FFI Integrated or Isolated Spada&Lightbown 2008.pdf

8/14/2019 FFI Integrated or Isolated Spada&Lightbown 2008.pdf

1/28

Teachers of English to Speakers of Other Languages, Inc. (TESOL)

Form-Focused Instruction: Isolated or Integrated?Author(s): Nina Spada and Patsy M. LightbownReviewed work(s):Source: TESOL Quarterly, Vol. 42, No. 2 (Jun., 2008), pp. 181-207Published 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 [email protected].

.

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 PMAll use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
http://www.jstor.org/action/showPublisher?publisherCode=tesolhttp://www.jstor.org/stable/40264447?origin=JSTOR-pdfhttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/stable/40264447?origin=JSTOR-pdfhttp://www.jstor.org/action/showPublisher?publisherCode=tesol


2/28

Farm-Focusednstruction:Isolated or ntegrated?NINA SPADAUniversityfTorontoToronto, ntario,CanadaPATSY M. LIGHTBOWNConcordiaUniversityEmeritus)Montreal, uebec,Canada

There is increasing onsensusthatform-focusednstruction elpslearnersn communicativer content-basednstructiono learnfea-tures fthetargetanguagethat heymaynotacquirewithout uid-ance.Thesubject fthis rticles theroleof nstructionhatsprovidedinseparate isolated) ctivitiesrwithinhe context f communicativeactivitiesintegrated). esearch uggestshatbothtypes f nstructioncanbe beneficial,epending n the anguage eatureobe learned, swellas characteristicsf the earner nd the earning onditions. orexample, solated essonsmaybe necessaryohelp earnerswhosharethesamefirstanguage LI) overcome roblems elated o LI influ-ence on their nterlanguage;ntegratednstruction aybe bestforhelpingearners evelop hekindoffluencynd automaticityhat reneededfor ommunicationutside he classroom. he evidence ug-gests hat eachers nd studentsee thebenefits f bothtypes f in-struction.xplanationsor heeffectivenessf each type f nstructionare drawn rom heoretical ork n secondlanguage cquisition ndcognitivesychologyswellas from mpirical esearch.

the 1970s, newpedagogy f communicativeanguageteaching(CLT) and a new theoretical iewof second languageacquisition(SLA) emphasized he mportancef anguagedevelopmenthat akesplacewhile earnersreengaged nmeaning-focusedctivities.eachersand methodologistseveloped anguageclassroom ctivitieshatfea-turednteractionmong earners,pportunitieso uselanguagen seek-ingandexchangingnformation,nd lessattentiono earningmetalin-guistic ules rmemorizingialogues ndpracticingatternsBrumfit,1984;Howatt, 984).One type f CLT thathas becomeespecially ide-spread scontent-basednstructionCBI) inwhich he new anguage sa vehicle or earning ubjectmatter hat s of nterest ndvalueto theTESOL QUARTERLY Vol. 42, No. 2, June 2008 181

http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp


3/28

learner. t has been hypothesizedhat n CBI "language earningmayevenbecomeincidental o learning boutthecontent"Snow,Met,&Genesee, 1992,p. 28). However, omeresearchers ave observed hatgood contentteachingmaynot alwaysbe good language teaching(Swain, 988),and sincethe ntroductionfCLT andCBI,debateshavecontinued bout whether nd, ifso, how attention o languageformshouldbe included n approaches o language nstructionhat repri-marilymeaning-focused.THE ROLE OF FORM-FOCUSED INSTRUCTIONSome ndividuals,speciallyhosewhobegin earningsyoung hildren,acquirehigh evelsof second anguage bility ithoutorm-focusedn-structionFFI). This outcomesupports hehypothesishatFFI is notnecessaryorSLA.However,t s rarefor tudentsn secondorforeignlanguage lasses oreach uchhigh evels. omeclaim hat his ailure omaster new anguage s due tophysiologicalhanges hat ccurwithage. Otherspointto the limitationsnherentn classroom ontexts.Whateverhereason,earnerswhobegin earningwhen heyrebeyondearly hildhood, speciallyhosewhose xposure o thetargetanguageoccursprimarilyrexclusivelynclassrooms here ther tudentsharethe sameLI, appear to benefit rom FI thathelpsthemmake moreefficientse of their imited xposureto thesounds,words, nd sen-tencesof thelanguage they re learning Lightbown Spada, 2006)One things certain: anguage cquisitions not an eventhat ccurs nan instant r as a result f exposureto a languageform, languagelesson,or correctiveeedback. t is an evolvingnd dynamic henom-enon that s perhapsbetter haracterizedythe worddevelopmentsug-gesting ngoing hange)thanbytheword cquisitionifthis s taken omean that he anguageuserhascomplete ndirrevocableossession fsome inguistic nowledgerbehavior).1Some SLA researchers avehypothesizedhatwhen nstructiono-cusesonthe anguage tself,t s beneficialnlynmarginal aysndmayeven havea negativempacton languageacquisition Krashen, 982,1994;Truscott, 996,1999).They rguethat, tmost, xplicit FI alterslanguageperformanceut does notchange earners' nderlyingram-mar,whichdevelops nly hrough xposure o the anguage nnaturalinteraction.n their iew,nstruction ay llowsecond anguage L2)users oacquiremetalinguisticnowledge,ut thiskindofknowledgesprocessed ndstored eparatelyromanguage hat sacquired hrough

1See Norris nd Ortega 2003) for review nd discussion fdefinitionsndmeasurementsofsecond languageknowledge nd skill.182 TESOL QUARTERLY



4/28

interactiveanguageuse (Schwartz, 993; SharwoodSmith, 004; seeEllis,2005,forreview).Some of theempiricalworknvestigatinghekindofknowledge hatisacquiredduring orm-focusednstructionas shown hat FI canplaya role nhelping lassroom earnersn CLT and CBI use their 2 withgreater luencynd accuracy e.g., Spada & Lightbown,993; Lyster,2004) and to use languageforms hatrepresentmore advanceddevel-opmentalevels e.g., Doughty Varela,1998). In these tudies,ffortsweremade to developtasks hatelicited amplesofspontaneous ralproduction.n a meta-analysisfthe nstructedLAresearch, orrisndOrtega (2000) also reportbenefits orFFI, in particularhe positiveeffectsfexplicitnstructionn L2 learning.However, hemajorityfstudiesncluded n themeta-analysisseddiscrete-point,etalinguistictests s measures f nstructionalffectiveness.his biashas led to thecall formorestudies o examine he benefitsf nstructionn implicitknowledgeDoughty,003;Ellis,2002a;Norris& Ortega, 000).Improvementsn languageperformance ayreflectearners' bilitytomakeappropriate se of units f anguagethat hey ave earned swholeunanalyzedhunks uring orm-focusedractice r to use meta-linguistic nowledge heyhave acquiredduringgrammaressonstomonitor heir utput.When earners roduce anguageundercondi-tionsoftimepressure r competing emandson attention,heymayreveal hat heunderlyingnternal rammarf theirnterlanguageasnotbeensubstantiallyffected.ven f hissthecase,however,earners'ability o use languagewithgreater ccuracy nd fluency at least nsomecircumstancescan contributeo language cquisitionn severalways. or example, n producingmonitored r unanalyzed hunksoflanguage,earnersancreate or hemselvessort f nput ndfeedbackloop thatprovides hemwith amplesof the anguagethatmaybe in-corporatedntotheir nderlyingrammaticalystemsater,whentheyare developmentallyeady Lightbown,998;Sharwood mith, 004).Another ossible dvantage f this bilityo producemore correct radvanced anguage s thatthecontextuallyppropriate se ofunana-lyzed nd/ormonitoredanguageallows earners o keep interactionsgoing,therebyncreasing heiraccess to language input (Krashen,1982). Further,heabilityo use unanalyzed hunks flanguagemayfreecognitive esources oruse in attending o externalnput Ellis,2005). Some languageacquisition heories ssumea moredirectrela-tionship etweenmetalinguisticr formulaic nowledgend spontane-ous languageuse. Skill cquisition heoristsypothesizehat anguagelearnedfirst s metalinguisticnowledgean,through epeatedmean-ingful ractice,ventuallyecome owell ncorporatedndautomatizedthat he anguageuserforgetshemetalinguisticnformationnd mayforget avingearned t n the first lace (DeKeyser, 003).FORM-FOCUSED INSTRUCTION: ISOLATED OR INTEGRATED? 183



5/28

The value ofFFIwithinnstructionhat sprimarily eaning-focusedhas been demonstratedyresearch onducted n CLT and CBI pro-grams ver hepast20years.n addition, eacherswhohaveexperiencewith hestrong ersion f CLT an exclusive ocus nmeaningwithnoattention o languageform Howatt,1984; Spada, 2006a) have ob-served hat,withoutFI,some anguagefeatures ever merge n learn-ers' language, nd somenontargetorms ersist oryears. xperiencewithCLT and CBI shows hatmeaning-basedxposure o the anguageallowsL2 learners o developcomprehensionkills, ral fluency,elf-confidence,nd communicativebilities,ut that hey ontinue o havedifficultiesithpronunciations well as withmorphological,yntactic,andpragmaticeatures ftheL2 (see,e.g.,Harley& Swain, 984;Lyster,1987).Researchn CLT andCBI classroomshows hat he ntroductionofFFI has contributedo changes n learners'knowledgend use ofcertainanguage eaturese.g.,Day& Shapson, 991;Doughty Varela,1998;Harley,1989;White, pada, Lightbown, Ranta, 1991; Lyster,2004;Sheen,2005).2Advocatesf CBI have ncreasinglymphasizedheimportancefplanningessons hathave bothcontentbjectivesnd lin-guisticbjectivesEchevarria, ogt,& Short, 004;Pica,2002;Schlepper-grell,Achugar, Oteiza,2004).Thus,bothresearch nd teaching xperiencehave ed to a growingconsensus hatnstructions most ffectivehen t ncludes ttentionobothform ndmeaning.3 s a result,hemost ngaging uestions nddebates n L2 pedagogy re no longer bout whether LT should n-clude FFI but ratherhow and whenit is most effective.his articlecompares herole ofFFI inlessons hat re isolatedrom ommunicativeor content-basednteraction iththat of FFI that s integratedithinactivitieshere heprimarymphasis emains nmeaninge.g., ntasksorcontent-basedessons).Some teachers nd students ave trong pin-ions about thisquestion see Barkhuizen, 998;Yorio,1986), butre-searchers ave notdirectlyompared heeffectsf ntegratingr isolat-ingform-focusednd meaning-focusedracticen CLT and CBI pro-grams.There are theoretical nd pedagogical rgumentsorboth solationand integrationf form nd meaning n L2 instruction.n our view,

2These tudies iffernseveral ays,ncludinghedegree fexplicitnessf nstruction.Nonetheless,heyan all becategorizedsstudiesfFFIusinghebroad efinitionfFFIasproposed yEllis 2001).This ncludes heprimarilyetalinguisticnstructionssoci-atedwithmore raditionalpproachesoL2teachingsevidencednSheen 2005) s wellas instructionhat s more mplicitn nature, rawingearners'ttentiono form nfunctionalndmeaning-basedontextss evidencednHarley 1989).Wethank he nonymousESOLQuarterlyeviewerho emindedsthat llgrammaticalformsavemeaningndthat simple inaryistinctionetween ormndmeaningsproblematic.eagree nd usethis erminologys a kind fshorthandeferringoanemphasisn the tructuralrsemanticropertiesf anguage.184 TESOLQUARTERLY



6/28

making choicebetweenntegratednd isolated FIis notnecessaryoradvisable).Rather, he challenge s to discover he conditions nderwhich solated and integrated FI respectivelyre mostappropriate.These conditions re ikelyo nvolve number ffactors,ncludinghenature fthelanguagefeaturee.g., itscomplexity,nd itsfrequencyand salience n the nput), earners' evelopmentalevels n theacqui-sition f thefeature,nd therelationshipetween omparable eaturesinthe earners' I and theL2.Other mportantactorsnclude eachers'and learners' referencesorhowtoteach/learnboutform,earners'literacynd metalinguisticophisticationespeciallyn theirLI), andtheir ge and overall 2 proficiency.

ISOLATED AND INTEGRATED FFIJohnson1982) made a distinctionetweenwhathe calledtheunifi-cationistnd separationistositions n theteaching f anguageuse andlanguage tructure.e described heseparationistosition s one with"structureeing aught irstthrough structuralyllabus) ollowed ysecondcommunicativetage t which se istaughtndwhere tructuresare activated' r recycled'"p. 129).AccordingoJohnson,hesepara-tionistositionmplies a divorcebetween heteaching fforms nduses,though therkinds frelated eparationre often lso being m-plied as between nowledgend its activitation,'etween orrectnessand fluency"p. 129). In contrast,rom he uniftcationisterspective,"the divorce fform nd use is seen as undesirablend probablylsountenable n linguisticnd psycholinguisticrounds. he position r-guesfor communicativerameworkrom hevery eginning"p. 129).OtherwritersaveuseddifferentabelstodistinguishifferentypesofFFI. Long (1991) hasmade a distinctionetween ocus nformsnd

focus nform.ocus nformseferso lessons nwhich anguagefeaturesare taught r practicedccording o a structuralyllabushat pecifieswhich eaturesreto be taughtnd in which equence.Focuson formsmightnvolve eachingpproaches s varied s mimicryndmemoriza-tionor grammarranslation,utall are basedon theassumptionhatlanguagefeatureshouldbe taught ystematically,ne at a time. ncontrast,ong's focus nformefers o instructionn whichthemainemphasis emains n communicativectivitiesr tasksbutinwhichteacherntervenesohelpstudents se languagemoreaccurately henthe needarises.Originally,ong (1991) dennedfocus n form s reac-tive nd incidental. hatis, t was imited o thoseclassroom ventsnwhich heteacherresponded o a difficultyhat rose as studentsn-gaged in communicativectivitiesr tasks.The languagefeature hatFORM-FOCUSED INSTRUCTION: ISOLATED OR INTEGRATED? 185



7/28

required ocuswasnotdeterminednadvance.More recentnterpreta-tions f focus n form aveexpandedthe definitiono include nstruc-tion nwhich eachers nticipatehat tudents illhavedifficultyithparticulareature s they ngage n a communicativeask nd plan inadvancetotargethat eaturehrough eedback nd otherpedagogicalinterventions,ll thewhilemaintaining primaryocus on meaning(Doughty Williams,998;Long& Robinson, 998).In this rticle,we havechosento use the terms solatednd integratedto describe wo pproaches o drawingearners' ttentiono languageformn L2 instruction.4solatedFFI is providedn activities hat reseparate rom hecommunicativese of anguage, ut t occurs s partof a program hat lso includesCLT and/orCBI. IsolatedFFI maybetaughtnpreparationor communicativectivityr after n activitynwhich tudents aveexperienceddifficultyith particularanguagefeature.n isolated FI,thefocus n language ormsseparated rom hecommunicativer content-basedctivity.his approachdiffersromLong'sfocus nforms, hich efers o anguage nstructionndpracticeorganized roundpredeterminedoints fgrammarna structuralyl-labus, hats,form-basednstructionhat s notdirectlyied ogenuinelycommunicativeractice.In integratedFI,the earners' ttentions drawn o languageformduring ommunicativer content-basednstruction.his definitionor-responds o focus n formbothplanned nd incidental) s defined yEllis 2002a) andbyDoughtyndWilliams1998). That s, lthoughheform ocus ccurswithin communicativectivity,he anguage eaturesinfocusmayhave been anticipatednd plannedforbythe teacher rtheymay ccur ncidentallyn the courseofongoing nteraction.Before iscussinghe rolewe see for achapproach, few ommentsareinorder nhowthe distinctionetween solated nd integratedFIis related o other ontrastsnL2 researchndpedagogy,uchas inten-tionalersus ncidentalearning Hulstijn,003) andexplicitersusmplicitinstructionDeKeyser, 003).

4Onerevieweruggestedhat he ermsolatedarriesaclearlyegativeonnotation."eunderstandhatnterpretationndagree hat he ermertainlyashadthatonnotationin muchwritingboutanguageeaching.evertheless,ehave hosen oretain his ermbecause tallows s toemphasizehe mportancef nstructionnwhich eachersndstudentsocus heirttentionn anguage eatureshat re lmostmpossibleoperceiveor cquirewhen heyccur nordinaryommunicativenteraction,itherecause heyreacousticallymperceptiblee.g.,most rammaticalorphologynEnglish)rredundantandunlikelyoaffectomprehensione.g.,word rder nEnglish uestions).Wesuggestthat t ssometimesecessaryo solateuch ormsmuch sonemight lace specimenunder microscopesothatearners ave nopportunityoperceivehese eaturesndunderstandheirunctionnthe anguage heyncounterncommunicativenteraction.Aswehave tatedreviously,earnersannot eexpectedobenefitromrief,ntegratedfocus n form fthey o notunderstandhat heteacher s calling heir ttentiono(Lightbown,998, . 194).186 TESOLQUARTERLY



8/28

IsolatedFFI is theprovisionf nstructionn lessonswhoseprimarypurpose s to teach tudentsbouta particularanguage eature ecausethe teacherbelieves hat tudents re unlikelyo acquirethe featureduring ommunicativectivities ithout n opportunityo learn aboutthefeaturen a situation herets ormndmeaning an be made clear.Fromthe teacher'sperspective,solatedFFI always mplies ntentionallearning nd explicit nstruction.owever, lassroom bservation e-search hows hat ven n traditionallassroomsnwhichgrammares-sons re basedon a structuralyllabus,tudentsrenot lwaysureoftheteacher'sntended ocus Slimani, 992). Thatis,theexplicitnessndintentionalityhat heteacher as nmindmaynotbe recognized y hestudents.

IntegratedFI occursn classroomctivitiesuringwhich heprimaryfocus emains n meaning, ut nwhich eedback rbrief xplanationsare offeredohelpstudentsxpressmeaningmoreeffectivelyrmoreaccurately ithinhe communicativenteraction.ome writerseemtoassume hatdrawingearners' ttentionoform uringmeaning-basedactivitieslwaysnvolvesmplicit eedback nd incidentalearning, utthat s notnecessarilyhe case.Again, heperceptionsf teachers ndlearnersmaybe different.dult earners ometimeshowthat heyn-terpretheteacher'smplicit eedback e.g., n theform frecasts) sexplicitguidance,creating n opportunityorintentionalanguagelearninge.g.,Ohta,2000;Ellis,Basturkmen,Loewen2001).However,evenwhenthey ecognize heteacher'smpliciteedback s relevantolanguageform,earnersmaynot correctlydentifyhe objectof theteacher'sttentionseeMackey, ass,& McDonough, 000,for relatedstudy)Bothisolatedand integratedFI can includeexplicit eedback nerror,metalinguisticerminology,hestatementfrules, nd explana-tions.Consider hefollowingxampleofexplicit,ntegratedFI. Thecontextsa communicativectivity.rade6 studentsreplaying gamein which hey avetocorrectlyuessthe ocation fdifferentolls n adollhousetogainenoughpoints owinthegame.Notethat,nprepa-ration or hegame, xamples f ppropriateuestions adbeenwrittenon theboard.Student:sGeorgesin the ivingoom?Teacher:ousaid is" wo imes,ear.Listen oyou you aid, IsGeorgeisin .. Lookontheboard. IsGeorgen the . ." andthenyousay henameof theroom.Student:s Georgen the ivingoom?Teacher:eahStudent:win (Lightbown& Spada, 2006,p. 167)

FORM-FOCUSED INSTRUCTION: ISOLATED OR INTEGRATED? 187



9/28

In this xample, he teacher rovided xplicit orrectiveeedback oa studentwhenhe made an error fform,venthough hemeaning econveyedwas comprehensible.irst, he drewattention o the error,providingnformations to what heerrorwas.Althoughheexplicitlyfocused n form,nd the studentppearedto understand nduse thefeedback,tseems hat his id not nterfere ith iscontinuingnterestin theongoing ame.SuchFFI s thus oth ntegratedndexplicit. romtheteacher'sperspective,he focuson questionformswasalso inten-tional: he hadprepared or heactivityith n isolated essonon ques-tionforms, ritingxamples fappropriateuestions n the board.Anotherxample f ntegratedFI,one that ncludes he tatementfrulesand metalinguisticxplanations,s an activityn whichpairsofstudents espond o true-falseT/F) statementsbout medicalhistoryusing timelinehowing ames,dates, nd descriptionsfdiscoveries.Some of the T/F statementsre expressed n the activevoice whileothersare in thepassive (e.g., Freuddevelopedmethodor xaminingmentalprocessesnown s psychoanalysis;enicillinwas discoveredyAlexander lem-ing n1928).The focus s on content ndmeaning.Asstudents iscusstheir esponses o thequestions,he nstructorelects hetwoT/Fstate-ments boveand asksthe studentsoexamine hemwith hefollowingquestionsnmind: Whatsgivenmore mphasisnthefirstentence'Freud [the subject]or psychoanalysistheobject]?'""What s moreprominentn thesecondsentence?" his eads nto brief xplanation(5 or 6 minutes) factive/passiveentences, owthey reformed ndhowthey unction,singone or two ther xamples. he teacher henasks students o return o responding o theT/F questionsusingtheinformationn thetimeline o assist hem. See Samuda,2001,for nexampleof ntegratedFI targetinghe use of modalauxiliaries.)One finalnote is essential eforewe discuss he differentoles ofisolated nd integratedFI. Forpurposes fthediscussion, epresentthese pproaches s if heywere ntirelyistinct.t sclear,however,hatthey rereally he endsofa continuum,speciallys weareexaminingtheir olewithin LT and CBI contextsor eachingnd learning. hatis,we do not ee isolated ndintegratedFIasbeing ncompetition itheach other; ather, e see them s complementaryarts fa completelanguage earningnvironment.lthough e areconvinced hat heresa rolefor solatedFFI,we see it as occurring ithinnstructionhat sprimarilynteractivend communicative. ltimately,heabilityo uselanguage utomaticallyncommunicativeettingsequires xperiencendoingexactlyhat. rovidingntegratedFI inCLT andCBI contextssthe nstructionalodelthathasthegreatestotential or acilitatinghedevelopmentffluent nd accurate anguagethat s availableforuseoutsidethe classroom.We concurwithDeKeyser 1998), who, n hiscritique frotedrill naudiolingualanguage eaching,ommentedhat188 TESOL QUARTERLY



10/28

practices valuablefor anguage earningwhen t involves ractice n"conveyingersonalmeanings" pp. 53-54)The Role of Integrated FI

In thepedagogical iterature,here s considerable upport or nte-grating orm ocuswithin ommunicativectivitiess wellas consider-ableskepticismbouttheeffectivenessf nstructionhat eparates ormfocus rommeaningfulnteractionsee,e.g.,Calv,1994).Celce-Murcia(1991) argues hat grammarhouldnever e taughts an end in itselfbutalwayswith eferenceomeaning, ocialfactorsr discourse or acombinationf these actors"pp. 466-467).Brumfit1984) assertshat"teachershouldnotpreventearners . . from ombining concernwithanguageusewithworryboutformalccuracynterms fspecificlanguage tems" p. 53). Brumfit'sssertionmaybe taken s evidencethat, or ome earners t least,feedback hat omesduring ommuni-cative nteractionmayhavea positive ffectn motivation.5nowingthathelp savailablewhen t sneededmay espond o theexpectationsand preferencesf students especially dult students in languageclasses see Cathcart Olsen, 1976;Schulz,1996,2001).Theoreticalupport or ntegrationomesfrom othSLAand cogni-tivepsychology.ong (1991) has arguedthatfocuson languageformshouldbe fullyntegratedntoongoing ommunicativenteraction.nfact, s notedearlier,n someofhiswriting,ong (e.g., 1991) arguedthatteachers houldprovidefocuson form nlyon those anguagefeatureshat ccurnaturallyn thecourseofa task ractivitynwhichstudentsreusing he anguagenmeaningfulnteraction.n hisrevisedinteraction ypothesis,ong (1996) states hatwhilecomprehensibleinput ndmeaningfulnteractionrovide herawmaterial or anguageacquisition,hey lso provide he ideal context orspontaneous i.e.,

integrated) ttentiono languageform.OtherSLA concepts uch asnegotiationf ormLyster,994a,1994b) and metatalkSwain& Lapkin,2002) also pointto thebenefitsfreflectingn languageform uringcommunicativeanguageuse.Therearedifferencesmongthesetheo-reticalonstructs,ut ll ofthem recompatible ith hehypothesishatwhile nstruction aynotdirectlylter earners'underlyinganguagesystems,tcan helpthemnoticefeaturesn the nput,makingtmore5It is importanto notethatwe do notequate integrated FI withCLT. As evident n theresearch iteraturend in classroompractice,CLT hasmanydifferent eanings, omeofwhich nclude no attention o languageform i.e., thestrong ersion fCLT) and othersthat ncludeattentionoform, lbeit n differentays see Howatt, 984and Spada, 2006afordiscussions f theevolution nd interpretationsfCLT) .




11/28

likelyhat heywill cquire hem Gass,1997;Lightbown,998;Schmidt,1990).One theoreticalpproachthathas recentlyeenusedtoexplainthepossiblebenefitsf ntegratedFI is transferppropriaterocessingTAP)AccordingoTAP, earners etrievenowledge est ftheprocesses orretrievalre similar o thosethatwere used in the earning ondition(Blaxton, 989;Franks, ilbrey,ien,& McNamara, 000;Morris, rans-ford, Franks, 977). In addition,he ituation,bjects,nd events hatarepresent tthe time f earningreconnected hrough networkfassociations. herefore,etrievals ikelyo be easierwhen earners indthemselvessing imilar rocesses r nthepresence fthe ameobjectsor situations.TAP hasonly ecentlyegunto receive ttentionntheSLA iterature,but research n bilinguals'memoryor exical tems rovidesome n-dications fwhatSLA researchmayreveal. n thesestudies, ilingualparticipantsreconsistentlyore uccessfulnretrievinghewords heylearnedwhenthetestingasks resimilar o the earning asksBasden,Bonilla-Meeks, Basden,1994; Durgunoglu& Roediger,1987). Re-searchon the earningnd retrievalf morecomplexunits f anguageremains o be done. However,t seems thatTAP wouldpredict hatlanguage earnedduring ommunicativectivitiesnwhichearners' t-tentions brieflyrawn o form i.e., integratedFI) wouldbe moreeasily etrievedn communicativeituationshan, ay, n decontextual-ized tests. n contrast, 2 knowledgeearned outside communicativeactivitiesn isolatedFFIwould be more difficulto retrieven commu-nicative ituations utsidethe classroom Doherty,Hilberg,Pinal,&Tharp,2003; Segalowitz cGatbonton, 995;Segalowitz Lightbown,1999).Thishypothesissconsistent ith he observationfmany each-ers and researchers: tudentswhoperform ell on tests re notneces-sarily luent sersofthe test temsnspontaneouspeech, ustas manyfluent peakerswhose anguageacquisitionhas takenplace primarilyoutside heclassroom erformoorly n tests equiringmetalinguisticknowledge r the retrieval f individualanguagefeatures utside acommunicativeontext.Althoughupport orntegratedFIcomesprimarilyromheoreticalextrapolationsndpedagogical rinciples,here salsosomeevidence fitseffectivenessn classroom-basedtudies fCLT and CBI. In ourre-search n intensive SL classes thatwerealmost xclusively eaning-focused,young tudentsweresuccessfuln acquiring ertain anguagefeatures hen heir eachers rovided ngoing,ntegratedFIon a lim-itednumber fthesefeaturesLightbown,991;Lightbown Spada,

1990). Those receivingntegratedFIwere ubstantiallyore ikely oacquirethese eatures han tudentsnclasseswhere herewasnever nyattention o form.Research n French mmersion rogramsDay &190 TESOL QUARTERLY



12/28

Shapson,1991;Harley, 989, 1998;Lyster,994a,1994b,2004) and inother ontent-basedndcommunicativelassrooms ith hild nd adultESL learnersDoughty Varela,1998;R.Ellis,Basturkmen, Loewen,2001;Williams Evans, 998)alsosupportshehypothesishat ttentionto anguage ormwithinhecontext fcommunicativeractice an leadtoprogressn learners' anguagedevelopment. lthough hisprogresshas been observednthe hort erm ormost tudies,ong-termmprove-menthasalso beenreported e.g.,Spada& Lightbown,993).However,theresearchnCLT and CBI classeswasnotdesigned odirectlynves-tigate hedifferentolesof ntegratednd isolated FI. That s,none ofthe tudies ompared heoutcomes fL2 learners eceivingsolated FIwithearners eceivingntegratedFI.Jean's 2005) studyf French s a second anguage nonimmersion)in a Canadiansecondarychoolprovides omerelated vidence f theeffectivenessf ntegratedFI.Jeandesigned n experimentaltudynwhichearnersithera) practicedargetormsn mechanical rills hatwere eparate rom hecommunicativectivitiesnwhich heforms ereexpected o be used ater r (b) received FI during ngoingmeaning-basedactivities.he foundno differencenthetwogroups' bilityo usethe target orms n subsequentmeasuresof accuracy.However, hefoundthat tudentswhoseFFI had been integrated ithmeaningfulcommunicativectivitiessedtheforms ith greater arietyfvocabu-lary. ean oncludes hat,t east or heverbmorphologyargetedn herstudy,solatedmechanical rillswerenot necessarytep nL2 teachingand that ntegratedFI was an effective ayof teaching ertainverbforms.he alsofound hat hehigh chool tudentsn herstudy idnotexpress clearpreferenceorone type f nstructionvertheother.

The Role of IsolatedFFIStern 1992) asserted hat lthough communicativectivitiesre anessentialomponent fa language urriculum,here sa still placefora separatenalyticanguagesyllabus"p. 180,emphasis dded). Morerecently,llis (2002b) has arguedthat"we [should] teachgrammarseparately, akingno attempto integratetwith hetask-basedom-ponent exceptperhaps,methodologicallyhrough eedback)" p. 32).One frequentlyeardargumentnsupport f solating FI isrelated omaintainingearners' ositivemotivation.he concern s that earnerswillbecomediscouraged r disinterestedf their ttentions drawn oformwhilethey re tryingo engage n communicativeractice see,

e.g.,Raimes, 002). Thus, t s sometimesuggestedhat eachersmakenoteofproblems hat riseduringnteractionctivitiesnd thenbringthemup for nstructionnd explanationn separate solated ctivities,FORM-FOCUSED INSTRUCTION: ISOLATED OR INTEGRATED? 191



13/28

outsidethecommunicativectivity.s notedearlier, owever,here srelativelyittle vidence hat anguage earners hemselvesbjecttoFFIthat ccursduring ommunicativectivities.Some pedagogical nd theoreticalrgumentso support hesepara-tionof form nd communicativeractice ncludetheassumptionhatFFIshouldprecede ommunicativese of new anguage eature. hereis a longand strong raditionn thefield fL2 teaching hat hefirstphase in a lesson s thepresentationf a specificanguageform. hispresentationhase s followed ycontrolled racticepattern ractice,structuralrills,tc.), ndonlyater y ctivitieshat ermitmore ponta-neoususe of anguage.na controversialrticle, iggs nd Clifford1982)argued hat theprematuremmersionf studentnto n unstructuredor free' onversationalettingeforeertain undamentalinguistictruc-tures remore or less nplace isnot donewithoutost" pp. 73-74)Morerecently, rawing n researchn cognitive sychology,pecifi-cally n theearlywork fAnderson 1982) on skill cquisition heory,DeKeyser 1998) has arguedthat grammarhouldfirst e taught x-plicitlyo achievea maximum funderstandingnd thenshouldbefollowed y omeexercises o anchor t olidlyn the tudents'onscious-ness n declarativeorm o that t s easytokeepin mindduring om-municativexercises"p. 58). In theframeworkf this rticle, eKey-ser'sfirstwophases explicitnstructionnd anchoringxercises) ep-resentsolatedFFI,although ur definitionf isolatedFI ncludes hepossibilityhat uch nstruction ay ccur fter tudents avediscoveredthe need for ertainanguagefeatures uring ommunicativectivity.6Furtherupport or solatedFFI comesfrom nformationrocessingtheory, hich rgues hat ecause thehumanmindhas imited rocess-ing capacity,t s difficultor earners ofocus n form ndmeaning tthesame time Ellis,1997). VanPatten1990) suggested hatnoticingsomeaspects f anguageforme.g.,verbmorphology) hile ryingograsp hemeaning f a textmaybe particularlyroblematicorbegin-ning earners.VanPatten nd hiscolleagueshave shownhow solatingspecific eatures f thetarget anguage n the nputcan help learnerschangetheway hey rocess ertain orm-meaning appingsVanPat-ten,1996,2004;VanPatten Cadierno, 993).Recent tudies yBarcroft2002) andTrofimovich2005) also illus-trate ituationsnwhich solatedFFI maybe beneficial o students.nthese tudies,tudents ere xposedtothematerial o be learned itherin contextswhere heyneeded to focuson formwhile lso processingsemantic spectsofthe anguageto be learned orwhere omeformalfeaturewas itself he primaryocus.Both Barcroftnd Trofimovich

6DoughtyndWilliams1998)referotheworkyDeKeyserndLightbownegardinghesequencingof FFI as sequentialocus nform.192 TESOL QUARTERLY



14/28

found that ttention o meaningwas associatedwithpoorerrecallofformal eatures uch as thespelling r pronunciationfwords.Theyinterpretedheirfindingsn terms f the TAP hypothesis. s notedearlier, ccording o TAP, thebestpredictor f success n retrievinginformations thedegreeofsimilarityetween he conditions ndpro-cessing emandspresent uring earning nd thosepresent uring e-trieval. hus, a learning ask n whichcognitive fforts devoted tosemantic eatures fa word snota goodpreparationor testnwhichlearnersneed to retrievenformationboutperceptual r formal ea-tures f the word. ftheassessment askrequires earners o recallorrecognize he correctpelling rpronunciationf a word, he earningtask houldcreateconditionsnwhich earners an devotemorepro-cessing apacityothosefeatures.o be sure, hegoalofmost anguagelearningsultimatelyo be able touse languageformsorrectlyn com-municativeontexts hat ncludemultiple emandson attention. ow-ever,what heresearch yVanPatten,arcroft,ndTrofimovichhowssthat uch contextsmaynot be conducive o the nitial erceptionndinterpretationf certainanguagefeatures.To our knowledge, o empirical lassroom-basedesearchdirectlycompares he effectsf solated nd integratednstruction.7t is impor-tant okeep nmind hat urdefinitionf solatedFI s attentionoformin separate essons hatoccur within program hat s primarilyom-municativen orientation.n that ense, t is not thesame as Long'sdefinitionffocus n orms,hich s associatedwith raditionaliscrete-pointmetalinguisticnstructionrovidedn a contextwhere ittle rnomeaning-basednstructionrpractice ccurs. imilarly,ur definitionfintegratedFI s notthe ame sLong'soriginal efinitionf ocus n orm,which ncludes nlyreactive FI whereasntegratedFI includesbothreactivendproactiveFI. In thisway, urdefinitionfintegratedFI ssimilaroEllis's 2001) definitionfplannednd ncidentalocus n orm.

7A reviewerrguesthat uch studiesdo existand pointsto Sheen (2005) as an example.WhileSheen's study oes showthe benefits f nstructionnhelpingyoungfrancophonestudentsmakemoreaccurateuse ofquestionsand theplacementof adverbs n Englishsentences, t s not a comparison f ntegratednd isolatedFFI as wedefine them n thispaper.As we read the report f thatresearch, t seems to showthat the studentsn thecomparisongroupreceived lmostno FFI at all. It is importanto emphasize, gain,thatintegratedFI is not simply synonymor CUT with ittle rno attentiono anguage orm.IntegratedFFI includesbriefexplanations, orrective eedback,explicitelicitations fcorrectforms, nd inputenhancementprovidedwithin he contextof meaning-basedinstruction.heen's description f the comparisonclass in his study ndicatesthat theinstructor id not make any special attempt o integrate FI relatedto questionsandadverbs n his regularclassroomactivities.n the experimental lass,students eceivedinstructionhat s bestdescribedas focuson formsnot as isolatedFFI. The distinctionbetween he two sthat solatedFFI isprovided nseparate essonsthat redirectlyelatedto the activities ithin communicativer content-basedyllabuswhereasfocuson formslessonstypicallyccurwithin structuralyllabus hat s notclosely inkedto theongoingcommunicativectivities.FORM-FOCUSED INSTRUCTION: ISOLATED OR INTEGRATED? 193



15/28

This review f thetheoretical,edagogical, ndempirical upport orintegratednd isolated nstructionndicates hat here reargumentsnboth idesand that he choice between hetwo slikely otan absoluteone,but rather choice that sdependent n other actors.n the nextsection,weoutline omeof thosefactors.

FACTORS THAT INFLUENCE THE CHOICE OFISOLATED OR INTEGRATED FFISLAresearch hows hat ome inguisticeaturesreacquired nciden-

tally,hats,withoutntentionalffortr conscious warenessy earnersor guidancefrom eachers.However,t is also evident hat ome lan-guagefeaturesevelopverylowly,rnot tall, n the bsenceofguidedattentionnd that ome types fFFI can increase he likelihood hatlearnerswillmakeprogressnlearning hesefeaturesNorris Ortega,2000). Some anguagefeaturesevelop ccording o a natural equenceof tages hats not ltered y nstruction.Foroverviews,eeEllis, 994;Gass & Selinker, 001; Lightbown Spada, 2006; Mitchell& Myles,1998.)However, hile nstruction ayhaveonly limited ffectn thepath earners ollowhrough evelopmentalequences, tmay ffectherateat which earnerspass through sequence (see, e.g.,Ellis, 1989;Larsen-FreemanLong,1991;Mackey Philp, 998;Pienemann, 989;Spada & Lightbown,993). Severalfactorsmay nfluence he relation-shipbetweennstructionnd learning utcomes. hese factors re dy-namic, hanging verthecourseof earners' anguage cquisitionndwithin ifferenteaching ontexts.8LI Influence

One hypothesiss that solatedFFI isparticularlysefulwhenthe LIhas a strongnfluencenL2forms.rrorsausedbyLI influence an beproblematicn classrooms here earners harethesamefirstanguageand reinforceach other'sLl-based errors Lightbown,991;Lyster,1987). In situationsike these, solatedFFI maybe needed to clarifymisleadingimilaritiesetween he LI and L2. Harley 1993) points othedistinctionetweenFrenchavoir/trend have/ben English s anexample. solatedFFImay lsohelpin thosecaseswhere earners avedeveloped,based on LI influence,n interlanguageulethat s more8Wethank ne ofthe nonymouseviewersor mphasizinghedynamicature fthefactorshatnfluencenstructionalhoices.

194 TESOLQUARTERLY



16/28

generalthan the related rule in the L2. White 1991) discusses hisproblemwith pecific eference o differencesetween dverbplace-ment nFrench ndEnglish ubject-verb-objectentencesndadvocatesisolatedFFI as a way fhelping earners erceive hosedifferences.Salience in the nput

IsolatedFFImaybe beneficial ith eatureshat rerelativelyimpletoexplainor illustrate ut arenotparticularlyalientn oral anguage.Drawingttention othem n isolationmayhelplearners ee/hear an-guagefeatureshey avenotbeennoticingnthe nput, hefirstteponthepathtoacquisition. lthoughome studies avereported enefits finput nhancement,hat s, ncreasing requencynd/orsalienceof an-guagefeaturesn the nput Alanen, 995;Doughty,991),others avereported artial r no benefitsSpada & Lightbown,999;Trahey&White, 993;White, 998). These conflictingindingsppearto be re-latedto differencesnthekind fenhancement.Moreexplicitnhance-ment ppearsto lead tomoreL2 progress han essexplicit nhance-ment Norris& Ortega, 000) 9 Thisfinding uggestshat solatedFFImight e useful or reatinghenecessaryaliencetohelplearners o-tice anguageforms hatoccurfrequentlyut are semanticallyedun-dantorphonologicallyeduced r mperceptiblen theoral nput. uchforms ouldinclude, or xample, hird-persons nEnglish nd adjec-tive greementmorphologyn French.InputFrequency

IsolatedFFImay lsohelpensure hat tudents aveopportunitiesolearnformshat re rareorabsent n the anguage hey reexposedtoin theCLT orCBI classroom. yster1994b) reports indingsosupportthis dea inhis nvestigationf the effectsfFFI on the earning fthesociolinguisticistinctionetween econd-personronouns u nd vousin Frenchmmersionlassrooms.tudentswerefamiliar ith hesingu-lar/plural istinctionetween hese wowords, utthe socialdynamicsofthe classroomnwhich heywere earning renchdidnotgive hemopportunitiesoobserve hepoliteness istinctionshat re signaled ythedifferentronoun orms.ystereveloped n instructionalnterven-

9Itmay lsobe that xplicitnstructioneems tohave somebenefits ecause theassessmentmeasuresused favor xplicitknowledge see Doughty, 003 fordiscussion).Norris ndOrtega 2000,p. 501) themselvescknowledge hispossibilityutarguethat heir indingscannot be explainedbythis inglevariable.FORM-FOCUSED INSTRUCTION: ISOLATED OR INTEGRATED? 195



17/28

tion that ncludedopportunitiesor solatedFFI. Drawing tudents' t-tention o thisdistinctionrobably repared hem o notice he use ofthe formsn thecommunicativend integratedFI activitieshatfol-lowed, nd their bilityo use theseformsmprovedignificantly.Rule Complexity

It hasbeensuggestedhat ntegratedFImaybe a more ppropriateapproach o nstructionor anguage eatures hat recomplex nd haverulesthat are difficulto describe.However, lthough here s someintuitivegreementbout a distinctionetweenhardnd easy ules,t snot lwayslearwhats meant y hese ermsseeHulstijn,995;Hulstijn& DeGraaff,994,foruseful ttemptsodefine hem).Furthermore,sDeKeyser2003) pointsout, n addition o the nherent ifficultyf aform r a rule,there s also subjective ifficulty:Ruledifficultys anindividualssuethat an be described s the ratio f therule's nherentlinguisticomplexityothe tudents'bilityo handle uch rule a ruleofmoderatedifficultyorone studentmaybe easyfor studentwithmore anguage earning ptitude r language earning xperience" p.331).Afairly idespreadssumptionn theSLA literatures that hatwhileeasy ules an be taught, ard ules rebytheir ery ature oocomplexto be successfullyaughtn isolated nstructionnd thus redifficultolearnthroughraditionalxplanationndpractice edagogy hat s iso-latedfrom ommunicativese ofthe anguage. hus, ntegratedFImaybe more suitable or omplex/abstracteatures,uch as thearticle ys-tem nEnglish.n laboratorytudies o nvestigatehe earningf impleand complex morphosynacticrules,DeKeyser 1995) and Robinson(1996) provide omesupport or his dea. Participantsn those tudieslearnedsimplemorphosyntacticules betterunderconditions f ex-plicit-deductiveearningnd morecomplexrulesbetter nder mplicit-inductive onditions. onclusions rawn rom hese tudies emain on-troversial,owever,nd areperhapsbest eenas hypothesesnneed offurthertudy.Communicative alue

IntegratedFImay lso be particularlysefulwith eaturesnwhicherrors re more ikely o lead tocommunicationreakdownse.g.,En-glishpossessive ronounshis nd her). ightbown1998) suggestshatL2 learners tvariousevels fproficiencyremore ikelyo be able tofocus nformndmeaning t the ametimewhen he farmn ocus...)196 TESOL QUARTERLY



18/28

is an importantarrier f themeaningnfocus"p. 192).However, henerrors o not nterfere ithmeaning e.g.,the absence of nversionnquestions uch as What he s reading?),solation rom ommunicativeinteractionmaybe necessaryf learners re to noticethe differencebetweenwhat heyay nd thecorrect ay osaywhat heymean Spada,Lightbown, White, 005). The relativemportancefusing herightword as comparedwithusingthe rightgrammars also reflectednSchwartz's1993) observationhat nstructionnd feedback re morelikelyo ead tochanges n learners' nowledgend use of exical temsthanofmorphologynd syntax.Mackey, ass, ndMcDonough 2000)have observed hat ecasts, typicalharacteristicf ntegratedFI,aremore ikelyobe noticedwhen heelement eingrecasts a lexical temthanwhen t s a morphosyntacticlement see alsoLyster,998).Learners'DevelopmentalLevel

Once a language eature asemergednlearners'nterlanguageseePienemann,998) morefluentndaccurate se ofthat eaturemay estbe encouraged hroughntegratedFI. Several tudies n FFI havere-ported hat 2 learners enefitmost rom FIwhenthey reat a devel-opmentalevel n theiranguage cquisition hat nablesthem o com-paretheir seofparticularorms ith hat fnativendmoreproficientspeakersMackey Philp,1998;Spada & Lightbown,999).Related othisfindings theobservationhat earners'receptivend productiveabilities o notdevelop n thesameway r at thesamerate.However,recent esearchnvestigatingheeffectsfboth nput-i.e.,comprehen-sion) and output-i.e.,production) asedpractice n L2 developmentindicates hatbothcomprehensionnd productionmprove s longasthepracticesmeaningfulnd learners reencouraged omakeform-meaning onnectionsMorgan-Short Wood Bowden,2006; see alsoDeKeyser, 998).As notedearlier,earnersmayneed isolatedFFI,suchas VanPatten'sprocessingnstruction,o help themdetectand understandform-meaning elationshipsor anguagefeatureshathave owsalience, owfrequency,r ow ommunicativealue.Once thefeaturesave mergedinthe nterlanguager once theform-meaningonnections avebeenmade,the development f greater luencys likely o be favored yintegratedFI.Ammar nd Spada (2006) foundthatFrench-speakingchildrenwhowere lreadymoreproficientnusingpossessiveetermin-ers hisand herwereable to takeadvantage f integratednstruction,whethern the form frecastswhere he teacherprovides hecorrectform) rpromptswhere heteacher licits correctionrom hestu-dent) However,tudents howere essproficientenefitedmorefromFORM-FOCUSED INSTRUCTION: ISOLATED OR INTEGRATED? 197



19/28

promptshanrecasts,uggestinghat heyhad greater ifficultyecog-nizing hepurposeofthefeedback.Learners'Age

In general,older learners, specially hosewith xperience n thestudy f their wnor other anguages, re morereceptiveo isolatedgrammaticalnstructionsee,e.g.,Barkhuizen,998).Outside heclass-room, nenvironmentshere hey re completelymmersedn thetar-get anguage, ery oungearners ften cquireL2 proficiencyithittleor no FFI. Olderchildren,dolescents,nd adults,however,ppeartobenefitromnstructionndmay vendependon it becauseof thewaysin whichtheir anguage-learningbilitiesdiffer rom hose ofyoungchildrenBley-Vroman,988;DeKeyser,000),especiallyf heir ontactwith he anguage s imitedo the econdorforeignanguage lassroom.Research n CLT and CBI contexts as shown hat hildren o notalways ecognize ntegratedFI (includingnhanced nput nd implicitrecasts) s responseso anguage orm atherhanmeaning e.g.,Lyster& Ranta, 997).However,hey o respond o ntegratedeedbackwhichisexplicite.g.,throughheuse ofemphasis, rompting,ndelicitationas well as othernonverbal ignals; ee, e.g.,Ammar& Spada, 2006;Doughty Varela,1998;Lyster,004) orwhich sprovidedwithin hecontext flanguageteachingwherethe overall rientationncludesstrong ocus n language ormLyster Mori, 006).Adult earners,na varietyf language earning ontexts, ave been shown o be moreaware of ntegratedFI as feedback n languageform see, e.g.,Ellis,Basturkmen, Loewen,2001;Ohta,2000).Language-Learning ptitude

Learnerswhoperform ell on language ptitude ests rhave moremetalinguisticnowledge nd skill n theirLI maybe better ble tonotice ndfocus n language ormwithin communicativeontexthanthosewith oorer ptitudendmetalinguisticbility.t has beenhypoth-esizedthatearnerswith oormetalinguistickillsntheir wn anguagemayrequiremoreexplicitpossiblysolated) nstructionohelp themidentifyomeform-meaningonnectionsRanta, 002).Mackey,hilp,Egi,Fujii,and Tomoaki (2002) foundthat dult earnerswithhigherscores n tests fworkingmemory eremore ikely oreport hat heynoticed nteractionalintegrated) eedbackn theform frecasts seealsoRobinson, 002).198 TESOL QUARTERLY



20/28

Learnerand TeacherPreferences or How toTeach or LearnAboutFormResearch n students' eliefs ndopinions boutFFI (i.e., nstructionand correctiveeedback)hasrevealed hat eachers' nd students' iewsoften iffer.n two arge-scaletudies, chulz (1996, 2001) foundthatvirtuallyll studentsxpressed desire o have heir rrorsorrected,utvery ew eachers elt hiswasdesirable.n addition,tudents eremorelikelyhan eachers osay hat ormaltudy f the anguage s "essentialto theeventualmasteryf a [foreign anguage]" (2001,p. 247). Mis-matchesikethesehave ongbeenreportedn the iteratureCathcartOlsen, 1976;Yorio,1986).The effectsfmatches nd mismatchesn L2

learning ave alsobeen investigatede.g., Spada, 1987;Wesche,1981),and there s someevidence hat earners enefitmostfrom nstructionthat uits heir referencessee Drnyei, 005,for ummarynddiscus-sion).Otherfactorsuch as individualearning tylesnd previous xperi-encelearninganguages analsolead to differentreferencesor earn-ing.Asindicated arlier,omeL2 learnerswhohave earned anguagesvia traditionaltructure-basedpproaches ften ave trong referencesfor ontinuingo earnvia solated rammarractice. therL2 learnerswhohave earned anguages nformallyayrespondmorepositivelyoFFI that s integrated ithmeaning.What s clear s that haracteristicssuch as thesecan interactwithtypeof instructionn complexways,leadingtomoreor less successfulearningSkehan,1989).It is not only earnerswho have differentreferencesor solatedand/or ntegratedFI. So do teachers.Research n teacher ognitionhasrevealed hatL2 teachers ften eachgrammarn theway n whichtheyweretaughttthemselvesBorg,2003;Farrell, 999).There s alsoevidenceof a directrelationship etweenwhat teachersknowaboutgrammarndhowthey each t.That s,theextent o which rammarstaughtdeductively epends on how muchmetalinguisticnowledgeteachers ossess Borg,2001; Brumfit, itchell, Hooper, 1996). Ofcourse, here re L2 instructorshodo not believethatgrammarn-structions useful. n a studyomparingecond (English)and foreign(French) anguage nstruction, itchell nd Hooper (1992) observedthat heEnglish eachers arelyocused nlanguage rexplicit rammarworkbut theforeignanguageteachers egularlyid so. Wheninter-viewed boutthisfinding,heEnglish eachers xpressed heopinionthat his ype factivityasnot ofprimarymportanceordevelopingstudents'inguisticbility a response hat s notatypicalfL2 instruc-torswhohaveadoptedthestrong ersion fCLT.It is often bserved hat eacherswhoare teaching heir wnnativelanguagemaynot have as good a graspof theformal rammarf theFORM-FOCUSED INSTRUCTION: ISOLATED OR INTEGRATED? 199



21/28

language s thosewhose earning as ncluded orm-focused2 instruc-tion. n a study f teachers'practices, org (1998) observed hatdeci-sions o nclude xplicit ormalnstructionre not lways asedonteach-ers'belief hat rammarnstruction orks utrathern their elief hatstudentsxpect t.He alsoobservedhatwhen eaching rammar,each-ers do not necessarilydhere exclusivelyo one particularpproach(e.g.,deductive r inductive) ut willcombine nd alternate etweenthem. imilarly,n a study f 48 teachers' ttitudesoexplicit r mplicitteaching fgrammarn an English or cademicpurposes EAP) pro-gram, urgessndEtherington2002) reporthat hemajorityf teach-ers believed hat t s useful o ntegraterammar ithin uthenticextsrather hanteach texplicitlysing grammaticalyllabus. t the sametime,however,hey lso expressed he belief hatnot all grammaticalknowledgean be learned mplicitlyndthus dvocated xplicitnstruc-tion swell. n our researchnvestigatinghepreferencesfteachersndadult earners or ntegratedrisolated FI,wehavefound hatneithergroupexpresses consistentreferenceorone overthe other.Theyvalueboth Spada,2006b).

CONCLUSIONResearch nd theoryuggest hat here s a role nCLT and CBI forboth solated nd integratedFI. Each type f instruction ayplayadifferentole npromotinganguage cquisition. esearch nd experi-ence in CLT and CBI affirmhatnot all languagefeatures eed to betaughtn isolated essons. nstead, hecurrent esearch n classroomlearninghows hat ncidentalearningllows tudents oacquire greatdeal of anguagewhilefocused n meaningnCLT and CBI. The addi-tionof ntegratedFI can contributeo theautomatizationf anguagefeatures hathaveemerged nstudents'anguagebut that renot usedreliably henthere re competing emandsfor ttention.Integrated FI includes widerangeof approaches,ncluding hekindof mplicit eedback hat ccurs s theneed oropportunityrises,as well s thekind fplanned nteractionhat equires herepeated, utnatural, seofa particularanguage orm.Nevertheless,solated essonsmaybe useful, r evenessential,n promotingheacquisition fsomelanguage eatures. hesefeaturesnclude hose hat re hard operceiveinthenormal tream fcommunicativepeech, hoseforwhich heresa misleadingimilarityo theLI, and thosethat re unlikelyo causecommunication breakdown. We are currentlydesigning quasi-experimentaltudies oexplorethecontributionsfbothtypes fFFI.The importancef solated essonswillbe determinedydifferences

200 TESOL QUARTERLY



22/28

in thespecific anguagefeature hat sbeing taught s wellas bydiffer-ences in learners'and teachers'characteristics,bilities, nd prefer-ences.We findno evidence o support suggestionhat solatedgram-mar lessonswithout pportunities orcommunicativeanguageuseshouldagainbecome the dominant pproachto language nstruction.Isolated essons rea starting ointor a follow-upor ommunicativercontent-basedctivities. bove ll,theyhouldnotbe expected o resultin students'mmediatencorporationf the featuren focus nto theircommunicativeanguageuse. Nevertheless,uch lessons can preparestudents omake the bestuse ofopportunitiesor ontinuingheiran-guage acquisitionnmeaning-focusedctivitiesndintegratedFIwhenit occurs.ACKNOWLEDGMENTSThe reviewershoprovidedeedbacknearlier ersionsf themanuscriptelpedus to make his betterrticle.Wedidnotalways greewith hereviewerswho,indeed, tronglyisagreed ith achother)buttheir eedback elpedus under-standndpresenturown iews etter. eare lsogratefulo thegraduatetudentsandresearchssistantsn N.Spada'sresearchroup tOISE/UTfor heirnsightfulcommentsn thismanuscriptndrelated iterature.

THE AUTHORSNinaSpadais a professorn theSecondLanguage ducation rogramtOISE/UniversityfToronto, ntario, anada,where he teaches oursesnL2 teachingand earning. erresearchocusesn the ontributionsfform-focusednstructiontotheL2 developmentfchildrennd adultsn communicativerograms.PatsyM. Lightbowns Distinguishedrofessormeritusf ConcordiaUniversity,Montreal,anada, nda formerresidentfAAAL.Her researchxploreselation-ships etween 2 teachingnd earning,speciallyor hildrennd adolescents.

REFERENCESAlanen,R. (1995).Input nhancementnd rulepresentationn second anguageacquisition.n R. Schmidt Ed.), Attentionndawarenessnforeignanguageearningandteachingpp.259-302).Honolulu:UniversityfHawai'iPress.Ammar, , & Spada,N. (2006).One sizefits ll?Recasts,rompts,ndL2 learning.Studiesn Second anguageAcquisition,8, 543-574.Anderson, . (1982). Acquisition fcognitive kill.Psychologicaleview, 9, 369-406.Barcroft, . (2002). Semanticand structural laboration n L2 lexical acquisition.

Language earning,2, 323-363.Barkhuizen,G. P. (1998). Discoveringearners'perceptions f ESL classroom each-ing/learningctivitiesn a SouthAfrican ontext.TESOL Quarterly,2, 85-108.FORM-FOCUSEDNSTRUCTION:SOLATEDOR INTEGRATED? 201



23/28

Basden,B. H., Bonilla-Meeks, .L., 8cBasden,D. R. (1994). Cross-language riminginword-fragmentompletion.Journal fMemoryndLanguage, 3, 69-82.Blaxton,T. A. (1989). Investigatingissociationsmong memorymeasures: upportfor transfer-appropriaterocessing ramework.ournalf xperimentalsychology:Learning,Memory,nd Cognition,5,657-668.Bley-Vroman,. (1988). The fundamental haracter fforeign anguage earning.nW. Rutherford M. SharwoodSmith Eds.), Grammarnd secondanguage eaching(pp. 19-30). New York:NewburyHouse.Borg, . (1998). Talking boutgrammarn theforeign anguageclassroom. anguageAwareness,,159-175.Borg,S. (2001). Self-perceptionnd practice n teachinggrammar. LTJournal,5,21-29.Borg,S. (2003). Teacher cognition n language teaching:A review f researchonwhat anguageteachers hink, now,believe, nd do. LanguageTeaching,6, 81-109.Brumfit,.J. 1984). Communicativeethodologyn anguageeaching:he olesf luencyand accuracy. ambridge:CambridgeUniversityress.Brumfit, , Mitchell,R., & Hooper, J. (1996). Grammar,anguage,and classroompractice. n M. Hughes (Ed.), Teachingndlearningnchangingimespp. 70-87).Oxford:Blackwell.Burgess, .,8cEtherington,. (2002). Explicit r implicit rammar?ystem,0,433-458.Calv,P. (1994). Commentfairede la grammaireans trahir e discours:Le cas desexercicesgrammaticaux. anadian Modern anguageReview,0, 636-645.Cathcart,R., & Olsen,J. W. B. (1976). Teachers' and students'preferences orcorrection f classroom onversationrrors. nJ. Fanselow 8cR. CrymesEds.),On TESOL 76: Selectionsased nTeachingDonet the 0th nnualTESOLConvention(pp. 41-53). Washington, C: TESOL.Celce-Murcia,M. (1991). Discourseanalysis nd grammarnstruction. nnualReviewofApplied inguistics,1, 135-151Day, E., 8c Shapson, S. (1991). Integrating ormal nd functional pproaches inlanguageteaching n French mmersion: n experimental tudy. anguage earn-ing,41,25-58.DeKeyser,R. (1995). Learning econd language grammar ules:Anexperimentwitha miniatureinguistic ystem. tudies n Second anguageAcquisition,9,249-297.DeKeyser,R. (1998). Beyondfocuson form:Cognitive erspectivesn learning ndpractisingecondlanguage grammar.n C. Doughty&J.WilliamsEds.), Focus nformn classroomecond anguage cquisitionpp. 42-63). NewYork:CambridgeUniversityress.DeKeyser,R. M. (2000). The robustnessf critical eriodeffectsn secondlanguageacquisition.Studiesn Second anguageAcquisition,2, 493-533.DeKeyser,R. (2003). Implicit nd explicit earning. n C.J.Doughty c M. H. Long(Eds.), Thehandbookfsecondanguage cquisitionpp. 313-348). Maiden,MA:Blackwell.Doherty,R.W.,Hilberg,R. S., Pinal,A., 8cTharp,R. G. (2003). Fivestandards ndstudent chievement.NABEJournal fResearchndPractice,, 1-24.Drnyei,Z. (2005). Thepsychologyfthe anguage earner.Mahwah,NJ:LawrenceErlbaum.Doughty, . (1991). Second languageinstructionoes make a difference:videncefrom n empirical tudy fESL relativization.tudies n Second anguageAcquisi-tion, 3,431-469.Doughty, . (2003). Instructed LA: Constraints,ompensation,nd enhancement.

202 TESOLQUARTERLY



24/28

In C.J. Doughty c M. H. Long (Eds.). Thehandbookf econdanguage cquisition(pp. 256-310). Maiden,MA:Blackwell.Doughty, , & Varela,E. (1998). Communicative ocuson form. n C. Doughty&J.WilliamsEds.) ,Focus n ormnclassroomecondanguage cquisitionpp. 114-138)Cambridge:CambridgeUniversityress.Doughty,C, & Williams, . (1998). Pedagogical choices in focus on form. n C.Doughty&J.Williams Eds.), Focus nformn classroomecondanguage cquisition(pp. 197-261). Cambridge:CambridgeUniversityress.Durgunoglu,A. Y., 8cRoediger,H. L., III. (1987). Test differencesn assessingbi-lingual memory. ournal fMemoryndLanguage, 6, 377-391.Echevarria, .,Vogt,M.,& Short,D.J. (2004). Making ontentomprehensibleor nglishlearners:heSIOP model. oston:Pearson.Ellis,N. C. (1997). Vocabulary cquisition,wordstructure,ollocation,word-class,and meaning. n N. Schmitt M. McCarthyEds.), Vocabulary:escription,cqui-sition ndpedagogypp. 122-139). Cambridge:CambridgeUniversityress.Ellis,N. C. (2005). At the interface: ynamic nteractionsf explicit nd implicitlanguageknowledge. tudiesn Second anguageAcquisition,7, 305-352.Ellis,R. (1989). Are classroom nd naturalisticanguage acquisitionthe same?Astudy fthe classroom cquisitionof Germanwordorder rules.Studiesn SecondLanguageAcquisition,1,305-328.Ellis,R. (1994). Thestudy f econdanguage cquisition. xford: OxfordUniversityPress.Ellis, R. (2001). Introduction: nvestigating orm-focusednstruction.LanguageLearning,2(Supplement1), 1-46.Ellis,R. (2002a). Does form-focusednstructionffect he acquisitionof implicitknowledge?A review f the research.Studiesn Second anguageAcquisition,4,223-236.Ellis,R. (2002b). The place ofgrammarnstructionn thesecond/foreignanguagecurriculum.n E. Hinkel 8cS. Fotos (Eds.), New erspectivesngrammareachingnsecondanguage lassroomspp. 17-34). Mahwah,NJ:LawrenceErlbaum.Ellis, R., Basturkmen, ., 8cLoewen,S. (2001). Learneruptakein communicativeESL lessons.Language earning,1, 281-318.Farrell, . S. C. (1999). The reflectivessignment:Unlockingpre-semceteachersbeliefs n grammar eaching.RELCJournal,0, 1-17.Franks,J.J., Bilbrey,C. W., Lien, K. C, 8cMcNamara,T. P. (2000). Iranster-appropriateprocessing TAP) and repetition riming.Memory Cognition,8,1140-1151.Gass, S. (1997). Input,interaction,nd the econd anguage earner.Mahwah,NJ:LawrenceErlbaum.Gass,S., & Selinker, . (2001). Secondanguage cquisition:n introductoryourse2ndd.). Mahwah,NJ:LawrenceErlbaum.Harley,B. (1989). Functionalgrammarn French mmersion:A classroomexperi-ment.Applied inguistics,0,331-359.Harley, . (1993). Instructionaltrategiesnd SLAinearly rench mmersion.tudiesinSecond anguageAcquisition,5,245-259.Harley, . (1998). The roleoffocus-on-formasksnpromotinghild L2 acquisition.In C. Doughty& J.Williams, Eds.), Focusonformn classroomecond anguageacquisitionpp. 156-174). Cambridge:CambridgeUniversityress.Harley,B., 8cSwain,M. (1984). The interlanguage f immersion tudents nd itsimplications or econd languageteaching. n A. Davies,C. Criper,& A. Howatt(Eds.), Interlanguagepp. 291-311). Edinburgh:EdinburghUniversityress.Higgs,T. V.,8cClifford,. (1982). The pushtoward ommunication.n 1. V. Higgs

FORM-FOCUSEDNSTRUCTION:SOLATEDOR INTEGRATED? 203



25/28

(Ed.), Curriculum,ompetence,nd the oreignanguage eacherpp. 57-79). Skokie,IL: NationalTextbookCompany.Howatt,A. P. R. (1984). A historyfEnglish anguage eaching.xford: Oxford Uni-versityress.Hulstijn, . (1995). Not all grammar ulesare equal: Giving rammarnstructiontsproper place in foreign anguage teaching. n R. Schmidt Ed.), Attentionndawareness n foreign anguage earning pp. 359-386). Honolulu: UniversityfHawai'i.Hulstijn, . (2003). Incidental and intentionalearning. n C. J. Doughty& M. H.Long (Eds.), Thehandbookf econdanguage cquisitionpp. 349-382). Maiden,MA: Blackwell.Hulstijn, .,& DeGraaff, . (1994). Under whatconditionsdoes explicitknowledgeof a second languagefacilitateheacquisitionof mplicit nowledge?A researchproposal.AILAReview, 1,97-112.Jean,G. (2005). Intgration e la grammaire ans l'enseignement es languessec-ondes:Le cas des exercicesgrammaticaux. anadianModem anguageReview, 1,519-542.Johnson,K. (1982). Communicativeyllabusesignndmethodology.xford:PergamonPress.Krashen,S. D. (1982). Principlesndpracticen secondanguage cquisition. xford:PergamonPress.Krashen, . D. (1994). The input hypothesisnd its rivals.n N. Ellis (Ed.), Implicitand explicitearningf anguage pp. 45-77). London: Academic Press.Larsen-Freeman, ., & Long,M. H. (1991). An introductiono econdanguage cqui-sition esearch. ewYork:Longman.Lightbown, . M. (1991). What have we here? Some observations n the role ofinstructionn second language acquisition. n R. Phillipson,E. Kellerman,L.Selinker,M. SharwoodSmith, cM. Swain Eds.), Foreign/secondanguage edagogyresearch: commemorativeolumeorClaus Faerchpp. 197-212). Clevedon:Multi-lingualMatters.Lightbown, . M. (1998). The importance ftimingnfocuson form. n C. Doughty& J. Williams Eds.), Focus onformn classroomecondanguage cquisitionpp.177-196). Cambridge:CambridgeUniversityress.Lightbown, . M., 8cSpada, N. (1990). Focus-on-formnd corrective eedback ncommunicativeanguage teaching: ffects n second anguage earning. tudiesnSecond anguageAcquisition,2,429-448.Lightbown, . M., & Spada, N. (2006). Howlanguagesre earned3rd d.). Oxford:OxfordUniversityress.Long,M. H. (1991). Focus on form:A designfeature n language teachingmeth-odology. n K. de Bot,R. Ginsberg, c C. Kramsch Eds.), Foreignanguage esearchin cross-culturalerspectivepp. 39-52). Amsterdam:ohnBenjamins.Long, M. H. (1996). The role of the linguistic nvironment n second languageacquisition. n W. Ritchie& T. Bhatia (Eds.), Handbookf econdanguage cquisi-tion pp. 413-468). San Diego, CA:AcademicPress.Long,M.,8cRobinson,P. (1998). Focus on form: heory, esearch, nd practice. nC. Doughty cJ.Williams Eds.), Focus nformnclassroomecondanguage cquisi-tion pp. 15-41). Cambridge:CambridgeUniversityress.Lyster, . (1987). Speaking mmersion.CanadianModern anguageReview,3, 701-

717.Lyster,R. (1994a). La negotiationde la forme:Stratgieanalytiqueen classed'immersion.CanadianModemLanguageReview,0, 446-465.204 TESOLQUARTERLY



26/28

Lyster, . (1994b). The effect ffunctional-analyticeachingon aspectsofFrenchimmersion earners' ociolinguistic ompetence. Applied inguistics,5,263-287.Lyster, . (1998). Negotiation fform, ecasts, nd explicit orrectionn relation oerrortypes nd learnerrepair n immersion lassrooms.LanguageLearning, 8,183-218.Lyster, . (2004). Differentialffects fprompts nd recasts n form-focusednstruc-tion. StudiesnSecond anguageAcquisition,6, 399-432.Lyster, ., & Mori,H. (2006). Interactional eedback nd instructional ounterbal-ance. StudiesnSecond anguageAcquisition,8, 269-300.Lyster, .,& Ranta,L. (1997). Corrective eedback nd learneruptake: Negotiationofformn communicativelassrooms. tudiesn Second anguageAcquisition,9,37-66.Mackey,A., Gass, S., & McDonough,K. (2000). How do learnersperceive nterac-tionalfeedback? tudiesn Second anguageAcquisition,2, 471-497.

Mackey,A., & Philp,J. (1998). Conversationalnteraction nd second languagedevelopment:Recasts, esponses, nd redherrings.Modern anguage ournal, 2,338-356.Mackey,A.,Philp,J.,Egi,T., Fujii,A.,& Tomoaki,T. (2002). Individualdifferencesinworkingmemory, oticing f nteractionaleedback ndL2 development.n P.Robinson (Ed.), Individualdifferencesnd instructedanguage earningpp. 181-209). Amsterdam:ohnBenjamins.Mitchell,R., 8cHooper,J. (1992). Teachers' viewsof language knowledge. n C.James cP. GarrettEds.), Language warenessn the lassroompp. 40-50). London:Longman.Mitchell,R., 8cMyles, . (1998). Secondanguageearningheories.ondon: Arnold.Morgan-Short, ., 8c Wood Bowden,H. (2006). Processing nstructionnd mean-ingful utput-basednstruction:ffectsn second languagedevelopment. tudiesin Second anguageAcquisition,8, 31-66.Morris,D. D., Bransford, . D., 8cFranks, . J. (1977). Levels of processingversustransferppropriate rocessing. ournal fVerbalearningnd Verbalehavior,6,519-533.Noms,J.M., & Ortega,L. (2000). EffectivenessfL2 instruction: research yn-thesis nd quantitativemeta-analysis.anguageLearning,0, 417-528.Noms,J.,& Ortega,L. (2003). Defining nd measuring LA. In C.J.Doughty& MLH. Long (Eds.). Thehandbookf econdanguagecquisitionpp. 717-761). Maiden,MA: Blackwell.Ohta,A. (2000). Rethinking ecasts:A learner-centeredxaminationof correctivefeedback n theJapaneseclassroom. nJ.K. Hall 8c L. Verplaetse Eds.), Secondandforeignanguageearninghroughlassroomnteractionpp. 47-71). Mahwah,NJ:LawrenceErlbaum.Pica, T. (2002). Subject-matterontent:How does it assistthe interactional ndlinguistic eeds ofclassroomanguage earners?TheModern anguage ournal,6,1-19.Pienemann,M. (1989). Is languageteachable?Applied inguistics,0,52-79.Pienemann,M. (1998). Languageprocessingnd secondanguage evelopment:rocess-abilityheory.msterdam:ohnBenjamins.Raimes,A. (2002). Errors:Windowsntothemind. n G.DeLuca, L. Fox,M.Johnson,8cM. Kogen (Eds.). Dialogue nwriting:ethinkingSL, basicwriting,ndfirst-yearcompositionpp. 279-287). Mahwah,NJ:LawrenceErlbaum.

Ranta,L. (2002). The roleof earners' anguageanalyticbilityn thecommunicativeclassroom.n P. Robinson Ed.), Individual ifferencesnd instructedanguageearn-ing pp. 159-180). Amsterdam: ohn Benjamins.FORM-FOCUSEDNSTRUCTION:SOLATEDOR INTEGRATED? 205



27/28

Robinson,P. (1996). Learning simpleand complex second language rules underimplicit,ncidental, ule-search nd instructed onditions. tudiesn Second an-guageAcquisition,9,233-247.Robinson,P. (2002). Effects f individualdifferencesn intelligence, ptitude ndworkingmemory n adult ncidental LA:A replication nd extension fReber,Walkenfieldnd Hernstadt1991). In P. Robinson Ed.), Individual ifferencesndinstructedanguage earningpp. 211-266). Amsterdam:ohn Benjamins.Samuda,V. (2001). Guidingrelationships etweenform nd meaning duringtaskperformance:he role oftheteacher. nM.Bygate, . Skehan,& M. Swain Eds.),Researchingedagogicasks: econdanguageearning,eachingnd testingpp. 119-140). London: Longman.Schleppergrell,M.J.,Achugar,M., 8cOtefza,T. (2004). The grammar f history:Enhancingcontent-basednstructionhrough functional ocuson language.TESOL Quarterly,8, 67-93.Schmidt,R. (1990). The role of consciousness n second language earning.AppliedLinguistics,1, 17-46.Schulz,R. A. (1996). Focuson formntheforeign anguageclassroom: tudents' ndteachers'viewson error correction nd the role of grammar. oreign anguageAnnals, 9, 343-364.Schulz,R. A. (2001). Culturaldifferencesn student nd teacherperceptions on-cerningthe role ofgrammar eaching nd corrective eedback:USA-Colombia.Modern anguage ournal,5, 244-258.Schwartz, . (1993). On explicit nd negativedata effectingnd affecting ompe-tence and linguistic ehavior.Studiesn Second anguageAcquisition,5,147-162.Segalowitz,N., & Gatbonton,E. (1995). Automaticitynd lexical skills n secondlanguagefluency:mplications or omputer ssisted anguage earning.ComputerAssistedanguageLearning, , 129-149.Segalowitz,N., & Lightbown, . M. (1999). Psycholinguisticpproachesto SLA. TheAnnualReviewfApplied inguistics,9,23-43.SharwoodSmith,M. (2004). In two minds about grammar:On the interaction flinguisticnd metalinguistic nowledge n performance. ransactionsf he hilo-logical ociety,02,255-280.Sheen,R. (2005). Focus on formS s a means of mprovingccurateoralproduction.In A. Housen 8cM. Pierrard Eds.), Investigationsn instructedecond anguageacquisitionpp. 271-310). Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.Skehan,P. (1989). Individual ifferencesnsecondanguageearning.ondon: Arnold.Slimani,A. (1992). Evaluation f classroom nteraction.n C. Alderson& A. Beretta(Eds.), Evaluation n secondanguage ducationpp. 197-220). Cambridge:Cam-bridgeUniversityress.Snow,M. A., Met, M., & Genesee, F. (1992). A conceptualframework orthe inte-gration f anguageand content nstruction.n P. A.Richard-AmatocM.A. Snow(Eds.), Themulticulturallassroom:eadings orcontent-areaeacherspp. 27-38).Reading,MA:Addison-Wesley.Spada, N. (1987). Relationships etween nstructionalifferencesnd learning ut-comes: A process-producttudyof communicativeanguage teaching.AppliedLinguistics,, 137-155.Spada, N. (2006a). Communicativeanguage teaching:Current tatus nd futureprospects. nJ.Cummins8c C. Davis (Eds.), The nternationalandbookfEnglish

language eaching orwell,MA:Springer.Spada, N. (2006b). Teachernd learnerreferencesor solated nd integratednstruction[Researchreportpreparedfor heContinuing ducationEnglishLanguagePro-206 TESOLQUARTERLY



28/28

gramof the Universityf Toronto and the Toronto Catholic District choolBoard]. Toronto:OISE/Universityf Toronto.Spada,N.,& Lightbown, . M. (1993). Instruction nd thedevelopment fquestionsin L2 classrooms. tudiesn Second anguageAcquisition,5,205-224.Spada,N., 8cLightbown, . M. (1999). Instruction,I influence nd developmentalreadiness n second language acquisition.Modern anguage ournal,3, 1-22.Spada, N., Lightbown, . M., & White,J. L. (2005). The importanceof form/meaning mappings n explicitform-focussednstruction.n A. Housen & M.Pierrard Eds.), Currentssues n instructedecondanguage earningpp. 199-234).Berlin:Mouton de Gruyter.Stern,H. H. (1992). Issues ndoptionsn anguage eaching.xford:OxfordUniversityPress.Swain,M. (1988). Manipulating nd complementingontent eaching omaximizesecond languagelearning.TESL CanadaJournal, , 68-83.Swain,M.,& Lapkm,S. (2002). Talking tthrough: woFrench mmersionearnersresponses o reformulation.nternationalournal fEducational esearch,7, 285-304.Trahey,M., & White,L. (1993). Positive videnceand preemption n the secondlanguageclassroom. tudiesnSecond anguageAcquisition,5, 181-204.Trofimovich,. (2005). Spoken-word rocessingn a native nd a second language:An investigationfauditorywordpriming.Applied sycholinguistics,6, 479-504.Truscott, . (1996). The case againstgrammar orrectionnUl writinglasses.Lan-guageLearning,6, 327-369.Truscott, . (1999). What'swrongwithoral grammar orrection.CanadianModernLanguageReview,5, 437-456.VanPatten, . (1990). Attendingo content nd formn the nput:Anexperimentnconsciousness. tudiesn Second anguageAcquisition,2,287-301.VanPatten,B. (1996). Inputprocessingnd grammarnstruction:heorynd research.Norwood,NJ:Ablex.VanPatten,B. (2004). Input processing n SLA. In B. VanPatten Ed.), Processinginstruction:heory,esearch,nd commentarypp. 5-31). Mahwah,NJ:LawrenceErlbaum.VanPatten,B., 8cCadierno,T. (1993). Explicit nstructionnd input processing.Studiesn Second anguageAcquisition,5,225-243.Wesche,M. (1981). Language aptitudemeasures n streaming,matching tudentswithmethods,nddiagnosis f earning roblems.nK. C. Diller Ed.), Individualdifferencesnd universalsn languageearning ptitudepp. 119-154). Rowley,MA:Newbury ouse.

White,J. (1998). Getting he learners'attention:A typographicalnputenhance-mentstudy.n C. Doughty& J.Williams Eds.), Focusonformn classroomecondlanguage cquisitionpp. 85-113). Cambridge:CambridgeUniversityress.White, . (1991). Adverbplacement nsecondlanguageacquisition:borne ttects tpositive nd negative vidence n theclassroom. econd anguageResearch,,133-161.White, ., Spada,N.,Lightbown, . M.,& Ranta,L. (1991). Inputenhancement ndL2 questionformation. pplied inguistics,2,416-432.Williams, ., & Evans,J. (1998). Whatkind of focusand on whichforms?n C.Doughty&J.Williams Eds.), Focus nformn classroomecondanguage cquisition(pp. 139-155). Cambridge:CambridgeUniversityress.Yorio,C. (1986). Consumerismn secondlanguage earning nd teaching.CanadianModern anguageReview,2, 668-687.


Documents

FFI Integrated or Isolated Spada&Lightbown 2008.pdf