meaning for comprehension is not sufficient for acquisition; negotiating meaning needs to entail conveying meaning precisely, coherently and appropriately in pushed output. With respect to practicing, producing the target language improves fluency. When producing output, learners need to proceduralize their knowledge of language, and repeated production results in automaticity. As a result, learners become fluent. In addition to the fluency function of output, there are three other functions concerning accuracy: (a) the noticing/triggering function: in producing the target language, learners may notice their incompetent ability to convey their meaning precisely, and the language activity may help learners realize their linguistic problems. Learners may notice the holes or notice the gap; (b) the hypothesis testing function: for language learners, output may be a trial to reflect their hypothesis of how to express their intention. The feedback may confirm or lead to a modification of their hypothesis; and (c) The metalinguistic (reflective) function: using language to communicate about language produced between the interlocutors and the self-mediates SLA process (Swain, 1995, 2005). Wilson (2008b) states that the functions of output lead to learners' restructuring their L2 ability, which results in acquisition.

The Noticing Principle. Resting upon Schmidt's (1990, 1995, 2001) Noticing Hypothesis, which claims that noticing forms in comprehensible input is necessary for SLA, the Noticing Principle claims that noticing forms in input and output is an essential step in the acquisition process. There are three types of noticing: noticing linguistic forms when learners process input encountered; noticing a hole when learners do not have the language to express what they want to convey; and noticing the gap when learners notice gaps between their output and the input they are exposed to. Noticing is an important initial process in SLA. It leads to the learners' restructuring of their interlanguage towards acquisition.

The Interaction Principle. The Interaction Principle is grounded in Long's (1981, 1983, 1996) Interaction Hypothesis, which, in addition to providing interlocutors with communicative environment, emphasizes the importance of modified interactions in negotiating meanings during

communication when a problem occurs. The Interaction Principle stresses the important facilitative role that interactive communication plays in SLA. Communicative interaction supplies interlocutors with contextualized communication rather than decontextualized language

practices. Interactive input provides lower proficiency learners with information about problematic language forms and that may motivate language learners towards facilitating acquisition.

The Fluency/Accuracy Principle. Form-focused approaches develop learner accuracy at the expense of fluency whereas meaning-focused approaches help the learner reach fluency at the cost of accuracy. The Fluency/Accuracy Principle, as Wilson (2008b) proposes, integrates form-focused and meaning-focused approaches and provides learners with balanced activities for the form-meaning mappings so that they can advance their interlanguage stages to the target-like level.

The Contextualization Principle. Rather than decontextualizing language that was out of context as GTM and Audiolingualism, the Contextualization Principle proposes that language input and output be contextualized, as CLT has advocated, by employing authentic materials and

realia and incorporating learner world knowledge and experience into the language learning processes, which are made meaningful and relative to the real world. The Contextualization Principle emphasizes that the language input students encounter and the language output students

produce should be meaningful and relative to the real life so that the learners will acquire the target language by the form-meaning mapping which will lead to authentic use of language in communication.

The Learnability Principle. The Learnability Principle is based on Pienemann's (1984, 1985, 1989) Teachability Hypothesis, which provides a set of psycholinguistic background information for teaching practices. In addition, the Learnability Principle also incorporates Krashen's (1982) Natural Order into the theoretic framework. The Learnability Principle sets out for optimal instructional timing for Focus on Form in the learners' perspectives in accordance with the learners' developmental readiness to acquire the target structures. Wilson (2008b) states that Focus on Form is effective when implemented at the stage when the learners are developmentally ready for the target structures, when the learners are using the target language form but not correctly, and when the students ask about the form they encounter in input. Focus on Form intervention at the stage of learnability can result in effectiveness of language instruction as shown in the learners' uptake and lead to acquisition when the learners keep using the form correctively and restructures their interlanguage towards target-like performance.

The Continuum Principle. The Continuum Principle views options of language pedagogy as a continuum rather than a dichotomy. The Continuum Principle proposes that various pedagogical interventions can lie in deductive-inductive instruction continuum and implicit-explicit instruction continuum, for instance, depending on many factors such as learner age, learner language needs, learner proficiency level, the target structures, classroom activities, language tasks, and goals and objectives of the curriculum. Taking these factors into account, the teacher may select appropriate pedagogical interventions in the pedagogical continuum, rather than adopting one extreme and abandoning another one of the language pedagogy dichotomy, to help the learners reach native-like proficiency.

In addition to the theoretical constructs of the eight Focus on Form principles, Wilson (2008b) further suggests instructional techniques and activities for pedagogical applications as follows: (a) using realia, audio recordings, videos, the Internet and native speakers as input; (b) employing input enhancement and input flood techniques to draw learner attention to notice the target; (c) putting students in pairs or small groups to produce more output; (d) utilizing Peer Feedback Activities to promote student-student communicative interactions; (e) using dictogloss activities in order for students to focus on form and meaning simultaneously; (f) employing meaningful drills and communicative drills to help learners process meaning and express real meaning; and (g) drawing on various types of corrective feedback for learner accuracy. The practical classroom techniques and activities complement the theoretical foundation of Focus on Form as a currently prominent language teaching approach as proposed by the researchers and scholars discussed above. The present research takes the broader definitions by Long (1991), Long and Robinson (1998), and Doughty and Williams (1998), which includes planned and incidental Focus on Form, and incorporate Wilson's (2008b) principles that define the Focus on Form approach as the theoretical framework of this study.

2.5) Empirical Research and Pedagogical Practice of Focus on Form

Researchers have pointed out that there is a substantial amount of evidence that form focused instruction, including Focus on Form, is effective with regard to SLA (Doughty & Williams, 1998a; N. Ellis, 1995; R. Ellis, 2001, 2008; Fotos and Nassaji, 2007a; Norris and Ortega, 2000; Spada, 1997). Research conducted has demonstrated the effectiveness of Focus on Form (e.g., Abu Radwan, 1999; Basturkmen, Loewen and Ellis, 2002; Burgess and Etherington, 2002; Doughty and Varela, 1998). However, there are also some studies of the effects of Focus on Form that show no positive results (Stein, 1998; J. White, 1998), and there is counter evidence for the effectiveness of Focus on FormS (Laufer, 2006; R. Sheen, 2005) in the field.

2.5.1) Previous Studies on the Effectiveness of Focus on Form

N. Ellis' (1995) review paper examined research reports of field studies and laboratory experiments on the roles of implicit learning, consciousness raising (noticing), and explicit instruction in SLA. This report revealed positive effects of explicit learning, explicit instruction, particularly those involving grammatical consciousness raising, and negative evidence (corrective feedback) and recasts with regard to learning speed as well as the quality of the learning. He concludes that instructed SLA may differ from the real-world SLA, "[b]ut without any focus on form, complete formal accuracy is an unlikely result" (p. 142, italic original). Clearly this statement, with the results of the studies reviewed in his paper, indicates a crucial role of FonF instruction in SLA.

In a similar vein, Spada (1997) also reviewed 30 classroom and laboratory studies on the effects of FFI in SLA and concluded that FFI is beneficial to SLA. In particular, explicit FFI is effective in meaning-based L2 classroom and/or content-based instruction. She also reached a similar conclusion to that of N. Ellis (1995). That is, combining explicit teaching and implicit learning is superior to either one alone. In the end of the paper, Spada stated that more research was needed to further explore the issues of optimum timing for FFI, what linguistic features would be affected by FFI, and how learner factors such as individual learning style and age interact with FFI so that the effects of FFI can be empirically evident.

Norris and Ortega (2000) reported an extensive meta-analysis of the effects of L2 instruction. More than 250 studies were reported from over 20 academic journals and book chapters. However, only 49 studies published in 45 study reports meeting their criteria were included in the research synthesis. Utilizing quantitative meta-analysis, they found that FonF instructional treatment with explicit technique is the most effective type of instructional treat Focus on Form and Focus on FormS instructions are equally effective in larger gains, and that the order of effectiveness for more specific instructional types was: "explicit focus on form > explicit focus on forms > implicit focus on form > implicit focus on forms" (p. 465). They hesitate to confirm definitively the durability of the effects of L2 instruction due to the fact that only small number of studies analyzed included delayed posttests to examine the retained effects. In general, the quantitative meta-analysis and research synthesis support the effectiveness of form focused L2 instruction.

Ellis (2002) reviewed eleven articles regarding the effects of form-focused instruction. These articles were selected, based on two elements in the research design: (a) a control group and (b) a measurement of learners' communicative free production, and three primary variables: (a) the choice of the target structure, (b) the extent/length of the instruction, and (c) the availability of natural input. This review has shown that FFI can contribute to implicit knowledge acquisition. He concluded that extensive instruction on simple structures was more likely to be successful, and limited instruction on complex structures showed effectiveness. However, he hesitated to conclude that the focus-on-forms is effective because only two out of eleven articles reviewed fell into this category, although they showed that the instruction was successful. On the other hand, seven out of nine articles concerning FonF instruction revealed positive effects. This analysis implies that although the studies reviewed were not massive in quantity, it appears that FonF instruction is successful in terms of SLA.

In addition to the scholarly research reviewing published research reports which investigated the effects of FFI including Focus on Form around the turn of the millennium, other studies have also advanced to investigate a variety of factors interacting with teaching language form in SLA. For example, Abu Radwan (1999) investigated the effect of FonF instruction with regard to explicitness of instruction and level of awareness on the acquisition of English dative alternation. The results revealed that explicit learning is superior to implicit learning, especially in the instruction of complicated syntactic structures, and that there is a strong association between awareness and second language learning. This implies that Focus on Form is effective because, according to the Noticing Hypothesis (Schmidt, 1990) and the Noticing Principle (Wilson, 2008b), explicitness and awareness are essential indications of pedagogical implementation of Focus on Form.

Basturkmen, Loewen, and Ellis (2002) investigated how metalanguage is used by teachers and learners in Focus on Form in communicative language lessons, and the relationship between the use of metalanguage and student uptake, which indicates the learners' noticing of linguistic features and their attempt to use these items in production. The results revealed that metalanguage occurred in Focus on Form, that there was a significant relationship between metalanguage and uptake occurrence in student-initiated Focus on Form, and that by drawing attention to linguistic code features, students and teachers could use metalanguage in communicative ESL lessons for effective production. Investigating the effects of corrective recasting as FonF technique targeting the past time reference in a content-based ESL science course, Doughty and Varela (1998) found that students showed significant gains in posttest in oral science report tasks. However, with respect to the written report, only small gains were found in the posttest.

Burgess and Etherington (2002) conduced hybrid research on English for academic purposes (EAP) teachers in British university language centers regarding teachers' attitudes concerning grammar, and grammar teaching and learning in an EAP context. The results revealed that the teachers in this study were well-disposed to the FonF approach due to their concern for the connection of grammar to the use of authentic materials and real-life tasks for language practice. The researchers pointed out that grammatical accuracy and communicative fluency are in high demand in the EAP setting. Therefore, Focus on Form appears to be appropriate, in terms of setting, to the target context in the current study.

2.5.2) Previous Focus on Form Studies Showing No Positive Effect

Whereas the effectiveness of Focus on Form is evident as demonstrated in the studies reviewed above, there are studies showing no effects of FonF instruction. Stein's (1998) research explored the effect of the FonF approach on Spanish agreement features (noun-adjective and subject-verb agreement). After a six-week treatment, the results indicated that there was no significant difference between the control and experimental groups. Stein interpreted the results as being due to the amount of feedback provided, the feedback being too implicit to destabilizing inaccurate linguistic knowledge, and the inflation of unmarked forms in the data.

White's (1998) quasi-experimental study investigated the effects of Focus on Form employing typographically enhanced input on the acquisition of third person singular possessive determiners (PDs) his and her. There were three groups of francophone participants in the study. Group B- received a typographically enhanced input plus extensive reading and listening, Group E received a typographically enhanced input flood, and Group U received a typographically unenhanced input flood. It was assumed that typographical input enhancement such as italics, holding, enlargement and underlining would induce learner attention to notice the target form in the input and lead to the acquisition of the target language form. The results showed that although all the three groups of learners improved their use of the target features, there were no statistically significant differences among the groups. White explained that the PDs may have been equally salient in input for the three groups. It appears that the implicit Focus on Form with typographic enhancement used in this study was not any more effective than an input flood without input enhancement.

2.5.3) Counter Evidence—Effectiveness of Focus on FormS

R. Sheen (2003, 2005) criticized that advocating Focus on Form as the most effective teaching option was merely theoretically motivated and lacked substantial empirical evidence. Instead, Sheen (2005) argued that Focus on FormS was as effective or more effective L2 pedagogy than other options (e.g., Focus on Form), as evident in the research he himself and others conducted (e.g., Kupferberg and Olshtein, 1996; Palmer, 1992; Sheen, 1996, as cited in R. Sheen, 2005). To justify his argument empirically, R. Sheen (2005) further compared the effect of Focus on FormS (FonFS) with that of strong Communicative Language Teaching plus Focus on Form (SCLT + FonF) in a study on accurate oral production directed at interrogatives and frequency adverbs. A group of 48 sixth graders at an elementary school in Quebec participated in the study (30 students in SCLT + FonF group and 18 in FonFS group). Using a design of pretest, immediate and delayed posttests, Sheen examined the two target forms by three types of measurements (oral production, aural comprehension, and grammaticality judgment). The results found statistically significant benefit of FonFS, apparently supporting his argument that FonFS was a more effective pedagogical practice than Focus on Form. Nevertheless, Sheen also pointed out that given the fact that there was no provision for the participants in SCLT + FonF group to produce the target forms, he could not justify the claim that the Focus on Forms is more effective than Focus on Form. On the other hand, Sheen cited studies (Kupferberg & Olshtein 1996; Palmer 1992; Sheen 1996; in particular White, 2001, as cited in R. Sheen, 2005) with similar results to this one to verify his argument.

In addition, Laufer's (2006) study compared the effects of Focus on Form and Focus on FormS in incidental and intentional learning of new vocabulary words with 158 high-school ESL learners. The results revealed that whereas both Focus on Form and Focus on FormS were beneficial to L2 new word learning, the Focus on FormS group significantly outperformed Focus on Form group in gain scores. However, as the results of the delayed posttest revealed, the difference between the two conditions disappeared over time.

2.6) Implementation of Focus on Form in EFL context

In implementing the FonF approach in the EFL context, Fotos (1998) suggested several ways to adapt the current pedagogical practice in EFL contexts where grammar teaching is often the primary instruction option in the classroom. These are reading-based FonF activities with the target structure highlighted for salience while the learners are reading for meaning, listening activities embedding multiple examples of a target structure, and task-based FonF instruction for

target language comprehension and production. In addition, the rationale for FonF instruction, as Long (1991) proposed it, incorporates communication language use with grammar pedagogy, which can meet the ultimate goal of L2 learning—to be proficient in using the target language for communication (J. Richards, 2007).

2.6.1) Pedagogical Principles of Focus on Form for Classroom Practices

With the theoretical framework of Focus on Form as the fundamental principles of the pedagogical practices in the classroom, researchers have endeavored to promote practical methods to put the FonF approach into the classroom practice. Long (2000) suggested seven steps to implement Focus on Form in task-based language instruction which deals with grammar through Focus on Form: (a) employ task-based needs analysis to identify target tasks; (b) classify

target task types; (c) derive pedagogical tasks; (d) sequence tasks to form a task-based syllabus; (e) implement with appropriate methodology and pedagogy; (f) assess with task-based, criterion-referenced, performance tests; and (g) evaluate program. He has also clearly pointed out that the first five steps treat grammar in a communicative classroom.

In line with Long's proposal, Doughty and Williams (1998c) proposed six decisions in implementing Focus on Form in language classroom: (a) whether or not to focus on form, (b) reactive versus proactive Focus on Form, (c) choice of linguistic form, (d) explicitness of Focus on Form, (e) sequential versus integrated focus on form, and (f) the role of Focus on Form in the curriculum. The six decisions are the pedagogical principles suggested to the practitioners when implementing FonF instruction in classroom practice. Furthermore, Doughty and Williams (1998c) suggest eleven procedures for delivery of the FonF approach in terms of obtrusiveness. These are listed from least to most obtrusive as follows: (a) input flood, (b) task-essential language, (c) input enhancement, (d) negotiation, (e) recast, (f) output enhancement, (g) interaction enhancement, (g) dictogloss, (i) consciousness-raising tasks, (j) input processing, and (k) the garden path. These are practical teaching techniques that teachers can adapt in their pedagogical practice for facilitating and enhancing their students' communicative competency.

Wilson (2007) also pointed out practical and fundamental guidelines of FonF instruction in the classroom. Wilson stated that pedagogically, Focus on Form suggests that different types of metatalk be used with different levels of students. At the beginning level and with young learners, explicit grammar teaching should be avoided. At the intermediate level and with older learners nontechnical grammar terms can be used when students have learned the vocabulary to talk about them. At the advanced level and with adult students, technical terms can be used to prepare them for their proficiency tests.

In a similar vein, other researchers also stated that any focus on language form is problematic for beginners because simply comprehending the meaning of what they encounter is difficult enough (Williams, 1995), and that the beginners are generally incapable of paying attention to form and meaning simultaneously (VanPatten, 1990). In other words, FonF instruction is best for learners of immediate to advanced levels (H. D. Brown, 2007b; R. Ellis, 2006a). The theoretical and pedagogical principles of Focus on Form discussed above are the foundations on which this current study is based for investigation of the effectiveness of the FonF approach for pedagogical implementation for English education, specifically, at the university level in.

2.7) Factors to Consider in Implementing Focus on Form

Internal and external factors of language learning such as optimal time to focus on form, linguistic feature to focus, provision of corrective feedback, retention of FonF effects, learner age, learning style, and language aptitude need to be taken into account for pedagogical applications and its effectiveness when implementing Focus on Form Approach. In the current study, four of the factors: timing, provision of corrective feedback, linguistic features to focus, and the durability of the pedagogical effects (Figure 2), are considered respectively as follows.

2.7.1) Timing of Focus on Form

To address time as a factor in FonF instruction, three aspects of timing in implementing Focus on Form are taken into account: (a) timing to draw learner's attention to target linguistic structures during communicative activities, (b) timing of choosing linguistic structures to match student's developmental level, and (d) duration of instructional effects (Lightbown, 1998; Pica, 2007; Spada, 1997). When learners' attention should be drawn to language form in order to be target like during communicative activities is a key timing issue concerning accuracy and appropriateness in classroom communication. When communication breaks down due to the imprecise form used or the lack of form at their disposal, learners notice the gap between the input they perceived and output they produced, or notice a hole in their linguistic competence and performance (Schmidt, 1990, 1995, 2001; Wilson, 2008b). Thus, it constitutes propitious moments for pedagogical intervention to induce learners who want to get their meaning across to language form for communication purpose (Long, 1991; Pica, 2007; Spada, 1997).

Another timing issue is the selection of target form timely at slightly above learners' current level of language development in order for them to acquire it. According to the Teachability /Learnability Hypothesis (Pienemann, 1984, 1985, 1989) and the Learnability Principle (Wilson, 2008b), learners' developmental readiness is one of the key factors in consideration for effective pedagogical instruction which aims to help learners acquire the target

form and move them to a higher proficiency level.

A third time issue is the retention of treatment effects. L2 instruction may result in temporary effects as well as durable effects. However, if treatment effect is not sustained over time, nor demonstrates durability, the effectiveness of instruction would be extremely limited (R. Ellis, 2008). Thus, retention of instructional effects should be taken into account for the effectiveness of a pedagogical approach.