Shifting the focus from forms to form in the EFL classroom Sandra Fotos

This article examines arguments for focus on form, a term referring to the incorporation of implicit grammar instruction within communicative ESL lessons, and suggests ways to adapt this approach to EFL settings where grammar instruction has never left the classroom. In such contexts a focus-on-form approach can provide an acceptable rationale for including communicative language use within traditional grammar-based instruction. Several types of form-focused EFL activities are described, including two task-based approaches designed for large classes.

Introduction

The current movement in North America to focus on form, meaning to provide some type of implicit focus on grammar during communicative language teaching, is becoming an increasingly important factor in ESL syllabus design. The inability of communicative ESL teaching alone to promote high levels of accuracy in learners is now clear (Williams 1995), but there is growing concern that a return to grammar instruction should not lead to a revival of old ways of language teaching - traditional grammar-based syllabuses, pattern drills, and the like. However, much of the English language instruction in the world is not ESL-based, but takes place in the EFL situation, often with teachers who themselves are not native speakers of English. In many of these areas. the old ways are still the dominant educational paradigm, and communicative language teaching is just beginning to become an instructional option. Here, grammar teaching has never left the classroom. In fact, many educators might think that a focus on form is exactly what EFL learners do not need, since their major problem is not the lack of instruction on grammatical features, but the lack of opportunities for communicative language use. This article identifies a role for form-focused instruction in EFL pedagogy. Here we will be concerned with the other side of the issue: the potential for communicative language use which a focus-on-form approach can bring to grammar instruction in the traditional language learning setting.

Defining the concept

Nine years ago, Michael Long (1988) gave a paper entitled Focus on form: A design feature in language teaching methodology at a conference in Italy. He suggested that the traditional pedagogy of teaching and testing isolating linguistic items, a procedure based on behaviourist psychology and structural linguistics, was outmoded and ineffective. Arguing against focus-on-form syllabuses, where grammar
ELT Journal Volume 52/4 October 1998 Oxford University Press 1998 articles 301

welcome

points comprised the entire lesson content, Long suggested that the emerging grammar systems of language learners were characterized by complex, gradual and inter-related developmental paths (ibid.: 11). Thus, he noted, it is not surprising that teaching grammatical forms in isolation usually fails to develop the ability of learners to use forms communicatively unless they are psycholinguistically ready to acquire them anyway (Pienemann 1984). Long also suggested that purely communicative syllabuses were equally inadequate, because of their neglect of grammar instruction. A review of the research comparing instructed with uninstructed language learning identified clear advantages for instruction in terms of the learners rate of learning and level of achievement. Long therefore recommended the development of a third type of syllabus, one which he termed a focus on form. Such a syllabus would combine communicative language use with instruction on grammar forms in context, a format he suggested was particularly characteristic of task-based language instruction. Of course, the argument for combining structural and functional instruction with communicative activities is not new. Nor is communicative language teaching a monolithic construct, being better characterized as having a variety of perspectives. However, Longs paper is particularly relevant because of its recommendations to use an indirect, context-based presentation of grammar forms, rather than overt, teacher-led instruction. The paper was published shortly thereafter (Long 1991), and has stimulated extensive research (see Williams 1995, Robinson 1996, and Doughty and Williams 1998) on methods for integrating grammar instruction with communicative language learning that would enable learners to recognize the properties of target structures in context, and develop accuracy in their use. Nearly all of this research has been conducted in the ESL situation, and it tends to be of two general types. The first is based on the position that learners should be able to notice, then process, linguistic structures which have been introduced to them within purely communicative contexts. The treatment here consists of enhancing communicative input so that the learners attention is drawn to the target structure, for example, by flooding input with numerous usages, or by making the structures prominent through highlighting or some other physical treatment (Robinson 1996). Such an approach constitutes implicit grammatical instruction, because there is no overt mention of the target grammatical point. However, some researchers have suggested (for example, Cardieno 1995 and Skehan 1996) that learners benefit from some type of explicit instruction prior to the activity to help them activate their previous knowledge of the target structures or, if none exists, to facilitate awareness of the forms they will encounter. Postactivity feedback, pointing out how the target form is used in context, has also been recommended. Related to this suggestion, a second type of activity combines explicit grammar instruction with communicative activities, by giving learners
302 Sandra S. Fotos

articles

welcome

short grammar lessons which are then followed by communicative input containing many instances of the instructed form (Ellis 1995, Cadierno 1995). Again, the communicative activities are often followed by a teacher-led review of the target grammatical form, and feedback on errors. It should be noted that this format has been typical of many communicative classrooms for years, so it is not particularly new. However, both types of activity are based on a particular psycholinguistic view of the relationship between formal instruction and language acquisition (Schmidt 1990). According to this view, after awareness of grammatical structures has been developed by formal instruction or some type of implicit focus-on-form treatment, many learners tend to notice the target structures in subsequent communicative input (Fotos 1993, Schmidt 1990). Such repeated acts of noticing are suggested to promote the learners comparison of the correct forms with their own interlanguage forms (Schmidt 1990), triggering the cognitive processes involved in restructuring the learners internal linguistic system, and thus facilitating acquisition. This positive view of the role of instruction in the acquisition process assumes that the learners will be able to encounter the target grammatical forms frequently, not only in their language classrooms but in their daily life as well. Such repeated encounters are necessary to reinforce the focus-on-form treatment. However, whereas the assumption that learners have access to communicative language is reasonable for the ESL context, it is not valid for most EFL classrooms, which, at best, can only operate as linguistic microclimates within the native culture. The differences between EFL settings and the communicative ESL classrooms which have been the sites of most of the focus-on-form research are significant, and the next sections review some features of EFL teaching in order to determine whether focus on form is instructionally appropriate and, if so, to suggest likely intervention points.
Some

characteristics of EFL settings

Many EFL environments share certain features. In some countries the educational system is under the control of a central agency which determines not only the general curriculum but often the contents of courses, and even the textbooks which are used. In Japan, for example, when EFL teaching commences in the first year of middle school, the primary goal is to master specific vocabulary items, translation skills, and grammar structures, which will be tested in the final year as part of an examination system determining entry into high schools. At high school as well, the teaching of EFL is test-driven, aimed at preparing learners for university entrance examinations. Given these circumstances, it is apparent why grammar instruction figures heavily in the ELT curriculum. The central educational agency and the schools are quite aware of the drawbacks of this approach, since it produces learners who, despite years of study, are still unable to use the English language commuFocus on forms in the EFL classroom

articles

303

welcome

nicatively. It is recognized that, across the world, most EFL systems lag behind those of Western Europe (see Beardsmore 1993). To remedy this, in countries such as Japan, secondary curricula have undergone significant reform, and now contain an emphasis on oral communication. New textbooks have been written at the middle school level allowing for listening practice and mastery of spoken forms. At the high school level, new courses focus on listening and speaking skills, and some schools even have a course on English debate. Understandably, the change in curriculum is producing test reform, with Korea already incorporating a TOEFL-type listening section into its major national examination, and Japan is looking to achieve a similar revision within several years. One complicating factor of these reforms is the large class size at many institutions, which mitigates against teacher supervision of pair or group practice. Without such supervision, learner use of their shared L1 to solve communicative activities meant to be done in the target language remains a constant problem.
Adapting focus on form for the EFL classroom

Considering the traditional pedagogy dominating many EFL classrooms, it is clear that the strong version of form-focused instruction, where learners are only exposed to a target grammatical form through modified communicative input, is not, by itself, suitable for the EFL situation. As noted, a totally implicit approach depends on the availability of subsequent communicative input containing the form, and such opportunities are lacking in the EFL situation. Indeed, not only are there few opportunities for communicative use of the target language outside the classroom, but even within many EFL classrooms, target language use may be surprisingly low. However, if focus-on-form approaches are modified to permit formal instruction before the communicative activity and feedback afterwards, they offer considerable promise. Whereas, in the ESL situation, a focus-on-form approach is used to position grammar instruction within an existing communicative framework, in the EFL context it provides a strong rationale for introducing communicative language activities into the grammar classroom. This is an important consideration in traditionally oriented educational settings, which may regard such activities, with their concomitant moving of desks and noisy chatting of learners, as inappropriate educational content. It should be recalled that communicative language teaching is just beginning to be accepted in many EFL situations, and that one drawback of many activities designed to promote communicative language use is that they are perceived to be frivolous. From this perspective, reading-based focus-on-form activities are especially suitable for many EFL situations because of the traditional emphasis on comprehension and translation skills. Reading material can be modified by highlighting, so that the target structure becomes salient while the learners are reading for meaning. Listening activities also lend themselves to the embedding of multiple instances of a target structure. Prior to such activities, teachers could use an Advance Organizer

304

Sandra S. Fotos

articles

welcome

(Ausubel, Novak, and Hanesian 1978) a teaching technique which has been popular in general education since the 1960s. This is an orientation to the coming activity, explaining its purpose and procedures, perhaps by showing a video of previous learners (see Hanley, Herron, and Cole 1995). An orientation to the coming activity which draws the learners attention to the target structure, and instructs them to notice instances of its use in the following comunicative activity, would activate their previous formal knowledge, and assist them to form links between this knowledge and the communicative use of the structure. Furthermore, developing prior familiarity with the nature of the structures they are to notice, and with the procedures they will be doing, can lessen the diversion of attentional resources away from processing the enhanced input (Skehan 1996) during the activity itself. In one such activity, the prior grammar instruction has been aimed at facilitating the learners understanding of the target form rather than at the development of formal knowledge of grammar rules, and has not required the production of output containing the grammar form. Nonetheless, gains in accuracy have been reported (Ellis 1995, Cardieno 1995). A second point to consider is sequencing. According to a teachability hypothesis of second language acquisition (Pieneman 1984), certain developmental stages are fixed, whereas others may be influenced by instruction. If grammar teaching can be given when the learner is ready to progress to the next stage, such instruction could speed up the learners progress. Although the nature of these stages has not been determined, there is no question of the importance of this hypothesis for the ESL situation. However, because of the centrally determined nature of many EFL curricula, it may not be possible to change the structures which must be taught, so sequencing according to difficulty may be more practical. Research on the use of form-focused tasks with Japanese EFL learners (Fotos 1994) suggests that grammar points with a few easily taught rules are more amenable to form-focused instruction than structures which are governed by a great many rules depending on their position within the sentence matrix. Some recent ESL research also supports this (Robinson 1996). However, the reverse has also been argued (Robinson 1996). Here, focus-on-form activities are particularly useful for developing learner awareness of grammar structures which are too complex to be understood through formal instruction alone. The next section will consider what is perhaps the optimum focus-onform activity for EFL classrooms: the communicative language task.
Task-based focus on form

At this point, we return to Longs original consideration (1991) that task-based language instruction is particularly suitable for focus on form. The advantages of task performance in terms of providing opportunities for both target language comprehension and production have been discussed in a number of surveys and reports (see reviews in Crookes and Gass 1993), and will not be reviewed here. Our concern is more
Focus on forms in the EFL classroom 30.5 welcome

articles

specific: task use for providing a communicative focus on form within the EFL context. This paper has recommended an approach to focus on form which allows for formal instruction before and after performance of communicative activities. Whereas teachers may not be flexible as to syllabus content, there is usually flexibility regarding activities and the type of participation pattern during these activities. Thus, a task-based approach to focus on form is quite feasible for the EFL situation. Interactive communicative tasks based on a pair/group participation pattern give learners the opportunity to engage in meaning-focused interaction where they must both comprehend and produce the target language. Even within large classes, task-based activities offer EFL learners a way to maximize their target language use, and have therefore been recommended as the basis for syllabus organization (ibid.). Using tasks for grammar practice is not new. However, the two task types described here are different from activities designed to promote accuracy. Although these tasks are aimed at making grammar forms salient to learners, this is achieved through communicative activities. The tasks are designed to increase learner awareness of how the target structure is used in context, yet are communicative since the learners are engaged in meaning-focused interaction. The first type of task uses an implicit focus on form during interactive task performance. Purely communicative tasks are designed so that learners must use the target structure to complete the task. For example, my colleagues and I developed a task on comparative forms of adjectives and adverbs which required EFL learners to exchange information about features of cities. The learners were requested to combine their information by writing sentences comparing their two cities. Although there was no mention of the target form, the learners had to understand and produce various comparative forms in order to complete the task. The requirement for the learners to produce sentences insured that most of the interaction was conducted in the target language, despite the homogenous L1 setting. The second task type has an explicit focus on form since the target grammar structure itself comprises the task content. Pairs or groups of learners are asked to solve grammar problems such as the formation of tag questions, or indirect object placement on the basis of positive and negative information given on task cards. After listening to and writing down correct sentences, the learners then develop rules for the use of the target structure. Even though the task content is a grammar problem, the learners must use the target language meaningfully to complete the activity. Again, the necessity to write English sentences and agree upon grammar rules promotes communicative use of the target language, even though the learners speak the same L1. These two task types have been used in the EFL setting in conjunction with formal instruction before and evaluative activities after task
306 Sandra S. Fotos

articles

welcome

performance. Research on several explicit focus-on-form tasks (author 1994) suggests that task performance can significantly increase learner awareness of the target structure and improve accuracy in its use, as well as providing opportunities for meaning-focused comprehension and production of the target language. Furthermore. such tasks release more traditionally oriented non-native speaker teachers from the requirement to lead communicative activities in the target language. Through pedagogy and rules provides promotes
Received

use of modified focus-on-form activities, traditional EFL aimed at developing formal knowledge of English structures can now include a strong communicative component which examples of grammar used in meaningful context and the development of communicative ability.
January 1998

References

Ausubel, D., J. Novak, and H. Hanesian. 1978.

Psychology. (2nd edn.). Holt, Rinehart, and Winston: New York. Beardsmore, H. 1993. An overview of European models of bilingual education. Language, CulEducational

Cadierno, T. 1995. Formal instruction from a

ture and Curriculum

6: 197-208.

European Cultural Foundation Conference on Empirical Research on Second Language Learning in Institutional Settings. Bellagio, Italy, June 20-24. Mimeo. Long, M. 1991. Focus on form: A design feature in language teaching methodology in K. de Bot, D. Coste, R. Ginsberg, and C. Kramsch (eds.).
Pienemann, M. 1984. Psychological constraints on
Foreign Language Research in Cross-Cultural Perspective. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.

processing perspective: an investigation into the Spanish past tense. Modern Language Journal
79: 179-93.

Crookes, G. and S. Gass (eds.). 1993. Tasks in a

Pedagogical Context: Integrating Theory and Practice. Clevedon: Multilingual Matters. Doughty, C. and J. Wiiams. 1998. Focus on Form in Classroom Second Language Acquisition.

the teachability of languages. Studies in Second Language Acquisition 6: 186-214. Robinson, P. 1996. Learning simple and complex second language rules under implicit, incidental, rule-search and instructed conditions. Studies in
Schmidt, R. 1990. The role of consciousness in
Second Language Acquisition 18: 27-68.

New York: Cambridge University Press. Fotos, S. 1993. Consciousness raising and noticing through focus on form: grammar task performance versus formal instruction. Applied Linguistics 14/4: 126-41. Fotos, S. 1994. Integrating grammar instruction and communicative language use through grammar consciousness raising tasks. TESOL Quarterly 28: 323-51. Ellis, R. 1995. Interpretation tasks for grammar teaching, TESOL Quarterly 29: 87-106. Hanley, J., C. Herron, and S. Cole. 1995. Using video as an advance organizer to a written passage in the FLES classroom. The Modern
Long, M. 1988. Focus on form: a design feature in
Language Journal 79: 57-66.

second language learning. Applied Linguistics 11: 129-58. Skehan, P. 1996. A framework for the implementation of task-based instruction. Applied Linguistics 17: 38-62. Williams, J. 1995. Focus on form in communicative language teaching: research findings and the classroom teacher. TESOL Journal 4: 12-16.
The author

Sandra Fotos is Associate Professor of English at

language teaching methodology. Presentation given at the National Foreign Language Center

Senshu University, Tokyo. Her research interests include the effects of formal instruction on second language acquisition. E-mail: sfotos@)gol.com

Focus on forms in the EFL classroom

307

articles

welcome