Teachers of English to Speakers of Other Languages, Inc.

(TESOL)

Form-Focused Instruction: Isolated or Integrated? Author(s): Nina Spada and Patsy M. Lightbown Reviewed work(s): Source: TESOL Quarterly, Vol. 42, No. 2 (Jun., 2008), pp. 181-207 Published by: Teachers of English to Speakers of Other Languages, Inc. (TESOL) Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/40264447 . Accessed: 10/11/2012 20:01
Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at . http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp

.
JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range of content in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new forms of scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact support@jstor.org.

Teachers of English to Speakers of Other Languages, Inc. (TESOL) is collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access to TESOL Quarterly.

http://www.jstor.org

This content downloaded by the authorized user from 192.168.72.226 on Sat, 10 Nov 2012 20:01:41 PM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

Farm-Focused Instruction: Isolated or Integrated?

NINA SPADA
University of Toronto Toronto, Ontario,Canada

PATSY M. LIGHTBOWN
Concordia (Emeritus) University Montreal, Quebec,Canada

instruction There is increasingconsensus that form-focused helps to learn feainstruction or content-based in communicative learners turesof the target guidlanguagethattheymaynot acquire without is provided that is theroleofinstruction ofthis article ance.The subject ofcommunicative thecontext or within in separate(isolated)activities of instruction both that Research activities types suggests (integrated). as to be learned, on thelanguagefeature can be beneficial, depending For conditions. of the learnerand the learning wellas characteristics who share to help learners isolatedlessonsmaybe necessary example, LI influto related overcome the same first problems language (LI) instruction ence on theirinterlanguage; maybe best for integrated thatare and automaticity developthekindof fluency helpinglearners The evidencesugoutsidethe classroom. needed forcommunication of inof both types see the benefits and students geststhatteachers of instruction of each effectiveness for the struction. type Explanations and workin second languageacquisition are drawnfromtheoretical research. from well as as empirical psychology cognitive

the 1970s,a new pedagogyof communicative language teaching view of second language acquisition (CLT) and a new theoretical thattakes of languagedevelopment the importance (SLA) emphasized Teachers activities. in are learners while meaning-focused engaged place thatfeaand methodologists developed language classroomactivities to use languagein seekinteraction tured opportunities amonglearners, metalinto learning and lessattention information, ingand exchanging and or rules (Brumfit, patterns dialogues practicing memorizing guistic wideof CLT thathas become especially 1984;Howatt, 1984). One type instruction (CBI) in whichthe newlanguageis spreadis content-based and value to the thatis of interest a vehicleforlearning subjectmatter
TESOL QUARTERLY Vol. 42, No. 2, June 2008 181

This content downloaded by the authorized user from 192.168.72.226 on Sat, 10 Nov 2012 20:01:41 PM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

thatin CBI "languagelearningmay learner.It has been hypothesized to learningabout the content"(Snow,Met,& even become incidental have observedthat some researchers Genesee, 1992,p. 28). However, good content teachingmay not alwaysbe good language teaching ofCLT and CBI, debateshave (Swain,1988), and sincetheintroduction to languageform continuedabout whether and, if so, how attention instruction thatare prishouldbe includedin approachesto language marily meaning-focused.

THE ROLE OF FORM-FOCUSED INSTRUCTION

as young thosewhobeginlearning Some individuals, children, especially inform-focused without levels of second languageability acquire high FFI that is not the This outcome struction (FFI). hypothesis supports in second or foreign it is rareforstudents forSLA. However, necessary failure to claim thatthis levels. Some reach such to classes high language with that occur is due to a new master changes language physiological inherentin classroomcontexts. age. Others point to the limitations are beyond whenthey whobeginlearning thereason,learners Whatever to the those whose childhood, target language exposure especially early share in classrooms whereotherstudents or exclusively occursprimarily make more FFI that them from to benefit the same LI, appear helps senand to the limited use of their efficient sounds,words, exposure & tencesof the language theyare learning(Lightbown Spada, 2006). is notan event thatoccursin One thing is certain: Languageacquisition to a a language or as a resultof exposure an instant languageform, feedback. It is an and lesson,or corrective evolving dynamic phenomenon thatis perhapsbetter characterized bytheworddevelopment (sug(ifthisis takento gesting ongoingchange) thanbythewordacquisition mean thatthelanguageuserhas complete and irrevocable of possession some linguistic or knowledge behavior).1 Some SLA researchers have hypothesized thatwhen instruction focuseson thelanguageitself, itis beneficial in marginal and may only ways even have a negative impacton languageacquisition(Krashen,1982, at most, FFI alters 1994;Truscott, 1996,1999). Theyarguethat, explicit but does not changelearners'underlying languageperformance grammar,whichdevelopsonlythrough exposureto the languagein natural In theirview,instruction interaction. mayallowsecond language (L2) usersto acquiremetalinguistic butthiskindofknowledge is knowledge, and storedseparately from processed languagethatis acquiredthrough
1 See Norrisand and discussionofdefinitions and measurements Ortega (2003) fora review of second language knowledgeand skill. TESOL QUARTERLY

182

This content downloaded by the authorized user from 192.168.72.226 on Sat, 10 Nov 2012 20:01:41 PM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

interactive 1993; SharwoodSmith,2004; see language use (Schwartz, Ellis,2005,forreview). that Some of the empirical workinvestigating the kindof knowledge has shownthatFFI can play form-focused instruction is acquiredduring in CLT and CBI use theirL2 with learners a role in helpingclassroom and accuracy(e.g., Spada & Lightbown, 1993; Lyster, greaterfluency more advanceddevelthatrepresent 2004) and to use languageforms efforts & Varela,1998). In thesestudies, levels(e.g.,Doughty opmental were made to develop tasksthatelicitedsamplesof spontaneousoral and Norris SLA research, oftheinstructed In a meta-analysis production. the in for benefits also FFI, (2000) positive particular report Ortega of the majority on L2 learning. instruction effects of explicit However, used discrete-point, includedin the meta-analysis studies metalinguistic This bias has led to the effectiveness. of instructional as measures tests on implicit of instruction call formorestudiesto examinethe benefits Norris & 2002a; 2000). Ellis, 2003; Ortega, (Doughty, knowledge learners'ability in languageperformance mayreflect Improvements have learnedas use of unitsof languagethatthey to makeappropriate or to use metaform-focused chunksduring wholeunanalyzed practice lessons to have during grammar acquired knowledgethey linguistic theiroutput.When learnersproduce language under condimonitor demandson attention, or competing tionsof timepressure theymay has of their internal revealthatthe underlying interlanguage grammar learners' is thecase,however, Evenifthis affected. notbeen substantially - at least in to use languagewithgreateraccuracyand fluency ability in several to languageacquisition some circumstancescan contribute of chunks or monitored in For unanalyzed example, producing ways. feedback and a sort of themselves for create can learners input language, themwithsamplesof the languagethatmaybe inloop thatprovides into theirunderlying later,when they systems grammatical corporated Sharwood are developmentally Smith,2004). 1998; ready(Lightbown, more corrector to of this Another ability produce possibleadvantage use advancedlanguageis thatthe contextually appropriate of unanato keep interactions learners allows monitored and/or language lyzed to access their language input (Krashen, increasing going, thereby chunksof languagemay to use the Further, 1982). unanalyzed ability to externalinput (Ellis, foruse in attending resources freecognitive a more directrelaassume theories Some 2005). languageacquisition and spontaneor formulaic between knowledge metalinguistic tionship thatlanguage theorists ous languageuse. Skillacquisition hypothesize as metalinguistic learnedfirst can, repeatedmeanthrough knowledge and so well become incorporated automatized eventually practice, ingful and may information the metalinguistic thatthe languageuser forgets in the first it learned 2003). place (DeKeyser, forget having
FORM-FOCUSED INSTRUCTION: ISOLATED OR INTEGRATED? 183

This content downloaded by the authorized user from 192.168.72.226 on Sat, 10 Nov 2012 20:01:41 PM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

The valueofFFI within instruction thatis primarily meaning-focused has been demonstrated in CLT and CBI proresearch conducted by In addition, overthepast20 years. teachers who haveexperience grams ofCLT- an exclusive with thestrong version focuson meaning with no to language form (Howatt,1984; Spada, 2006a)- have obattention neveremergein learnserved without FFI, some languagefeatures that, foryears.Experience forms ers' language,and some nontarget persist withCLT and CBI showsthatmeaning-based exposureto the language oral fluency, selfallowsL2 learnersto develop comprehension skills, continue to have butthatthey and communicative abilities, confidence, as wellas withmorphological, withpronunciation difficulties syntactic, & Swain,1984;Lyster, features oftheL2 (see, e.g.,Harley and pragmatic shows thattheintroduction in CLT and CBI classrooms 1987). Research and use of to changesin learners'knowledge of FFI has contributed & Varela, & features certain 1991; Doughty Day Shapson, (e.g., language & Ranta, 1991; Lyster, 1998; Harley,1989; White,Spada, Lightbown, 2 the ofCBI haveincreasingly 2004; Sheen,2005). Advocates emphasized lincontent and have both that lessons of objectives importance planning & Pica, 2002; Short, 2004; (Echevarria, SchlepperVogt, objectives guistic & Oteiza,2004). Achugar, grell, and teaching Thus,both research experiencehave led to a growing to whenitincludesattention is mosteffective consensus thatinstruction and As a result, the mostengaging and meaning.3 bothform questions CLT should indebates in L2 pedagogyare no longerabout whether This article clude FFI but ratherhow and when it is most effective. FFI in are isolated from communicative role of lessons that the compares interaction withthatof FFI thatis integrated within or content-based activities remains on in wheretheprimary emphasis meaning(e.g., tasks or content-based and students havestrong lessons).Some teachers opinions about thisquestion (see Barkhuizen, 1998; Yorio, 1986), but researchers havenotdirectly ofintegrating or isolatcomparedtheeffects form-focused and in CLT CBI and ing meaning-focused practice programs. There are theoretical and pedagogicalarguments forboth isolation and integration of formand meaningin L2 instruction. In our view,
2Thesestudies in several differ thedegreeof explicitness of instruction. ways, including canallbe categorized as studies ofFFIusing thebroaddefinition ofFFI Nonetheless, they as proposed theprimarily instruction associbyEllis(2001).Thisincludes metalinguistic atedwith more traditional toL2 teaching as evidenced inSheen(2005)as well approaches as instruction thatis moreimplicit in nature, learners' attention to form in drawing functional and meaning-based contexts as evidenced in Harley (1989). We thank theanonymous TESOLQuarterly reviewer whoreminded us that all grammatical forms havemeaning and that a simple distinction between form and meaning is binary We agreeand use thisterminology as a kindofshorthand to an problematic. referring on thestructural or semantic oflanguage. emphasis properties 184 TESOL QUARTERLY

This content downloaded by the authorized user from 192.168.72.226 on Sat, 10 Nov 2012 20:01:41 PM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

FFI is notnecessary a choicebetween and isolated (or making integrated advisable).Rather,the challengeis to discoverthe conditionsunder FFI respectively are most appropriate. whichisolated and integrated These conditions are likely to involve a number offactors, the including and itsfrequency natureof the languagefeature(e.g., its complexity, and saliencein the input),learners'developmental levelsin the acquifeatures between sitionof thefeature, and the relationship comparable includeteachers' in thelearners' LI and theL2. Otherimportant factors learners' about form, forhow to teach/learn and learners' preferences in and their and LI), (especially sophistication metalinguistic literacy their and overall L2 proficiency. age

ISOLATED AND INTEGRATED FFI

whathe called the unifibetween Johnson(1982) made a distinction of languageuse and on the cationist and separationist teaching positions the described He structure. positionas one with separationist language followed a structural first "structure bya syllabus) (through beingtaught structures where and is use at which secondcommunicative taught stage the separatoJohnson, or 'recycled'" are 'activated' (p. 129). According and forms of the between divorce "a tionist teaching positionimplies also are often related of kinds other uses,though beingimseparation correctness between its and between as 'activitation,' knowledge plied fromthe uniftcationist and fluency" perspective, (p. 129). In contrast, also and probably and use is seen as undesirable "thedivorceof form The and psycholinguistic untenableon linguistic positionargrounds. from the framework communicative for a (p. 129). very beginning" gues different labels to distinguish haveused different Otherwriters types and onforms between of FFI. Long (1991) has made a distinction focus features in which to lessons refers Focus on on language forms focus form. thatspecifies or practiced are taught syllabus accordingto a structural and in whichsequence.Focus on forms are to be taught whichfeatures and memorizainvolve approachesas variedas mimicry teaching might that but all are based on the assumption tion or grammar translation, In a time. at one be should features taughtsystematically, language main the in which instruction to refers on contrast, Long's focus form or tasksbut in whicha activities emphasisremainson communicative when use languagemoreaccurately to help students teacherintervenes reacas on form focus denned the need arises.Originally, (1991) Long in events to thoseclassroom That is, it was limited tiveand incidental. enthatarose as students whichthe teacherrespondedto a difficulty that or tasks.The languagefeature activities gaged in communicative
FORM-FOCUSED INSTRUCTION: ISOLATED OR INTEGRATED? 185

This content downloaded by the authorized user from 192.168.72.226 on Sat, 10 Nov 2012 20:01:41 PM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

in advance.More recentinterpretarequiredfocuswas not determined tionsoffocuson form have expandedthedefinition to includeinstructionin whichteachers that students will have with a difficulty anticipate in as in communicative task and feature a theyengage plan particular feedback and otherpedagogical thatfeature advanceto target through a primary focuson meaning all the while maintaining interventions, & & Williams, Robinson, 1998; 1998). Long (Doughty isolated and integrated In thisarticle, we have chosento use the terms to language learners'attention to describetwoapproachesto drawing thatare Isolated FFI is providedin activities formin L2 instruction.4 it occurs as part use of but communicative from the language, separate thatalso includesCLT and/orCBI. IsolatedFFI maybe of a program in or after an activity in preparation fora communicative activity taught witha particular have experienceddifficulty whichstudents language is separated from the on languageform In isolated feature. FFI,thefocus from This differs or content-based communicative activity. approach and practice refers to languageinstruction which Long'sfocuson forms, in of a structural around sylpoints grammar predetermined organized that is notdirectly tiedto genuinely instruction labus,thatis,form-based communicative practice. is drawnto languageform In integrated FFI, the learners'attention corinstruction. Thisdefinition or content-based communicative during as defined and to focus on form incidental) (both by planned responds and Williams the Ellis (2002a) and byDoughty (1998). Thatis,although a communicative focusoccurswithin thelanguagefeatures form activity, in focusmayhave been anticipated and plannedforbythe teacheror in the courseof ongoinginteraction. they mayoccurincidentally Beforediscussing therolewe see foreach approach, a fewcomments are in orderon howthedistinction between isolatedand integrated FFI is relatedto othercontrasts in L2 research and pedagogy, suchas intentional Versus incidental versus 2003) and explicit learning(Hulstijn, implicit instruction 2003). (DeKeyser,
4 One reviewer that theterm isolated carries "a clearly connotation." We suggested negative understand that andagreethat theterm hashadthat connotation interpretation certainly inmuch about wehave chosen toretain this term Nevertheless, writing language teaching. becauseit allows us to emphasize theimportance of instruction in which teachers and students focus their attention on language features that arealmost toperceive impossible oracquire when occur inordinary communicative either because are interaction, they they in English) or redundant acoustically imperceptible (e.g.,most grammatical morphology andunlikely toaffect order in English Wesuggest comprehension (e.g.,word questions). - much that itis sometimes to isolate suchforms as one might necessary placea specimen under a microscopeso that learners havean opportunity toperceive these features and understand their function in thelanguage encounter in communicative interaction. they Aswehavestated learners cannot be expected tobenefit from previously, brief, integrated focuson form ifthey do notunderstand whattheteacher is calling their attention to 1998,p. 194). (Lightbown, 186 TESOL QUARTERLY

This content downloaded by the authorized user from 192.168.72.226 on Sat, 10 Nov 2012 20:01:41 PM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

in lessonswhoseprimary of instruction IsolatedFFI is the provision because is to teach students about a languagefeature particular purpose to acquire the feature are unlikely the teacherbelievesthatstudents to learn about activities without an opportunity duringcommunicative can be made clear. and meaning in a situation whereitsform thefeature isolatedFFI always Fromthe teacher'sperspective, impliesintentional reclassroom observation instruction. and However, learning explicit lesin whichgrammar classrooms searchshowsthateven in traditional sureofthe are notalways students sonsare basedon a structural syllabus, and teacher'sintendedfocus (Slimani,1992). That is, the explicitness be mind not in has that the teacher bythe recognized may intentionality students. theprimary which activities FFI occursin classroom during Integrated or brief butin whichfeedback on meaning, focusremains explanations or more to help students are offered expressmeaningmore effectively seem to Some writers interaction. the communicative within accurately to form learners'attention assumethatdrawing duringmeaning-based but feedbackand incidental involves activities learning, implicit always and of teachers the case. Again,the perceptions thatis not necessarily showthattheyinsometimes Adultlearners learners maybe different. of recasts)as form in the feedback teacher's the (e.g., implicit terpret intentional for an language explicitguidance, creating opportunity & Loewen2001). However, (e.g.,Ohta,2000;Ellis,Basturkmen, learning to as relevant feedback the teacher's evenwhenthey implicit recognize the of the not learners identify object correctly may language form, attention 2000,fora related teacher's Gass,& McDonough, (see Mackey, . study) FFI can include explicitfeedbackon Both isolatedand integrated of rules,and explanathe statement error, terminology, metalinguistic FFI. The of tions.Considerthe following integrated example explicit, a game are 6 students Grade is a communicative context playing activity. in a dolls different of location the have to correctly in whichthey guess in prepadoll house to gain enoughpointsto winthe game.Note that, had been written ofappropriate forthegame,examples ration questions on the board. room? Is Georgeis in theliving Student: - yousaid,"Is George toyou dear.Listen You said"is"twotimes, Teacher: in "Is board. the on is in ... Look you George the. . ." and then room. of the name the say room? Is Georgein theliving Student:
Yeah Teacher: I win! (Lightbown& Spada, 2006, p. 167) Student:
FORM-FOCUSED INSTRUCTION: ISOLATED OR INTEGRATED? 187

This content downloaded by the authorized user from 192.168.72.226 on Sat, 10 Nov 2012 20:01:41 PM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

In thisexample,the teacherprovided corrective feedback to explicit a student whenhe made an error ofform, eventhough themeaning he was comprehensible. she drewattention to the error, First, conveyed the information as to what error was. she Although explicitly providing and use the and the student focusedon form, appeared to understand hiscontinuing interest with itseemsthatthisdid notinterfere feedback, From and explicit. in theongoinggame.SuchFFI is thusbothintegrated the focuson questionforms was also intenthe teacher'sperspective, an isolatedlessonon queswith tional:She had preparedfortheactivity of on theboard. tionforms, questions writing examples appropriate of one that includes thestatement of Another FFI, example integrated in is an which rules and metalinguistic activity pairs of explanations, statements about medical true-false to students (T/F) history respond of discoveries. names,dates,and descriptions showing usinga timeline are expressedin the activevoice while Some of the T/F statements
mental a method othersare in the passive (e.g., Freuddeveloped forexamining Alexander FlemPenicillin was discovered as known by psychoanalysis; processes

As students discuss and meaning. ingin 1928). The focusis on content instructor selects the two statethe to the their T/F questions, responses to examinethemwiththefollowing mentsabove and asksthe students in thefirst sentence in mind:"What is givenmoreemphasis questions 'Freud [the subject] or psychoanalysis [the object]?'" "Whatis more This leads intoa brief in the sentence?" second explanation prominent and how they are formed sentences, (5 or 6 minutes)of active/passive or one two other The teacher then how they function, using examples. asks students to return to responding to the T/F questionsusingthe information on the timeline to assistthem.(See Samuda,2001,foran of FFI the use of modal auxiliaries.) example integrated targeting One finalnote is essentialbeforewe discussthe different roles of isolatedand integrated FFI. For purposesof the discussion, we present theseapproaches as ifthey wereentirely distinct. It is clear,however, that are really the ends of a continuum, as we are they especially examining their rolewithin CLT and CBI contexts forteaching and learning. That and integrated FFI as beingin competition with is,we do notsee isolated each other;rather, we see themas complementary of a parts complete environment. we are convinced that there is languagelearning Although a role forisolatedFFI, we see it as occurring within instruction thatis interactive and communicative. the ability to use primarily Ultimately, in communicative in languageautomatically settings requires experience that.Providing FFI in CLT and CBI contexts is doingexactly integrated theinstructional modelthathas thegreatest for the potential facilitating of fluent and accuratelanguagethatis availableforuse development outsidethe classroom. We concurwithDeKeyser(1998), who, in his ofrotedrillin audiolingual commented that critique languageteaching,
188 TESOL QUARTERLY

This content downloaded by the authorized user from 192.168.72.226 on Sat, 10 Nov 2012 20:01:41 PM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

practicein practiceis valuableforlanguagelearningwhen it involves . 53-54) "conveying personalmeanings" (pp.

FFI The Role of Integrated

forintethereis considerable In the pedagogicalliterature, support consideras as well activities communicative within form focus grating form thatseparates ofinstruction abouttheeffectiveness able skepticism Celce-Murcia interaction focusfrom (see, e.g.,Calv,1994). meaningful as an end in itself shouldneverbe taught (1991) arguesthat"grammar - or a or discourse factors social to with reference but always meaning, that asserts Brumfit factors" of these combination (1984) (pp. 466-467). a concern from . . . learners not should "teachers combining prevent in terms of specific aboutformal with accuracy worry languageuse with as evidence be taken assertion Brumfit's items" may (p. 53). language communithat comes feedback at learners some for least, that, during on motivation.5 effect cativeinteraction Knowing mayhave a positive whenitis needed mayrespondto theexpectations thathelp is available - in language - especiallyadult students of students and preferences & Cathcart classes(see Olsen, 1976; Schulz,1996,2001). bothSLA and cognicomesfrom forintegration Theoretical support on languageform focus that has tivepsychology. argued Long (1991) In interaction. communicative into shouldbe fully ongoing integrated his of in some noted as earlier, fact, Long (e.g., 1991) argued writing, that teachersshould providefocus on formonly on those language in which in the courseof a taskor activity thatoccurnaturally features revised In his interaction. in the are students using language meaningful that while states interaction comprehensible Long (1996) hypothesis, forlanguage therawmaterial interaction provide inputand meaningful for context ideal the also spontaneous(i.e., provide they acquisition, to language form.Other SLA conceptssuch as attention integrated) (Swain& Lapkin, 1994a, 1994b) and metatalk (Lyster, of form negotiation on of benefits the to also during reflecting languageform 2002) point are differences There use. communicative among thesetheolanguage that thehypothesis with are compatible butall ofthem retical constructs, learners' alter not instruction while language underlying directly may in the input,makingit more it can help themnoticefeatures systems,
5 It is FFI withCLT. As evidentin the to note thatwe do not equate integrated important and in classroompractice,CLT has manydifferent researchliterature meanings,some of versionof CLT) and others to language form(i.e., the strong whichinclude no attention albeitin different to form, thatinclude attention ways(see Howatt,1984 and Spada, 2006a of CLT) . fordiscussionsof the evolutionand interpretations FORM-FOCUSED INSTRUCTION: ISOLATED OR INTEGRATED? 189

This content downloaded by the authorized user from 192.168.72.226 on Sat, 10 Nov 2012 20:01:41 PM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

thatthey willacquirethem(Gass,1997;Lightbown, 1998;Schmidt, likely 1990). been used to explainthe One theoretical approachthathas recently of FFI is benefits (TAP). transfer processing possible integrated appropriate if for best the retrieve to learners TAP, knowledge processes According are similar to those thatwereused in the learningcondition retrieval BransLien,& McNamara, 2000;Morris, 1989;Franks, (Blaxton, Bilbrey, and events that thesituation, & Franks, ford, 1977). In addition, objects, of a network are connectedthrough at the timeoflearning are present find to be easierwhenlearners retrieval is likely associations. Therefore, ofthesameobjects or in thepresence themselves usingsimilar processes or situations. in theSLA literature, attention TAP has onlyrecently begunto receive some inforlexicalitemsprovides on bilinguals' but research memory dicationsof whatSLA researchmayreveal.In thesestudies, bilingual in retrieving thewords moresuccessful are consistently they participants tasks(Basden, are similar to thelearning tasks learnedwhenthetesting & Basden, 1994; Durgunoglu& Roediger,1987). ReBonilla-Meeks, ofmorecomplexunitsoflanguage and retrieval searchon thelearning remainsto be done. However,it seems thatTAP would predictthat in whichlearners' atactivities languagelearnedduringcommunicative drawnto form(i.e., integrated tentionis briefly FFI) would be more in communicative situations than,say,on decontextualeasilyretrieved learned outsidecommunicative ized tests.In contrast, L2 knowledge in isolatedFFI would be more difficult in commuactivities to retrieve nicativesituations outside the classroom(Doherty, Hilberg,Pinal, & 8c Gatbonton, & Lightbown, 1995; Segalowitz Tharp, 2003; Segalowitz is consistent with theobservation ofmany teach1999). This hypothesis ers and researchers: Students who perform wellon tests are not necesfluent usersof the testitemsin spontaneous sarily speech, just as many fluentspeakerswhose language acquisitionhas takenplace primarily outsidethe classroom on tests perform poorly requiring metalinguistic of individual outside a knowledgeor the retrieval language features communicative context. forintegrated FFI comesprimarily from theoretical Although support and pedagogical there is also some evidence of extrapolations principles, itseffectiveness in classroom-based studiesof CLT and CBI. In our research in intensive ESL classes thatwere almostexclusively meaningwere successful in acquiringcertainlanguage focused, youngstudents features whentheir teachers FFI on a limprovided ongoing, integrated ited numberof thesefeatures & Spada, 1991; Lightbown (Lightbown, FFI weresubstantially more likely to 1990). Those receiving integrated thanstudents in classeswherethere wasnever acquirethesefeatures any attention to form.Researchin French immersion programs(Day &
190 TESOL QUARTERLY

This content downloaded by the authorized user from 192.168.72.226 on Sat, 10 Nov 2012 20:01:41 PM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

1994a, 1994b,2004) and in Shapson,1991; Harley,1989, 1998; Lyster, othercontent-based and communicative classrooms with childand adult ESL learners(Doughty & Varela,1998;R. Ellis,Basturkmen, & Loewen, & Evans, thehypothesis that attention 2001;Williams 1998) also supports to languageform thecontext can lead within ofcommunicative practice in learners'languagedevelopment. thisprogress to progress Although in theshort hasbeen observed term formoststudies, long-term improvementhas also been reported 1993). However, (e.g.,Spada & Lightbown, invesin CLT and CBI classeswas not designedto directly the research and isolatedFFI. That is,none of thedifferent rolesofintegrated tigate isolatedFFI ofL2 learners thestudies receiving comparedtheoutcomes FFI. learners with integrated receiving of Frenchas a second language(nonimmersion) Jean's (2005) study some relatedevidenceof the school provides in a Canadian secondary in FFI.Jean designedan experimental of integrated effectiveness study drills that in mechanical forms either(a) practiced learners which target were in which theforms activities from thecommunicative wereseparate FFI received or used later to be (b) meaningongoing during expected to use in thetwogroups'ability She foundno difference based activities. the targetformson subsequentmeasuresof accuracy.However,she withmeaningful whose FFI had been integrated found thatstudents ofvocabua greater with used theforms activities communicative variety in her verb for the at least concludes that, targeted morphology lary. Jean in not a L2 drills were mechanical isolated teaching step necessary study, FFI was an effective and thatintegrated wayof teachingcertainverb did not in herstudy She also foundthatthehighschoolstudents forms. other. the over of instruction one for a clear type preference express

The Role of Isolated FFI

are an activities "communicative thatalthough Stern(1992) asserted for a a still there is a of essential curriculum, place component language More a separate 180, added). emphasis (p. language syllabus" analytic Ellis (2002b) has argued that "we [should] teach grammar recently, comit withthe task-based to integrate makingno attempt separately, 32). feedback)" (p. through methodologically ponent(exceptperhaps, FFI is relatedto ofisolating in support heardargument One frequently The concernis thatlearners motivation. learners'positive maintaining is drawnto if theirattention or disinterested willbecome discouraged to engage in communicative formwhiletheyare trying practice(see, make thatteachers 2002). Thus,it is sometimes suggested e.g.,Raimes, and thenbring activities thatariseduringinteraction note of problems in separateisolatedactivities, and explanation themup forinstruction
FORM-FOCUSED INSTRUCTION: ISOLATED OR INTEGRATED? 191

This content downloaded by the authorized user from 192.168.72.226 on Sat, 10 Nov 2012 20:01:41 PM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

As noted earlier, thereis outsidethe communicative however, activity. themselves little evidencethatlanguagelearners objectto FFI relatively activities. thatoccursduringcommunicative to supportthe separaSome pedagogicaland theoretical arguments that tion of formand communicative practiceinclude the assumption There use ofa newlanguagefeature. FFI shouldprecedecommunicative thatthe first in the fieldof L2 teaching tradition is a long and strong This of a specific languageform. phase in a lessonis the presentation practice, practice(pattern bycontrolled phase is followed presentation morespontathat structural drills, etc.),and onlylater permit byactivities In a controversial neoususe oflanguage. article, (1982) Higgsand Clifford intoan unstructured immersion ofa student arguedthat"thepremature strucfundamental certain or 'free'conversational linguistic setting before cost"(pp. 73-74). turesare moreor less in place is not done without in cognitive on research More recently, specifipsychology, drawing theory, callyin the earlyworkof Anderson(1982) on skillacquisition be taught exshould first DeKeyser(1998) has argued that"grammar be should and then of a maximum to achieve understanding plicitly consciousin thestudents' to anchoritsolidly followed bysomeexercises form so thatit is easyto keep in mindduringcomness in declarative of thisarticle, exercises"(p. 58). In the framework municative DeKeyand anchoring instruction ser'sfirst twophases (explicit exercises)repFFI includesthe of isolated resentisolatedFFI, althoughour definition havediscovered students suchinstruction that mayoccurafter possibility the need forcertain activity.6 duringcommunicative languagefeatures information forisolatedFFI comesfrom Further processing support whicharguesthatbecause thehumanmindhas limited processtheory, and meaningat it is difficult forlearners to focuson form ing capacity, thatnoticing the same time (Ellis, 1997). VanPatten(1990) suggested some aspectsof languageform(e.g.,verbmorphology) whiletrying to forbegingraspthe meaningof a textmaybe particularly problematic VanPatten and his colleagueshave shownhow isolating ninglearners. features of the target specific languagein the inputcan help learners changethewaythey processcertain form-meaning mappings(VanPat& Cadierno,1993). ten,1996,2004; VanPatten Recentstudies (2002) and Trofimovich (2005) also illusbyBarcroft tratesituations in whichisolatedFFI maybe beneficial to students. In thesestudies, students wereexposedto thematerial to be learnedeither in contexts wheretheyneeded to focuson form whilealso processing semantic aspectsof the languageto be learnedor wheresome formal featurewas itselfthe primary focus. Both Barcroft and Trofimovich
6
sequencing of FFI as sequential focusonform. 192

andWilliams tothework andLightbown the (1998)refer Doughty byDeKeyser regarding

TESOL QUARTERLY

This content downloaded by the authorized user from 192.168.72.226 on Sat, 10 Nov 2012 20:01:41 PM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

found thatattention to meaningwas associatedwithpoorer recall of formal features such as the spellingor pronunciation of words.They in termsof the TAP hypothesis. theirfindings As noted interpreted of success in retrieving earlier,accordingto TAP, the best predictor is the degreeof similarity information betweenthe conditions and proreand those demands learning during cessing present during present is devoted to effort trieval. Thus, a learningtask in whichcognitive fora testin which semantic features ofa wordis nota good preparation feainformation about perceptualor formal learnersneed to retrieve taskrequireslearnersto recallor turesof the word.If the assessment of a word,thelearning or pronunciation the correct spelling recognize in whichlearnerscan devotemore protaskshould createconditions To be sure,thegoal ofmostlanguage to thosefeatures. capacity cessing in comuse languageforms to be able to is correctly learning ultimately Howdemandson attention. contexts thatincludemultiple municative is shows Trofimovich and whattheresearch Barcroft, VanPatten, ever, by and initial to the not be conducive thatsuch contexts perception may of certain languagefeatures. interpretation researchdirectly no empiricalclassroom-based To our knowledge, It is imporinstruction.7 and of isolated the effects integrated compares toform FFIis attention ofisolated ourdefinition to keepin mindthat tant comthatis primarily a program in separatelessonsthatoccurwithin In thatsense,it is not the same as Long's in orientation. municative discretewithtraditional onforms, whichis associated offocus definition or no little where in a context instruction provided pointmetalinguistic of our definition occurs. or instruction Similarly, practice meaning-based on of definition as the same FFI is not form, focus original Long's integrated FFI includesboth FFI whereasintegrated whichincludesonlyreactive FFI is of integrated our definition FFI. In thisway, and proactive reactive onform. and incidental ofplanned to Ellis's (2001) definition similar focus
7 A reviewer argues thatsuch studiesdo existand points to Sheen (2005) as an example. in helpingyoungfrancophone of instruction does show the benefits While Sheen's study studentsmake more accurate use of questions and the placementof adverbsin English and isolated FFI as we definethemin this sentences,it is not a comparisonof integrated it seems to show that the studentsin the of that read the As we research, report paper. to emphasize,again, that comparisongroup receivedalmostno FFI at all. It is important to language or no attention for CUT withlittle FFI is not simplya synonym form. integrated feedback,explicit elicitationsof IntegratedFFI includes briefexplanations,corrective and input enhancementprovided withinthe contextof meaning-based correctforms, Sheen's descriptionof the comparison class in his studyindicatesthat the instruction. did not make any special attemptto integrateFFI related to questions and instructor In the experimentalclass, studentsreceived adverbsin his regularclassroomactivities. thatis best described as focus on formsnot as isolated FFI. The distinction instruction related betweenthe twois thatisolatedFFI is providedin separatelessonsthatare directly whereasfocuson forms or content-based a communicative within to the activities syllabus thatis not closelylinkedto the ongoing a structural occur within lessonstypically syllabus activities. communicative FORM-FOCUSED INSTRUCTION: ISOLATED OR INTEGRATED? 193

This content downloaded by the authorized user from 192.168.72.226 on Sat, 10 Nov 2012 20:01:41 PM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

and empirical for This review ofthetheoretical, pedagogical, support are arguments on indicates that there and isolated instruction integrated the twois likely notan absolute bothsidesand thatthechoice between In thenext a choice thatis dependenton otherfactors. one, but rather we outlinesome of thosefactors. section,

FACTORS THAT INFLUENCE THE CHOICE OF ISOLATED OR INTEGRATED FFI

are acquiredincidenfeatures showsthatsome linguistic SLA research awareness effort or conscious intentional that without is, bylearners tally, it is also evidentthatsome lanor guidancefromteachers.However, or notat all,in theabsenceofguided slowly, developvery guagefeatures of FFI can increasethe likelihoodthat and thatsome types attention & Ortega, thesefeatures in learning learners willmakeprogress (Norris natural to a 2000). Some languagefeatures sequence developaccording see Ellis,1994; is notalteredbyinstruction. ofstages that (For overviews, & Spada, 2006; Mitchell& Myles, Gass & Selinker, 2001; Lightbown on the effect whileinstruction 1998.) However, mayhaveonlya limited it affect the follow learners sequences, may through developmental path a sequence (see, e.g., Ellis, 1989; rate at whichlearnerspass through & Philp,1998;Pienemann, & Long,1991;Mackey Larsen-Freeman 1989; influence the relationfactors Several & 1993). may Spada Lightbown, are dyand learningoutcomes.These factors ship betweeninstruction and overthe courseof learners'languageacquisition namic,changing contexts.8 within different teaching

LI Influence
One hypothesis is thatisolatedFFI is particularly useful whentheLI has a strong influence on L2 forms. Errors causedbyLI influence can be in classrooms where learners share the same first problematic language and reinforce each other'sLl-based errors(Lightbown, 1991; Lyster, like these,isolatedFFI maybe needed to clarify 1987). In situations similarities betweenthe LI and L2. Harley(1993) pointsto misleading the distinction betweenFrenchavoir/tre and have/be in Englishas an FFI Isolated also in those cases where learners have example. may help an interlanguage rule thatis more developed,based on LI influence,
8We thank one of theanonymous reviewers foremphasizing thedynamic of the nature factors that influence instructional choices. 194 TESOL QUARTERLY

This content downloaded by the authorized user from 192.168.72.226 on Sat, 10 Nov 2012 20:01:41 PM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

general than the relatedrule in the L2. White (1991) discussesthis to differences betweenadverbplaceproblemwithspecificreference mentin Frenchand English and advocates sentences subject-verb-object isolatedFFI as a wayof helpinglearners those differences. perceive

Salience in the Input

thatare relatively with features IsolatedFFI maybe beneficial simple not salientin oral language. to explainor illustrate but are particularly attention to themin isolation see/hearlanmayhelp learners Drawing in the the havenotbeen noticing stepon input, first they guagefeatures benefits of have some studies thepathto acquisition. reported Although of lansalience thatis, increasing and/or enhancement, frequency input have in theinput(Alanen,1995;Doughty, 1991), others guagefeatures & 1999; Trahey& (Spada Lightbown, partialor no benefits reported White,1993;White,1998). These conflicting findings appear to be reenhanceMore enhancement. in thekindof latedto differences explicit than less mentappears to lead to more L2 progress explicitenhancethatisolatedFFI .9 This ment(Norris& Ortega,2000) finding suggests nosalience to the forcreating necessary be useful help learners might redunbut are thatoccur frequently tice languageforms semantically in theoralinput.Such reducedor imperceptible dantor phonologically -sin Englishand adjecforms could include,forexample,third-person in French. tiveagreement morphology

Input Frequency
to haveopportunities IsolatedFFI mayalso help ensurethatstudents are exposed to thatare rareor absentin thelanguagethey learnforms to support in theCLT or CBI classroom. (1994b) reports findings Lyster of the of FFI on thelearning of the effects thisidea in his investigation and vous tu between distinction pronouns second-person sociolinguistic withthesinguwerefamiliar Students classrooms. in Frenchimmersion but the social dynamics thesetwowords, between distinction lar/plural Frenchdid not givethem werelearning in whichthey of theclassroom thatare signaledby distinctions to observethe politeness opportunities intervenan instructional forms. thedifferent developed Lyster pronoun
9 It because the assessment seems to have some benefits mayalso be thatexplicitinstruction measuresused favorexplicitknowledge (see Doughty,2003 for discussion). Norrisand but argue thattheirfindings acknowledgethispossibility Ortega (2000, p. 501) themselves cannot be explained by thissinglevariable. FORM-FOCUSED INSTRUCTION: ISOLATED OR INTEGRATED? 195

This content downloaded by the authorized user from 192.168.72.226 on Sat, 10 Nov 2012 20:01:41 PM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

forisolatedFFI. Drawing students' attionthatincludedopportunities to notice the use of tention to thisdistinction them probably prepared in the communicative FFI activities and integrated thatfolthe forms to use theseforms lowed,and theirability significantly. improved

Rule Complexity
FFI maybe a moreappropriate thatintegrated It has been suggested features that are complexand have for to instruction language approach to describe.However, rules thatare difficult althoughthereis some and easy it is between hard about a distinction intuitive rules, agreement is meantbytheseterms clearwhat notalways 1995;Hulstijn (see Hulstijn, as to definethem).Furthermore, & DeGraaff, 1994,forusefulattempts of to the inherent in addition out, (2003) difficulty a points DeKeyser is an "Rule formor a rule,thereis also subjective difficulty: difficulty as theratioof therule'sinherent individual issuethatcan be described - a rule to handlesucha rule to thestudents' ability complexity linguistic with forone student of moderatedifficulty maybe easyfora student or morelanguagelearning experience"(p. aptitude languagelearning 331). is thatthat while in theSLA literature A fairly assumption widespread their nature too hard rules are rules can be very by complex taught, easy in isolatedinstruction and thusare difficult to to be successfully taught and that is isotraditional learnthrough explanation practice pedagogy use ofthelanguage. FFI may latedfrom communicative Thus,integrated be more suitableforcomplex/abstract such as the article features, sysIn laboratory temin English. studies to investigate thelearning ofsimple and complex morphosyn tacticrules,DeKeyser(1995) and Robinson some support forthisidea. Participants in thosestudies (1996) provide learned simple morphosyntactic rules betterunder conditions of exand more rules better under plicit-deductive learning complex implicitinductive conditions. Conclusions drawn from thesestudies remain conand are perhapsbestseen as hypotheses in need of troversial, however, further study.

Communicative Value
FFI mayalso be particularly useful withfeatures in which Integrated errors are morelikely to lead to communication breakdowns (e.g., Enthat glishpossessive pronounshisand her).Lightbown (1998) suggests at variouslevelsof proficiency L2 learners are morelikely to be able to focus on form and meaning at thesametime whenthe"farm infocus (...)
196 TESOL QUARTERLY

This content downloaded by the authorized user from 192.168.72.226 on Sat, 10 Nov 2012 20:01:41 PM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

carrier of the meaning infocus" when is an important (p. 192). However, in do not interfere errors withmeaning(e.g., the absence of inversion communicative such as What she is isolation from reading?), questions if learnersare to notice the difference interaction maybe necessary to saywhatthey mean (Spada, and the correct between whatthey way say The relative of & White, 2005). importance usingthe right Lightbown, in is also reflected word as comparedwithusing the rightgrammar and feedbackare more thatinstruction Schwartz's (1993) observation and use oflexicalitems to lead to changesin learners' knowledge likely and and syntax. thanof morphology Gass, McDonough (2000) Mackey, of integrated characteristic a typical thatrecasts, haveobserved FFI, are item is a lexical recast whentheelement to be noticed morelikely being element(see also Lyster, thanwhenit is a morphosyntactic 1998).

Learners'DevelopmentalLevel
has emergedin learners' Once a languagefeature (see interlanguage best feature that use of accurate and fluent more , Pienemann, may 1998) FFI. Severalstudieson FFI have rebe encouragedthrough integrated are at a develFFI whenthey from most benefit learners that L2 ported themto comenables that in their level languageacquisition opmental more and of native that with forms of use their proficient particular pare to Related & & 1999). 1998; Spada Lightbown, speakers(Mackey Philp, and productive thatlearners'receptive is the observation thisfinding do not developin the same wayor at the same rate.However, abilities ofbothinputtheeffects research recent (i.e., compreheninvestigating on based and (i.e., production) practice L2 development sion) outputas long as and production thatbothcomprehension indicates improve are encouragedto makeformand learners is meaningful the practice & Wood Bowden,2006; see also meaningconnections(Morgan-Short 1998). DeKeyser, learners As notedearlier, mayneed isolatedFFI, such as VanPatten's to instruction, help them detect and understandformprocessing thathavelow salience,low for meaningrelationships languagefeatures haveemerged thefeatures Once value. communicative or low frequency, havebeen connections or once theform-meaning in theinterlanguage favored be to is of the by made, development greaterfluency likely that found and Ammar FFI. (2006) French-speaking Spada integrated determinin usingpossessive moreproficient whowerealready children instruction, were able to take advantageof integrated ers hisand her the correct of recasts(wherethe teacherprovides in the form whether the stufrom correction elicits a teacher the or (where form) prompts from more benefited less were who students . However, dent) proficient
FORM-FOCUSED INSTRUCTION: ISOLATED OR INTEGRATED? 197

This content downloaded by the authorized user from 192.168.72.226 on Sat, 10 Nov 2012 20:01:41 PM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

thanrecasts, thattheyhad greater recogdifficulty suggesting prompts the the of feedback. nizing purpose

Learners'Age
those withexperiencein the In general,older learners, especially to isolated are more receptive or other own of their languages, study Outside theclassinstruction 1998). (see, e.g.,Barkhuizen, grammatical in immersed the tarare in where room, environments they completely with learners often L2 acquire proficiency little young very getlanguage, and adults, Older or no FFI. however, adolescents, children, appear to of theways it because on and even instruction from benefit depend may those of differ from abilities in whichtheirlanguage-learning young iftheir contact children 1988;DeKeyser, 2000), especially (Bley-Vroman, to thesecondorforeign thelanguageis limited with languageclassroom. children do not has shown that CBI contexts Researchin CLT and enhanced and FFI implicit input recognize integrated (including always thanmeaning(e.g.,Lyster rather to languageform recasts)as responses feedback which do respondto integrated & Ranta,1997). However, they elicitation and use of the is explicit emphasis, prompting, (e.g.,through as well as other nonverbalsignals;see, e.g., Ammar& Spada, 2006; within the & Varela,1998; Lyster, 2004) or whichis provided Doughty wherethe overallorientation includesa contextof languageteaching in & Mori,2006). Adultlearners, focuson languageform(Lyster strong have been shownto be more a variety of languagelearningcontexts, FFI as feedbackon languageform(see, e.g., Ellis, awareof integrated & Basturkmen, Loewen,2001; Ohta, 2000).

Language-Learning Aptitude
Learnerswho perform wellon languageaptitude tests or have more and skill in their LI be better able to metalinguistic knowledge may noticeand focuson languageform within a communicative context than thosewith and metalinguistic It has been pooreraptitude ability. hypothesizedthatlearners with in their skills ownlanguage poor metalinguistic to help them isolated) instruction mayrequiremore explicit(possibly someform-meaning connections (Ranta,2002). Mackey, identify Philp, withhigher Egi, Fujii,and Tomoaki (2002) foundthatadult learners scoreson tests ofworking weremorelikely to report thatthey memory noticedinteractional feedback in the form of recasts (integrated) (see also Robinson, 2002).
198 TESOL QUARTERLY

This content downloaded by the authorized user from 192.168.72.226 on Sat, 10 Nov 2012 20:01:41 PM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

Learner and Teacher Preferencesfor How to Teach or Learn AboutForm

Research on students' beliefs and opinionsaboutFFI (i.e.,instruction and students' views and corrective feedback)has revealedthatteachers' In twolarge-scale oftendiffer. Schulz (1996, 2001) foundthat studies, but a desireto havetheir errors all students corrected, virtually expressed more In students were felt this was desirable. few teachers addition, very to saythatformal of thelanguageis "essential thanteachers study likely of a [foreign to the eventualmastery language]" (2001, p. 247). Mis& in theliterature matches likethesehavelongbeen reported (Cathcart on L2 and mismatches ofmatches Olsen,1976;Yorio,1986). The effects havealso been investigated (e.g., Spada, 1987;Wesche,1981), learning instruction mostfrom benefit and thereis some evidencethatlearners discusand for thatsuitstheir 2005, (see summary preferences Drnyei, sion). and previous such as individual Otherfactors experilearningstyles for lead to different also can ence learning preferences learnlanguages learnedlanguages have who learners some indicated L2 As earlier, ing. have often structure-based via traditional strong preferences approaches Other L2 learners to learnvia isolatedgrammar forcontinuing practice. to more who havelearnedlanguagesinformally positively mayrespond Whatis clear is thatcharacteristics withmeaning. FFI thatis integrated in complexways, withtypeof instruction such as these can interact or less successful more to 1989). (Skehan, learning leading for isolated It is not only learnerswho have different preferences Researchon teachercognition FFI. So do teachers. and/orintegrated in thewayin which oftenteachgrammar has revealedthatL2 teachers There is also themselves it were Farrell, 2003; 1999). (Borg, taught they betweenwhat teachersknowabout evidenceof a directrelationship is to whichgrammar teachit.Thatis,theextent and howthey grammar much how on knowledge metalinguistic depends taughtdeductively & Hooper, 1996). Of teachers Mitchell, possess (Borg,2001; Brumfit, inwho do not believethatgrammar course,thereare L2 instructors and second is useful.In a study struction foreign (English) comparing Mitchelland Hooper (1992) observed (French) languageinstruction, on languageor explicit focused teachers theEnglish that grammar rarely did so. When interteachers workbut the foreign regularly language the Englishteachersexpressedthe opinion viewedabout thisfinding, fordeveloping was not of primary thatthistypeof activity importance of L2 instrucis not that a students' atypical ability response linguistic of CLT. version torswho have adopted the strong who are teachingtheirown native thatteachers It is oftenobserved of the a not have as grammar good graspof the formal languagemay
FORM-FOCUSED INSTRUCTION: ISOLATED OR INTEGRATED? 199

This content downloaded by the authorized user from 192.168.72.226 on Sat, 10 Nov 2012 20:01:41 PM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

has includedform-focused L2 instruclanguageas thosewhoselearning tion.In a study of teachers'practices, observed thatdeci(1998) Borg formal instruction are notalways basedon teachsionsto includeexplicit on their beliefthat instruction works butrather ers' beliefthatgrammar teachthat He observed when it. also students grammar, teaching expect to one particular adhere exclusively ers do not necessarily approach between or inductive) but willcombineand alternate (e.g., deductive or implicit to explicit of48 teachers' attitudes in a study them.Similarly, in an Englishforacademicpurposes(EAP) proteachingof grammar ofteachthatthemajority and (2002) report Etherington Burgess gram, texts within authentic ersbelievedthatit is usefulto integrate grammar At thesame rather thanteachit explicitly syllabus. usinga grammatical time,however, theyalso expressedthe beliefthatnot all grammatical instrucand thusadvocated learnedimplicitly can be explicit knowledge and ofteachers thepreferences tionas well.In our research investigating forintegrated or isolatedFFI,we havefoundthatneither adultlearners forone over the other.They a consistent preference group expresses value both (Spada, 2006b).

CONCLUSION
thatthereis a role in CLT and CBI for Researchand theory suggest FFI. Each typeof instruction both isolatedand integrated mayplaya Researchand experirole in promoting different languageacquisition. need to be thatnot all languagefeatures ence in CLT and CBI affirm researchon classroom taughtin isolatedlessons.Instead,the current that incidental allows students to acquirea great shows learning learning deal of languagewhilefocusedon meaningin CLT and CBI. The addiFFI can contribute tionof integrated to the automatization oflanguage features thathave emergedin students' languagebut thatare not used whenthereare competing demandsforattention. reliably FFI includesa wide range of approaches,includingthe Integrated kindof implicit feedback thatoccursas the need or opportunity arises, as wellas thekindofplannedinteraction thatrequires therepeated, but use ofa particular isolatedlessons natural, Nevertheless, languageform. or even essential, in promoting the acquisition of some maybe useful, These features includethosethat are hardto perceive languagefeatures. in thenormalstream ofcommunicative speech,thoseforwhichthereis a misleading to the LI, and those thatare unlikely to cause similarity communication breakdown. We are currentlydesigning quasistudiesto explorethe contributions of both types of FFI. experimental The importance of isolatedlessonswillbe determined differences by
200 TESOL QUARTERLY

This content downloaded by the authorized user from 192.168.72.226 on Sat, 10 Nov 2012 20:01:41 PM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

in the specific thatis beingtaught as wellas bydifferlanguagefeature ences in learners'and teachers'characteristics, and preferabilities, ences.We findno evidenceto support a suggestion thatisolatedgrammar lessons withoutopportunities for communicative language use should again become the dominant to instruction. language approach or or a for communicative Isolatedlessonsare a starting point follow-up activities. Aboveall,they shouldnotbe expectedto result content-based in focusinto their of the feature in students' immediate incorporation lessons can prepare such use. communicative Nevertheless, language lantheir forcontinuing students to makethebestuse of opportunities FFI when and in activities integrated guageacquisition meaning-focused it occurs.
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS ofthemanuscript versions on earlier feedback whoprovided The reviewers helped thereviewers article. We did notalways us to makethisa better (who, agreewith feedback with each other) , but their indeed,strongly helpedus underdisagreed students tothegraduate views better. Wearealsograteful ourown andpresent stand for their at in N. Spada'sresearch assistants and research OISE/UT insightful group literature. and related on this comments manuscript THE AUTHORS at OISE/ in theSecondLanguageEducation Nina Spada is a professor program in L2 teaching courses she teaches ofToronto, Canada,where Ontario, University instruction ofform-focused on thecontributions focuses Herresearch andlearning. in communicative and adults ofchildren to theL2 development programs. of Concordia Emeritus Professor is Distinguished M. Lightbown University, Patsy relationHerresearch ofAAAL. Canada,and a former Montreal, explores president and adolescents. forchildren and learning, between L2 teaching especially ships REFERENCES in secondlanguage and rulepresentation R. (1995). Inputenhancement Alanen,
inforeign and awareness learning language acquisition.In R. Schmidt(Ed.), Attention

ofHawai'iPress. andteaching University (pp. 259-302).Honolulu: and L2 learning. all?Recasts, Ammar, A, & Spada,N. (2006). One sizefits prompts,
in Second Studies 28, 543-574. LanguageAcquisition, skill.Psychological Review, 89, 369-406. Anderson, J. (1982). Acquisitionof cognitive in lexical elaboration L2 and structural Semantic Barcroft, acquisition. J. (2002). 52, 323-363. LanguageLearning, learners'perceptionsof ESL classroomteachG. P. (1998). Discovering Barkhuizen, context.TESOL Quarterly, in a South African activities 32, 85-108. ing/learning ISOLATEDOR INTEGRATED? INSTRUCTION: FORM-FOCUSED 201

This content downloaded by the authorized user from 192.168.72.226 on Sat, 10 Nov 2012 20:01:41 PM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

Basden, B. H., Bonilla-Meeks, J. L., 8cBasden, D. R. (1994). Cross-language priming in word-fragment and Language, 33, 69-82. completion. Journal ofMemory dissociations measures:Support Blaxton,T. A. (1989). Investigating among memory fora transfer-appropriate framework. processing ofExperimental Journal Psychology: and Cognition, 15, 657-668. Learning, Memory, R. (1988). The fundamental character offoreign Bley-Vroman, languagelearning.In and second & M. SharwoodSmith(Eds.), Grammar W. Rutherford language teaching House. (pp. 19-30). New York:Newbury in theforeign languageclassroom. Language Borg,S. (1998). Talkingabout grammar Awareness, 7, 159-175. ELT Journal, and practicein teachinggrammar. 55, Borg,S. (2001). Self-perception 21-29. Borg, S. (2003). Teacher cognitionin language teaching:A reviewof researchon whatlanguage teachersthink, know,believe,and do. LanguageTeaching, 36, 81109. in language Theroles C. J. (1984). Communicative Brumfit, teaching: fluency methodology of Press. and accuracy. Cambridge:CambridgeUniversity Brumfit, C, Mitchell,R., & Hooper, J. (1996). Grammar, language, and classroom in times In and M. (Ed.), learning changing (pp. 70-87). Teaching Hughes practice. Oxford:Blackwell. S. (2002). Explicitor implicit 30, 433System, grammar? Burgess, J.,8cEtherington, 458. sans trahir le discours:Le cas des Calv, P. (1994). Commentfairede la grammaire CanadianModern exercicesgrammaticaux. 50, 636-645. LanguageReview, Cathcart,R., & Olsen, J. W. B. (1976). Teachers' and students'preferencesfor errors.InJ. Fanselow8c R. Crymes(Eds.), correctionof classroomconversation at the 10th annual TESOL Convention Basedon TeachingDone On TESOL 76: Selections DC: TESOL. (pp. 41-53). Washington, M. (1991). Discourseanalysis and grammar instruction. AnnualReview Celce-Murcia, 11, 135-15 1. ofApplied Linguistics, formaland functionalapproaches in Day, E., 8c Shapson, S. (1991). Integrating An experimental Learnlanguage teachingin Frenchimmersion: study. Language ing,41, 25-58. R. (1995). Learningsecond language grammar rules:An experiment with DeKeyser, a miniature Studies in Second 19, 249-297. linguistic system. LanguageAcquisition, on learningand DeKeyser,R. (1998). Beyondfocuson form:Cognitive perspectives second language grammar. In C. Doughty&J. Williams(Eds.), Focuson practising secondlanguageacquisition formin classroom (pp. 42-63). New York: Cambridge Press. University R. M. (2000). The robustness of critical in second language DeKeyser, period effects in Second 22, 493-533. acquisition.Studies LanguageAcquisition, DeKeyser,R. (2003). Implicitand explicitlearning.In C. J. Doughty8c M. H. Long (Eds.), The handbook of secondlanguageacquisition (pp. 313-348). Maiden, MA: Blackwell. R. W., Hilberg,R. S., Pinal,A., 8cTharp, R. G. (2003). Five standardsand Doherty, studentachievement. NABEJournal and Practice, 1, 1-24. ofResearch Drnyei, Z. (2005). The psychology Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence of thelanguagelearner. Erlbaum. C. (1991). Second language instruction does make a difference: Evidence Doughty, froman empiricalstudyof ESL relativization. Studies in Second LanguageAcquisition,13, 431-469. C. (2003). Instructed SLA: Constraints, and enhancement. Doughty, compensation, 202 TESOL QUARTERLY

This content downloaded by the authorized user from 192.168.72.226 on Sat, 10 Nov 2012 20:01:41 PM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

In C. J. Doughty8c M. H. Long (Eds.). Thehandbook ofsecond language acquisition (pp. 256-310). Maiden, MA: Blackwell. focuson form.In C. Doughty& J. C, & Varela,E. (1998). Communicative Doughty, in classroom Williams(Eds.) , Focusonform second language acquisition (pp. 114-138) . Press. Cambridge:CambridgeUniversity Doughty,C, & Williams, J. (1998). Pedagogical choices in focus on form.In C. in classroom second Doughty& J. Williams(Eds.), Focusonform language acquisition Press. (pp. 197-261). Cambridge:CambridgeUniversity in assessingbiDurgunoglu,A. Y., 8c Roediger,H. L., III. (1987). Test differences and Language,26, 377-391. lingual memory. Journal ofMemory content Echevarria, for English comprehensible J.,Vogt,M., & Short,D. J. (2004). Making TheSIOP model. Boston: Pearson. learners: collocation,word-class, Ellis, N. C. (1997). Vocabularyacquisition,word structure, & M. McCarthy and meaning.In N. Schmitt (Eds.), Vocabulary: Description, acquiPress. sition and pedagogy (pp. 122-139). Cambridge:CambridgeUniversity of explicitand implicit Ellis, N. C. (2005). At the interface: Dynamicinteractions in Second Studies 27, 305-352. LanguageAcquisition, language knowledge. Ellis, R. (1989). Are classroomand naturalistic language acquisition the same? A in Second studyof the classroomacquisitionof Germanword order rules. Studies 11, 305-328. LanguageAcquisition, Oxford: Oxford University Ellis, R. (1994). The study languageacquisition. ofsecond Press. instruction.Language form-focused Ellis, R. (2001). Introduction:Investigating 52(Supplement 1), 1-46. Learning, affectthe acquisition of implicit instruction Ellis, R. (2002a). Does form-focused in Second A reviewof the research.Studies 24, LanguageAcquisition, knowledge? 223-236. in the second/foreign instruction language Ellis,R. (2002b). The place of grammar in ongrammar In E. Hinkel 8cS. Fotos (Eds.), Newperspectives curriculum. teaching Erlbaum. Lawrence classrooms second Mahwah, 17-34). NJ: (pp. language H., 8c Loewen, S. (2001). Learner uptake in communicative Ellis, R., Basturkmen, ESL lessons.LanguageLearning, 51, 281-318. Farrell,T. S. C. (1999). The reflective Unlockingpre-semce teachers assignment: beliefson grammarteaching.RELCJournal, 30, 1-17. Franks,J. J., Bilbrey,C. W., Lien, K. C, 8c McNamara, T. P. (2000). Iranster& Cognition, 28, priming.Memory appropriateprocessing(TAP) and repetition 1140-1151. and thesecondlanguage learner. Mahwah, NJ: Gass, S. (1997). Input, interaction, LawrenceErlbaum. course An introductory L. (2001). Second (2nd Gass,S., & Selinker, acquisition: language d.). Mahwah,NJ:LawrenceErlbaum. A classroomexperiHarley,B. (1989). Functionalgrammarin French immersion: 331-359. ment.Applied 10, Linguistics, Studies Frenchimmersion. and SLA in early B. (1993). Instructional strategies Harley, 245-259. in Second 15, LanguageAcquisition, childL2 acquisition. tasksin promoting B. (1998). The role of focus-on-form Harley, secondlanguage in classroom In C. Doughty& J. Williams,(Eds.), Focus on form Press. (pp. 156-174). Cambridge:CambridgeUniversity acquisition Harley,B., 8c Swain,M. (1984). The interlanguageof immersionstudentsand its forsecond language teaching.In A. Davies, C. Criper,& A. Howatt implications Press. (Eds.), Interlanguage (pp. 291-311). Edinburgh:EdinburghUniversity In 1. V. Higgs communication. toward The R. 8c T. Clifford, V., (1982). push Higgs, ISOLATEDOR INTEGRATED? INSTRUCTION: FORM-FOCUSED 203

This content downloaded by the authorized user from 192.168.72.226 on Sat, 10 Nov 2012 20:01:41 PM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

and the teacher (Ed.), Curriculum, competence, foreign language (pp. 57-79). Skokie, IL: National Textbook Company. Oxford:Oxford UniHowatt,A. P. R. (1984). A history ofEnglish languageteaching. Press. versity rulesare equal: Givinggrammar its instruction Hulstijn, J. (1995). Not all grammar and proper place in foreignlanguage teaching.In R. Schmidt (Ed.), Attention of awareness in foreign languagelearning(pp. 359-386). Honolulu: University Hawai'i. J. (2003). Incidentaland intentionallearning.In C. J. Doughty& M. H. Hulstijn, ofsecond languageacquisition (pp. 349-382). Maiden, Long (Eds.), The handbook MA: Blackwell. R. (1994). Under whatconditionsdoes explicitknowledge J.,& DeGraaff, Hulstijn, A research the acquisitionof implicit of a second language facilitate knowledge? 11, 97-112. proposal. AILA Review, dans l'enseignement des langues secde la grammaire Jean, G. (2005). Intgration CanadianModemLanguage ondes: Le cas des exercicesgrammaticaux. Review, 61, 519-542. and methodology. Oxford:Pergamon syllabus design Johnson,K. (1982). Communicative Press. Oxford: and practice in second Krashen,S. D. (1982). Principles languageacquisition. PergamonPress. and its rivals.In N. Ellis (Ed.), Implicit Krashen,S. D. (1994). The input hypothesis and explicit learning oflanguage(pp. 45-77). London: Academic Press. tosecond Larsen-Freeman, D., & Long, M. H. (1991). An introduction language acquiresearch. New York:Longman. sition on the role of P. M. (1991). What have we here? Some observations Lightbown, in second language acquisition. In R. Phillipson,E. Kellerman,L. instruction M. SharwoodSmith,8cM. Swain (Eds.), Foreign/second Selinker, language pedagogy A commemorative volume research: (pp. 197-212). Clevedon: MultiforClaus Faerch lingual Matters. P. M. (1998). The importance in focuson form. of timing In C. Doughty Lightbown, & J. Williams (Eds.), Focus on formin classroom secondlanguageacquisition (pp. Press. 177-196). Cambridge:CambridgeUniversity P. M., 8c Spada, N. (1990). Focus-on-form and corrective feedbackin Lightbown, communicative on second language learning.Studies in language teaching:Effects Second 12, 429-448. LanguageAcquisition, P. M., & Spada, N. (2006). How languages are learned (3rd d.). Oxford: Lightbown, OxfordUniversity Press. Long, M. H. (1991). Focus on form:A design featurein language teachingmeth8cC. Kramsch(Eds.), Foreign research odology.In K. de Bot, R. Ginsberg, language in cross-cultural perspective (pp. 39-52). Amsterdam: John Benjamins. in second language Long, M. H. (1996). The role of the linguisticenvironment acquisition.In W. Ritchie& T. Bhatia (Eds.), Handbook ofsecond language acquisition(pp. 413-468). San Diego, CA: Academic Press. and practice.In Long, M., 8cRobinson,P. (1998). Focus on form: Theory,research, C. Doughty8cJ. Williams(Eds.), Focusonform in classroom second language acquisition(pp. 15-41). Cambridge:CambridgeUniversity Press. R. (1987). Speaking immersion.CanadianModern Lyster, 43, 701LanguageReview, 717. Lyster,R. (1994a). La negotiation de la forme: Stratgie analytique en classe d'immersion.Canadian ModemLanguageReview, 50, 446-465. 204 TESOL QUARTERLY

This content downloaded by the authorized user from 192.168.72.226 on Sat, 10 Nov 2012 20:01:41 PM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

R. (1994b). The effect of functional-analytic Lyster, teachingon aspects of French immersion learners'sociolinguistic 15, 263-287. competence. Applied Linguistics, in relationto R. (1998). Negotiationof form, and explicitcorrection recasts, Lyster, errortypesand learner repair in immersionclassrooms.LanguageLearning, 48, 183-218. instrucR. (2004). Differential effects of prompts and recastsin form-focused Lyster, in Second tion. Studies 26, 399-432. LanguageAcquisition, counterbalfeedbackand instructional R., & Mori, H. (2006). Interactional Lyster, in Second ance. Studies 28, 269-300. LanguageAcquisition, feedbackand learneruptake:Negotiation R., & Ranta,L. (1997). Corrective Lyster, in Second classrooms.Studies of formin communicative 19, LanguageAcquisition, 37-66. A., Gass, S., & McDonough, K. (2000). How do learnersperceive interacMackey, in Second tionalfeedback?Studies 22, 471-497. LanguageAcquisition, Mackey,A., & Philp,J. (1998). Conversationalinteractionand second language Modern 82, Recasts,responses,and red herrings. Journal, Language development: 338-356. A., Philp,J.,Egi, T., Fujii,A., & Tomoaki, T. (2002). Individualdifferences Mackey, In P. feedbackand L2 development. ofinteractional in working noticing memory, and instructed Robinson (Ed.), Individualdifferences (pp. 181languagelearning 209). Amsterdam: John Benjamins. Mitchell,R., 8c Hooper, J. (1992). Teachers' viewsof language knowledge.In C. in the classroom awareness (Eds.), Language (pp. 40-50). London: James8cP. Garrett Longman. London: Arnold. theories. Mitchell, R., 8c Myles,F. (1998). Second learning language and meanK., 8c Wood Bowden, H. (2006). Processinginstruction Morgan-Short, on second Effects instruction: language development.Studies output-based ingful in Second 28, 31-66. LanguageAcquisition, Morris,D. D., Bransford, J.J. (1977). Levels of processingversus J. D., 8c Franks, and Verbal 16, Behavior, transfer Learning Journal ofVerbal appropriateprocessing. 519-533. A researchsynof L2 instruction: Noms, J. M., & Ortega, L. (2000). Effectiveness thesisand quantitative 50, 417-528. LanguageLearning, meta-analysis. Noms, J.,& Ortega,L. (2003). Definingand measuringSLA. In C. J. Doughty& ML H. Long (Eds.). Thehandbook (pp. 717-761). Maiden, acquisition language ofsecond MA: Blackwell. examinationof corrective recasts:A learner-centered Ohta, A. (2000). Rethinking feedbackin theJapanese classroom.In J. K. Hall 8c L. Verplaetse (Eds.), Second interaction classroom andforeign (pp. 47-71). Mahwah,NJ: through learning language LawrenceErlbaum. and content: How does it assist the interactional Pica, T. (2002). Subject-matter needs of classroomlanguage learners?TheModern 86, Journal, Language linguistic 1-19. 10, 52-79. Pienemann,M. (1989). Is language teachable?Applied Linguistics, Processand second Pienemann,M. (1998). Languageprocessing languagedevelopment: Amsterdam: John Benjamins. theory. ability intothemind.In G. DeLuca, L. Fox, M.Johnson, Windows Raimes,A. (2002). Errors: andfirst-year 8c M. Kogen (Eds.). Dialogueon writing: ESL, basicwriting, Rethinking (pp. 279-287). Mahwah,NJ:Lawrence Erlbaum. composition in thecommunicative Ranta,L. (2002). The role oflearners'language analytic ability learnand instructed classroom.In P. Robinson (Ed.), Individual language differences John Benjamins. ing (pp. 159-180). Amsterdam: ISOLATEDOR INTEGRATED? INSTRUCTION: FORM-FOCUSED 205

This content downloaded by the authorized user from 192.168.72.226 on Sat, 10 Nov 2012 20:01:41 PM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

Robinson,P. (1996). Learning simple and complex second language rules under in Second Lanand instructed conditions.Studies incidental,rule-search implicit, 19, 233-247. guageAcquisition, in intelligence, of individualdifferences Robinson,P. (2002). Effects aptitudeand and extensionof Reber, on adult incidentalSLA: A replication memory working and and Hernstadt(1991). In P. Robinson (Ed.), Individual Walkenfield differences instructed language learning (pp. 211-266). Amsterdam: John Benjamins. betweenformand meaning duringtask Samuda, V. (2001). Guiding relationships P. Skehan,& M. Swain (Eds.), The role of the teacher.In M. Bygate, performance: and testing Secondlanguagelearning, tasks: (pp. 119teaching Researching pedagogic 140). London: Longman. M. J., Achugar,M., 8c Otefza,T. (2004). The grammarof history: Schleppergrell, instruction content-based througha functionalfocus on language. Enhancing TESOL Quarterly, 38, 67-93. R. (1990). The role of consciousnessin second language learning.Applied Schmidt, 11, 17-46. Linguistics, Students'and in theforeign Schulz,R. A. (1996). Focus on form languageclassroom: teachers' viewson errorcorrectionand the role of grammar.Foreign Language Annals,29, 343-364. in studentand teacher perceptionsconSchulz, R. A. (2001). Culturaldifferences feedback:USA-Colombia. cerningthe role of grammarteachingand corrective Modern 85, 244-258. Journal, Language and affecting B. (1993). On explicitand negativedata effecting Schwartz, compein Second behavior.Studies tence and linguistic 15, 147-162. LanguageAcquisition, and lexical skillsin second Segalowitz,N., & Gatbonton,E. (1995). Automaticity forcomputerassistedlanguage learning.Computer Implications language fluency: Assisted 8, 129-149. LanguageLearning, P. & N., approaches to SLA. The Lightbown, M. (1999). Psycholinguistic Segalowitz, AnnualReview 19, 23-43. Linguistics, ofApplied of Sharwood Smith,M. (2004). In two minds about grammar:On the interaction and metalinguistic Transactions Philoknowledgein performance. ofthe linguistic 102, 255-280. logical Society, as a means ofimproving accurateoral production. Sheen, R. (2005). Focus on formS In A. Housen 8c M. Pierrard (Eds.), Investigations in instructed secondlanguage acquisition (pp. 271-310). Berlin:Mouton de Gruyter. in second London: Arnold. Skehan, P. (1989). Individualdifferences language learning. In C. Alderson& A. Beretta Slimani,A. (1992). Evaluationof classroominteraction. (Eds.), Evaluationin second languageeducation (pp. 197-220). Cambridge:CamPress. bridgeUniversity forthe inteSnow, M. A., Met, M., & Genesee, F. (1992). A conceptual framework oflanguageand contentinstruction. In P. A. Richard-Amato 8cM. A. Snow gration classroom: teachers (Eds.), The multicultural Readings for content-area (pp. 27-38). Reading,MA: Addison-Wesley. betweeninstructional differences and learningoutSpada, N. (1987). Relationships comes: A process-product studyof communicative language teaching. Applied 8, 137-155. Linguistics, Spada, N. (2006a). Communicative language teaching: Currentstatusand future handbook prospects.In J. Cummins8c C. Davis (Eds.), Theinternational ofEnglish Norwell,MA: Springer. language teaching and learner and integrated instruction Spada, N. (2006b). Teacher preferences forisolated [Researchreportpreparedforthe ContinuingEducation EnglishLanguage Pro206 TESOL QUARTERLY

This content downloaded by the authorized user from 192.168.72.226 on Sat, 10 Nov 2012 20:01:41 PM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

of Toronto and the Toronto Catholic DistrictSchool gram of the University of Toronto. Board]. Toronto: OISE/University of questions and the development P. M. (1993). Instruction Spada, N., & Lightbown, in Second in L2 classrooms.Studies 15, 205-224. LanguageAcquisition, LI influenceand developmental P. M. (1999). Instruction, Spada, N., 8cLightbown, readinessin second language acquisition.Modern 83, 1-22. Journal, Language Spada, N., Lightbown,P. M., & White,J. L. (2005). The importance of form/ In A. Housen & M. instruction. meaning mappings in explicit form-focussed second issues in instructed Pierrard(Eds.), Current (pp. 199-234). language learning Berlin:Mouton de Gruyter. Oxford:OxfordUniversity in language Stern,H. H. (1992). Issuesand options teaching. Press. contentteachingto maximize and complementing Swain,M. (1988). Manipulating second language learning. TESL CanadaJournal, 6, 68-83. learners Two Frenchimmersion Swain,M., & Lapkm,S. (2002). Talkingit through: Educational International to reformulation. 37, 285Research, of Journal responses 304. Trahey,M., & White,L. (1993). Positiveevidence and preemptionin the second in Second 15, 181-204. LanguageAcquisition, language classroom.Studies a second language: and in a native P. (2005). Spoken-word Trofimovich, processing word priming. of auditory An investigation 26, 479-504. Psycholinguistics, Applied classes. Lanin correction Ul case The Truscott, writing (1996). againstgrammar J. 46, 327-369. guageLearning, Truscott, J. (1999). What's wrongwithoral grammarcorrection.Canadian Modern 55, 437-456. LanguageReview, in to contentand formin the input:An experiment B. (1990). Attending VanPatten, in Second consciousness.Studies 12, 287-301. LanguageAcquisition, and research. instruction: and grammar Theory VanPatten,B. (1996). Inputprocessing Norwood,NJ:Ablex. VanPatten,B. (2004). Input processingin SLA. In B. VanPatten (Ed.), Processing and commentary instruction: research, (pp. 5-31). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Theory, Erlbaum. and input processing. VanPatten,B., 8c Cadierno, T. (1993). Explicit instruction 225-243. in Second Studies 15, LanguageAcquisition, matchingstudents Wesche, M. (1981). Language aptitudemeasures in streaming, and diagnosisoflearningproblems.In K. C. Diller (Ed.), Individual withmethods, MA: in languagelearning and universals (pp. 119-154). Rowley, aptitude differences House. Newbury input enhanceWhite,J. (1998). Gettingthe learners' attention:A typographical second in classroom mentstudy.In C. Doughty& J. Williams(Eds.), Focusonform Press. (pp. 85-113). Cambridge:CambridgeUniversity acquisition language ot White,L. (1991). Adverbplacementin second language acquisition:borneettects evidencein the classroom.Second Research, 7, 133and negative Language positive 161. P. M., & Ranta,L. (1991). Input enhancementand White,L., Spada, N., Lightbown, L2 question formation. 12, 416-432. Linguistics, Applied Williams, J., & Evans,J. (1998). What kind of focus and on which forms?In C. second in classroom acquisition language Doughty& J. Williams(Eds.), Focusonform Press. (pp. 139-155). Cambridge:CambridgeUniversity in second language learningand teaching.Canadian Yorio,C. (1986). Consumerism Modern 42, 668-687. LanguageReview,

FORM-FOCUSED INSTRUCTION: ISOLATED OR INTEGRATED?

207

This content downloaded by the authorized user from 192.168.72.226 on Sat, 10 Nov 2012 20:01:41 PM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions