ARTICLE CRITIQUE #1

Preemptive Focus on Form in the ESL Classroom In their article Preemptive Focus on Form in the ESL Classroom, Ellis, Basturkmen, and Loewen discuss the advantages and disadvantages of preemptive and reactive focus on form in relation to communicative activities. The authors first make a distinction between focus on form and focus on meaning, stating that focus on meaning is the predominant justification behind communicative language teaching and holds that language learners can acquire language through communication. On the other hand, focus-on-form episodes attempt to intervene directly in the process of interlanguage construction by drawing learners attention to or providing opportunities for them to practice specific linguistic features (2001, p. 407). For their study, the researchers analyzed and recorded two ESL classes (one intermediate and one preintermediate) in New Zealand. The teacher was recorded via a clip-on microphone. The researchers primary goal was to determine how many preemptive focus-on-form episodes (FFEs) and reactive FFEs were incorporated into classroom interactions. The researchers collected at least twelve combined hours of interactions from both of the classes (2001, p. 407, 416-420). Although the data differences between the two classes were not significant, the researchers found that in the first class a majority of FFEs were reactive, and in Class 2 the majority were preemptive (2001, p. 420). I think that one of the most important points made in the article pertains to uptake. Similar to other studies, the researchers found that when students asked about specific forms, it became evident that the students had higher levels of uptake, simply because students have the opportunity to demonstrate what their real knowledge gaps are, whereas teachers can only estimate and perceive (2001, p. 428). This information is crucial for foreign language educators. While teachers should prepare lesson plans according to their students capabilities, this does not

ARTICLE CRITIQUE #1

necessarily mean that the lesson is restricted to just the preplanned activities. Students should have the opportunity to experiment and play with the language so that they can determine what their strengths and weaknesses are. This cannot be done if a teacher forces the class to adhere to the lesson plans. For example, during class a teacher and her students might discuss weekend activities. While the students may know some basic activities vocabulary words (such as swimming, riding bicycles, etc.), they will inevitably think of different activity vocabulary words that they do not know (i.e. rowing, hiking, skateboarding, etc.). By brainstorming different activity words, the teacher and the students allow for a focus on form in terms of vocabulary. By having a more general activity, students are afforded more opportunities to discover what they know versus what they do not know, which will in turn increase the students uptake of the new target language vocabulary words. Structure in the language classroom is important, but it also should not severely limit what students learn in the target language. Another key point made in the article pertains to the benefits of explicit instruction during preemptive FFEs. The authors reference Ellis (1993) and Swain (1995) in their conclusion that explicit instruction allows for greater uptake, increased linguistic performance, and promotes acquisition of the target language (2001, p. 429). In other words, students cannot acquire enough of the target language to be considered linguistically proficient though implicit instruction and correction alone. Therefore, if an instructional activity begins with an explicit preemptive focus on form, then there is a higher level of uptake by the students (Ellis, Basturkmen, & Loewen, 2001, p. 429). This point, I feel, is key to successful foreign language instruction. Granted uptake is not the same as acquisition (Ellis, Basturkmen, & Loewen, 2001, p. 413), this information leads the reader to believe that by having preemptive, explicit instruction of a form, then there may be more time to discuss what the students actual gaps of information are. In

ARTICLE CRITIQUE #1

turn, one may then argue that there is a higher probability that an increase in acquisition will occur because students are learning what is more important to them. In short, the information presented in the article merits the attention of foreign language educators. The facts about preemptive focus on form presented in the article can lead to more efficient language instruction and increased learner uptake, which will in turn benefit both the teacher and the students. While designing such activities may require careful consideration, students will only make positive gains in their linguistic capabilities through more effective instruction.

ARTICLE CRITIQUE #1

References Ellis, R., Basturkmen, H., & Loewen, S. (2001). Preemptive Focus on Form in the ESL Classroom. TESOL Quarterly, 35(3), 407-32.