Presented at the Second Language Research Forum, Michigan State University, USA; 31 October 2009
Focus on form, i.e. brief attention to language items within a larger meaning-focused context (Long Reference Long, de Bot, Ginsberg and Kramsch1991; Ellis Reference Ellis2001), occurs in a variety of L2 instructional contexts. Meta-analyses of the effectiveness of focus on form have found overall positive effects; however, these meta-analyses have commented on the small number of studies available for synthetic analyses, particularly when considering the effects of specific characteristics of focus on form (e.g. Norris & Ortega 2001; Russell & Spada Reference Russell, Spada, Norris and Ortega2006; Mackey & Goo Reference Mackey, Goo and Mackey2007). Consequently, this colloquium continued the investigation of specific focus on form variables to further our understanding of why ‘sometimes focus on form works, and sometimes it does not’ (Williams Reference Williams and Hinkel2005: 685).
Hossein Nassaji (University of Victoria) examined 68 hours of communicative ESL lessons in seven adult classrooms. He measured the occurrence and effectiveness of three types of focus on form – reactive, student-initiated and teacher-initiated – within whole-class and small-group interaction. Nassaji found that the two types of preemptive focus on form occurred more frequently than the reactive. Furthermore, frequency varied according to the interactional context, with student-initiated focus on form occurring more often in small-group interaction and teacher-initiated focus on form happening more frequently in whole-class interaction. Finally, focus on form in small groups was more effective than in whole-class interaction, as measured by individualized, tailor-made posttests.
In their study of the timing of form-focused instruction (FFI), Nina Spada, Yasuyo Tomita, Li-Ju Shiu and Sebnem Yalcin (OISE/University of Toronto) compared the effects of isolated and integrated FFI on L2 learners’ knowledge and use of English passive voice. The quasi-experimental study involved 20 hours of instruction, with one group of learners receiving attention to form embedded in meaning-based, communicative practice (integrated FFI) and one group receiving attention to form separately from meaning-based, communicative practice (isolated FFI). Results revealed that both FFI groups improved significantly over time on the error correction, cloze and oral production posttests. However, the integrated FFI group showed faster growth rates than the isolated group on the oral production test.
Another type of focus on form contrast, presented by Jenefer Philp (University of Auckland), was the difference between incidental and planned focus on form, particularly as it related to partially-known or new linguistic structures. Observation data were collected from 12 teacher-fronted lessons in a university French foreign language class. Additionally, students received individualized posttests on a variety of linguistic items targeted in focus on form episodes. On these tests, learners also indicated their level of familiarity with the targeted structures. Test results indicated that planned focus on form was more effective than incidental focus on form, and previous knowledge of the structure facilitated accurate test scores, leading Philp to conclude that developmental readiness remains an important component of the effectiveness of focus on form.
Finally, Ahlem Ammar (Université de Montréal) presented a study investigating learners’ noticing of implicit and explicit recasts in two primary school ESL classes. Teachers were given nine communicative activities designed to elicit three linguistic structures: possessive determiners, questions and simple past. During the activities, teachers provided corrective feedback on the incorrect use of the target structures. One class received implicit recasts, while the other received explicit recasts. Participants were asked to verbalize their thoughts regarding specific feedback episodes, either immediately after the feedback or after the lessons were over. These on-line and retrospective verbal reports indicated that explicit feedback was more likely to be reported in both on-line and stimulated recall contexts. Students in the implicit recast group perceived their teacher's reformulations as non-corrective repetition in the majority of the cases.
Discussion following these presentations centered around two main themes, the first being the implications for theory and research of using varying definitions of focus on form, as were employed in these papers. The second concerned the evidence in favor of the effectiveness of planned and/or explicit focus on form, when focus on form has been largely considered to be an implicit and incidental construct. In sum, the colloquium continued the on-going conversation regarding focus on form and its effectiveness.
