Which one Comes First in Your Classes? Form or Meaning!
Amin Pouresmaiel and Javad Gholami, Iran
Amin Pouresmaiel is an MA student in ELT at Urmia University. He has been teaching English as a Foreign Language for 5 years. His areas of interest in research include Focus on Form, Critical Discourse Analysis, and Teacher Education. Email: amin.pouresmail@gmail.com
Javad Gholami is an Assistant Professor in TEFL from Urmia University, Iran. He has been working as an EFL practitioner and researcher for more than 15 years. His research publications have been on integrating focus on form instruction and communicative language teaching, intralingual translation, and learner autonomy in ELT. Email: j.gholami@urmia.ac.ir
Menu
Abstract
Introduction
Background
Examples
Conclusion
References
This article tries to raise consciousness of both pre- and in-service teachers’ awareness of a new approach (focus on form) to language teaching. To this end, it starts with a brief review of literature in language teaching talking about the most outstanding previous approaches to teaching. It, then, proceeds by talking about the dissatisfaction with the previous methods of teaching and the reason why there was a need for a new approach. Having done so, it introduces the focus on form approach to teaching and gives thorough explanation about it, its different types, and how to use it in real language classrooms. It also provides the readers with clear and ample examples of focus on form and how it is used in real classes to make the issue easier to understand. It concludes by recommending that teachers use this approach in their classes, but it does not take a prescriptive approach in doing so, rather it tries to be descriptive.
Key words: Focus on form; Incidental; Planned; Preemptive; Reactive
One important question in teaching language has always been how to teach linguistic forms. Indeed, the appearance of different methods of teaching language was a response to this question. At times, it was believed that learning a language meant no more than learning forms. The grammar-Translation Method (GTM) and the Audio-Lingual Method (ALM) are some cases in point. On the other hand, there was time when the only way to learn a language was thought to be through mere exposure to the target language. As an example, we can refer to the Natural Approach (NA) of Krashen and Terrell (1983).
However, the successive appearance and disappearance of this large number of methods gives a message to us: None of them were successful in meeting their goals. That is to say, none of the methods, either focusing on the linguistic points or merely meaning, succeeded in making learners with high proficiency in a second/foreign language. What remains as a question now is what we should do in such a bewildering situation. In what follows, we are going to give an explanation on both of these views in details and finally mention a new trend, focus on form, as a solution.
It was not until 1950s when Skinner gave the first scientific explanation on how language is acquired. He regarded language as a series of habits. This way, he did not differentiate language learning from any other kind of learning. For him, language needed to be taught in chunks through drills. This way of teaching language emphasized the importance of linguistic forms, especially the grammatical rules and the need to teach them separately and out of context. Put other way, what learners needed was only to learn linguistic forms. What is clear here is that there was no attention to meaning in the process of learning and teaching language. This method of teaching language set the foundation for the advent of the Audio-Lingual Method.
However, this method of teaching language lost its popularity, as it failed to meet its promises. There were few learners who could communicate both accurately and fluently in the target language. What this method produced were learners with high command in accuracy but poor fluency and communicative skills in the real life situation.
Therefore, there was need for a new way of teaching, which could fill the gap made in the Audi-Lingual period. There was no clear idea on what this method of teaching could be until the 1980s when Krashen proposed a revolutionary theory, the “Comprehensible Input Hypothesis”. According to this theory, the only thing learners needed to learn a language was merely through exposure to input (language received) which was easy to understand. This input needed to be only one level (just a bit) beyond the proficiency level of the learners; hence, it was called i+1 (“i” referring to input and “1” referring to the bit of level beyond the learners’ proficiency level).
It is clear that this theory put the only emphasis on meaning. This theory became an incentive for Krashen and Terrell (1983) to propose the Natural Approach to language teaching. Later, different methods of teaching language, such as the Total Physical Response, were developed based on this approach.
However, just like the Audio-Lingual Method, the Natural Approach lost its popularity. This approach of teaching had taken a view to teaching just the opposite of the ALM. There was no attention to linguistic forms. As a result, it produced fluent but inaccurate learners.
What is understood from the above mentioned discussion is that from the early days of language teaching to the end of the Natural Approach, there were two general trends, namely form-focused teaching like the ALM and meaning-focused teaching like the Natural Approach. But the profession has not stopped here. As the pitfalls of these two fashions of teaching became clear, a third trend of teaching was suggested by scholars, form- and meaning-based teaching. This method of teaching is what some communicative approaches to teaching such as the Task-based Language Teaching (TBLT) claim to stick to, but the degree to which it is practiced in real classrooms claiming to stick to it is questionable. This is, in part, due to the unawareness of the teachers about what this trend means and how it is applied. This is exactly where the idea of focus on form is raised. Therefore, the remaining of the discussion is devoted to some details on this approach. However, before moving on, it needs to be noted that, in the following discussion, “linguistic forms” refers to all formal features of language including grammar, vocabulary, and pronunciation.
Pendulum Shift to Focus on Form: meaning and of course some attention to form
Focus on form is a method of teaching which gives the primary attention to meaning in a communicative environment but occasionally shifts attention from meaning to form. This shift of attention is done when learners are not able to continue transferring their message because of some linguistic problems; hence, it is in the form of corrective feedback (different types, ranging from most implicit to most explicit). This definition of focus on form was first given by Long (1991). To avoid confusion, Long referred to the former form-focused teaching, which put the only attention on linguistic forms, as “focus on formS” (note the plural “s”) and to the new way of addressing language within the meaning-oriented approach as “focus on form”.
Dichotomies on focus on form
A good number of dichotomies have been proposed to shed further light on how focus on form is realized in practice. Ellis (2001) revised the original definition of focus on form and, in a way, broadened it. He talked about focus on form as two types: “incidental focus on form” and “planned (proactive) focus on form.” Incidental focus on form is in fact the same as the original definition given formerly by Long. However, Ellis further divided incidental focus on form into two more categories: “reactive” and “preemptive”.
Reactive focus on form happens when a learner commits an error during a meaning-oriented activity (Ellis, 2001; Ellis, Basturkmen, and Loewen, 2002). In this case, the teacher provides the learner with some corrective feedback when the learner commits an error. Put another way, there is shift of attention from meaning to form in the form of feedback and then back to meaning again. Note, however, that in any case the teacher may ignore the error made by the learner. That is to say, it is the teacher who decides whether to shift the attention from meaning to form in any specific situation.
In the case of preemptive focus on form, there is no error on the part of the learner. In this case, attention to form is paid before any errors are made. This is very similar to what is called preventive medicine. This type of attention to form may be teacher- or student-initiated. In the case of teacher-initiated focus on form, the teacher predicts the linguistic problems the learners may have and tackles them before they start to communicate. However, students may also feel uncertain about a linguistic point and raise the problem before they start to communicate and ask the teacher or a peer to give some explanation on that. This is what is called student-initiated focus on form (Ellis, et al., 2002).
What is implied from the discussion about incidental focus on form is that there is no thinking procedure on what linguistic forms to deal with before the start of the class. The other point to be mentioned here is that the nature of incidental focus on form requires it to be extensive, i.e. to deal with many linguistic points in one session, dealing with each one only a few times (maybe only one time) (Ellis, Basturkmen, and Loewen, 2001).
The second category Ellis (2001) talks about is planned focus on form. Planned focus on form differs from incidental focus on form in that there is prior planning on what linguistic forms to deal with in advance, i.e. before the start of the class. In this case, the teacher chooses a few (usually one or two) linguistic items in advance and deals with them through meaning-oriented activities in class. Therefore, it is intensive in nature. By saying intensive, we mean the teacher deals with the pre-chosen linguistic items for some time (maybe the whole session).
What this type of focus on form requires are some steps the teacher should go through. The teacher needs to raise consciousness using some strategies such as “input enhancement” (but not be limited to input enhancement as the only way of raising consciousness) in advance. Input enhancement can be achieved through a text in which the target linguistic points have been highlighted. In this kind of text, the focus will be on meaning, that is, the students will read the text (whether a conversation, a passage, etc.) in order to get the idea of it. However, in this regard, the highlighted items catch their attention automatically; hence, they become more conscious of the linguistic points. The consciousness is further intensified if the teacher asks some comprehension questions out of the text whose answers are the highlighted items. In this way, the teacher somehow makes them use those items, and, in doing so, s/he gives the students some corrective feedback on the correct use of those linguistic items. The first example given below is related to input enhancement to make it clearer.
Another type of input enhancement is called “interactive input enhancement.” In this type of input enhancement, the teacher interactively draws attention to some specific language features, say, “ed” verbs, or third person singular “s” and may even ask students to spot them and highlight/underline them.
The teacher also needs to develop some meaning-oriented activities which oblige the learners to use the target linguistic items. In the later stage, the teacher gives corrective feedback to the learners as they commit errors while using those linguistic items in communicative activities whose primary focus is on meaning.
For clarification reasons, we are now going to concentrate on some instances of each type of focus on form. The examples are given as if we are observing a class.
Input enhancement
As it was mentioned, input enhancement is a way to raise consciousness of a linguistic form among the students. The example text given below for input enhancement has been designed by the teacher.
Extract 1: Input enhancement
Ann: Hi Cathy. What’s up? You don’t seem fine.
Cathy: I’m fine. I just can’t understand why some people aren’t considerate.
Ann: What’s happened? Is there something that bothers you?
Cathy: Yes, actually. It really bothers me when someone sitting next to you reads your newspaper. I was in the bus and was reading a newspaper, and the one sitting next to me just read it too.
Ann: Oh, I understand. And one thing that bothers me is people who speak loudly on phone near you. It really gets on my nerves.
Cathy: Oh yes. It’s really annoying. And the thing that I can’t stand is people who speak with each other in the movies.
Ann: Oh, it really annoys me too. And one more thing that bothers me is when my friends aren’t on time on their dates with me. It really drives me crazy.
Cathy: I agree. It really annoys me too. If only they leave home a bit earlier, they arrive on time. And one thing more about friends, the thing that I can’t stand is friends who are jealous of you. How can a friend be jealous of you?
Ann: I don’t think he is really your friend. You shouldn’t be jealous of your friend.
In this example, the linguistic points (relative clauses) have been written in bold faces. The students are told to read the conversation and then discuss it in class. It is, therefore, obvious that the attention is on meaning. However, doing so, the linguistic items in bold catch their attention. Having finished reading the conversation, the discussion starts, and the teacher, further, asks them, for instance, whether they have the same problems. The students use those linguistic items in their speech to discuss the ideas raised in the conversation. Doing so, naturally, they come up with some errors when using those items. The teacher then provides them with some corrective feedback.
Incidental focus on form (preemptive, student-initiated)
The students are talking about “destiny” as a whole class. They are discussing and sharing opinions with each other orally. Thus, it is a meaning-oriented activity. While talking, one of the students asks the teacher about the meaning of a word in English. The teacher, in return, provides her with the needed vocabulary. Below is the transcribed form of the interaction.
Extract 2: Incidental focus on form (preemptive, student-initiated)
S1: And she had an accident.
S2: What happened to her?
S1: (Asking the teacher in Persian) فلج شدن چی میشه؟ /falaj shodan chi misheh?/
T: Paralyzed.
S1: She was paralyzed.
S2: Oh! That’s too bad. What is she doing now?
In this case, the learner feels a need for a specific vocabulary. Therefore, she asks the teacher about it before she makes any errors. The teacher gives her the target vocabulary, and the student uses it in her speech and the course of communication goes on. As it is seen from this example, there is a shift of attention from meaning to form (vocabulary in this case) and the attention is shifted to meaning again.
Incidental focus on form (preemptive, teacher-initiated)
In the same class, and following the same topic, the teacher shifts attention from meaning to form before any errors are committed as in the following episode:
Extract 3: Incidental focus on form (preemptive, teacher-initiated)
T: OK. Let’s talk about “love”. Love at first sight. What does it mean?
Ss: (Silence)
T: It means fall in love at first sight. In the first meeting, you don’t know each other. You see each other accidentally, and, in the first meeting, you fall in love with each other. Now, do you believe in love at first sight?
S: No. I think this is not love.
T: So what is it?
As it is seen from this example, the teacher thinks that the students (or some of the students) don’t know what “love at first sight” means. Therefore, he provides them with the meaning of it before any errors are made, and having made it clear, the discussion continues.
Incidental focus on form (reactive)
As it was mentioned earlier, in this case, the learner makes an error in the course of a meaning-oriented activity, and, following this error, the teacher provides him/her with corrective feedback. The following episodes are some examples of this type of incidental focus on form.
Extract 4: Incidental focus on form (reactive, pronunciation)
S1: When a pleasant thing occurs (pronounced as /ˈʌkju:rz/), eh we say eh I did that. If something bad happens, we say it was fate.
T: So when something good occurs (pronounced as /əkərz/), we say I did it, and if something bad occurs (pronounced as /əkərz/), we say it was fate. What do you think? Do you agree with him?
S2: Yes. We always do that. Everybody do that.
In this case, the teacher corrects the learner’s error in pronunciation through recast. And after that, the course of interaction moves on. It is worth noting that the second student makes a grammatical error in that she uses “do” when she has to use “does” (Everybody do that). But the teacher ignores it, as he feels there is no need to correct the student in this case. As it was said before, it is the teacher who decides when and how to correct errors or whether to correct or not.
Extract 5: Incidental focus on form (reactive, vocabulary)
S: I’m in the same way with Zahra.
T: You’re on the same boat. Or in the same page.
S: Yes. I think everybody is responsible for what he or she does.
In this example, the learner uses a wrong expression to say he agrees with his classmate. Following the error, the teacher corrects him. The learner appreciates it by saying “yes”, and continues his speech.
Extract 6: Incidental focus on form (reactive, grammar)
S1: I think nothing is predetermined. No one knows eh about eh the future.
S2: But I’m not agree.
T: You?
S2: Not agree. Don’t agree.
T: Aha.
S2: I think some people know about our future.
In this case, S2 commits a grammatical error in that he says “I’m not agree”. Following this error, the teacher provides him with some corrective feedback through elicitation.
Planned focus on form
The teaching point in this case is “conditional sentences type II.” The teacher takes some papers out of her briefcase and distributes them among the students. There is a conversation between two friends on the papers. One of them has recently watched a talk show in which the guest was asked strange questions. He asks his friends the same questions. The linguistic points (conditional sentences type II) have been highlighted in the text. This is done in order to increase the learners’ consciousness. Having activated the schema of the learners, they are, then, asked to read the conversation. They are also told that they will be asked some questions out of the conversation. The learners start reading the conversation, and after the pre-specified time limit has finished, the teacher asks them some questions. However, she is careful to ask questions whose answers are the highlighted sentences. When answering the questions, the students commit some errors in using the highlighted points. Following these errors, the teacher corrects them through some corrective feedback. The activity goes on in the same way by asking the learners what answers they would give if they were in the guest’s shoes.
In the next stage, the teacher assigns the students into groups of three and gives them some more papers. There are some incomplete questions on these papers, but the questions are different for each student. The questions are incomplete in that the teacher has only given the students the wh-question words and the content words they will need in making questions. The students are, then, asked to make questions using the words given to them and ask each other those questions. They are also allowed to make their own questions. However, before starting the task, the teacher writes a sample question and answer on the board and asks the students to ask and answer the questions that way. This is done because the students sometimes avoid using the target structure. However, there is no obligation to do it for teaching any linguistic (whether grammatical, vocabulary, or pronunciation) item; it totally depends on the teacher and his/her intuition on whether the students may avoid using the target linguistic point or not. Having given the instruction to the learners, the task starts, and the teacher observes the students and gives them corrective feedback on their errors in using the target structure.
Following this stage, the teacher asks the students to ask the questions as a whole class and get some more individuals to answer them. Corrective feedback is given in this stage too, although the amount of errors has been reduced to a great extent at this time.
In this example, the teacher does not give any explicit explanation on the target structure. However, she could have done so if she had felt it was necessary. But the point to bear in mind is this explanation must be given to the students when the primary attention is on meaning. For instance, while the learners are trying to convey messages to each other, and, therefore, the focus is on meaning, the teacher may shift the attention from meaning to form when they make some errors in using the target structure. This shift of attention may be done through some explicit instruction and again the attention must be shifted to meaning.
The other point to mention is the extent to which explicit instruction is welcome in such an approach. There is ample evidence that implicit knowledge is highly preferred to explicit knowledge. Therefore, teachers are invited to use implicit way of teaching in their teaching practice. However, this does not mean explicit instruction of linguistic forms (especially grammatical points) must be abandoned at all costs. There are times when explicit instruction is necessary, and the teacher had better implement it into his/her teaching. The point is that when and the degree to which explicit instruction is needed depends on the teacher’s intuition, which is gained through experience.
Accuracy and fluency are both important issues in language proficiency. They can be regarded as two complementary modules of one’s language proficiency, both requiring a good deal of attention and practice. Previous approaches to teaching emphasized either of them at the expense of the other. Put another way, they were either meaning-based or form-based. The result was either accurate but influent learners or fluent but inaccurate learners.
The current approach in teaching takes the integration of both approaches but puts more emphasis on meaning. This approach to teaching is called meaning- and form-based teaching (Kumaravadivelu, 2006) and is operationalized in what Long (1991) calls focus on form. Focus on form has been proved to be a very effective way of teaching, which produces learners with high proficiency in both accuracy and fluency (Spada, 1987; Lightbown and Spada, 1990; Doughty, 1991). Incidental focus on form takes place when the learner incidentally makes an error in the course of communication. Therefore, it is extensive in nature, as it focuses on a rather large range of linguistic items. In planned focus on form, however, the linguistic items are pre-selected in advance, and the attention is paid to these items in activities which are primarily meaning-oriented. Therefore, it is intensive in nature as it focuses on these items to a large extent.
One point to keep in mind is that in a real classroom both incidental and planned focus on form instruction can happen in one session. The teacher may pre-select some linguistic items in advance and get the students to practice these items through meaning-oriented activities. However, the learners may also commit errors not related to the target linguistic point. In this case, the teacher, most of the times, also gives corrective feedback on these errors. In this way, in one single session, both incidental and planned focus on form may, and in most cases are, practiced.
In summary, we tried to discuss the focus on form approach to teaching and its instances in real classes in this paper. We hope this paper has been successful in making pre-service and in-service teachers aware of a recent approach in teaching a second language. We do not, however, take a prescriptive view by informing the teachers in this regard; rather, we hope to have added some more information to teachers’ existing knowledge about teaching, hence, raising awareness on options to address language in their communicative classes.
Doughty, C. (1991). Second language acquisition does make a difference: Evidence from an empirical study on SL revitalization. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 31, 431-469.
Ellis, R. (2001). Investigating form-focused instruction. Language Learning, 51, 1-46.
Ellis, R., H. Basturkmen and Loewen, S. (2001). Learner uptake in communicative ESL lessons. Language Learning, 51 (2), 281-318.
Ellis, R., H. Basturkmen and Loewen, S. (2002). Doing focus on form. System, 30, 419-432.
Krashen, S.D. & Terrell, T.D. (1983). The natural approach: Language acquisition in the classroom. London: Prentice Hall Europe
Kumaravadivelu, B. (2006). Understanding Language Teaching: From Method to Postmethod. New Jersy: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Lightbown, P., & Spada, N. (1990). Focus-on-form and corrective feedback in communicative language teaching: Effects on second language learning. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 12, 429-448.
Long, M. H. (1991). Focus on form: A design feature in language teaching methodology. In K.De Bot, R. Ginsberg, & C. Kramsch (Eds.), Foreign language research in cross- cultural perspective (pp. 39-52). Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins.
Spada, N. (1987). Relationships between instructional differences and learning outcomes: A process-product study of communicative language teaching. Applied Linguistics, 8, 137-155.
Please check the How to be a Teacher Trainer course at Pilgrims website
|
