Form-Focused InstructionIsolated or IntegratedNINA SPADAUniversity of TorontoToronto Ontario Canada

PATSY M LIGHTBOWNConcordia University (Emeritus)Montreal Quebec Canada

There is increasing consensus that form-focused instruction helpslearners in communicative or content-based instruction to learn fea-tures of the target language that they may not acquire without guid-ance The subject of this article is the role of instruction that is providedin separate (isolated) activities or within the context of communicativeactivities (integrated) Research suggests that both types of instructioncan be beneficial depending on the language feature to be learned aswell as characteristics of the learner and the learning conditions Forexample isolated lessons may be necessary to help learners who sharethe same first language (L1) overcome problems related to L1 influ-ence on their interlanguage integrated instruction may be best forhelping learners develop the kind of fluency and automaticity that areneeded for communication outside the classroom The evidence sug-gests that teachers and students see the benefits of both types of in-struction Explanations for the effectiveness of each type of instructionare drawn from theoretical work in second language acquisition andcognitive psychology as well as from empirical research

In the 1970s a new pedagogy of communicative language teaching(CLT) and a new theoretical view of second language acquisition

(SLA) emphasized the importance of language development that takesplace while learners are engaged in meaning-focused activities Teachersand methodologists developed language classroom activities that fea-tured interaction among learners opportunities to use language in seek-ing and exchanging information and less attention to learning metalin-guistic rules or memorizing dialogues and practicing patterns (Brumfit1984 Howatt 1984) One type of CLT that has become especially wide-spread is content-based instruction (CBI) in which the new language isa vehicle for learning subject matter that is of interest and value to the

TESOL QUARTERLY Vol 42 No 2 June 2008 181

learner It has been hypothesized that in CBI ldquolanguage learning mayeven become incidental to learning about the contentrdquo (Snow Met ampGenesee 1992 p 28) However some researchers have observed thatgood content teaching may not always be good language teaching(Swain 1988) and since the introduction of CLT and CBI debates havecontinued about whether and if so how attention to language formshould be included in approaches to language instruction that are pri-marily meaning-focused

THE ROLE OF FORM-FOCUSED INSTRUCTION

Some individuals especially those who begin learning as young childrenacquire high levels of second language ability without form-focused in-struction (FFI) This outcome supports the hypothesis that FFI is notnecessary for SLA However it is rare for students in second or foreignlanguage classes to reach such high levels Some claim that this failure tomaster a new language is due to physiological changes that occur withage Others point to the limitations inherent in classroom contextsWhatever the reason learners who begin learning when they are beyondearly childhood especially those whose exposure to the target languageoccurs primarily or exclusively in classrooms where other students sharethe same L1 appear to benefit from FFI that helps them make moreefficient use of their limited exposure to the sounds words and sen-tences of the language they are learning (Lightbown amp Spada 2006)One thing is certain Language acquisition is not an event that occurs inan instant or as a result of exposure to a language form a languagelesson or corrective feedback It is an evolving and dynamic phenom-enon that is perhaps better characterized by the word development (sug-gesting ongoing change) than by the word acquisition (if this is taken tomean that the language user has complete and irrevocable possession ofsome linguistic knowledge or behavior)1

Some SLA researchers have hypothesized that when instruction fo-cuses on the language itself it is beneficial only in marginal ways and mayeven have a negative impact on language acquisition (Krashen 19821994 Truscott 1996 1999) They argue that at most explicit FFI alterslanguage performance but does not change learnersrsquo underlying gram-mar which develops only through exposure to the language in naturalinteraction In their view instruction may allow second language (L2)users to acquire metalinguistic knowledge but this kind of knowledge isprocessed and stored separately from language that is acquired through

1 See Norris and Ortega (2003) for a review and discussion of definitions and measurementsof second language knowledge and skill

182 TESOL QUARTERLY

interactive language use (Schwartz 1993 Sharwood Smith 2004 seeEllis 2005 for review)

Some of the empirical work investigating the kind of knowledge thatis acquired during form-focused instruction has shown that FFI can playa role in helping classroom learners in CLT and CBI use their L2 withgreater fluency and accuracy (eg Spada amp Lightbown 1993 Lyster2004) and to use language forms that represent more advanced devel-opmental levels (eg Doughty amp Varela 1998) In these studies effortswere made to develop tasks that elicited samples of spontaneous oralproduction In a meta-analysis of the instructed SLA research Norris andOrtega (2000) also report benefits for FFI in particular the positiveeffects of explicit instruction on L2 learning However the majority ofstudies included in the meta-analysis used discrete-point metalinguistictests as measures of instructional effectiveness This bias has led to thecall for more studies to examine the benefits of instruction on implicitknowledge (Doughty 2003 Ellis 2002a Norris amp Ortega 2000)

Improvements in language performance may reflect learnersrsquo abilityto make appropriate use of units of language that they have learned aswhole unanalyzed chunks during form-focused practice or to use meta-linguistic knowledge they have acquired during grammar lessons tomonitor their output When learners produce language under condi-tions of time pressure or competing demands on attention they mayreveal that the underlying internal grammar of their interlanguage hasnot been substantially affected Even if this is the case however learnersrsquoability to use language with greater accuracy and fluencymdashat least insome circumstancesmdashcan contribute to language acquisition in severalways For example in producing monitored or unanalyzed chunks oflanguage learners can create for themselves a sort of input and feedbackloop that provides them with samples of the language that may be in-corporated into their underlying grammatical systems later when theyare developmentally ready (Lightbown 1998 Sharwood Smith 2004)Another possible advantage of this ability to produce more correct oradvanced language is that the contextually appropriate use of unana-lyzed andor monitored language allows learners to keep interactionsgoing thereby increasing their access to language input (Krashen1982) Further the ability to use unanalyzed chunks of language mayfree cognitive resources for use in attending to external input (Ellis2005) Some language acquisition theories assume a more direct rela-tionship between metalinguistic or formulaic knowledge and spontane-ous language use Skill acquisition theorists hypothesize that languagelearned first as metalinguistic knowledge can through repeated mean-ingful practice eventually become so well incorporated and automatizedthat the language user forgets the metalinguistic information and mayforget having learned it in the first place (DeKeyser 2003)

FORM-FOCUSED INSTRUCTION ISOLATED OR INTEGRATED 183

The value of FFI within instruction that is primarily meaning-focusedhas been demonstrated by research conducted in CLT and CBI pro-grams over the past 20 years In addition teachers who have experiencewith the strong version of CLTmdashan exclusive focus on meaning with noattention to language form (Howatt 1984 Spada 2006a)mdashhave ob-served that without FFI some language features never emerge in learn-ersrsquo language and some nontarget forms persist for years Experiencewith CLT and CBI shows that meaning-based exposure to the languageallows L2 learners to develop comprehension skills oral fluency self-confidence and communicative abilities but that they continue to havedifficulties with pronunciation as well as with morphological syntacticand pragmatic features of the L2 (see eg Harley amp Swain 1984 Lyster1987) Research in CLT and CBI classrooms shows that the introductionof FFI has contributed to changes in learnersrsquo knowledge and use ofcertain language features (eg Day amp Shapson 1991 Doughty amp Varela1998 Harley 1989 White Spada Lightbown amp Ranta 1991 Lyster2004 Sheen 2005)2 Advocates of CBI have increasingly emphasized theimportance of planning lessons that have both content objectives and lin-guistic objectives (Echevarria Vogt amp Short 2004 Pica 2002 Schlepper-grell Achugar amp Oteiacuteza 2004)

Thus both research and teaching experience have led to a growingconsensus that instruction is most effective when it includes attention toboth form and meaning3 As a result the most engaging questions anddebates in L2 pedagogy are no longer about whether CLT should in-clude FFI but rather how and when it is most effective This articlecompares the role of FFI in lessons that are isolated from communicativeor content-based interaction with that of FFI that is integrated withinactivities where the primary emphasis remains on meaning (eg in tasksor content-based lessons) Some teachers and students have strong opin-ions about this question (see Barkhuizen 1998 Yorio 1986) but re-searchers have not directly compared the effects of integrating or isolat-ing form-focused and meaning-focused practice in CLT and CBI pro-grams

There are theoretical and pedagogical arguments for both isolationand integration of form and meaning in L2 instruction In our view

2 These studies differ in several ways including the degree of explicitness of instructionNonetheless they can all be categorized as studies of FFI using the broad definition of FFIas proposed by Ellis (2001) This includes the primarily metalinguistic instruction associ-ated with more traditional approaches to L2 teaching as evidenced in Sheen (2005) as wellas instruction that is more implicit in nature drawing learnersrsquo attention to form infunctional and meaning-based contexts as evidenced in Harley (1989)

3 We thank the anonymous TESOL Quarterly reviewer who reminded us that all grammaticalforms have meaning and that a simple binary distinction between form and meaning isproblematic We agree and use this terminology as a kind of shorthand referring to anemphasis on the structural or semantic properties of language

184 TESOL QUARTERLY

making a choice between integrated and isolated FFI is not necessary (oradvisable) Rather the challenge is to discover the conditions underwhich isolated and integrated FFI respectively are most appropriateThese conditions are likely to involve a number of factors including thenature of the language feature (eg its complexity and its frequencyand salience in the input) learnersrsquo developmental levels in the acqui-sition of the feature and the relationship between comparable featuresin the learnersrsquo L1 and the L2 Other important factors include teachersrsquoand learnersrsquo preferences for how to teachlearn about form learnersrsquoliteracy and metalinguistic sophistication (especially in their L1) andtheir age and overall L2 proficiency

ISOLATED AND INTEGRATED FFI

Johnson (1982) made a distinction between what he called the unifi-cationist and separationist positions on the teaching of language use andlanguage structure He described the separationist position as one withldquostructure being taught first (through a structural syllabus) followed by asecond communicative stage at which use is taught and where structuresare lsquoactivatedrsquo or lsquorecycledrsquordquo (p 129) According to Johnson the separa-tionist position implies ldquoa divorce between the teaching of forms anduses though other kinds of related separation are often also being im-pliedmdashas between knowledge and its lsquoactivitationrsquo between correctnessand fluencyrdquo (p 129) In contrast from the unificationist perspectiveldquothe divorce of form and use is seen as undesirable and probably alsountenable on linguistic and psycholinguistic grounds The position ar-gues for a communicative framework from the very beginningrdquo (p 129)

Other writers have used different labels to distinguish different typesof FFI Long (1991) has made a distinction between focus on forms andfocus on form Focus on forms refers to lessons in which language featuresare taught or practiced according to a structural syllabus that specifieswhich features are to be taught and in which sequence Focus on formsmight involve teaching approaches as varied as mimicry and memoriza-tion or grammar translation but all are based on the assumption thatlanguage features should be taught systematically one at a time Incontrast Longrsquos focus on form refers to instruction in which the mainemphasis remains on communicative activities or tasks but in which ateacher intervenes to help students use language more accurately whenthe need arises Originally Long (1991) defined focus on form as reac-tive and incidental That is it was limited to those classroom events inwhich the teacher responded to a difficulty that arose as students en-gaged in communicative activities or tasks The language feature that

FORM-FOCUSED INSTRUCTION ISOLATED OR INTEGRATED 185

required focus was not determined in advance More recent interpreta-tions of focus on form have expanded the definition to include instruc-tion in which teachers anticipate that students will have difficulty with aparticular feature as they engage in a communicative task and plan inadvance to target that feature through feedback and other pedagogicalinterventions all the while maintaining a primary focus on meaning(Doughty amp Williams 1998 Long amp Robinson 1998)

In this article we have chosen to use the terms isolated and integratedto describe two approaches to drawing learnersrsquo attention to languageform in L2 instruction4 Isolated FFI is provided in activities that areseparate from the communicative use of language but it occurs as partof a program that also includes CLT andor CBI Isolated FFI may betaught in preparation for a communicative activity or after an activity inwhich students have experienced difficulty with a particular languagefeature In isolated FFI the focus on language form is separated from thecommunicative or content-based activity This approach differs fromLongrsquos focus on forms which refers to language instruction and practiceorganized around predetermined points of grammar in a structural syl-labus that is form-based instruction that is not directly tied to genuinelycommunicative practice

In integrated FFI the learnersrsquo attention is drawn to language formduring communicative or content-based instruction This definition cor-responds to focus on form (both planned and incidental) as defined byEllis (2002a) and by Doughty and Williams (1998) That is although theform focus occurs within a communicative activity the language featuresin focus may have been anticipated and planned for by the teacher orthey may occur incidentally in the course of ongoing interaction

Before discussing the role we see for each approach a few commentsare in order on how the distinction between isolated and integrated FFIis related to other contrasts in L2 research and pedagogy such as inten-tional versus incidental learning (Hulstijn 2003) and explicit versus implicitinstruction (DeKeyser 2003)

4 One reviewer suggested that the term isolated carries ldquoa clearly negative connotationrdquo Weunderstand that interpretation and agree that the term certainly has had that connotationin much writing about language teaching Nevertheless we have chosen to retain this termbecause it allows us to emphasize the importance of instruction in which teachers andstudents focus their attention on language features that are almost impossible to perceiveor acquire when they occur in ordinary communicative interaction either because they areacoustically imperceptible (eg most grammatical morphology in English) or redundantand unlikely to affect comprehension (eg word order in English questions) We suggestthat it is sometimes necessary to isolate such formsmdashmuch as one might place a specimenunder a microscopemdashso that learners have an opportunity to perceive these features andunderstand their function in the language they encounter in communicative interactionAs we have stated previously learners cannot be expected to benefit from brief integratedfocus on form if they do not understand what the teacher is calling their attention to(Lightbown 1998 p 194)

186 TESOL QUARTERLY

Isolated FFI is the provision of instruction in lessons whose primarypurpose is to teach students about a particular language feature becausethe teacher believes that students are unlikely to acquire the featureduring communicative activities without an opportunity to learn aboutthe feature in a situation where its form and meaning can be made clearFrom the teacherrsquos perspective isolated FFI always implies intentionallearning and explicit instruction However classroom observation re-search shows that even in traditional classrooms in which grammar les-sons are based on a structural syllabus students are not always sure of theteacherrsquos intended focus (Slimani 1992) That is the explicitness andintentionality that the teacher has in mind may not be recognized by thestudents

Integrated FFI occurs in classroom activities during which the primaryfocus remains on meaning but in which feedback or brief explanationsare offered to help students express meaning more effectively or moreaccurately within the communicative interaction Some writers seem toassume that drawing learnersrsquo attention to form during meaning-basedactivities always involves implicit feedback and incidental learning butthat is not necessarily the case Again the perceptions of teachers andlearners may be different Adult learners sometimes show that they in-terpret the teacherrsquos implicit feedback (eg in the form of recasts) asexplicit guidance creating an opportunity for intentional languagelearning (eg Ohta 2000 Ellis Basturkmen amp Loewen 2001) Howevereven when they recognize the teacherrsquos implicit feedback as relevant tolanguage form learners may not correctly identify the object of theteacherrsquos attention (see Mackey Gass amp McDonough 2000 for a relatedstudy)

Both isolated and integrated FFI can include explicit feedback onerror metalinguistic terminology the statement of rules and explana-tions Consider the following example of explicit integrated FFI Thecontext is a communicative activity Grade 6 students are playing a gamein which they have to correctly guess the location of different dolls in adoll house to gain enough points to win the game Note that in prepa-ration for the game examples of appropriate questions had been writtenon the board

Student Is George is in the living room

Teacher You said ldquoisrdquo two times dear Listen to youmdashyou said ldquoIs Georgeis in Look on the board ldquoIs George in the rdquo and then yousay the name of the room

Student Is George in the living room

Teacher Yeah

Student I win (Lightbown amp Spada 2006 p 167)

FORM-FOCUSED INSTRUCTION ISOLATED OR INTEGRATED 187

In this example the teacher provided explicit corrective feedback toa student when he made an error of form even though the meaning heconveyed was comprehensible First she drew attention to the errorproviding information as to what the error was Although she explicitlyfocused on form and the student appeared to understand and use thefeedback it seems that this did not interfere with his continuing interestin the ongoing game Such FFI is thus both integrated and explicit Fromthe teacherrsquos perspective the focus on question forms was also inten-tional She had prepared for the activity with an isolated lesson on ques-tion forms writing examples of appropriate questions on the board

Another example of integrated FFI one that includes the statement ofrules and metalinguistic explanations is an activity in which pairs ofstudents respond to truendashfalse (TF) statements about medical historyusing a timeline showing names dates and descriptions of discoveriesSome of the TF statements are expressed in the active voice whileothers are in the passive (eg Freud developed a method for examining mentalprocesses known as psychoanalysis Penicillin was discovered by Alexander Flem-ing in 1928) The focus is on content and meaning As students discusstheir responses to the questions the instructor selects the two TF state-ments above and asks the students to examine them with the followingquestions in mind ldquoWhat is given more emphasis in the first sentencemdashlsquoFreud [the subject] or psychoanalysis [the object]rsquordquo ldquoWhat is moreprominent in the second sentencerdquo This leads into a brief explanation(5 or 6 minutes) of activepassive sentences how they are formed andhow they function using one or two other examples The teacher thenasks students to return to responding to the TF questions using theinformation on the timeline to assist them (See Samuda 2001 for anexample of integrated FFI targeting the use of modal auxiliaries)

One final note is essential before we discuss the different roles ofisolated and integrated FFI For purposes of the discussion we presentthese approaches as if they were entirely distinct It is clear however thatthey are really the ends of a continuum especially as we are examiningtheir role within CLT and CBI contexts for teaching and learning Thatis we do not see isolated and integrated FFI as being in competition witheach other rather we see them as complementary parts of a completelanguage learning environment Although we are convinced that there isa role for isolated FFI we see it as occurring within instruction that isprimarily interactive and communicative Ultimately the ability to uselanguage automatically in communicative settings requires experience indoing exactly that Providing integrated FFI in CLT and CBI contexts isthe instructional model that has the greatest potential for facilitating thedevelopment of fluent and accurate language that is available for useoutside the classroom We concur with DeKeyser (1998) who in hiscritique of rote drill in audiolingual language teaching commented that

188 TESOL QUARTERLY

practice is valuable for language learning when it involves practice inldquoconveying personal meaningsrdquo (pp 53ndash54)

The Role of Integrated FFI

In the pedagogical literature there is considerable support for inte-grating form focus within communicative activities as well as consider-able skepticism about the effectiveness of instruction that separates formfocus from meaningful interaction (see eg Calveacute 1994) Celce-Murcia(1991) argues that ldquogrammar should never be taught as an end in itselfbut always with reference to meaning social factors or discoursemdashor acombination of these factorsrdquo (pp 466ndash467) Brumfit (1984) asserts thatldquoteachers should not prevent learners from combining a concernwith language use with worry about formal accuracy in terms of specificlanguage itemsrdquo (p 53) Brumfitrsquos assertion may be taken as evidencethat for some learners at least feedback that comes during communi-cative interaction may have a positive effect on motivation5 Knowingthat help is available when it is needed may respond to the expectationsand preferences of studentsmdashespecially adult studentsmdashin languageclasses (see Cathcart amp Olsen 1976 Schulz 1996 2001)

Theoretical support for integration comes from both SLA and cogni-tive psychology Long (1991) has argued that focus on language formshould be fully integrated into ongoing communicative interaction Infact as noted earlier in some of his writing Long (eg 1991) arguedthat teachers should provide focus on form only on those languagefeatures that occur naturally in the course of a task or activity in whichstudents are using the language in meaningful interaction In his revisedinteraction hypothesis Long (1996) states that while comprehensibleinput and meaningful interaction provide the raw material for languageacquisition they also provide the ideal context for spontaneous (ieintegrated) attention to language form Other SLA concepts such asnegotiation of form (Lyster 1994a 1994b) and metatalk (Swain amp Lapkin2002) also point to the benefits of reflecting on language form duringcommunicative language use There are differences among these theo-retical constructs but all of them are compatible with the hypothesis thatwhile instruction may not directly alter learnersrsquo underlying languagesystems it can help them notice features in the input making it more

5 It is important to note that we do not equate integrated FFI with CLT As evident in theresearch literature and in classroom practice CLT has many different meanings some ofwhich include no attention to language form (ie the strong version of CLT) and othersthat include attention to form albeit in different ways (see Howatt 1984 and Spada 2006afor discussions of the evolution and interpretations of CLT)

FORM-FOCUSED INSTRUCTION ISOLATED OR INTEGRATED 189

likely that they will acquire them (Gass 1997 Lightbown 1998 Schmidt1990)

One theoretical approach that has recently been used to explain thepossible benefits of integrated FFI is transfer appropriate processing (TAP)According to TAP learners retrieve knowledge best if the processes forretrieval are similar to those that were used in the learning condition(Blaxton 1989 Franks Bilbrey Lien amp McNamara 2000 Morris Brans-ford amp Franks 1977) In addition the situation objects and events thatare present at the time of learning are connected through a network ofassociations Therefore retrieval is likely to be easier when learners findthemselves using similar processes or in the presence of the same objectsor situations

TAP has only recently begun to receive attention in the SLA literaturebut research on bilingualsrsquo memory for lexical items provides some in-dications of what SLA research may reveal In these studies bilingualparticipants are consistently more successful in retrieving the words theylearned when the testing tasks are similar to the learning tasks (BasdenBonilla-Meeks amp Basden 1994 Durgunoglu amp Roediger 1987) Re-search on the learning and retrieval of more complex units of languageremains to be done However it seems that TAP would predict thatlanguage learned during communicative activities in which learnersrsquo at-tention is briefly drawn to form (ie integrated FFI) would be moreeasily retrieved in communicative situations than say on decontextual-ized tests In contrast L2 knowledge learned outside communicativeactivities in isolated FFI would be more difficult to retrieve in commu-nicative situations outside the classroom (Doherty Hilberg Pinal ampTharp 2003 Segalowitz amp Gatbonton 1995 Segalowitz amp Lightbown1999) This hypothesis is consistent with the observation of many teach-ers and researchers Students who perform well on tests are not neces-sarily fluent users of the test items in spontaneous speech just as manyfluent speakers whose language acquisition has taken place primarilyoutside the classroom perform poorly on tests requiring metalinguisticknowledge or the retrieval of individual language features outside acommunicative context

Although support for integrated FFI comes primarily from theoreticalextrapolations and pedagogical principles there is also some evidence ofits effectiveness in classroom-based studies of CLT and CBI In our re-search in intensive ESL classes that were almost exclusively meaning-focused young students were successful in acquiring certain languagefeatures when their teachers provided ongoing integrated FFI on a lim-ited number of these features (Lightbown 1991 Lightbown amp Spada1990) Those receiving integrated FFI were substantially more likely toacquire these features than students in classes where there was never anyattention to form Research in French immersion programs (Day amp

190 TESOL QUARTERLY

Shapson 1991 Harley 1989 1998 Lyster 1994a 1994b 2004) and inother content-based and communicative classrooms with child and adultESL learners (Doughty amp Varela 1998 R Ellis Basturkmen amp Loewen2001 Williams amp Evans 1998) also supports the hypothesis that attentionto language form within the context of communicative practice can leadto progress in learnersrsquo language development Although this progresshas been observed in the short term for most studies long-term improve-ment has also been reported (eg Spada amp Lightbown 1993) Howeverthe research in CLT and CBI classes was not designed to directly inves-tigate the different roles of integrated and isolated FFI That is none ofthe studies compared the outcomes of L2 learners receiving isolated FFIwith learners receiving integrated FFI

Jeanrsquos (2005) study of French as a second language (nonimmersion)in a Canadian secondary school provides some related evidence of theeffectiveness of integrated FFI Jean designed an experimental study inwhich learners either (a) practiced target forms in mechanical drills thatwere separate from the communicative activities in which the forms wereexpected to be used later or (b) received FFI during ongoing meaning-based activities She found no difference in the two groupsrsquo ability to usethe target forms on subsequent measures of accuracy However shefound that students whose FFI had been integrated with meaningfulcommunicative activities used the forms with a greater variety of vocabu-lary Jean concludes that at least for the verb morphology targeted in herstudy isolated mechanical drills were not a necessary step in L2 teachingand that integrated FFI was an effective way of teaching certain verbforms She also found that the high school students in her study did notexpress a clear preference for one type of instruction over the other

The Role of Isolated FFI

Stern (1992) asserted that although ldquocommunicative activities are anessential component of a language curriculum there is a still a place fora separate analytic language syllabusrdquo (p 180 emphasis added) Morerecently Ellis (2002b) has argued that ldquowe [should] teach grammarseparately making no attempt to integrate it with the task-based com-ponent (except perhaps methodologically through feedback)rdquo (p 32)One frequently heard argument in support of isolating FFI is related tomaintaining learnersrsquo positive motivation The concern is that learnerswill become discouraged or disinterested if their attention is drawn toform while they are trying to engage in communicative practice (seeeg Raimes 2002) Thus it is sometimes suggested that teachers makenote of problems that arise during interaction activities and then bringthem up for instruction and explanation in separate isolated activities

FORM-FOCUSED INSTRUCTION ISOLATED OR INTEGRATED 191

outside the communicative activity As noted earlier however there isrelatively little evidence that language learners themselves object to FFIthat occurs during communicative activities

Some pedagogical and theoretical arguments to support the separa-tion of form and communicative practice include the assumption thatFFI should precede communicative use of a new language feature Thereis a long and strong tradition in the field of L2 teaching that the firstphase in a lesson is the presentation of a specific language form Thispresentation phase is followed by controlled practice (pattern practicestructural drills etc) and only later by activities that permit more sponta-neous use of language In a controversial article Higgs and Clifford (1982)argued that ldquothe premature immersion of a student into an unstructuredor lsquofreersquo conversational setting before certain fundamental linguistic struc-tures are more or less in place is not done without costrdquo (pp 73ndash74)

More recently drawing on research in cognitive psychology specifi-cally in the early work of Anderson (1982) on skill acquisition theoryDeKeyser (1998) has argued that ldquogrammar should first be taught ex-plicitly to achieve a maximum of understanding and then should befollowed by some exercises to anchor it solidly in the studentsrsquo conscious-ness in declarative form so that it is easy to keep in mind during com-municative exercisesrdquo (p 58) In the framework of this article DeKey-serrsquos first two phases (explicit instruction and anchoring exercises) rep-resent isolated FFI although our definition of isolated FFI includes thepossibility that such instruction may occur after students have discoveredthe need for certain language features during communicative activity6

Further support for isolated FFI comes from information processingtheory which argues that because the human mind has limited process-ing capacity it is difficult for learners to focus on form and meaning atthe same time (Ellis 1997) VanPatten (1990) suggested that noticingsome aspects of language form (eg verb morphology) while trying tograsp the meaning of a text may be particularly problematic for begin-ning learners VanPatten and his colleagues have shown how isolatingspecific features of the target language in the input can help learnerschange the way they process certain formndashmeaning mappings (VanPat-ten 1996 2004 VanPatten amp Cadierno 1993)

Recent studies by Barcroft (2002) and Trofimovich (2005) also illus-trate situations in which isolated FFI may be beneficial to students Inthese studies students were exposed to the material to be learned eitherin contexts where they needed to focus on form while also processingsemantic aspects of the language to be learned or where some formalfeature was itself the primary focus Both Barcroft and Trofimovich

6 Doughty and Williams (1998) refer to the work by DeKeyser and Lightbown regarding thesequencing of FFI as sequential focus on form

192 TESOL QUARTERLY

found that attention to meaning was associated with poorer recall offormal features such as the spelling or pronunciation of words Theyinterpreted their findings in terms of the TAP hypothesis As notedearlier according to TAP the best predictor of success in retrievinginformation is the degree of similarity between the conditions and pro-cessing demands present during learning and those present during re-trieval Thus a learning task in which cognitive effort is devoted tosemantic features of a word is not a good preparation for a test in whichlearners need to retrieve information about perceptual or formal fea-tures of the word If the assessment task requires learners to recall orrecognize the correct spelling or pronunciation of a word the learningtask should create conditions in which learners can devote more pro-cessing capacity to those features To be sure the goal of most languagelearning is ultimately to be able to use language forms correctly in com-municative contexts that include multiple demands on attention How-ever what the research by VanPatten Barcroft and Trofimovich shows isthat such contexts may not be conducive to the initial perception andinterpretation of certain language features

To our knowledge no empirical classroom-based research directlycompares the effects of isolated and integrated instruction7 It is impor-tant to keep in mind that our definition of isolated FFI is attention to formin separate lessons that occur within a program that is primarily com-municative in orientation In that sense it is not the same as Longrsquosdefinition of focus on forms which is associated with traditional discrete-point metalinguistic instruction provided in a context where little or nomeaning-based instruction or practice occurs Similarly our definition ofintegrated FFI is not the same as Longrsquos original definition of focus on formwhich includes only reactive FFI whereas integrated FFI includes bothreactive and proactive FFI In this way our definition of integrated FFI issimilar to Ellisrsquos (2001) definition of planned and incidental focus on form

7 A reviewer argues that such studies do exist and points to Sheen (2005) as an exampleWhile Sheenrsquos study does show the benefits of instruction in helping young francophonestudents make more accurate use of questions and the placement of adverbs in Englishsentences it is not a comparison of integrated and isolated FFI as we define them in thispaper As we read the report of that research it seems to show that the students in thecomparison group received almost no FFI at all It is important to emphasize again thatintegrated FFI is not simply a synonym for CLT with little or no attention to language formIntegrated FFI includes brief explanations corrective feedback explicit elicitations ofcorrect forms and input enhancement provided within the context of meaning-basedinstruction Sheenrsquos description of the comparison class in his study indicates that theinstructor did not make any special attempt to integrate FFI related to questions andadverbs in his regular classroom activities In the experimental class students receivedinstruction that is best described as focus on forms not as isolated FFI The distinctionbetween the two is that isolated FFI is provided in separate lessons that are directly relatedto the activities within a communicative or content-based syllabus whereas focus on formslessons typically occur within a structural syllabus that is not closely linked to the ongoingcommunicative activities

FORM-FOCUSED INSTRUCTION ISOLATED OR INTEGRATED 193

This review of the theoretical pedagogical and empirical support forintegrated and isolated instruction indicates that there are arguments onboth sides and that the choice between the two is likely not an absoluteone but rather a choice that is dependent on other factors In the nextsection we outline some of those factors

FACTORS THAT INFLUENCE THE CHOICE OFISOLATED OR INTEGRATED FFI

SLA research shows that some linguistic features are acquired inciden-tally that is without intentional effort or conscious awareness by learnersor guidance from teachers However it is also evident that some lan-guage features develop very slowly or not at all in the absence of guidedattention and that some types of FFI can increase the likelihood thatlearners will make progress in learning these features (Norris amp Ortega2000) Some language features develop according to a natural sequenceof stages that is not altered by instruction (For overviews see Ellis 1994Gass amp Selinker 2001 Lightbown amp Spada 2006 Mitchell amp Myles1998) However while instruction may have only a limited effect on thepath learners follow through developmental sequences it may affect therate at which learners pass through a sequence (see eg Ellis 1989Larsen-Freeman amp Long 1991 Mackey amp Philp 1998 Pienemann 1989Spada amp Lightbown 1993) Several factors may influence the relation-ship between instruction and learning outcomes These factors are dy-namic changing over the course of learnersrsquo language acquisition andwithin different teaching contexts8

L1 Influence

One hypothesis is that isolated FFI is particularly useful when the L1has a strong influence on L2 forms Errors caused by L1 influence can beproblematic in classrooms where learners share the same first languageand reinforce each otherrsquos L1-based errors (Lightbown 1991 Lyster1987) In situations like these isolated FFI may be needed to clarifymisleading similarities between the L1 and L2 Harley (1993) points tothe distinction between French avoirecirctre and havebe in English as anexample Isolated FFI may also help in those cases where learners havedeveloped based on L1 influence an interlanguage rule that is more

8 We thank one of the anonymous reviewers for emphasizing the dynamic nature of thefactors that influence instructional choices

194 TESOL QUARTERLY

general than the related rule in the L2 White (1991) discusses thisproblem with specific reference to differences between adverb place-ment in French and English subject-verb-object sentences and advocatesisolated FFI as a way of helping learners perceive those differences

Salience in the Input

Isolated FFI may be beneficial with features that are relatively simpleto explain or illustrate but are not particularly salient in oral languageDrawing attention to them in isolation may help learners seehear lan-guage features they have not been noticing in the input the first step onthe path to acquisition Although some studies have reported benefits ofinput enhancement that is increasing frequency andor salience of lan-guage features in the input (Alanen 1995 Doughty 1991) others havereported partial or no benefits (Spada amp Lightbown 1999 Trahey ampWhite 1993 White 1998) These conflicting findings appear to be re-lated to differences in the kind of enhancement More explicit enhance-ment appears to lead to more L2 progress than less explicit enhance-ment (Norris amp Ortega 2000)9 This finding suggests that isolated FFImight be useful for creating the necessary salience to help learners no-tice language forms that occur frequently but are semantically redun-dant or phonologically reduced or imperceptible in the oral input Suchforms could include for example third-person -s in English and adjec-tive agreement morphology in French

Input Frequency

Isolated FFI may also help ensure that students have opportunities tolearn forms that are rare or absent in the language they are exposed toin the CLT or CBI classroom Lyster (1994b) reports findings to supportthis idea in his investigation of the effects of FFI on the learning of thesociolinguistic distinction between second-person pronouns tu and vousin French immersion classrooms Students were familiar with the singu-larplural distinction between these two words but the social dynamicsof the classroom in which they were learning French did not give themopportunities to observe the politeness distinctions that are signaled bythe different pronoun forms Lyster developed an instructional interven-

9 It may also be that explicit instruction seems to have some benefits because the assessmentmeasures used favor explicit knowledge (see Doughty 2003 for discussion) Norris andOrtega (2000 p 501) themselves acknowledge this possibility but argue that their findingscannot be explained by this single variable

FORM-FOCUSED INSTRUCTION ISOLATED OR INTEGRATED 195

tion that included opportunities for isolated FFI Drawing studentsrsquo at-tention to this distinction probably prepared them to notice the use ofthe forms in the communicative and integrated FFI activities that fol-lowed and their ability to use these forms improved significantly

Rule Complexity

It has been suggested that integrated FFI may be a more appropriateapproach to instruction for language features that are complex and haverules that are difficult to describe However although there is someintuitive agreement about a distinction between hard and easy rules it isnot always clear what is meant by these terms (see Hulstijn 1995 Hulstijnamp DeGraaff 1994 for useful attempts to define them) Furthermore asDeKeyser (2003) points out in addition to the inherent difficulty of aform or a rule there is also subjective difficulty ldquoRule difficulty is anindividual issue that can be described as the ratio of the rulersquos inherentlinguistic complexity to the studentsrsquo ability to handle such a rulemdasha ruleof moderate difficulty for one student may be easy for a student withmore language learning aptitude or language learning experiencerdquo (p331)

A fairly widespread assumption in the SLA literature is that that whileeasy rules can be taught hard rules are by their very nature too complexto be successfully taught in isolated instruction and thus are difficult tolearn through traditional explanation and practice pedagogy that is iso-lated from communicative use of the language Thus integrated FFI maybe more suitable for complexabstract features such as the article sys-tem in English In laboratory studies to investigate the learning of simpleand complex morphosyntactic rules DeKeyser (1995) and Robinson(1996) provide some support for this idea Participants in those studieslearned simple morphosyntactic rules better under conditions of ex-plicit-deductive learning and more complex rules better under implicit-inductive conditions Conclusions drawn from these studies remain con-troversial however and are perhaps best seen as hypotheses in need offurther study

Communicative Value

Integrated FFI may also be particularly useful with features in whicherrors are more likely to lead to communication breakdowns (eg En-glish possessive pronouns his and her) Lightbown (1998) suggests thatL2 learners at various levels of proficiency are more likely to be able tofocus on form and meaning at the same time when the ldquoform in focus ( )

196 TESOL QUARTERLY

is an important carrier of the meaning in focusrdquo (p 192) However whenerrors do not interfere with meaning (eg the absence of inversion inquestions such as What she is reading) isolation from communicativeinteraction may be necessary if learners are to notice the differencebetween what they say and the correct way to say what they mean (SpadaLightbown amp White 2005) The relative importance of using the rightword as compared with using the right grammar is also reflected inSchwartzrsquos (1993) observation that instruction and feedback are morelikely to lead to changes in learnersrsquo knowledge and use of lexical itemsthan of morphology and syntax Mackey Gass and McDonough (2000)have observed that recasts a typical characteristic of integrated FFI aremore likely to be noticed when the element being recast is a lexical itemthan when it is a morphosyntactic element (see also Lyster 1998)

Learnersrsquo Developmental Level

Once a language feature has emerged in learnersrsquo interlanguage (seePienemann 1998) more fluent and accurate use of that feature may bestbe encouraged through integrated FFI Several studies on FFI have re-ported that L2 learners benefit most from FFI when they are at a devel-opmental level in their language acquisition that enables them to com-pare their use of particular forms with that of native and more proficientspeakers (Mackey amp Philp 1998 Spada amp Lightbown 1999) Related tothis finding is the observation that learnersrsquo receptive and productiveabilities do not develop in the same way or at the same rate Howeverrecent research investigating the effects of both input- (ie comprehen-sion) and output- (ie production) based practice on L2 developmentindicates that both comprehension and production improve as long asthe practice is meaningful and learners are encouraged to make formndashmeaning connections (Morgan-Short amp Wood Bowden 2006 see alsoDeKeyser 1998)

As noted earlier learners may need isolated FFI such as VanPattenrsquosprocessing instruction to help them detect and understand formndashmeaning relationships for language features that have low salience lowfrequency or low communicative value Once the features have emergedin the interlanguage or once the formndashmeaning connections have beenmade the development of greater fluency is likely to be favored byintegrated FFI Ammar and Spada (2006) found that French-speakingchildren who were already more proficient in using possessive determin-ers his and her were able to take advantage of integrated instructionwhether in the form of recasts (where the teacher provides the correctform) or prompts (where the teacher elicits a correction from the stu-dent) However students who were less proficient benefited more from

FORM-FOCUSED INSTRUCTION ISOLATED OR INTEGRATED 197

prompts than recasts suggesting that they had greater difficulty recog-nizing the purpose of the feedback

Learnersrsquo Age

In general older learners especially those with experience in thestudy of their own or other languages are more receptive to isolatedgrammatical instruction (see eg Barkhuizen 1998) Outside the class-room in environments where they are completely immersed in the tar-get language very young learners often acquire L2 proficiency with littleor no FFI Older children adolescents and adults however appear tobenefit from instruction and may even depend on it because of the waysin which their language-learning abilities differ from those of youngchildren (Bley-Vroman 1988 DeKeyser 2000) especially if their contactwith the language is limited to the second or foreign language classroom

Research in CLT and CBI contexts has shown that children do notalways recognize integrated FFI (including enhanced input and implicitrecasts) as responses to language form rather than meaning (eg Lysteramp Ranta 1997) However they do respond to integrated feedback whichis explicit (eg through the use of emphasis prompting and elicitationas well as other nonverbal signals see eg Ammar amp Spada 2006Doughty amp Varela 1998 Lyster 2004) or which is provided within thecontext of language teaching where the overall orientation includes astrong focus on language form (Lyster amp Mori 2006) Adult learners ina variety of language learning contexts have been shown to be moreaware of integrated FFI as feedback on language form (see eg EllisBasturkmen amp Loewen 2001 Ohta 2000)

Language-Learning Aptitude

Learners who perform well on language aptitude tests or have moremetalinguistic knowledge and skill in their L1 may be better able tonotice and focus on language form within a communicative context thanthose with poorer aptitude and metalinguistic ability It has been hypoth-esized that learners with poor metalinguistic skills in their own languagemay require more explicit (possibly isolated) instruction to help themidentify some formndashmeaning connections (Ranta 2002) Mackey PhilpEgi Fujii and Tomoaki (2002) found that adult learners with higherscores on tests of working memory were more likely to report that theynoticed interactional (integrated) feedback in the form of recasts (seealso Robinson 2002)

198 TESOL QUARTERLY

Learner and Teacher Preferences for How to Teach or LearnAbout Form

Research on studentsrsquo beliefs and opinions about FFI (ie instructionand corrective feedback) has revealed that teachersrsquo and studentsrsquo viewsoften differ In two large-scale studies Schulz (1996 2001) found thatvirtually all students expressed a desire to have their errors corrected butvery few teachers felt this was desirable In addition students were morelikely than teachers to say that formal study of the language is ldquoessentialto the eventual mastery of a [foreign language]rdquo (2001 p 247) Mis-matches like these have long been reported in the literature (Cathcart ampOlsen 1976 Yorio 1986) The effects of matches and mismatches on L2learning have also been investigated (eg Spada 1987 Wesche 1981)and there is some evidence that learners benefit most from instructionthat suits their preferences (see Doumlrnyei 2005 for summary and discus-sion)

Other factors such as individual learning styles and previous experi-ence learning languages can also lead to different preferences for learn-ing As indicated earlier some L2 learners who have learned languagesvia traditional structure-based approaches often have strong preferencesfor continuing to learn via isolated grammar practice Other L2 learnerswho have learned languages informally may respond more positively toFFI that is integrated with meaning What is clear is that characteristicssuch as these can interact with type of instruction in complex waysleading to more or less successful learning (Skehan 1989)

It is not only learners who have different preferences for isolatedandor integrated FFI So do teachers Research on teacher cognitionhas revealed that L2 teachers often teach grammar in the way in whichthey were taught it themselves (Borg 2003 Farrell 1999) There is alsoevidence of a direct relationship between what teachers know aboutgrammar and how they teach it That is the extent to which grammar istaught deductively depends on how much metalinguistic knowledgeteachers possess (Borg 2001 Brumfit Mitchell amp Hooper 1996) Ofcourse there are L2 instructors who do not believe that grammar in-struction is useful In a study comparing second (English) and foreign(French) language instruction Mitchell and Hooper (1992) observedthat the English teachers rarely focused on language or explicit grammarwork but the foreign language teachers regularly did so When inter-viewed about this finding the English teachers expressed the opinionthat this type of activity was not of primary importance for developingstudentsrsquo linguistic abilitymdasha response that is not atypical of L2 instruc-tors who have adopted the strong version of CLT

It is often observed that teachers who are teaching their own nativelanguage may not have as good a grasp of the formal grammar of the

FORM-FOCUSED INSTRUCTION ISOLATED OR INTEGRATED 199

language as those whose learning has included form-focused L2 instruc-tion In a study of teachersrsquo practices Borg (1998) observed that deci-sions to include explicit formal instruction are not always based on teach-ersrsquo belief that grammar instruction works but rather on their belief thatstudents expect it He also observed that when teaching grammar teach-ers do not necessarily adhere exclusively to one particular approach(eg deductive or inductive) but will combine and alternate betweenthem Similarly in a study of 48 teachersrsquo attitudes to explicit or implicitteaching of grammar in an English for academic purposes (EAP) pro-gram Burgess and Etherington (2002) report that the majority of teach-ers believed that it is useful to integrate grammar within authentic textsrather than teach it explicitly using a grammatical syllabus At the sametime however they also expressed the belief that not all grammaticalknowledge can be learned implicitly and thus advocated explicit instruc-tion as well In our research investigating the preferences of teachers andadult learners for integrated or isolated FFI we have found that neithergroup expresses a consistent preference for one over the other Theyvalue both (Spada 2006b)

CONCLUSION

Research and theory suggest that there is a role in CLT and CBI forboth isolated and integrated FFI Each type of instruction may play adifferent role in promoting language acquisition Research and experi-ence in CLT and CBI affirm that not all language features need to betaught in isolated lessons Instead the current research on classroomlearning shows that incidental learning allows students to acquire a greatdeal of language while focused on meaning in CLT and CBI The addi-tion of integrated FFI can contribute to the automatization of languagefeatures that have emerged in studentsrsquo language but that are not usedreliably when there are competing demands for attention

Integrated FFI includes a wide range of approaches including thekind of implicit feedback that occurs as the need or opportunity arisesas well as the kind of planned interaction that requires the repeated butnatural use of a particular language form Nevertheless isolated lessonsmay be useful or even essential in promoting the acquisition of somelanguage features These features include those that are hard to perceivein the normal stream of communicative speech those for which there isa misleading similarity to the L1 and those that are unlikely to causecommunication breakdown We are currently designing quasi-experimental studies to explore the contributions of both types of FFI

The importance of isolated lessons will be determined by differences

200 TESOL QUARTERLY

in the specific language feature that is being taught as well as by differ-ences in learnersrsquo and teachersrsquo characteristics abilities and prefer-ences We find no evidence to support a suggestion that isolated gram-mar lessons without opportunities for communicative language useshould again become the dominant approach to language instructionIsolated lessons are a starting point or a follow-up for communicative orcontent-based activities Above all they should not be expected to resultin studentsrsquo immediate incorporation of the feature in focus into theircommunicative language use Nevertheless such lessons can preparestudents to make the best use of opportunities for continuing their lan-guage acquisition in meaning-focused activities and integrated FFI whenit occurs

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

The reviewers who provided feedback on earlier versions of the manuscript helpedus to make this a better article We did not always agree with the reviewers (whoindeed strongly disagreed with each other) but their feedback helped us under-stand and present our own views better We are also grateful to the graduate studentsand research assistants in N Spadarsquos research group at OISEUT for their insightfulcomments on this manuscript and related literature

THE AUTHORS

Nina Spada is a professor in the Second Language Education program at OISEUniversity of Toronto Ontario Canada where she teaches courses in L2 teachingand learning Her research focuses on the contributions of form-focused instructionto the L2 development of children and adults in communicative programs

Patsy M Lightbown is Distinguished Professor Emeritus of Concordia UniversityMontreal Canada and a former president of AAAL Her research explores relation-ships between L2 teaching and learning especially for children and adolescents

REFERENCES

Alanen R (1995) Input enhancement and rule presentation in second languageacquisition In R Schmidt (Ed) Attention and awareness in foreign language learningand teaching (pp 259ndash302) Honolulu University of Hawairsquoi Press

Ammar A amp Spada N (2006) One size fits all Recasts prompts and L2 learningStudies in Second Language Acquisition 28 543ndash574

Anderson J (1982) Acquisition of cognitive skill Psychological Review 89 369ndash406Barcroft J (2002) Semantic and structural elaboration in L2 lexical acquisition

Language Learning 52 323ndash363Barkhuizen G P (1998) Discovering learnersrsquo perceptions of ESL classroom teach-

inglearning activities in a South African context TESOL Quarterly 32 85ndash108

FORM-FOCUSED INSTRUCTION ISOLATED OR INTEGRATED 201

learner It has been hypothesized that in CBI ldquolanguage learning mayeven become incidental to learning about the contentrdquo (Snow Met ampGenesee 1992 p 28) However some researchers have observed thatgood content teaching may not always be good language teaching(Swain 1988) and since the introduction of CLT and CBI debates havecontinued about whether and if so how attention to language formshould be included in approaches to language instruction that are pri-marily meaning-focused

THE ROLE OF FORM-FOCUSED INSTRUCTION

Some individuals especially those who begin learning as young childrenacquire high levels of second language ability without form-focused in-struction (FFI) This outcome supports the hypothesis that FFI is notnecessary for SLA However it is rare for students in second or foreignlanguage classes to reach such high levels Some claim that this failure tomaster a new language is due to physiological changes that occur withage Others point to the limitations inherent in classroom contextsWhatever the reason learners who begin learning when they are beyondearly childhood especially those whose exposure to the target languageoccurs primarily or exclusively in classrooms where other students sharethe same L1 appear to benefit from FFI that helps them make moreefficient use of their limited exposure to the sounds words and sen-tences of the language they are learning (Lightbown amp Spada 2006)One thing is certain Language acquisition is not an event that occurs inan instant or as a result of exposure to a language form a languagelesson or corrective feedback It is an evolving and dynamic phenom-enon that is perhaps better characterized by the word development (sug-gesting ongoing change) than by the word acquisition (if this is taken tomean that the language user has complete and irrevocable possession ofsome linguistic knowledge or behavior)1

Some SLA researchers have hypothesized that when instruction fo-cuses on the language itself it is beneficial only in marginal ways and mayeven have a negative impact on language acquisition (Krashen 19821994 Truscott 1996 1999) They argue that at most explicit FFI alterslanguage performance but does not change learnersrsquo underlying gram-mar which develops only through exposure to the language in naturalinteraction In their view instruction may allow second language (L2)users to acquire metalinguistic knowledge but this kind of knowledge isprocessed and stored separately from language that is acquired through

1 See Norris and Ortega (2003) for a review and discussion of definitions and measurementsof second language knowledge and skill

182 TESOL QUARTERLY

interactive language use (Schwartz 1993 Sharwood Smith 2004 seeEllis 2005 for review)

Some of the empirical work investigating the kind of knowledge thatis acquired during form-focused instruction has shown that FFI can playa role in helping classroom learners in CLT and CBI use their L2 withgreater fluency and accuracy (eg Spada amp Lightbown 1993 Lyster2004) and to use language forms that represent more advanced devel-opmental levels (eg Doughty amp Varela 1998) In these studies effortswere made to develop tasks that elicited samples of spontaneous oralproduction In a meta-analysis of the instructed SLA research Norris andOrtega (2000) also report benefits for FFI in particular the positiveeffects of explicit instruction on L2 learning However the majority ofstudies included in the meta-analysis used discrete-point metalinguistictests as measures of instructional effectiveness This bias has led to thecall for more studies to examine the benefits of instruction on implicitknowledge (Doughty 2003 Ellis 2002a Norris amp Ortega 2000)

Improvements in language performance may reflect learnersrsquo abilityto make appropriate use of units of language that they have learned aswhole unanalyzed chunks during form-focused practice or to use meta-linguistic knowledge they have acquired during grammar lessons tomonitor their output When learners produce language under condi-tions of time pressure or competing demands on attention they mayreveal that the underlying internal grammar of their interlanguage hasnot been substantially affected Even if this is the case however learnersrsquoability to use language with greater accuracy and fluencymdashat least insome circumstancesmdashcan contribute to language acquisition in severalways For example in producing monitored or unanalyzed chunks oflanguage learners can create for themselves a sort of input and feedbackloop that provides them with samples of the language that may be in-corporated into their underlying grammatical systems later when theyare developmentally ready (Lightbown 1998 Sharwood Smith 2004)Another possible advantage of this ability to produce more correct oradvanced language is that the contextually appropriate use of unana-lyzed andor monitored language allows learners to keep interactionsgoing thereby increasing their access to language input (Krashen1982) Further the ability to use unanalyzed chunks of language mayfree cognitive resources for use in attending to external input (Ellis2005) Some language acquisition theories assume a more direct rela-tionship between metalinguistic or formulaic knowledge and spontane-ous language use Skill acquisition theorists hypothesize that languagelearned first as metalinguistic knowledge can through repeated mean-ingful practice eventually become so well incorporated and automatizedthat the language user forgets the metalinguistic information and mayforget having learned it in the first place (DeKeyser 2003)

FORM-FOCUSED INSTRUCTION ISOLATED OR INTEGRATED 183

The value of FFI within instruction that is primarily meaning-focusedhas been demonstrated by research conducted in CLT and CBI pro-grams over the past 20 years In addition teachers who have experiencewith the strong version of CLTmdashan exclusive focus on meaning with noattention to language form (Howatt 1984 Spada 2006a)mdashhave ob-served that without FFI some language features never emerge in learn-ersrsquo language and some nontarget forms persist for years Experiencewith CLT and CBI shows that meaning-based exposure to the languageallows L2 learners to develop comprehension skills oral fluency self-confidence and communicative abilities but that they continue to havedifficulties with pronunciation as well as with morphological syntacticand pragmatic features of the L2 (see eg Harley amp Swain 1984 Lyster1987) Research in CLT and CBI classrooms shows that the introductionof FFI has contributed to changes in learnersrsquo knowledge and use ofcertain language features (eg Day amp Shapson 1991 Doughty amp Varela1998 Harley 1989 White Spada Lightbown amp Ranta 1991 Lyster2004 Sheen 2005)2 Advocates of CBI have increasingly emphasized theimportance of planning lessons that have both content objectives and lin-guistic objectives (Echevarria Vogt amp Short 2004 Pica 2002 Schlepper-grell Achugar amp Oteiacuteza 2004)

Thus both research and teaching experience have led to a growingconsensus that instruction is most effective when it includes attention toboth form and meaning3 As a result the most engaging questions anddebates in L2 pedagogy are no longer about whether CLT should in-clude FFI but rather how and when it is most effective This articlecompares the role of FFI in lessons that are isolated from communicativeor content-based interaction with that of FFI that is integrated withinactivities where the primary emphasis remains on meaning (eg in tasksor content-based lessons) Some teachers and students have strong opin-ions about this question (see Barkhuizen 1998 Yorio 1986) but re-searchers have not directly compared the effects of integrating or isolat-ing form-focused and meaning-focused practice in CLT and CBI pro-grams

There are theoretical and pedagogical arguments for both isolationand integration of form and meaning in L2 instruction In our view

2 These studies differ in several ways including the degree of explicitness of instructionNonetheless they can all be categorized as studies of FFI using the broad definition of FFIas proposed by Ellis (2001) This includes the primarily metalinguistic instruction associ-ated with more traditional approaches to L2 teaching as evidenced in Sheen (2005) as wellas instruction that is more implicit in nature drawing learnersrsquo attention to form infunctional and meaning-based contexts as evidenced in Harley (1989)

3 We thank the anonymous TESOL Quarterly reviewer who reminded us that all grammaticalforms have meaning and that a simple binary distinction between form and meaning isproblematic We agree and use this terminology as a kind of shorthand referring to anemphasis on the structural or semantic properties of language

184 TESOL QUARTERLY

making a choice between integrated and isolated FFI is not necessary (oradvisable) Rather the challenge is to discover the conditions underwhich isolated and integrated FFI respectively are most appropriateThese conditions are likely to involve a number of factors including thenature of the language feature (eg its complexity and its frequencyand salience in the input) learnersrsquo developmental levels in the acqui-sition of the feature and the relationship between comparable featuresin the learnersrsquo L1 and the L2 Other important factors include teachersrsquoand learnersrsquo preferences for how to teachlearn about form learnersrsquoliteracy and metalinguistic sophistication (especially in their L1) andtheir age and overall L2 proficiency

ISOLATED AND INTEGRATED FFI

Johnson (1982) made a distinction between what he called the unifi-cationist and separationist positions on the teaching of language use andlanguage structure He described the separationist position as one withldquostructure being taught first (through a structural syllabus) followed by asecond communicative stage at which use is taught and where structuresare lsquoactivatedrsquo or lsquorecycledrsquordquo (p 129) According to Johnson the separa-tionist position implies ldquoa divorce between the teaching of forms anduses though other kinds of related separation are often also being im-pliedmdashas between knowledge and its lsquoactivitationrsquo between correctnessand fluencyrdquo (p 129) In contrast from the unificationist perspectiveldquothe divorce of form and use is seen as undesirable and probably alsountenable on linguistic and psycholinguistic grounds The position ar-gues for a communicative framework from the very beginningrdquo (p 129)

Other writers have used different labels to distinguish different typesof FFI Long (1991) has made a distinction between focus on forms andfocus on form Focus on forms refers to lessons in which language featuresare taught or practiced according to a structural syllabus that specifieswhich features are to be taught and in which sequence Focus on formsmight involve teaching approaches as varied as mimicry and memoriza-tion or grammar translation but all are based on the assumption thatlanguage features should be taught systematically one at a time Incontrast Longrsquos focus on form refers to instruction in which the mainemphasis remains on communicative activities or tasks but in which ateacher intervenes to help students use language more accurately whenthe need arises Originally Long (1991) defined focus on form as reac-tive and incidental That is it was limited to those classroom events inwhich the teacher responded to a difficulty that arose as students en-gaged in communicative activities or tasks The language feature that

FORM-FOCUSED INSTRUCTION ISOLATED OR INTEGRATED 185

required focus was not determined in advance More recent interpreta-tions of focus on form have expanded the definition to include instruc-tion in which teachers anticipate that students will have difficulty with aparticular feature as they engage in a communicative task and plan inadvance to target that feature through feedback and other pedagogicalinterventions all the while maintaining a primary focus on meaning(Doughty amp Williams 1998 Long amp Robinson 1998)

In this article we have chosen to use the terms isolated and integratedto describe two approaches to drawing learnersrsquo attention to languageform in L2 instruction4 Isolated FFI is provided in activities that areseparate from the communicative use of language but it occurs as partof a program that also includes CLT andor CBI Isolated FFI may betaught in preparation for a communicative activity or after an activity inwhich students have experienced difficulty with a particular languagefeature In isolated FFI the focus on language form is separated from thecommunicative or content-based activity This approach differs fromLongrsquos focus on forms which refers to language instruction and practiceorganized around predetermined points of grammar in a structural syl-labus that is form-based instruction that is not directly tied to genuinelycommunicative practice

In integrated FFI the learnersrsquo attention is drawn to language formduring communicative or content-based instruction This definition cor-responds to focus on form (both planned and incidental) as defined byEllis (2002a) and by Doughty and Williams (1998) That is although theform focus occurs within a communicative activity the language featuresin focus may have been anticipated and planned for by the teacher orthey may occur incidentally in the course of ongoing interaction

Before discussing the role we see for each approach a few commentsare in order on how the distinction between isolated and integrated FFIis related to other contrasts in L2 research and pedagogy such as inten-tional versus incidental learning (Hulstijn 2003) and explicit versus implicitinstruction (DeKeyser 2003)

4 One reviewer suggested that the term isolated carries ldquoa clearly negative connotationrdquo Weunderstand that interpretation and agree that the term certainly has had that connotationin much writing about language teaching Nevertheless we have chosen to retain this termbecause it allows us to emphasize the importance of instruction in which teachers andstudents focus their attention on language features that are almost impossible to perceiveor acquire when they occur in ordinary communicative interaction either because they areacoustically imperceptible (eg most grammatical morphology in English) or redundantand unlikely to affect comprehension (eg word order in English questions) We suggestthat it is sometimes necessary to isolate such formsmdashmuch as one might place a specimenunder a microscopemdashso that learners have an opportunity to perceive these features andunderstand their function in the language they encounter in communicative interactionAs we have stated previously learners cannot be expected to benefit from brief integratedfocus on form if they do not understand what the teacher is calling their attention to(Lightbown 1998 p 194)

186 TESOL QUARTERLY

Isolated FFI is the provision of instruction in lessons whose primarypurpose is to teach students about a particular language feature becausethe teacher believes that students are unlikely to acquire the featureduring communicative activities without an opportunity to learn aboutthe feature in a situation where its form and meaning can be made clearFrom the teacherrsquos perspective isolated FFI always implies intentionallearning and explicit instruction However classroom observation re-search shows that even in traditional classrooms in which grammar les-sons are based on a structural syllabus students are not always sure of theteacherrsquos intended focus (Slimani 1992) That is the explicitness andintentionality that the teacher has in mind may not be recognized by thestudents

Integrated FFI occurs in classroom activities during which the primaryfocus remains on meaning but in which feedback or brief explanationsare offered to help students express meaning more effectively or moreaccurately within the communicative interaction Some writers seem toassume that drawing learnersrsquo attention to form during meaning-basedactivities always involves implicit feedback and incidental learning butthat is not necessarily the case Again the perceptions of teachers andlearners may be different Adult learners sometimes show that they in-terpret the teacherrsquos implicit feedback (eg in the form of recasts) asexplicit guidance creating an opportunity for intentional languagelearning (eg Ohta 2000 Ellis Basturkmen amp Loewen 2001) Howevereven when they recognize the teacherrsquos implicit feedback as relevant tolanguage form learners may not correctly identify the object of theteacherrsquos attention (see Mackey Gass amp McDonough 2000 for a relatedstudy)

Both isolated and integrated FFI can include explicit feedback onerror metalinguistic terminology the statement of rules and explana-tions Consider the following example of explicit integrated FFI Thecontext is a communicative activity Grade 6 students are playing a gamein which they have to correctly guess the location of different dolls in adoll house to gain enough points to win the game Note that in prepa-ration for the game examples of appropriate questions had been writtenon the board

Student Is George is in the living room

Teacher You said ldquoisrdquo two times dear Listen to youmdashyou said ldquoIs Georgeis in Look on the board ldquoIs George in the rdquo and then yousay the name of the room

Student Is George in the living room

Teacher Yeah

Student I win (Lightbown amp Spada 2006 p 167)

FORM-FOCUSED INSTRUCTION ISOLATED OR INTEGRATED 187

In this example the teacher provided explicit corrective feedback toa student when he made an error of form even though the meaning heconveyed was comprehensible First she drew attention to the errorproviding information as to what the error was Although she explicitlyfocused on form and the student appeared to understand and use thefeedback it seems that this did not interfere with his continuing interestin the ongoing game Such FFI is thus both integrated and explicit Fromthe teacherrsquos perspective the focus on question forms was also inten-tional She had prepared for the activity with an isolated lesson on ques-tion forms writing examples of appropriate questions on the board

Another example of integrated FFI one that includes the statement ofrules and metalinguistic explanations is an activity in which pairs ofstudents respond to truendashfalse (TF) statements about medical historyusing a timeline showing names dates and descriptions of discoveriesSome of the TF statements are expressed in the active voice whileothers are in the passive (eg Freud developed a method for examining mentalprocesses known as psychoanalysis Penicillin was discovered by Alexander Flem-ing in 1928) The focus is on content and meaning As students discusstheir responses to the questions the instructor selects the two TF state-ments above and asks the students to examine them with the followingquestions in mind ldquoWhat is given more emphasis in the first sentencemdashlsquoFreud [the subject] or psychoanalysis [the object]rsquordquo ldquoWhat is moreprominent in the second sentencerdquo This leads into a brief explanation(5 or 6 minutes) of activepassive sentences how they are formed andhow they function using one or two other examples The teacher thenasks students to return to responding to the TF questions using theinformation on the timeline to assist them (See Samuda 2001 for anexample of integrated FFI targeting the use of modal auxiliaries)

One final note is essential before we discuss the different roles ofisolated and integrated FFI For purposes of the discussion we presentthese approaches as if they were entirely distinct It is clear however thatthey are really the ends of a continuum especially as we are examiningtheir role within CLT and CBI contexts for teaching and learning Thatis we do not see isolated and integrated FFI as being in competition witheach other rather we see them as complementary parts of a completelanguage learning environment Although we are convinced that there isa role for isolated FFI we see it as occurring within instruction that isprimarily interactive and communicative Ultimately the ability to uselanguage automatically in communicative settings requires experience indoing exactly that Providing integrated FFI in CLT and CBI contexts isthe instructional model that has the greatest potential for facilitating thedevelopment of fluent and accurate language that is available for useoutside the classroom We concur with DeKeyser (1998) who in hiscritique of rote drill in audiolingual language teaching commented that

188 TESOL QUARTERLY

practice is valuable for language learning when it involves practice inldquoconveying personal meaningsrdquo (pp 53ndash54)

The Role of Integrated FFI

In the pedagogical literature there is considerable support for inte-grating form focus within communicative activities as well as consider-able skepticism about the effectiveness of instruction that separates formfocus from meaningful interaction (see eg Calveacute 1994) Celce-Murcia(1991) argues that ldquogrammar should never be taught as an end in itselfbut always with reference to meaning social factors or discoursemdashor acombination of these factorsrdquo (pp 466ndash467) Brumfit (1984) asserts thatldquoteachers should not prevent learners from combining a concernwith language use with worry about formal accuracy in terms of specificlanguage itemsrdquo (p 53) Brumfitrsquos assertion may be taken as evidencethat for some learners at least feedback that comes during communi-cative interaction may have a positive effect on motivation5 Knowingthat help is available when it is needed may respond to the expectationsand preferences of studentsmdashespecially adult studentsmdashin languageclasses (see Cathcart amp Olsen 1976 Schulz 1996 2001)

Theoretical support for integration comes from both SLA and cogni-tive psychology Long (1991) has argued that focus on language formshould be fully integrated into ongoing communicative interaction Infact as noted earlier in some of his writing Long (eg 1991) arguedthat teachers should provide focus on form only on those languagefeatures that occur naturally in the course of a task or activity in whichstudents are using the language in meaningful interaction In his revisedinteraction hypothesis Long (1996) states that while comprehensibleinput and meaningful interaction provide the raw material for languageacquisition they also provide the ideal context for spontaneous (ieintegrated) attention to language form Other SLA concepts such asnegotiation of form (Lyster 1994a 1994b) and metatalk (Swain amp Lapkin2002) also point to the benefits of reflecting on language form duringcommunicative language use There are differences among these theo-retical constructs but all of them are compatible with the hypothesis thatwhile instruction may not directly alter learnersrsquo underlying languagesystems it can help them notice features in the input making it more

5 It is important to note that we do not equate integrated FFI with CLT As evident in theresearch literature and in classroom practice CLT has many different meanings some ofwhich include no attention to language form (ie the strong version of CLT) and othersthat include attention to form albeit in different ways (see Howatt 1984 and Spada 2006afor discussions of the evolution and interpretations of CLT)

FORM-FOCUSED INSTRUCTION ISOLATED OR INTEGRATED 189

likely that they will acquire them (Gass 1997 Lightbown 1998 Schmidt1990)

One theoretical approach that has recently been used to explain thepossible benefits of integrated FFI is transfer appropriate processing (TAP)According to TAP learners retrieve knowledge best if the processes forretrieval are similar to those that were used in the learning condition(Blaxton 1989 Franks Bilbrey Lien amp McNamara 2000 Morris Brans-ford amp Franks 1977) In addition the situation objects and events thatare present at the time of learning are connected through a network ofassociations Therefore retrieval is likely to be easier when learners findthemselves using similar processes or in the presence of the same objectsor situations

TAP has only recently begun to receive attention in the SLA literaturebut research on bilingualsrsquo memory for lexical items provides some in-dications of what SLA research may reveal In these studies bilingualparticipants are consistently more successful in retrieving the words theylearned when the testing tasks are similar to the learning tasks (BasdenBonilla-Meeks amp Basden 1994 Durgunoglu amp Roediger 1987) Re-search on the learning and retrieval of more complex units of languageremains to be done However it seems that TAP would predict thatlanguage learned during communicative activities in which learnersrsquo at-tention is briefly drawn to form (ie integrated FFI) would be moreeasily retrieved in communicative situations than say on decontextual-ized tests In contrast L2 knowledge learned outside communicativeactivities in isolated FFI would be more difficult to retrieve in commu-nicative situations outside the classroom (Doherty Hilberg Pinal ampTharp 2003 Segalowitz amp Gatbonton 1995 Segalowitz amp Lightbown1999) This hypothesis is consistent with the observation of many teach-ers and researchers Students who perform well on tests are not neces-sarily fluent users of the test items in spontaneous speech just as manyfluent speakers whose language acquisition has taken place primarilyoutside the classroom perform poorly on tests requiring metalinguisticknowledge or the retrieval of individual language features outside acommunicative context

Although support for integrated FFI comes primarily from theoreticalextrapolations and pedagogical principles there is also some evidence ofits effectiveness in classroom-based studies of CLT and CBI In our re-search in intensive ESL classes that were almost exclusively meaning-focused young students were successful in acquiring certain languagefeatures when their teachers provided ongoing integrated FFI on a lim-ited number of these features (Lightbown 1991 Lightbown amp Spada1990) Those receiving integrated FFI were substantially more likely toacquire these features than students in classes where there was never anyattention to form Research in French immersion programs (Day amp

190 TESOL QUARTERLY

Shapson 1991 Harley 1989 1998 Lyster 1994a 1994b 2004) and inother content-based and communicative classrooms with child and adultESL learners (Doughty amp Varela 1998 R Ellis Basturkmen amp Loewen2001 Williams amp Evans 1998) also supports the hypothesis that attentionto language form within the context of communicative practice can leadto progress in learnersrsquo language development Although this progresshas been observed in the short term for most studies long-term improve-ment has also been reported (eg Spada amp Lightbown 1993) Howeverthe research in CLT and CBI classes was not designed to directly inves-tigate the different roles of integrated and isolated FFI That is none ofthe studies compared the outcomes of L2 learners receiving isolated FFIwith learners receiving integrated FFI

Jeanrsquos (2005) study of French as a second language (nonimmersion)in a Canadian secondary school provides some related evidence of theeffectiveness of integrated FFI Jean designed an experimental study inwhich learners either (a) practiced target forms in mechanical drills thatwere separate from the communicative activities in which the forms wereexpected to be used later or (b) received FFI during ongoing meaning-based activities She found no difference in the two groupsrsquo ability to usethe target forms on subsequent measures of accuracy However shefound that students whose FFI had been integrated with meaningfulcommunicative activities used the forms with a greater variety of vocabu-lary Jean concludes that at least for the verb morphology targeted in herstudy isolated mechanical drills were not a necessary step in L2 teachingand that integrated FFI was an effective way of teaching certain verbforms She also found that the high school students in her study did notexpress a clear preference for one type of instruction over the other

The Role of Isolated FFI

Stern (1992) asserted that although ldquocommunicative activities are anessential component of a language curriculum there is a still a place fora separate analytic language syllabusrdquo (p 180 emphasis added) Morerecently Ellis (2002b) has argued that ldquowe [should] teach grammarseparately making no attempt to integrate it with the task-based com-ponent (except perhaps methodologically through feedback)rdquo (p 32)One frequently heard argument in support of isolating FFI is related tomaintaining learnersrsquo positive motivation The concern is that learnerswill become discouraged or disinterested if their attention is drawn toform while they are trying to engage in communicative practice (seeeg Raimes 2002) Thus it is sometimes suggested that teachers makenote of problems that arise during interaction activities and then bringthem up for instruction and explanation in separate isolated activities

FORM-FOCUSED INSTRUCTION ISOLATED OR INTEGRATED 191

outside the communicative activity As noted earlier however there isrelatively little evidence that language learners themselves object to FFIthat occurs during communicative activities

Some pedagogical and theoretical arguments to support the separa-tion of form and communicative practice include the assumption thatFFI should precede communicative use of a new language feature Thereis a long and strong tradition in the field of L2 teaching that the firstphase in a lesson is the presentation of a specific language form Thispresentation phase is followed by controlled practice (pattern practicestructural drills etc) and only later by activities that permit more sponta-neous use of language In a controversial article Higgs and Clifford (1982)argued that ldquothe premature immersion of a student into an unstructuredor lsquofreersquo conversational setting before certain fundamental linguistic struc-tures are more or less in place is not done without costrdquo (pp 73ndash74)

More recently drawing on research in cognitive psychology specifi-cally in the early work of Anderson (1982) on skill acquisition theoryDeKeyser (1998) has argued that ldquogrammar should first be taught ex-plicitly to achieve a maximum of understanding and then should befollowed by some exercises to anchor it solidly in the studentsrsquo conscious-ness in declarative form so that it is easy to keep in mind during com-municative exercisesrdquo (p 58) In the framework of this article DeKey-serrsquos first two phases (explicit instruction and anchoring exercises) rep-resent isolated FFI although our definition of isolated FFI includes thepossibility that such instruction may occur after students have discoveredthe need for certain language features during communicative activity6

Further support for isolated FFI comes from information processingtheory which argues that because the human mind has limited process-ing capacity it is difficult for learners to focus on form and meaning atthe same time (Ellis 1997) VanPatten (1990) suggested that noticingsome aspects of language form (eg verb morphology) while trying tograsp the meaning of a text may be particularly problematic for begin-ning learners VanPatten and his colleagues have shown how isolatingspecific features of the target language in the input can help learnerschange the way they process certain formndashmeaning mappings (VanPat-ten 1996 2004 VanPatten amp Cadierno 1993)

Recent studies by Barcroft (2002) and Trofimovich (2005) also illus-trate situations in which isolated FFI may be beneficial to students Inthese studies students were exposed to the material to be learned eitherin contexts where they needed to focus on form while also processingsemantic aspects of the language to be learned or where some formalfeature was itself the primary focus Both Barcroft and Trofimovich

6 Doughty and Williams (1998) refer to the work by DeKeyser and Lightbown regarding thesequencing of FFI as sequential focus on form

192 TESOL QUARTERLY

found that attention to meaning was associated with poorer recall offormal features such as the spelling or pronunciation of words Theyinterpreted their findings in terms of the TAP hypothesis As notedearlier according to TAP the best predictor of success in retrievinginformation is the degree of similarity between the conditions and pro-cessing demands present during learning and those present during re-trieval Thus a learning task in which cognitive effort is devoted tosemantic features of a word is not a good preparation for a test in whichlearners need to retrieve information about perceptual or formal fea-tures of the word If the assessment task requires learners to recall orrecognize the correct spelling or pronunciation of a word the learningtask should create conditions in which learners can devote more pro-cessing capacity to those features To be sure the goal of most languagelearning is ultimately to be able to use language forms correctly in com-municative contexts that include multiple demands on attention How-ever what the research by VanPatten Barcroft and Trofimovich shows isthat such contexts may not be conducive to the initial perception andinterpretation of certain language features

To our knowledge no empirical classroom-based research directlycompares the effects of isolated and integrated instruction7 It is impor-tant to keep in mind that our definition of isolated FFI is attention to formin separate lessons that occur within a program that is primarily com-municative in orientation In that sense it is not the same as Longrsquosdefinition of focus on forms which is associated with traditional discrete-point metalinguistic instruction provided in a context where little or nomeaning-based instruction or practice occurs Similarly our definition ofintegrated FFI is not the same as Longrsquos original definition of focus on formwhich includes only reactive FFI whereas integrated FFI includes bothreactive and proactive FFI In this way our definition of integrated FFI issimilar to Ellisrsquos (2001) definition of planned and incidental focus on form

7 A reviewer argues that such studies do exist and points to Sheen (2005) as an exampleWhile Sheenrsquos study does show the benefits of instruction in helping young francophonestudents make more accurate use of questions and the placement of adverbs in Englishsentences it is not a comparison of integrated and isolated FFI as we define them in thispaper As we read the report of that research it seems to show that the students in thecomparison group received almost no FFI at all It is important to emphasize again thatintegrated FFI is not simply a synonym for CLT with little or no attention to language formIntegrated FFI includes brief explanations corrective feedback explicit elicitations ofcorrect forms and input enhancement provided within the context of meaning-basedinstruction Sheenrsquos description of the comparison class in his study indicates that theinstructor did not make any special attempt to integrate FFI related to questions andadverbs in his regular classroom activities In the experimental class students receivedinstruction that is best described as focus on forms not as isolated FFI The distinctionbetween the two is that isolated FFI is provided in separate lessons that are directly relatedto the activities within a communicative or content-based syllabus whereas focus on formslessons typically occur within a structural syllabus that is not closely linked to the ongoingcommunicative activities

FORM-FOCUSED INSTRUCTION ISOLATED OR INTEGRATED 193

This review of the theoretical pedagogical and empirical support forintegrated and isolated instruction indicates that there are arguments onboth sides and that the choice between the two is likely not an absoluteone but rather a choice that is dependent on other factors In the nextsection we outline some of those factors

FACTORS THAT INFLUENCE THE CHOICE OFISOLATED OR INTEGRATED FFI

SLA research shows that some linguistic features are acquired inciden-tally that is without intentional effort or conscious awareness by learnersor guidance from teachers However it is also evident that some lan-guage features develop very slowly or not at all in the absence of guidedattention and that some types of FFI can increase the likelihood thatlearners will make progress in learning these features (Norris amp Ortega2000) Some language features develop according to a natural sequenceof stages that is not altered by instruction (For overviews see Ellis 1994Gass amp Selinker 2001 Lightbown amp Spada 2006 Mitchell amp Myles1998) However while instruction may have only a limited effect on thepath learners follow through developmental sequences it may affect therate at which learners pass through a sequence (see eg Ellis 1989Larsen-Freeman amp Long 1991 Mackey amp Philp 1998 Pienemann 1989Spada amp Lightbown 1993) Several factors may influence the relation-ship between instruction and learning outcomes These factors are dy-namic changing over the course of learnersrsquo language acquisition andwithin different teaching contexts8

L1 Influence

One hypothesis is that isolated FFI is particularly useful when the L1has a strong influence on L2 forms Errors caused by L1 influence can beproblematic in classrooms where learners share the same first languageand reinforce each otherrsquos L1-based errors (Lightbown 1991 Lyster1987) In situations like these isolated FFI may be needed to clarifymisleading similarities between the L1 and L2 Harley (1993) points tothe distinction between French avoirecirctre and havebe in English as anexample Isolated FFI may also help in those cases where learners havedeveloped based on L1 influence an interlanguage rule that is more

8 We thank one of the anonymous reviewers for emphasizing the dynamic nature of thefactors that influence instructional choices

194 TESOL QUARTERLY

general than the related rule in the L2 White (1991) discusses thisproblem with specific reference to differences between adverb place-ment in French and English subject-verb-object sentences and advocatesisolated FFI as a way of helping learners perceive those differences

Salience in the Input

Isolated FFI may be beneficial with features that are relatively simpleto explain or illustrate but are not particularly salient in oral languageDrawing attention to them in isolation may help learners seehear lan-guage features they have not been noticing in the input the first step onthe path to acquisition Although some studies have reported benefits ofinput enhancement that is increasing frequency andor salience of lan-guage features in the input (Alanen 1995 Doughty 1991) others havereported partial or no benefits (Spada amp Lightbown 1999 Trahey ampWhite 1993 White 1998) These conflicting findings appear to be re-lated to differences in the kind of enhancement More explicit enhance-ment appears to lead to more L2 progress than less explicit enhance-ment (Norris amp Ortega 2000)9 This finding suggests that isolated FFImight be useful for creating the necessary salience to help learners no-tice language forms that occur frequently but are semantically redun-dant or phonologically reduced or imperceptible in the oral input Suchforms could include for example third-person -s in English and adjec-tive agreement morphology in French

Input Frequency

Isolated FFI may also help ensure that students have opportunities tolearn forms that are rare or absent in the language they are exposed toin the CLT or CBI classroom Lyster (1994b) reports findings to supportthis idea in his investigation of the effects of FFI on the learning of thesociolinguistic distinction between second-person pronouns tu and vousin French immersion classrooms Students were familiar with the singu-larplural distinction between these two words but the social dynamicsof the classroom in which they were learning French did not give themopportunities to observe the politeness distinctions that are signaled bythe different pronoun forms Lyster developed an instructional interven-

9 It may also be that explicit instruction seems to have some benefits because the assessmentmeasures used favor explicit knowledge (see Doughty 2003 for discussion) Norris andOrtega (2000 p 501) themselves acknowledge this possibility but argue that their findingscannot be explained by this single variable

FORM-FOCUSED INSTRUCTION ISOLATED OR INTEGRATED 195

tion that included opportunities for isolated FFI Drawing studentsrsquo at-tention to this distinction probably prepared them to notice the use ofthe forms in the communicative and integrated FFI activities that fol-lowed and their ability to use these forms improved significantly

Rule Complexity

It has been suggested that integrated FFI may be a more appropriateapproach to instruction for language features that are complex and haverules that are difficult to describe However although there is someintuitive agreement about a distinction between hard and easy rules it isnot always clear what is meant by these terms (see Hulstijn 1995 Hulstijnamp DeGraaff 1994 for useful attempts to define them) Furthermore asDeKeyser (2003) points out in addition to the inherent difficulty of aform or a rule there is also subjective difficulty ldquoRule difficulty is anindividual issue that can be described as the ratio of the rulersquos inherentlinguistic complexity to the studentsrsquo ability to handle such a rulemdasha ruleof moderate difficulty for one student may be easy for a student withmore language learning aptitude or language learning experiencerdquo (p331)

A fairly widespread assumption in the SLA literature is that that whileeasy rules can be taught hard rules are by their very nature too complexto be successfully taught in isolated instruction and thus are difficult tolearn through traditional explanation and practice pedagogy that is iso-lated from communicative use of the language Thus integrated FFI maybe more suitable for complexabstract features such as the article sys-tem in English In laboratory studies to investigate the learning of simpleand complex morphosyntactic rules DeKeyser (1995) and Robinson(1996) provide some support for this idea Participants in those studieslearned simple morphosyntactic rules better under conditions of ex-plicit-deductive learning and more complex rules better under implicit-inductive conditions Conclusions drawn from these studies remain con-troversial however and are perhaps best seen as hypotheses in need offurther study

Communicative Value

Integrated FFI may also be particularly useful with features in whicherrors are more likely to lead to communication breakdowns (eg En-glish possessive pronouns his and her) Lightbown (1998) suggests thatL2 learners at various levels of proficiency are more likely to be able tofocus on form and meaning at the same time when the ldquoform in focus ( )

196 TESOL QUARTERLY

is an important carrier of the meaning in focusrdquo (p 192) However whenerrors do not interfere with meaning (eg the absence of inversion inquestions such as What she is reading) isolation from communicativeinteraction may be necessary if learners are to notice the differencebetween what they say and the correct way to say what they mean (SpadaLightbown amp White 2005) The relative importance of using the rightword as compared with using the right grammar is also reflected inSchwartzrsquos (1993) observation that instruction and feedback are morelikely to lead to changes in learnersrsquo knowledge and use of lexical itemsthan of morphology and syntax Mackey Gass and McDonough (2000)have observed that recasts a typical characteristic of integrated FFI aremore likely to be noticed when the element being recast is a lexical itemthan when it is a morphosyntactic element (see also Lyster 1998)

Learnersrsquo Developmental Level

Once a language feature has emerged in learnersrsquo interlanguage (seePienemann 1998) more fluent and accurate use of that feature may bestbe encouraged through integrated FFI Several studies on FFI have re-ported that L2 learners benefit most from FFI when they are at a devel-opmental level in their language acquisition that enables them to com-pare their use of particular forms with that of native and more proficientspeakers (Mackey amp Philp 1998 Spada amp Lightbown 1999) Related tothis finding is the observation that learnersrsquo receptive and productiveabilities do not develop in the same way or at the same rate Howeverrecent research investigating the effects of both input- (ie comprehen-sion) and output- (ie production) based practice on L2 developmentindicates that both comprehension and production improve as long asthe practice is meaningful and learners are encouraged to make formndashmeaning connections (Morgan-Short amp Wood Bowden 2006 see alsoDeKeyser 1998)

As noted earlier learners may need isolated FFI such as VanPattenrsquosprocessing instruction to help them detect and understand formndashmeaning relationships for language features that have low salience lowfrequency or low communicative value Once the features have emergedin the interlanguage or once the formndashmeaning connections have beenmade the development of greater fluency is likely to be favored byintegrated FFI Ammar and Spada (2006) found that French-speakingchildren who were already more proficient in using possessive determin-ers his and her were able to take advantage of integrated instructionwhether in the form of recasts (where the teacher provides the correctform) or prompts (where the teacher elicits a correction from the stu-dent) However students who were less proficient benefited more from

FORM-FOCUSED INSTRUCTION ISOLATED OR INTEGRATED 197

prompts than recasts suggesting that they had greater difficulty recog-nizing the purpose of the feedback

Learnersrsquo Age

In general older learners especially those with experience in thestudy of their own or other languages are more receptive to isolatedgrammatical instruction (see eg Barkhuizen 1998) Outside the class-room in environments where they are completely immersed in the tar-get language very young learners often acquire L2 proficiency with littleor no FFI Older children adolescents and adults however appear tobenefit from instruction and may even depend on it because of the waysin which their language-learning abilities differ from those of youngchildren (Bley-Vroman 1988 DeKeyser 2000) especially if their contactwith the language is limited to the second or foreign language classroom

Research in CLT and CBI contexts has shown that children do notalways recognize integrated FFI (including enhanced input and implicitrecasts) as responses to language form rather than meaning (eg Lysteramp Ranta 1997) However they do respond to integrated feedback whichis explicit (eg through the use of emphasis prompting and elicitationas well as other nonverbal signals see eg Ammar amp Spada 2006Doughty amp Varela 1998 Lyster 2004) or which is provided within thecontext of language teaching where the overall orientation includes astrong focus on language form (Lyster amp Mori 2006) Adult learners ina variety of language learning contexts have been shown to be moreaware of integrated FFI as feedback on language form (see eg EllisBasturkmen amp Loewen 2001 Ohta 2000)

Language-Learning Aptitude

Learners who perform well on language aptitude tests or have moremetalinguistic knowledge and skill in their L1 may be better able tonotice and focus on language form within a communicative context thanthose with poorer aptitude and metalinguistic ability It has been hypoth-esized that learners with poor metalinguistic skills in their own languagemay require more explicit (possibly isolated) instruction to help themidentify some formndashmeaning connections (Ranta 2002) Mackey PhilpEgi Fujii and Tomoaki (2002) found that adult learners with higherscores on tests of working memory were more likely to report that theynoticed interactional (integrated) feedback in the form of recasts (seealso Robinson 2002)

198 TESOL QUARTERLY

Learner and Teacher Preferences for How to Teach or LearnAbout Form

Research on studentsrsquo beliefs and opinions about FFI (ie instructionand corrective feedback) has revealed that teachersrsquo and studentsrsquo viewsoften differ In two large-scale studies Schulz (1996 2001) found thatvirtually all students expressed a desire to have their errors corrected butvery few teachers felt this was desirable In addition students were morelikely than teachers to say that formal study of the language is ldquoessentialto the eventual mastery of a [foreign language]rdquo (2001 p 247) Mis-matches like these have long been reported in the literature (Cathcart ampOlsen 1976 Yorio 1986) The effects of matches and mismatches on L2learning have also been investigated (eg Spada 1987 Wesche 1981)and there is some evidence that learners benefit most from instructionthat suits their preferences (see Doumlrnyei 2005 for summary and discus-sion)

Other factors such as individual learning styles and previous experi-ence learning languages can also lead to different preferences for learn-ing As indicated earlier some L2 learners who have learned languagesvia traditional structure-based approaches often have strong preferencesfor continuing to learn via isolated grammar practice Other L2 learnerswho have learned languages informally may respond more positively toFFI that is integrated with meaning What is clear is that characteristicssuch as these can interact with type of instruction in complex waysleading to more or less successful learning (Skehan 1989)

It is not only learners who have different preferences for isolatedandor integrated FFI So do teachers Research on teacher cognitionhas revealed that L2 teachers often teach grammar in the way in whichthey were taught it themselves (Borg 2003 Farrell 1999) There is alsoevidence of a direct relationship between what teachers know aboutgrammar and how they teach it That is the extent to which grammar istaught deductively depends on how much metalinguistic knowledgeteachers possess (Borg 2001 Brumfit Mitchell amp Hooper 1996) Ofcourse there are L2 instructors who do not believe that grammar in-struction is useful In a study comparing second (English) and foreign(French) language instruction Mitchell and Hooper (1992) observedthat the English teachers rarely focused on language or explicit grammarwork but the foreign language teachers regularly did so When inter-viewed about this finding the English teachers expressed the opinionthat this type of activity was not of primary importance for developingstudentsrsquo linguistic abilitymdasha response that is not atypical of L2 instruc-tors who have adopted the strong version of CLT

It is often observed that teachers who are teaching their own nativelanguage may not have as good a grasp of the formal grammar of the

FORM-FOCUSED INSTRUCTION ISOLATED OR INTEGRATED 199

language as those whose learning has included form-focused L2 instruc-tion In a study of teachersrsquo practices Borg (1998) observed that deci-sions to include explicit formal instruction are not always based on teach-ersrsquo belief that grammar instruction works but rather on their belief thatstudents expect it He also observed that when teaching grammar teach-ers do not necessarily adhere exclusively to one particular approach(eg deductive or inductive) but will combine and alternate betweenthem Similarly in a study of 48 teachersrsquo attitudes to explicit or implicitteaching of grammar in an English for academic purposes (EAP) pro-gram Burgess and Etherington (2002) report that the majority of teach-ers believed that it is useful to integrate grammar within authentic textsrather than teach it explicitly using a grammatical syllabus At the sametime however they also expressed the belief that not all grammaticalknowledge can be learned implicitly and thus advocated explicit instruc-tion as well In our research investigating the preferences of teachers andadult learners for integrated or isolated FFI we have found that neithergroup expresses a consistent preference for one over the other Theyvalue both (Spada 2006b)

CONCLUSION

Research and theory suggest that there is a role in CLT and CBI forboth isolated and integrated FFI Each type of instruction may play adifferent role in promoting language acquisition Research and experi-ence in CLT and CBI affirm that not all language features need to betaught in isolated lessons Instead the current research on classroomlearning shows that incidental learning allows students to acquire a greatdeal of language while focused on meaning in CLT and CBI The addi-tion of integrated FFI can contribute to the automatization of languagefeatures that have emerged in studentsrsquo language but that are not usedreliably when there are competing demands for attention

Integrated FFI includes a wide range of approaches including thekind of implicit feedback that occurs as the need or opportunity arisesas well as the kind of planned interaction that requires the repeated butnatural use of a particular language form Nevertheless isolated lessonsmay be useful or even essential in promoting the acquisition of somelanguage features These features include those that are hard to perceivein the normal stream of communicative speech those for which there isa misleading similarity to the L1 and those that are unlikely to causecommunication breakdown We are currently designing quasi-experimental studies to explore the contributions of both types of FFI

The importance of isolated lessons will be determined by differences

200 TESOL QUARTERLY

in the specific language feature that is being taught as well as by differ-ences in learnersrsquo and teachersrsquo characteristics abilities and prefer-ences We find no evidence to support a suggestion that isolated gram-mar lessons without opportunities for communicative language useshould again become the dominant approach to language instructionIsolated lessons are a starting point or a follow-up for communicative orcontent-based activities Above all they should not be expected to resultin studentsrsquo immediate incorporation of the feature in focus into theircommunicative language use Nevertheless such lessons can preparestudents to make the best use of opportunities for continuing their lan-guage acquisition in meaning-focused activities and integrated FFI whenit occurs

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

The reviewers who provided feedback on earlier versions of the manuscript helpedus to make this a better article We did not always agree with the reviewers (whoindeed strongly disagreed with each other) but their feedback helped us under-stand and present our own views better We are also grateful to the graduate studentsand research assistants in N Spadarsquos research group at OISEUT for their insightfulcomments on this manuscript and related literature

THE AUTHORS

Nina Spada is a professor in the Second Language Education program at OISEUniversity of Toronto Ontario Canada where she teaches courses in L2 teachingand learning Her research focuses on the contributions of form-focused instructionto the L2 development of children and adults in communicative programs

Patsy M Lightbown is Distinguished Professor Emeritus of Concordia UniversityMontreal Canada and a former president of AAAL Her research explores relation-ships between L2 teaching and learning especially for children and adolescents

REFERENCES

Alanen R (1995) Input enhancement and rule presentation in second languageacquisition In R Schmidt (Ed) Attention and awareness in foreign language learningand teaching (pp 259ndash302) Honolulu University of Hawairsquoi Press

Ammar A amp Spada N (2006) One size fits all Recasts prompts and L2 learningStudies in Second Language Acquisition 28 543ndash574

Anderson J (1982) Acquisition of cognitive skill Psychological Review 89 369ndash406Barcroft J (2002) Semantic and structural elaboration in L2 lexical acquisition

Language Learning 52 323ndash363Barkhuizen G P (1998) Discovering learnersrsquo perceptions of ESL classroom teach-

inglearning activities in a South African context TESOL Quarterly 32 85ndash108

FORM-FOCUSED INSTRUCTION ISOLATED OR INTEGRATED 201

interactive language use (Schwartz 1993 Sharwood Smith 2004 seeEllis 2005 for review)

Some of the empirical work investigating the kind of knowledge thatis acquired during form-focused instruction has shown that FFI can playa role in helping classroom learners in CLT and CBI use their L2 withgreater fluency and accuracy (eg Spada amp Lightbown 1993 Lyster2004) and to use language forms that represent more advanced devel-opmental levels (eg Doughty amp Varela 1998) In these studies effortswere made to develop tasks that elicited samples of spontaneous oralproduction In a meta-analysis of the instructed SLA research Norris andOrtega (2000) also report benefits for FFI in particular the positiveeffects of explicit instruction on L2 learning However the majority ofstudies included in the meta-analysis used discrete-point metalinguistictests as measures of instructional effectiveness This bias has led to thecall for more studies to examine the benefits of instruction on implicitknowledge (Doughty 2003 Ellis 2002a Norris amp Ortega 2000)

Improvements in language performance may reflect learnersrsquo abilityto make appropriate use of units of language that they have learned aswhole unanalyzed chunks during form-focused practice or to use meta-linguistic knowledge they have acquired during grammar lessons tomonitor their output When learners produce language under condi-tions of time pressure or competing demands on attention they mayreveal that the underlying internal grammar of their interlanguage hasnot been substantially affected Even if this is the case however learnersrsquoability to use language with greater accuracy and fluencymdashat least insome circumstancesmdashcan contribute to language acquisition in severalways For example in producing monitored or unanalyzed chunks oflanguage learners can create for themselves a sort of input and feedbackloop that provides them with samples of the language that may be in-corporated into their underlying grammatical systems later when theyare developmentally ready (Lightbown 1998 Sharwood Smith 2004)Another possible advantage of this ability to produce more correct oradvanced language is that the contextually appropriate use of unana-lyzed andor monitored language allows learners to keep interactionsgoing thereby increasing their access to language input (Krashen1982) Further the ability to use unanalyzed chunks of language mayfree cognitive resources for use in attending to external input (Ellis2005) Some language acquisition theories assume a more direct rela-tionship between metalinguistic or formulaic knowledge and spontane-ous language use Skill acquisition theorists hypothesize that languagelearned first as metalinguistic knowledge can through repeated mean-ingful practice eventually become so well incorporated and automatizedthat the language user forgets the metalinguistic information and mayforget having learned it in the first place (DeKeyser 2003)

FORM-FOCUSED INSTRUCTION ISOLATED OR INTEGRATED 183

The value of FFI within instruction that is primarily meaning-focusedhas been demonstrated by research conducted in CLT and CBI pro-grams over the past 20 years In addition teachers who have experiencewith the strong version of CLTmdashan exclusive focus on meaning with noattention to language form (Howatt 1984 Spada 2006a)mdashhave ob-served that without FFI some language features never emerge in learn-ersrsquo language and some nontarget forms persist for years Experiencewith CLT and CBI shows that meaning-based exposure to the languageallows L2 learners to develop comprehension skills oral fluency self-confidence and communicative abilities but that they continue to havedifficulties with pronunciation as well as with morphological syntacticand pragmatic features of the L2 (see eg Harley amp Swain 1984 Lyster1987) Research in CLT and CBI classrooms shows that the introductionof FFI has contributed to changes in learnersrsquo knowledge and use ofcertain language features (eg Day amp Shapson 1991 Doughty amp Varela1998 Harley 1989 White Spada Lightbown amp Ranta 1991 Lyster2004 Sheen 2005)2 Advocates of CBI have increasingly emphasized theimportance of planning lessons that have both content objectives and lin-guistic objectives (Echevarria Vogt amp Short 2004 Pica 2002 Schlepper-grell Achugar amp Oteiacuteza 2004)

Thus both research and teaching experience have led to a growingconsensus that instruction is most effective when it includes attention toboth form and meaning3 As a result the most engaging questions anddebates in L2 pedagogy are no longer about whether CLT should in-clude FFI but rather how and when it is most effective This articlecompares the role of FFI in lessons that are isolated from communicativeor content-based interaction with that of FFI that is integrated withinactivities where the primary emphasis remains on meaning (eg in tasksor content-based lessons) Some teachers and students have strong opin-ions about this question (see Barkhuizen 1998 Yorio 1986) but re-searchers have not directly compared the effects of integrating or isolat-ing form-focused and meaning-focused practice in CLT and CBI pro-grams

There are theoretical and pedagogical arguments for both isolationand integration of form and meaning in L2 instruction In our view

2 These studies differ in several ways including the degree of explicitness of instructionNonetheless they can all be categorized as studies of FFI using the broad definition of FFIas proposed by Ellis (2001) This includes the primarily metalinguistic instruction associ-ated with more traditional approaches to L2 teaching as evidenced in Sheen (2005) as wellas instruction that is more implicit in nature drawing learnersrsquo attention to form infunctional and meaning-based contexts as evidenced in Harley (1989)

3 We thank the anonymous TESOL Quarterly reviewer who reminded us that all grammaticalforms have meaning and that a simple binary distinction between form and meaning isproblematic We agree and use this terminology as a kind of shorthand referring to anemphasis on the structural or semantic properties of language

184 TESOL QUARTERLY

making a choice between integrated and isolated FFI is not necessary (oradvisable) Rather the challenge is to discover the conditions underwhich isolated and integrated FFI respectively are most appropriateThese conditions are likely to involve a number of factors including thenature of the language feature (eg its complexity and its frequencyand salience in the input) learnersrsquo developmental levels in the acqui-sition of the feature and the relationship between comparable featuresin the learnersrsquo L1 and the L2 Other important factors include teachersrsquoand learnersrsquo preferences for how to teachlearn about form learnersrsquoliteracy and metalinguistic sophistication (especially in their L1) andtheir age and overall L2 proficiency

ISOLATED AND INTEGRATED FFI

Johnson (1982) made a distinction between what he called the unifi-cationist and separationist positions on the teaching of language use andlanguage structure He described the separationist position as one withldquostructure being taught first (through a structural syllabus) followed by asecond communicative stage at which use is taught and where structuresare lsquoactivatedrsquo or lsquorecycledrsquordquo (p 129) According to Johnson the separa-tionist position implies ldquoa divorce between the teaching of forms anduses though other kinds of related separation are often also being im-pliedmdashas between knowledge and its lsquoactivitationrsquo between correctnessand fluencyrdquo (p 129) In contrast from the unificationist perspectiveldquothe divorce of form and use is seen as undesirable and probably alsountenable on linguistic and psycholinguistic grounds The position ar-gues for a communicative framework from the very beginningrdquo (p 129)

Other writers have used different labels to distinguish different typesof FFI Long (1991) has made a distinction between focus on forms andfocus on form Focus on forms refers to lessons in which language featuresare taught or practiced according to a structural syllabus that specifieswhich features are to be taught and in which sequence Focus on formsmight involve teaching approaches as varied as mimicry and memoriza-tion or grammar translation but all are based on the assumption thatlanguage features should be taught systematically one at a time Incontrast Longrsquos focus on form refers to instruction in which the mainemphasis remains on communicative activities or tasks but in which ateacher intervenes to help students use language more accurately whenthe need arises Originally Long (1991) defined focus on form as reac-tive and incidental That is it was limited to those classroom events inwhich the teacher responded to a difficulty that arose as students en-gaged in communicative activities or tasks The language feature that

FORM-FOCUSED INSTRUCTION ISOLATED OR INTEGRATED 185

required focus was not determined in advance More recent interpreta-tions of focus on form have expanded the definition to include instruc-tion in which teachers anticipate that students will have difficulty with aparticular feature as they engage in a communicative task and plan inadvance to target that feature through feedback and other pedagogicalinterventions all the while maintaining a primary focus on meaning(Doughty amp Williams 1998 Long amp Robinson 1998)

In this article we have chosen to use the terms isolated and integratedto describe two approaches to drawing learnersrsquo attention to languageform in L2 instruction4 Isolated FFI is provided in activities that areseparate from the communicative use of language but it occurs as partof a program that also includes CLT andor CBI Isolated FFI may betaught in preparation for a communicative activity or after an activity inwhich students have experienced difficulty with a particular languagefeature In isolated FFI the focus on language form is separated from thecommunicative or content-based activity This approach differs fromLongrsquos focus on forms which refers to language instruction and practiceorganized around predetermined points of grammar in a structural syl-labus that is form-based instruction that is not directly tied to genuinelycommunicative practice

In integrated FFI the learnersrsquo attention is drawn to language formduring communicative or content-based instruction This definition cor-responds to focus on form (both planned and incidental) as defined byEllis (2002a) and by Doughty and Williams (1998) That is although theform focus occurs within a communicative activity the language featuresin focus may have been anticipated and planned for by the teacher orthey may occur incidentally in the course of ongoing interaction

Before discussing the role we see for each approach a few commentsare in order on how the distinction between isolated and integrated FFIis related to other contrasts in L2 research and pedagogy such as inten-tional versus incidental learning (Hulstijn 2003) and explicit versus implicitinstruction (DeKeyser 2003)

4 One reviewer suggested that the term isolated carries ldquoa clearly negative connotationrdquo Weunderstand that interpretation and agree that the term certainly has had that connotationin much writing about language teaching Nevertheless we have chosen to retain this termbecause it allows us to emphasize the importance of instruction in which teachers andstudents focus their attention on language features that are almost impossible to perceiveor acquire when they occur in ordinary communicative interaction either because they areacoustically imperceptible (eg most grammatical morphology in English) or redundantand unlikely to affect comprehension (eg word order in English questions) We suggestthat it is sometimes necessary to isolate such formsmdashmuch as one might place a specimenunder a microscopemdashso that learners have an opportunity to perceive these features andunderstand their function in the language they encounter in communicative interactionAs we have stated previously learners cannot be expected to benefit from brief integratedfocus on form if they do not understand what the teacher is calling their attention to(Lightbown 1998 p 194)

186 TESOL QUARTERLY

Isolated FFI is the provision of instruction in lessons whose primarypurpose is to teach students about a particular language feature becausethe teacher believes that students are unlikely to acquire the featureduring communicative activities without an opportunity to learn aboutthe feature in a situation where its form and meaning can be made clearFrom the teacherrsquos perspective isolated FFI always implies intentionallearning and explicit instruction However classroom observation re-search shows that even in traditional classrooms in which grammar les-sons are based on a structural syllabus students are not always sure of theteacherrsquos intended focus (Slimani 1992) That is the explicitness andintentionality that the teacher has in mind may not be recognized by thestudents

Integrated FFI occurs in classroom activities during which the primaryfocus remains on meaning but in which feedback or brief explanationsare offered to help students express meaning more effectively or moreaccurately within the communicative interaction Some writers seem toassume that drawing learnersrsquo attention to form during meaning-basedactivities always involves implicit feedback and incidental learning butthat is not necessarily the case Again the perceptions of teachers andlearners may be different Adult learners sometimes show that they in-terpret the teacherrsquos implicit feedback (eg in the form of recasts) asexplicit guidance creating an opportunity for intentional languagelearning (eg Ohta 2000 Ellis Basturkmen amp Loewen 2001) Howevereven when they recognize the teacherrsquos implicit feedback as relevant tolanguage form learners may not correctly identify the object of theteacherrsquos attention (see Mackey Gass amp McDonough 2000 for a relatedstudy)

Both isolated and integrated FFI can include explicit feedback onerror metalinguistic terminology the statement of rules and explana-tions Consider the following example of explicit integrated FFI Thecontext is a communicative activity Grade 6 students are playing a gamein which they have to correctly guess the location of different dolls in adoll house to gain enough points to win the game Note that in prepa-ration for the game examples of appropriate questions had been writtenon the board

Student Is George is in the living room

Teacher You said ldquoisrdquo two times dear Listen to youmdashyou said ldquoIs Georgeis in Look on the board ldquoIs George in the rdquo and then yousay the name of the room

Student Is George in the living room

Teacher Yeah

Student I win (Lightbown amp Spada 2006 p 167)

FORM-FOCUSED INSTRUCTION ISOLATED OR INTEGRATED 187

In this example the teacher provided explicit corrective feedback toa student when he made an error of form even though the meaning heconveyed was comprehensible First she drew attention to the errorproviding information as to what the error was Although she explicitlyfocused on form and the student appeared to understand and use thefeedback it seems that this did not interfere with his continuing interestin the ongoing game Such FFI is thus both integrated and explicit Fromthe teacherrsquos perspective the focus on question forms was also inten-tional She had prepared for the activity with an isolated lesson on ques-tion forms writing examples of appropriate questions on the board

Another example of integrated FFI one that includes the statement ofrules and metalinguistic explanations is an activity in which pairs ofstudents respond to truendashfalse (TF) statements about medical historyusing a timeline showing names dates and descriptions of discoveriesSome of the TF statements are expressed in the active voice whileothers are in the passive (eg Freud developed a method for examining mentalprocesses known as psychoanalysis Penicillin was discovered by Alexander Flem-ing in 1928) The focus is on content and meaning As students discusstheir responses to the questions the instructor selects the two TF state-ments above and asks the students to examine them with the followingquestions in mind ldquoWhat is given more emphasis in the first sentencemdashlsquoFreud [the subject] or psychoanalysis [the object]rsquordquo ldquoWhat is moreprominent in the second sentencerdquo This leads into a brief explanation(5 or 6 minutes) of activepassive sentences how they are formed andhow they function using one or two other examples The teacher thenasks students to return to responding to the TF questions using theinformation on the timeline to assist them (See Samuda 2001 for anexample of integrated FFI targeting the use of modal auxiliaries)

One final note is essential before we discuss the different roles ofisolated and integrated FFI For purposes of the discussion we presentthese approaches as if they were entirely distinct It is clear however thatthey are really the ends of a continuum especially as we are examiningtheir role within CLT and CBI contexts for teaching and learning Thatis we do not see isolated and integrated FFI as being in competition witheach other rather we see them as complementary parts of a completelanguage learning environment Although we are convinced that there isa role for isolated FFI we see it as occurring within instruction that isprimarily interactive and communicative Ultimately the ability to uselanguage automatically in communicative settings requires experience indoing exactly that Providing integrated FFI in CLT and CBI contexts isthe instructional model that has the greatest potential for facilitating thedevelopment of fluent and accurate language that is available for useoutside the classroom We concur with DeKeyser (1998) who in hiscritique of rote drill in audiolingual language teaching commented that

188 TESOL QUARTERLY

practice is valuable for language learning when it involves practice inldquoconveying personal meaningsrdquo (pp 53ndash54)

The Role of Integrated FFI

In the pedagogical literature there is considerable support for inte-grating form focus within communicative activities as well as consider-able skepticism about the effectiveness of instruction that separates formfocus from meaningful interaction (see eg Calveacute 1994) Celce-Murcia(1991) argues that ldquogrammar should never be taught as an end in itselfbut always with reference to meaning social factors or discoursemdashor acombination of these factorsrdquo (pp 466ndash467) Brumfit (1984) asserts thatldquoteachers should not prevent learners from combining a concernwith language use with worry about formal accuracy in terms of specificlanguage itemsrdquo (p 53) Brumfitrsquos assertion may be taken as evidencethat for some learners at least feedback that comes during communi-cative interaction may have a positive effect on motivation5 Knowingthat help is available when it is needed may respond to the expectationsand preferences of studentsmdashespecially adult studentsmdashin languageclasses (see Cathcart amp Olsen 1976 Schulz 1996 2001)

Theoretical support for integration comes from both SLA and cogni-tive psychology Long (1991) has argued that focus on language formshould be fully integrated into ongoing communicative interaction Infact as noted earlier in some of his writing Long (eg 1991) arguedthat teachers should provide focus on form only on those languagefeatures that occur naturally in the course of a task or activity in whichstudents are using the language in meaningful interaction In his revisedinteraction hypothesis Long (1996) states that while comprehensibleinput and meaningful interaction provide the raw material for languageacquisition they also provide the ideal context for spontaneous (ieintegrated) attention to language form Other SLA concepts such asnegotiation of form (Lyster 1994a 1994b) and metatalk (Swain amp Lapkin2002) also point to the benefits of reflecting on language form duringcommunicative language use There are differences among these theo-retical constructs but all of them are compatible with the hypothesis thatwhile instruction may not directly alter learnersrsquo underlying languagesystems it can help them notice features in the input making it more

5 It is important to note that we do not equate integrated FFI with CLT As evident in theresearch literature and in classroom practice CLT has many different meanings some ofwhich include no attention to language form (ie the strong version of CLT) and othersthat include attention to form albeit in different ways (see Howatt 1984 and Spada 2006afor discussions of the evolution and interpretations of CLT)

FORM-FOCUSED INSTRUCTION ISOLATED OR INTEGRATED 189

likely that they will acquire them (Gass 1997 Lightbown 1998 Schmidt1990)

One theoretical approach that has recently been used to explain thepossible benefits of integrated FFI is transfer appropriate processing (TAP)According to TAP learners retrieve knowledge best if the processes forretrieval are similar to those that were used in the learning condition(Blaxton 1989 Franks Bilbrey Lien amp McNamara 2000 Morris Brans-ford amp Franks 1977) In addition the situation objects and events thatare present at the time of learning are connected through a network ofassociations Therefore retrieval is likely to be easier when learners findthemselves using similar processes or in the presence of the same objectsor situations

TAP has only recently begun to receive attention in the SLA literaturebut research on bilingualsrsquo memory for lexical items provides some in-dications of what SLA research may reveal In these studies bilingualparticipants are consistently more successful in retrieving the words theylearned when the testing tasks are similar to the learning tasks (BasdenBonilla-Meeks amp Basden 1994 Durgunoglu amp Roediger 1987) Re-search on the learning and retrieval of more complex units of languageremains to be done However it seems that TAP would predict thatlanguage learned during communicative activities in which learnersrsquo at-tention is briefly drawn to form (ie integrated FFI) would be moreeasily retrieved in communicative situations than say on decontextual-ized tests In contrast L2 knowledge learned outside communicativeactivities in isolated FFI would be more difficult to retrieve in commu-nicative situations outside the classroom (Doherty Hilberg Pinal ampTharp 2003 Segalowitz amp Gatbonton 1995 Segalowitz amp Lightbown1999) This hypothesis is consistent with the observation of many teach-ers and researchers Students who perform well on tests are not neces-sarily fluent users of the test items in spontaneous speech just as manyfluent speakers whose language acquisition has taken place primarilyoutside the classroom perform poorly on tests requiring metalinguisticknowledge or the retrieval of individual language features outside acommunicative context

Although support for integrated FFI comes primarily from theoreticalextrapolations and pedagogical principles there is also some evidence ofits effectiveness in classroom-based studies of CLT and CBI In our re-search in intensive ESL classes that were almost exclusively meaning-focused young students were successful in acquiring certain languagefeatures when their teachers provided ongoing integrated FFI on a lim-ited number of these features (Lightbown 1991 Lightbown amp Spada1990) Those receiving integrated FFI were substantially more likely toacquire these features than students in classes where there was never anyattention to form Research in French immersion programs (Day amp

190 TESOL QUARTERLY

Shapson 1991 Harley 1989 1998 Lyster 1994a 1994b 2004) and inother content-based and communicative classrooms with child and adultESL learners (Doughty amp Varela 1998 R Ellis Basturkmen amp Loewen2001 Williams amp Evans 1998) also supports the hypothesis that attentionto language form within the context of communicative practice can leadto progress in learnersrsquo language development Although this progresshas been observed in the short term for most studies long-term improve-ment has also been reported (eg Spada amp Lightbown 1993) Howeverthe research in CLT and CBI classes was not designed to directly inves-tigate the different roles of integrated and isolated FFI That is none ofthe studies compared the outcomes of L2 learners receiving isolated FFIwith learners receiving integrated FFI

Jeanrsquos (2005) study of French as a second language (nonimmersion)in a Canadian secondary school provides some related evidence of theeffectiveness of integrated FFI Jean designed an experimental study inwhich learners either (a) practiced target forms in mechanical drills thatwere separate from the communicative activities in which the forms wereexpected to be used later or (b) received FFI during ongoing meaning-based activities She found no difference in the two groupsrsquo ability to usethe target forms on subsequent measures of accuracy However shefound that students whose FFI had been integrated with meaningfulcommunicative activities used the forms with a greater variety of vocabu-lary Jean concludes that at least for the verb morphology targeted in herstudy isolated mechanical drills were not a necessary step in L2 teachingand that integrated FFI was an effective way of teaching certain verbforms She also found that the high school students in her study did notexpress a clear preference for one type of instruction over the other

The Role of Isolated FFI

Stern (1992) asserted that although ldquocommunicative activities are anessential component of a language curriculum there is a still a place fora separate analytic language syllabusrdquo (p 180 emphasis added) Morerecently Ellis (2002b) has argued that ldquowe [should] teach grammarseparately making no attempt to integrate it with the task-based com-ponent (except perhaps methodologically through feedback)rdquo (p 32)One frequently heard argument in support of isolating FFI is related tomaintaining learnersrsquo positive motivation The concern is that learnerswill become discouraged or disinterested if their attention is drawn toform while they are trying to engage in communicative practice (seeeg Raimes 2002) Thus it is sometimes suggested that teachers makenote of problems that arise during interaction activities and then bringthem up for instruction and explanation in separate isolated activities

FORM-FOCUSED INSTRUCTION ISOLATED OR INTEGRATED 191

outside the communicative activity As noted earlier however there isrelatively little evidence that language learners themselves object to FFIthat occurs during communicative activities

Some pedagogical and theoretical arguments to support the separa-tion of form and communicative practice include the assumption thatFFI should precede communicative use of a new language feature Thereis a long and strong tradition in the field of L2 teaching that the firstphase in a lesson is the presentation of a specific language form Thispresentation phase is followed by controlled practice (pattern practicestructural drills etc) and only later by activities that permit more sponta-neous use of language In a controversial article Higgs and Clifford (1982)argued that ldquothe premature immersion of a student into an unstructuredor lsquofreersquo conversational setting before certain fundamental linguistic struc-tures are more or less in place is not done without costrdquo (pp 73ndash74)

More recently drawing on research in cognitive psychology specifi-cally in the early work of Anderson (1982) on skill acquisition theoryDeKeyser (1998) has argued that ldquogrammar should first be taught ex-plicitly to achieve a maximum of understanding and then should befollowed by some exercises to anchor it solidly in the studentsrsquo conscious-ness in declarative form so that it is easy to keep in mind during com-municative exercisesrdquo (p 58) In the framework of this article DeKey-serrsquos first two phases (explicit instruction and anchoring exercises) rep-resent isolated FFI although our definition of isolated FFI includes thepossibility that such instruction may occur after students have discoveredthe need for certain language features during communicative activity6

Further support for isolated FFI comes from information processingtheory which argues that because the human mind has limited process-ing capacity it is difficult for learners to focus on form and meaning atthe same time (Ellis 1997) VanPatten (1990) suggested that noticingsome aspects of language form (eg verb morphology) while trying tograsp the meaning of a text may be particularly problematic for begin-ning learners VanPatten and his colleagues have shown how isolatingspecific features of the target language in the input can help learnerschange the way they process certain formndashmeaning mappings (VanPat-ten 1996 2004 VanPatten amp Cadierno 1993)

Recent studies by Barcroft (2002) and Trofimovich (2005) also illus-trate situations in which isolated FFI may be beneficial to students Inthese studies students were exposed to the material to be learned eitherin contexts where they needed to focus on form while also processingsemantic aspects of the language to be learned or where some formalfeature was itself the primary focus Both Barcroft and Trofimovich

6 Doughty and Williams (1998) refer to the work by DeKeyser and Lightbown regarding thesequencing of FFI as sequential focus on form

192 TESOL QUARTERLY

found that attention to meaning was associated with poorer recall offormal features such as the spelling or pronunciation of words Theyinterpreted their findings in terms of the TAP hypothesis As notedearlier according to TAP the best predictor of success in retrievinginformation is the degree of similarity between the conditions and pro-cessing demands present during learning and those present during re-trieval Thus a learning task in which cognitive effort is devoted tosemantic features of a word is not a good preparation for a test in whichlearners need to retrieve information about perceptual or formal fea-tures of the word If the assessment task requires learners to recall orrecognize the correct spelling or pronunciation of a word the learningtask should create conditions in which learners can devote more pro-cessing capacity to those features To be sure the goal of most languagelearning is ultimately to be able to use language forms correctly in com-municative contexts that include multiple demands on attention How-ever what the research by VanPatten Barcroft and Trofimovich shows isthat such contexts may not be conducive to the initial perception andinterpretation of certain language features

To our knowledge no empirical classroom-based research directlycompares the effects of isolated and integrated instruction7 It is impor-tant to keep in mind that our definition of isolated FFI is attention to formin separate lessons that occur within a program that is primarily com-municative in orientation In that sense it is not the same as Longrsquosdefinition of focus on forms which is associated with traditional discrete-point metalinguistic instruction provided in a context where little or nomeaning-based instruction or practice occurs Similarly our definition ofintegrated FFI is not the same as Longrsquos original definition of focus on formwhich includes only reactive FFI whereas integrated FFI includes bothreactive and proactive FFI In this way our definition of integrated FFI issimilar to Ellisrsquos (2001) definition of planned and incidental focus on form

7 A reviewer argues that such studies do exist and points to Sheen (2005) as an exampleWhile Sheenrsquos study does show the benefits of instruction in helping young francophonestudents make more accurate use of questions and the placement of adverbs in Englishsentences it is not a comparison of integrated and isolated FFI as we define them in thispaper As we read the report of that research it seems to show that the students in thecomparison group received almost no FFI at all It is important to emphasize again thatintegrated FFI is not simply a synonym for CLT with little or no attention to language formIntegrated FFI includes brief explanations corrective feedback explicit elicitations ofcorrect forms and input enhancement provided within the context of meaning-basedinstruction Sheenrsquos description of the comparison class in his study indicates that theinstructor did not make any special attempt to integrate FFI related to questions andadverbs in his regular classroom activities In the experimental class students receivedinstruction that is best described as focus on forms not as isolated FFI The distinctionbetween the two is that isolated FFI is provided in separate lessons that are directly relatedto the activities within a communicative or content-based syllabus whereas focus on formslessons typically occur within a structural syllabus that is not closely linked to the ongoingcommunicative activities

FORM-FOCUSED INSTRUCTION ISOLATED OR INTEGRATED 193

This review of the theoretical pedagogical and empirical support forintegrated and isolated instruction indicates that there are arguments onboth sides and that the choice between the two is likely not an absoluteone but rather a choice that is dependent on other factors In the nextsection we outline some of those factors

FACTORS THAT INFLUENCE THE CHOICE OFISOLATED OR INTEGRATED FFI

SLA research shows that some linguistic features are acquired inciden-tally that is without intentional effort or conscious awareness by learnersor guidance from teachers However it is also evident that some lan-guage features develop very slowly or not at all in the absence of guidedattention and that some types of FFI can increase the likelihood thatlearners will make progress in learning these features (Norris amp Ortega2000) Some language features develop according to a natural sequenceof stages that is not altered by instruction (For overviews see Ellis 1994Gass amp Selinker 2001 Lightbown amp Spada 2006 Mitchell amp Myles1998) However while instruction may have only a limited effect on thepath learners follow through developmental sequences it may affect therate at which learners pass through a sequence (see eg Ellis 1989Larsen-Freeman amp Long 1991 Mackey amp Philp 1998 Pienemann 1989Spada amp Lightbown 1993) Several factors may influence the relation-ship between instruction and learning outcomes These factors are dy-namic changing over the course of learnersrsquo language acquisition andwithin different teaching contexts8

L1 Influence

One hypothesis is that isolated FFI is particularly useful when the L1has a strong influence on L2 forms Errors caused by L1 influence can beproblematic in classrooms where learners share the same first languageand reinforce each otherrsquos L1-based errors (Lightbown 1991 Lyster1987) In situations like these isolated FFI may be needed to clarifymisleading similarities between the L1 and L2 Harley (1993) points tothe distinction between French avoirecirctre and havebe in English as anexample Isolated FFI may also help in those cases where learners havedeveloped based on L1 influence an interlanguage rule that is more

8 We thank one of the anonymous reviewers for emphasizing the dynamic nature of thefactors that influence instructional choices

194 TESOL QUARTERLY

general than the related rule in the L2 White (1991) discusses thisproblem with specific reference to differences between adverb place-ment in French and English subject-verb-object sentences and advocatesisolated FFI as a way of helping learners perceive those differences

Salience in the Input

Isolated FFI may be beneficial with features that are relatively simpleto explain or illustrate but are not particularly salient in oral languageDrawing attention to them in isolation may help learners seehear lan-guage features they have not been noticing in the input the first step onthe path to acquisition Although some studies have reported benefits ofinput enhancement that is increasing frequency andor salience of lan-guage features in the input (Alanen 1995 Doughty 1991) others havereported partial or no benefits (Spada amp Lightbown 1999 Trahey ampWhite 1993 White 1998) These conflicting findings appear to be re-lated to differences in the kind of enhancement More explicit enhance-ment appears to lead to more L2 progress than less explicit enhance-ment (Norris amp Ortega 2000)9 This finding suggests that isolated FFImight be useful for creating the necessary salience to help learners no-tice language forms that occur frequently but are semantically redun-dant or phonologically reduced or imperceptible in the oral input Suchforms could include for example third-person -s in English and adjec-tive agreement morphology in French

Input Frequency

Isolated FFI may also help ensure that students have opportunities tolearn forms that are rare or absent in the language they are exposed toin the CLT or CBI classroom Lyster (1994b) reports findings to supportthis idea in his investigation of the effects of FFI on the learning of thesociolinguistic distinction between second-person pronouns tu and vousin French immersion classrooms Students were familiar with the singu-larplural distinction between these two words but the social dynamicsof the classroom in which they were learning French did not give themopportunities to observe the politeness distinctions that are signaled bythe different pronoun forms Lyster developed an instructional interven-

9 It may also be that explicit instruction seems to have some benefits because the assessmentmeasures used favor explicit knowledge (see Doughty 2003 for discussion) Norris andOrtega (2000 p 501) themselves acknowledge this possibility but argue that their findingscannot be explained by this single variable

FORM-FOCUSED INSTRUCTION ISOLATED OR INTEGRATED 195

tion that included opportunities for isolated FFI Drawing studentsrsquo at-tention to this distinction probably prepared them to notice the use ofthe forms in the communicative and integrated FFI activities that fol-lowed and their ability to use these forms improved significantly

Rule Complexity

It has been suggested that integrated FFI may be a more appropriateapproach to instruction for language features that are complex and haverules that are difficult to describe However although there is someintuitive agreement about a distinction between hard and easy rules it isnot always clear what is meant by these terms (see Hulstijn 1995 Hulstijnamp DeGraaff 1994 for useful attempts to define them) Furthermore asDeKeyser (2003) points out in addition to the inherent difficulty of aform or a rule there is also subjective difficulty ldquoRule difficulty is anindividual issue that can be described as the ratio of the rulersquos inherentlinguistic complexity to the studentsrsquo ability to handle such a rulemdasha ruleof moderate difficulty for one student may be easy for a student withmore language learning aptitude or language learning experiencerdquo (p331)

A fairly widespread assumption in the SLA literature is that that whileeasy rules can be taught hard rules are by their very nature too complexto be successfully taught in isolated instruction and thus are difficult tolearn through traditional explanation and practice pedagogy that is iso-lated from communicative use of the language Thus integrated FFI maybe more suitable for complexabstract features such as the article sys-tem in English In laboratory studies to investigate the learning of simpleand complex morphosyntactic rules DeKeyser (1995) and Robinson(1996) provide some support for this idea Participants in those studieslearned simple morphosyntactic rules better under conditions of ex-plicit-deductive learning and more complex rules better under implicit-inductive conditions Conclusions drawn from these studies remain con-troversial however and are perhaps best seen as hypotheses in need offurther study

Communicative Value

Integrated FFI may also be particularly useful with features in whicherrors are more likely to lead to communication breakdowns (eg En-glish possessive pronouns his and her) Lightbown (1998) suggests thatL2 learners at various levels of proficiency are more likely to be able tofocus on form and meaning at the same time when the ldquoform in focus ( )

196 TESOL QUARTERLY

is an important carrier of the meaning in focusrdquo (p 192) However whenerrors do not interfere with meaning (eg the absence of inversion inquestions such as What she is reading) isolation from communicativeinteraction may be necessary if learners are to notice the differencebetween what they say and the correct way to say what they mean (SpadaLightbown amp White 2005) The relative importance of using the rightword as compared with using the right grammar is also reflected inSchwartzrsquos (1993) observation that instruction and feedback are morelikely to lead to changes in learnersrsquo knowledge and use of lexical itemsthan of morphology and syntax Mackey Gass and McDonough (2000)have observed that recasts a typical characteristic of integrated FFI aremore likely to be noticed when the element being recast is a lexical itemthan when it is a morphosyntactic element (see also Lyster 1998)

Learnersrsquo Developmental Level

Once a language feature has emerged in learnersrsquo interlanguage (seePienemann 1998) more fluent and accurate use of that feature may bestbe encouraged through integrated FFI Several studies on FFI have re-ported that L2 learners benefit most from FFI when they are at a devel-opmental level in their language acquisition that enables them to com-pare their use of particular forms with that of native and more proficientspeakers (Mackey amp Philp 1998 Spada amp Lightbown 1999) Related tothis finding is the observation that learnersrsquo receptive and productiveabilities do not develop in the same way or at the same rate Howeverrecent research investigating the effects of both input- (ie comprehen-sion) and output- (ie production) based practice on L2 developmentindicates that both comprehension and production improve as long asthe practice is meaningful and learners are encouraged to make formndashmeaning connections (Morgan-Short amp Wood Bowden 2006 see alsoDeKeyser 1998)

As noted earlier learners may need isolated FFI such as VanPattenrsquosprocessing instruction to help them detect and understand formndashmeaning relationships for language features that have low salience lowfrequency or low communicative value Once the features have emergedin the interlanguage or once the formndashmeaning connections have beenmade the development of greater fluency is likely to be favored byintegrated FFI Ammar and Spada (2006) found that French-speakingchildren who were already more proficient in using possessive determin-ers his and her were able to take advantage of integrated instructionwhether in the form of recasts (where the teacher provides the correctform) or prompts (where the teacher elicits a correction from the stu-dent) However students who were less proficient benefited more from

FORM-FOCUSED INSTRUCTION ISOLATED OR INTEGRATED 197

prompts than recasts suggesting that they had greater difficulty recog-nizing the purpose of the feedback

Learnersrsquo Age

In general older learners especially those with experience in thestudy of their own or other languages are more receptive to isolatedgrammatical instruction (see eg Barkhuizen 1998) Outside the class-room in environments where they are completely immersed in the tar-get language very young learners often acquire L2 proficiency with littleor no FFI Older children adolescents and adults however appear tobenefit from instruction and may even depend on it because of the waysin which their language-learning abilities differ from those of youngchildren (Bley-Vroman 1988 DeKeyser 2000) especially if their contactwith the language is limited to the second or foreign language classroom

Research in CLT and CBI contexts has shown that children do notalways recognize integrated FFI (including enhanced input and implicitrecasts) as responses to language form rather than meaning (eg Lysteramp Ranta 1997) However they do respond to integrated feedback whichis explicit (eg through the use of emphasis prompting and elicitationas well as other nonverbal signals see eg Ammar amp Spada 2006Doughty amp Varela 1998 Lyster 2004) or which is provided within thecontext of language teaching where the overall orientation includes astrong focus on language form (Lyster amp Mori 2006) Adult learners ina variety of language learning contexts have been shown to be moreaware of integrated FFI as feedback on language form (see eg EllisBasturkmen amp Loewen 2001 Ohta 2000)

Language-Learning Aptitude

Learners who perform well on language aptitude tests or have moremetalinguistic knowledge and skill in their L1 may be better able tonotice and focus on language form within a communicative context thanthose with poorer aptitude and metalinguistic ability It has been hypoth-esized that learners with poor metalinguistic skills in their own languagemay require more explicit (possibly isolated) instruction to help themidentify some formndashmeaning connections (Ranta 2002) Mackey PhilpEgi Fujii and Tomoaki (2002) found that adult learners with higherscores on tests of working memory were more likely to report that theynoticed interactional (integrated) feedback in the form of recasts (seealso Robinson 2002)

198 TESOL QUARTERLY

Learner and Teacher Preferences for How to Teach or LearnAbout Form

Research on studentsrsquo beliefs and opinions about FFI (ie instructionand corrective feedback) has revealed that teachersrsquo and studentsrsquo viewsoften differ In two large-scale studies Schulz (1996 2001) found thatvirtually all students expressed a desire to have their errors corrected butvery few teachers felt this was desirable In addition students were morelikely than teachers to say that formal study of the language is ldquoessentialto the eventual mastery of a [foreign language]rdquo (2001 p 247) Mis-matches like these have long been reported in the literature (Cathcart ampOlsen 1976 Yorio 1986) The effects of matches and mismatches on L2learning have also been investigated (eg Spada 1987 Wesche 1981)and there is some evidence that learners benefit most from instructionthat suits their preferences (see Doumlrnyei 2005 for summary and discus-sion)

Other factors such as individual learning styles and previous experi-ence learning languages can also lead to different preferences for learn-ing As indicated earlier some L2 learners who have learned languagesvia traditional structure-based approaches often have strong preferencesfor continuing to learn via isolated grammar practice Other L2 learnerswho have learned languages informally may respond more positively toFFI that is integrated with meaning What is clear is that characteristicssuch as these can interact with type of instruction in complex waysleading to more or less successful learning (Skehan 1989)

It is not only learners who have different preferences for isolatedandor integrated FFI So do teachers Research on teacher cognitionhas revealed that L2 teachers often teach grammar in the way in whichthey were taught it themselves (Borg 2003 Farrell 1999) There is alsoevidence of a direct relationship between what teachers know aboutgrammar and how they teach it That is the extent to which grammar istaught deductively depends on how much metalinguistic knowledgeteachers possess (Borg 2001 Brumfit Mitchell amp Hooper 1996) Ofcourse there are L2 instructors who do not believe that grammar in-struction is useful In a study comparing second (English) and foreign(French) language instruction Mitchell and Hooper (1992) observedthat the English teachers rarely focused on language or explicit grammarwork but the foreign language teachers regularly did so When inter-viewed about this finding the English teachers expressed the opinionthat this type of activity was not of primary importance for developingstudentsrsquo linguistic abilitymdasha response that is not atypical of L2 instruc-tors who have adopted the strong version of CLT

It is often observed that teachers who are teaching their own nativelanguage may not have as good a grasp of the formal grammar of the

FORM-FOCUSED INSTRUCTION ISOLATED OR INTEGRATED 199

language as those whose learning has included form-focused L2 instruc-tion In a study of teachersrsquo practices Borg (1998) observed that deci-sions to include explicit formal instruction are not always based on teach-ersrsquo belief that grammar instruction works but rather on their belief thatstudents expect it He also observed that when teaching grammar teach-ers do not necessarily adhere exclusively to one particular approach(eg deductive or inductive) but will combine and alternate betweenthem Similarly in a study of 48 teachersrsquo attitudes to explicit or implicitteaching of grammar in an English for academic purposes (EAP) pro-gram Burgess and Etherington (2002) report that the majority of teach-ers believed that it is useful to integrate grammar within authentic textsrather than teach it explicitly using a grammatical syllabus At the sametime however they also expressed the belief that not all grammaticalknowledge can be learned implicitly and thus advocated explicit instruc-tion as well In our research investigating the preferences of teachers andadult learners for integrated or isolated FFI we have found that neithergroup expresses a consistent preference for one over the other Theyvalue both (Spada 2006b)

CONCLUSION

Research and theory suggest that there is a role in CLT and CBI forboth isolated and integrated FFI Each type of instruction may play adifferent role in promoting language acquisition Research and experi-ence in CLT and CBI affirm that not all language features need to betaught in isolated lessons Instead the current research on classroomlearning shows that incidental learning allows students to acquire a greatdeal of language while focused on meaning in CLT and CBI The addi-tion of integrated FFI can contribute to the automatization of languagefeatures that have emerged in studentsrsquo language but that are not usedreliably when there are competing demands for attention

Integrated FFI includes a wide range of approaches including thekind of implicit feedback that occurs as the need or opportunity arisesas well as the kind of planned interaction that requires the repeated butnatural use of a particular language form Nevertheless isolated lessonsmay be useful or even essential in promoting the acquisition of somelanguage features These features include those that are hard to perceivein the normal stream of communicative speech those for which there isa misleading similarity to the L1 and those that are unlikely to causecommunication breakdown We are currently designing quasi-experimental studies to explore the contributions of both types of FFI

The importance of isolated lessons will be determined by differences

200 TESOL QUARTERLY

in the specific language feature that is being taught as well as by differ-ences in learnersrsquo and teachersrsquo characteristics abilities and prefer-ences We find no evidence to support a suggestion that isolated gram-mar lessons without opportunities for communicative language useshould again become the dominant approach to language instructionIsolated lessons are a starting point or a follow-up for communicative orcontent-based activities Above all they should not be expected to resultin studentsrsquo immediate incorporation of the feature in focus into theircommunicative language use Nevertheless such lessons can preparestudents to make the best use of opportunities for continuing their lan-guage acquisition in meaning-focused activities and integrated FFI whenit occurs

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

The reviewers who provided feedback on earlier versions of the manuscript helpedus to make this a better article We did not always agree with the reviewers (whoindeed strongly disagreed with each other) but their feedback helped us under-stand and present our own views better We are also grateful to the graduate studentsand research assistants in N Spadarsquos research group at OISEUT for their insightfulcomments on this manuscript and related literature

THE AUTHORS

Nina Spada is a professor in the Second Language Education program at OISEUniversity of Toronto Ontario Canada where she teaches courses in L2 teachingand learning Her research focuses on the contributions of form-focused instructionto the L2 development of children and adults in communicative programs

Patsy M Lightbown is Distinguished Professor Emeritus of Concordia UniversityMontreal Canada and a former president of AAAL Her research explores relation-ships between L2 teaching and learning especially for children and adolescents

REFERENCES

Alanen R (1995) Input enhancement and rule presentation in second languageacquisition In R Schmidt (Ed) Attention and awareness in foreign language learningand teaching (pp 259ndash302) Honolulu University of Hawairsquoi Press

Ammar A amp Spada N (2006) One size fits all Recasts prompts and L2 learningStudies in Second Language Acquisition 28 543ndash574

Anderson J (1982) Acquisition of cognitive skill Psychological Review 89 369ndash406Barcroft J (2002) Semantic and structural elaboration in L2 lexical acquisition

Language Learning 52 323ndash363Barkhuizen G P (1998) Discovering learnersrsquo perceptions of ESL classroom teach-

inglearning activities in a South African context TESOL Quarterly 32 85ndash108

FORM-FOCUSED INSTRUCTION ISOLATED OR INTEGRATED 201

The value of FFI within instruction that is primarily meaning-focusedhas been demonstrated by research conducted in CLT and CBI pro-grams over the past 20 years In addition teachers who have experiencewith the strong version of CLTmdashan exclusive focus on meaning with noattention to language form (Howatt 1984 Spada 2006a)mdashhave ob-served that without FFI some language features never emerge in learn-ersrsquo language and some nontarget forms persist for years Experiencewith CLT and CBI shows that meaning-based exposure to the languageallows L2 learners to develop comprehension skills oral fluency self-confidence and communicative abilities but that they continue to havedifficulties with pronunciation as well as with morphological syntacticand pragmatic features of the L2 (see eg Harley amp Swain 1984 Lyster1987) Research in CLT and CBI classrooms shows that the introductionof FFI has contributed to changes in learnersrsquo knowledge and use ofcertain language features (eg Day amp Shapson 1991 Doughty amp Varela1998 Harley 1989 White Spada Lightbown amp Ranta 1991 Lyster2004 Sheen 2005)2 Advocates of CBI have increasingly emphasized theimportance of planning lessons that have both content objectives and lin-guistic objectives (Echevarria Vogt amp Short 2004 Pica 2002 Schlepper-grell Achugar amp Oteiacuteza 2004)

Thus both research and teaching experience have led to a growingconsensus that instruction is most effective when it includes attention toboth form and meaning3 As a result the most engaging questions anddebates in L2 pedagogy are no longer about whether CLT should in-clude FFI but rather how and when it is most effective This articlecompares the role of FFI in lessons that are isolated from communicativeor content-based interaction with that of FFI that is integrated withinactivities where the primary emphasis remains on meaning (eg in tasksor content-based lessons) Some teachers and students have strong opin-ions about this question (see Barkhuizen 1998 Yorio 1986) but re-searchers have not directly compared the effects of integrating or isolat-ing form-focused and meaning-focused practice in CLT and CBI pro-grams

There are theoretical and pedagogical arguments for both isolationand integration of form and meaning in L2 instruction In our view

2 These studies differ in several ways including the degree of explicitness of instructionNonetheless they can all be categorized as studies of FFI using the broad definition of FFIas proposed by Ellis (2001) This includes the primarily metalinguistic instruction associ-ated with more traditional approaches to L2 teaching as evidenced in Sheen (2005) as wellas instruction that is more implicit in nature drawing learnersrsquo attention to form infunctional and meaning-based contexts as evidenced in Harley (1989)

3 We thank the anonymous TESOL Quarterly reviewer who reminded us that all grammaticalforms have meaning and that a simple binary distinction between form and meaning isproblematic We agree and use this terminology as a kind of shorthand referring to anemphasis on the structural or semantic properties of language

184 TESOL QUARTERLY

making a choice between integrated and isolated FFI is not necessary (oradvisable) Rather the challenge is to discover the conditions underwhich isolated and integrated FFI respectively are most appropriateThese conditions are likely to involve a number of factors including thenature of the language feature (eg its complexity and its frequencyand salience in the input) learnersrsquo developmental levels in the acqui-sition of the feature and the relationship between comparable featuresin the learnersrsquo L1 and the L2 Other important factors include teachersrsquoand learnersrsquo preferences for how to teachlearn about form learnersrsquoliteracy and metalinguistic sophistication (especially in their L1) andtheir age and overall L2 proficiency

ISOLATED AND INTEGRATED FFI

Johnson (1982) made a distinction between what he called the unifi-cationist and separationist positions on the teaching of language use andlanguage structure He described the separationist position as one withldquostructure being taught first (through a structural syllabus) followed by asecond communicative stage at which use is taught and where structuresare lsquoactivatedrsquo or lsquorecycledrsquordquo (p 129) According to Johnson the separa-tionist position implies ldquoa divorce between the teaching of forms anduses though other kinds of related separation are often also being im-pliedmdashas between knowledge and its lsquoactivitationrsquo between correctnessand fluencyrdquo (p 129) In contrast from the unificationist perspectiveldquothe divorce of form and use is seen as undesirable and probably alsountenable on linguistic and psycholinguistic grounds The position ar-gues for a communicative framework from the very beginningrdquo (p 129)

Other writers have used different labels to distinguish different typesof FFI Long (1991) has made a distinction between focus on forms andfocus on form Focus on forms refers to lessons in which language featuresare taught or practiced according to a structural syllabus that specifieswhich features are to be taught and in which sequence Focus on formsmight involve teaching approaches as varied as mimicry and memoriza-tion or grammar translation but all are based on the assumption thatlanguage features should be taught systematically one at a time Incontrast Longrsquos focus on form refers to instruction in which the mainemphasis remains on communicative activities or tasks but in which ateacher intervenes to help students use language more accurately whenthe need arises Originally Long (1991) defined focus on form as reac-tive and incidental That is it was limited to those classroom events inwhich the teacher responded to a difficulty that arose as students en-gaged in communicative activities or tasks The language feature that

FORM-FOCUSED INSTRUCTION ISOLATED OR INTEGRATED 185

required focus was not determined in advance More recent interpreta-tions of focus on form have expanded the definition to include instruc-tion in which teachers anticipate that students will have difficulty with aparticular feature as they engage in a communicative task and plan inadvance to target that feature through feedback and other pedagogicalinterventions all the while maintaining a primary focus on meaning(Doughty amp Williams 1998 Long amp Robinson 1998)

In this article we have chosen to use the terms isolated and integratedto describe two approaches to drawing learnersrsquo attention to languageform in L2 instruction4 Isolated FFI is provided in activities that areseparate from the communicative use of language but it occurs as partof a program that also includes CLT andor CBI Isolated FFI may betaught in preparation for a communicative activity or after an activity inwhich students have experienced difficulty with a particular languagefeature In isolated FFI the focus on language form is separated from thecommunicative or content-based activity This approach differs fromLongrsquos focus on forms which refers to language instruction and practiceorganized around predetermined points of grammar in a structural syl-labus that is form-based instruction that is not directly tied to genuinelycommunicative practice

In integrated FFI the learnersrsquo attention is drawn to language formduring communicative or content-based instruction This definition cor-responds to focus on form (both planned and incidental) as defined byEllis (2002a) and by Doughty and Williams (1998) That is although theform focus occurs within a communicative activity the language featuresin focus may have been anticipated and planned for by the teacher orthey may occur incidentally in the course of ongoing interaction

Before discussing the role we see for each approach a few commentsare in order on how the distinction between isolated and integrated FFIis related to other contrasts in L2 research and pedagogy such as inten-tional versus incidental learning (Hulstijn 2003) and explicit versus implicitinstruction (DeKeyser 2003)

4 One reviewer suggested that the term isolated carries ldquoa clearly negative connotationrdquo Weunderstand that interpretation and agree that the term certainly has had that connotationin much writing about language teaching Nevertheless we have chosen to retain this termbecause it allows us to emphasize the importance of instruction in which teachers andstudents focus their attention on language features that are almost impossible to perceiveor acquire when they occur in ordinary communicative interaction either because they areacoustically imperceptible (eg most grammatical morphology in English) or redundantand unlikely to affect comprehension (eg word order in English questions) We suggestthat it is sometimes necessary to isolate such formsmdashmuch as one might place a specimenunder a microscopemdashso that learners have an opportunity to perceive these features andunderstand their function in the language they encounter in communicative interactionAs we have stated previously learners cannot be expected to benefit from brief integratedfocus on form if they do not understand what the teacher is calling their attention to(Lightbown 1998 p 194)

186 TESOL QUARTERLY

Isolated FFI is the provision of instruction in lessons whose primarypurpose is to teach students about a particular language feature becausethe teacher believes that students are unlikely to acquire the featureduring communicative activities without an opportunity to learn aboutthe feature in a situation where its form and meaning can be made clearFrom the teacherrsquos perspective isolated FFI always implies intentionallearning and explicit instruction However classroom observation re-search shows that even in traditional classrooms in which grammar les-sons are based on a structural syllabus students are not always sure of theteacherrsquos intended focus (Slimani 1992) That is the explicitness andintentionality that the teacher has in mind may not be recognized by thestudents

Integrated FFI occurs in classroom activities during which the primaryfocus remains on meaning but in which feedback or brief explanationsare offered to help students express meaning more effectively or moreaccurately within the communicative interaction Some writers seem toassume that drawing learnersrsquo attention to form during meaning-basedactivities always involves implicit feedback and incidental learning butthat is not necessarily the case Again the perceptions of teachers andlearners may be different Adult learners sometimes show that they in-terpret the teacherrsquos implicit feedback (eg in the form of recasts) asexplicit guidance creating an opportunity for intentional languagelearning (eg Ohta 2000 Ellis Basturkmen amp Loewen 2001) Howevereven when they recognize the teacherrsquos implicit feedback as relevant tolanguage form learners may not correctly identify the object of theteacherrsquos attention (see Mackey Gass amp McDonough 2000 for a relatedstudy)

Both isolated and integrated FFI can include explicit feedback onerror metalinguistic terminology the statement of rules and explana-tions Consider the following example of explicit integrated FFI Thecontext is a communicative activity Grade 6 students are playing a gamein which they have to correctly guess the location of different dolls in adoll house to gain enough points to win the game Note that in prepa-ration for the game examples of appropriate questions had been writtenon the board

Student Is George is in the living room

Teacher You said ldquoisrdquo two times dear Listen to youmdashyou said ldquoIs Georgeis in Look on the board ldquoIs George in the rdquo and then yousay the name of the room

Student Is George in the living room

Teacher Yeah

Student I win (Lightbown amp Spada 2006 p 167)

FORM-FOCUSED INSTRUCTION ISOLATED OR INTEGRATED 187

In this example the teacher provided explicit corrective feedback toa student when he made an error of form even though the meaning heconveyed was comprehensible First she drew attention to the errorproviding information as to what the error was Although she explicitlyfocused on form and the student appeared to understand and use thefeedback it seems that this did not interfere with his continuing interestin the ongoing game Such FFI is thus both integrated and explicit Fromthe teacherrsquos perspective the focus on question forms was also inten-tional She had prepared for the activity with an isolated lesson on ques-tion forms writing examples of appropriate questions on the board

Another example of integrated FFI one that includes the statement ofrules and metalinguistic explanations is an activity in which pairs ofstudents respond to truendashfalse (TF) statements about medical historyusing a timeline showing names dates and descriptions of discoveriesSome of the TF statements are expressed in the active voice whileothers are in the passive (eg Freud developed a method for examining mentalprocesses known as psychoanalysis Penicillin was discovered by Alexander Flem-ing in 1928) The focus is on content and meaning As students discusstheir responses to the questions the instructor selects the two TF state-ments above and asks the students to examine them with the followingquestions in mind ldquoWhat is given more emphasis in the first sentencemdashlsquoFreud [the subject] or psychoanalysis [the object]rsquordquo ldquoWhat is moreprominent in the second sentencerdquo This leads into a brief explanation(5 or 6 minutes) of activepassive sentences how they are formed andhow they function using one or two other examples The teacher thenasks students to return to responding to the TF questions using theinformation on the timeline to assist them (See Samuda 2001 for anexample of integrated FFI targeting the use of modal auxiliaries)

One final note is essential before we discuss the different roles ofisolated and integrated FFI For purposes of the discussion we presentthese approaches as if they were entirely distinct It is clear however thatthey are really the ends of a continuum especially as we are examiningtheir role within CLT and CBI contexts for teaching and learning Thatis we do not see isolated and integrated FFI as being in competition witheach other rather we see them as complementary parts of a completelanguage learning environment Although we are convinced that there isa role for isolated FFI we see it as occurring within instruction that isprimarily interactive and communicative Ultimately the ability to uselanguage automatically in communicative settings requires experience indoing exactly that Providing integrated FFI in CLT and CBI contexts isthe instructional model that has the greatest potential for facilitating thedevelopment of fluent and accurate language that is available for useoutside the classroom We concur with DeKeyser (1998) who in hiscritique of rote drill in audiolingual language teaching commented that

188 TESOL QUARTERLY

practice is valuable for language learning when it involves practice inldquoconveying personal meaningsrdquo (pp 53ndash54)

The Role of Integrated FFI

In the pedagogical literature there is considerable support for inte-grating form focus within communicative activities as well as consider-able skepticism about the effectiveness of instruction that separates formfocus from meaningful interaction (see eg Calveacute 1994) Celce-Murcia(1991) argues that ldquogrammar should never be taught as an end in itselfbut always with reference to meaning social factors or discoursemdashor acombination of these factorsrdquo (pp 466ndash467) Brumfit (1984) asserts thatldquoteachers should not prevent learners from combining a concernwith language use with worry about formal accuracy in terms of specificlanguage itemsrdquo (p 53) Brumfitrsquos assertion may be taken as evidencethat for some learners at least feedback that comes during communi-cative interaction may have a positive effect on motivation5 Knowingthat help is available when it is needed may respond to the expectationsand preferences of studentsmdashespecially adult studentsmdashin languageclasses (see Cathcart amp Olsen 1976 Schulz 1996 2001)

Theoretical support for integration comes from both SLA and cogni-tive psychology Long (1991) has argued that focus on language formshould be fully integrated into ongoing communicative interaction Infact as noted earlier in some of his writing Long (eg 1991) arguedthat teachers should provide focus on form only on those languagefeatures that occur naturally in the course of a task or activity in whichstudents are using the language in meaningful interaction In his revisedinteraction hypothesis Long (1996) states that while comprehensibleinput and meaningful interaction provide the raw material for languageacquisition they also provide the ideal context for spontaneous (ieintegrated) attention to language form Other SLA concepts such asnegotiation of form (Lyster 1994a 1994b) and metatalk (Swain amp Lapkin2002) also point to the benefits of reflecting on language form duringcommunicative language use There are differences among these theo-retical constructs but all of them are compatible with the hypothesis thatwhile instruction may not directly alter learnersrsquo underlying languagesystems it can help them notice features in the input making it more

5 It is important to note that we do not equate integrated FFI with CLT As evident in theresearch literature and in classroom practice CLT has many different meanings some ofwhich include no attention to language form (ie the strong version of CLT) and othersthat include attention to form albeit in different ways (see Howatt 1984 and Spada 2006afor discussions of the evolution and interpretations of CLT)

FORM-FOCUSED INSTRUCTION ISOLATED OR INTEGRATED 189

likely that they will acquire them (Gass 1997 Lightbown 1998 Schmidt1990)

One theoretical approach that has recently been used to explain thepossible benefits of integrated FFI is transfer appropriate processing (TAP)According to TAP learners retrieve knowledge best if the processes forretrieval are similar to those that were used in the learning condition(Blaxton 1989 Franks Bilbrey Lien amp McNamara 2000 Morris Brans-ford amp Franks 1977) In addition the situation objects and events thatare present at the time of learning are connected through a network ofassociations Therefore retrieval is likely to be easier when learners findthemselves using similar processes or in the presence of the same objectsor situations

TAP has only recently begun to receive attention in the SLA literaturebut research on bilingualsrsquo memory for lexical items provides some in-dications of what SLA research may reveal In these studies bilingualparticipants are consistently more successful in retrieving the words theylearned when the testing tasks are similar to the learning tasks (BasdenBonilla-Meeks amp Basden 1994 Durgunoglu amp Roediger 1987) Re-search on the learning and retrieval of more complex units of languageremains to be done However it seems that TAP would predict thatlanguage learned during communicative activities in which learnersrsquo at-tention is briefly drawn to form (ie integrated FFI) would be moreeasily retrieved in communicative situations than say on decontextual-ized tests In contrast L2 knowledge learned outside communicativeactivities in isolated FFI would be more difficult to retrieve in commu-nicative situations outside the classroom (Doherty Hilberg Pinal ampTharp 2003 Segalowitz amp Gatbonton 1995 Segalowitz amp Lightbown1999) This hypothesis is consistent with the observation of many teach-ers and researchers Students who perform well on tests are not neces-sarily fluent users of the test items in spontaneous speech just as manyfluent speakers whose language acquisition has taken place primarilyoutside the classroom perform poorly on tests requiring metalinguisticknowledge or the retrieval of individual language features outside acommunicative context

Although support for integrated FFI comes primarily from theoreticalextrapolations and pedagogical principles there is also some evidence ofits effectiveness in classroom-based studies of CLT and CBI In our re-search in intensive ESL classes that were almost exclusively meaning-focused young students were successful in acquiring certain languagefeatures when their teachers provided ongoing integrated FFI on a lim-ited number of these features (Lightbown 1991 Lightbown amp Spada1990) Those receiving integrated FFI were substantially more likely toacquire these features than students in classes where there was never anyattention to form Research in French immersion programs (Day amp

190 TESOL QUARTERLY

Shapson 1991 Harley 1989 1998 Lyster 1994a 1994b 2004) and inother content-based and communicative classrooms with child and adultESL learners (Doughty amp Varela 1998 R Ellis Basturkmen amp Loewen2001 Williams amp Evans 1998) also supports the hypothesis that attentionto language form within the context of communicative practice can leadto progress in learnersrsquo language development Although this progresshas been observed in the short term for most studies long-term improve-ment has also been reported (eg Spada amp Lightbown 1993) Howeverthe research in CLT and CBI classes was not designed to directly inves-tigate the different roles of integrated and isolated FFI That is none ofthe studies compared the outcomes of L2 learners receiving isolated FFIwith learners receiving integrated FFI

Jeanrsquos (2005) study of French as a second language (nonimmersion)in a Canadian secondary school provides some related evidence of theeffectiveness of integrated FFI Jean designed an experimental study inwhich learners either (a) practiced target forms in mechanical drills thatwere separate from the communicative activities in which the forms wereexpected to be used later or (b) received FFI during ongoing meaning-based activities She found no difference in the two groupsrsquo ability to usethe target forms on subsequent measures of accuracy However shefound that students whose FFI had been integrated with meaningfulcommunicative activities used the forms with a greater variety of vocabu-lary Jean concludes that at least for the verb morphology targeted in herstudy isolated mechanical drills were not a necessary step in L2 teachingand that integrated FFI was an effective way of teaching certain verbforms She also found that the high school students in her study did notexpress a clear preference for one type of instruction over the other

The Role of Isolated FFI

Stern (1992) asserted that although ldquocommunicative activities are anessential component of a language curriculum there is a still a place fora separate analytic language syllabusrdquo (p 180 emphasis added) Morerecently Ellis (2002b) has argued that ldquowe [should] teach grammarseparately making no attempt to integrate it with the task-based com-ponent (except perhaps methodologically through feedback)rdquo (p 32)One frequently heard argument in support of isolating FFI is related tomaintaining learnersrsquo positive motivation The concern is that learnerswill become discouraged or disinterested if their attention is drawn toform while they are trying to engage in communicative practice (seeeg Raimes 2002) Thus it is sometimes suggested that teachers makenote of problems that arise during interaction activities and then bringthem up for instruction and explanation in separate isolated activities

FORM-FOCUSED INSTRUCTION ISOLATED OR INTEGRATED 191

outside the communicative activity As noted earlier however there isrelatively little evidence that language learners themselves object to FFIthat occurs during communicative activities

Some pedagogical and theoretical arguments to support the separa-tion of form and communicative practice include the assumption thatFFI should precede communicative use of a new language feature Thereis a long and strong tradition in the field of L2 teaching that the firstphase in a lesson is the presentation of a specific language form Thispresentation phase is followed by controlled practice (pattern practicestructural drills etc) and only later by activities that permit more sponta-neous use of language In a controversial article Higgs and Clifford (1982)argued that ldquothe premature immersion of a student into an unstructuredor lsquofreersquo conversational setting before certain fundamental linguistic struc-tures are more or less in place is not done without costrdquo (pp 73ndash74)

More recently drawing on research in cognitive psychology specifi-cally in the early work of Anderson (1982) on skill acquisition theoryDeKeyser (1998) has argued that ldquogrammar should first be taught ex-plicitly to achieve a maximum of understanding and then should befollowed by some exercises to anchor it solidly in the studentsrsquo conscious-ness in declarative form so that it is easy to keep in mind during com-municative exercisesrdquo (p 58) In the framework of this article DeKey-serrsquos first two phases (explicit instruction and anchoring exercises) rep-resent isolated FFI although our definition of isolated FFI includes thepossibility that such instruction may occur after students have discoveredthe need for certain language features during communicative activity6

Further support for isolated FFI comes from information processingtheory which argues that because the human mind has limited process-ing capacity it is difficult for learners to focus on form and meaning atthe same time (Ellis 1997) VanPatten (1990) suggested that noticingsome aspects of language form (eg verb morphology) while trying tograsp the meaning of a text may be particularly problematic for begin-ning learners VanPatten and his colleagues have shown how isolatingspecific features of the target language in the input can help learnerschange the way they process certain formndashmeaning mappings (VanPat-ten 1996 2004 VanPatten amp Cadierno 1993)

Recent studies by Barcroft (2002) and Trofimovich (2005) also illus-trate situations in which isolated FFI may be beneficial to students Inthese studies students were exposed to the material to be learned eitherin contexts where they needed to focus on form while also processingsemantic aspects of the language to be learned or where some formalfeature was itself the primary focus Both Barcroft and Trofimovich

6 Doughty and Williams (1998) refer to the work by DeKeyser and Lightbown regarding thesequencing of FFI as sequential focus on form

192 TESOL QUARTERLY

found that attention to meaning was associated with poorer recall offormal features such as the spelling or pronunciation of words Theyinterpreted their findings in terms of the TAP hypothesis As notedearlier according to TAP the best predictor of success in retrievinginformation is the degree of similarity between the conditions and pro-cessing demands present during learning and those present during re-trieval Thus a learning task in which cognitive effort is devoted tosemantic features of a word is not a good preparation for a test in whichlearners need to retrieve information about perceptual or formal fea-tures of the word If the assessment task requires learners to recall orrecognize the correct spelling or pronunciation of a word the learningtask should create conditions in which learners can devote more pro-cessing capacity to those features To be sure the goal of most languagelearning is ultimately to be able to use language forms correctly in com-municative contexts that include multiple demands on attention How-ever what the research by VanPatten Barcroft and Trofimovich shows isthat such contexts may not be conducive to the initial perception andinterpretation of certain language features

To our knowledge no empirical classroom-based research directlycompares the effects of isolated and integrated instruction7 It is impor-tant to keep in mind that our definition of isolated FFI is attention to formin separate lessons that occur within a program that is primarily com-municative in orientation In that sense it is not the same as Longrsquosdefinition of focus on forms which is associated with traditional discrete-point metalinguistic instruction provided in a context where little or nomeaning-based instruction or practice occurs Similarly our definition ofintegrated FFI is not the same as Longrsquos original definition of focus on formwhich includes only reactive FFI whereas integrated FFI includes bothreactive and proactive FFI In this way our definition of integrated FFI issimilar to Ellisrsquos (2001) definition of planned and incidental focus on form

7 A reviewer argues that such studies do exist and points to Sheen (2005) as an exampleWhile Sheenrsquos study does show the benefits of instruction in helping young francophonestudents make more accurate use of questions and the placement of adverbs in Englishsentences it is not a comparison of integrated and isolated FFI as we define them in thispaper As we read the report of that research it seems to show that the students in thecomparison group received almost no FFI at all It is important to emphasize again thatintegrated FFI is not simply a synonym for CLT with little or no attention to language formIntegrated FFI includes brief explanations corrective feedback explicit elicitations ofcorrect forms and input enhancement provided within the context of meaning-basedinstruction Sheenrsquos description of the comparison class in his study indicates that theinstructor did not make any special attempt to integrate FFI related to questions andadverbs in his regular classroom activities In the experimental class students receivedinstruction that is best described as focus on forms not as isolated FFI The distinctionbetween the two is that isolated FFI is provided in separate lessons that are directly relatedto the activities within a communicative or content-based syllabus whereas focus on formslessons typically occur within a structural syllabus that is not closely linked to the ongoingcommunicative activities

FORM-FOCUSED INSTRUCTION ISOLATED OR INTEGRATED 193

This review of the theoretical pedagogical and empirical support forintegrated and isolated instruction indicates that there are arguments onboth sides and that the choice between the two is likely not an absoluteone but rather a choice that is dependent on other factors In the nextsection we outline some of those factors

FACTORS THAT INFLUENCE THE CHOICE OFISOLATED OR INTEGRATED FFI

SLA research shows that some linguistic features are acquired inciden-tally that is without intentional effort or conscious awareness by learnersor guidance from teachers However it is also evident that some lan-guage features develop very slowly or not at all in the absence of guidedattention and that some types of FFI can increase the likelihood thatlearners will make progress in learning these features (Norris amp Ortega2000) Some language features develop according to a natural sequenceof stages that is not altered by instruction (For overviews see Ellis 1994Gass amp Selinker 2001 Lightbown amp Spada 2006 Mitchell amp Myles1998) However while instruction may have only a limited effect on thepath learners follow through developmental sequences it may affect therate at which learners pass through a sequence (see eg Ellis 1989Larsen-Freeman amp Long 1991 Mackey amp Philp 1998 Pienemann 1989Spada amp Lightbown 1993) Several factors may influence the relation-ship between instruction and learning outcomes These factors are dy-namic changing over the course of learnersrsquo language acquisition andwithin different teaching contexts8

L1 Influence

One hypothesis is that isolated FFI is particularly useful when the L1has a strong influence on L2 forms Errors caused by L1 influence can beproblematic in classrooms where learners share the same first languageand reinforce each otherrsquos L1-based errors (Lightbown 1991 Lyster1987) In situations like these isolated FFI may be needed to clarifymisleading similarities between the L1 and L2 Harley (1993) points tothe distinction between French avoirecirctre and havebe in English as anexample Isolated FFI may also help in those cases where learners havedeveloped based on L1 influence an interlanguage rule that is more

8 We thank one of the anonymous reviewers for emphasizing the dynamic nature of thefactors that influence instructional choices

194 TESOL QUARTERLY

general than the related rule in the L2 White (1991) discusses thisproblem with specific reference to differences between adverb place-ment in French and English subject-verb-object sentences and advocatesisolated FFI as a way of helping learners perceive those differences

Salience in the Input

Isolated FFI may be beneficial with features that are relatively simpleto explain or illustrate but are not particularly salient in oral languageDrawing attention to them in isolation may help learners seehear lan-guage features they have not been noticing in the input the first step onthe path to acquisition Although some studies have reported benefits ofinput enhancement that is increasing frequency andor salience of lan-guage features in the input (Alanen 1995 Doughty 1991) others havereported partial or no benefits (Spada amp Lightbown 1999 Trahey ampWhite 1993 White 1998) These conflicting findings appear to be re-lated to differences in the kind of enhancement More explicit enhance-ment appears to lead to more L2 progress than less explicit enhance-ment (Norris amp Ortega 2000)9 This finding suggests that isolated FFImight be useful for creating the necessary salience to help learners no-tice language forms that occur frequently but are semantically redun-dant or phonologically reduced or imperceptible in the oral input Suchforms could include for example third-person -s in English and adjec-tive agreement morphology in French

Input Frequency

Isolated FFI may also help ensure that students have opportunities tolearn forms that are rare or absent in the language they are exposed toin the CLT or CBI classroom Lyster (1994b) reports findings to supportthis idea in his investigation of the effects of FFI on the learning of thesociolinguistic distinction between second-person pronouns tu and vousin French immersion classrooms Students were familiar with the singu-larplural distinction between these two words but the social dynamicsof the classroom in which they were learning French did not give themopportunities to observe the politeness distinctions that are signaled bythe different pronoun forms Lyster developed an instructional interven-

9 It may also be that explicit instruction seems to have some benefits because the assessmentmeasures used favor explicit knowledge (see Doughty 2003 for discussion) Norris andOrtega (2000 p 501) themselves acknowledge this possibility but argue that their findingscannot be explained by this single variable

FORM-FOCUSED INSTRUCTION ISOLATED OR INTEGRATED 195

tion that included opportunities for isolated FFI Drawing studentsrsquo at-tention to this distinction probably prepared them to notice the use ofthe forms in the communicative and integrated FFI activities that fol-lowed and their ability to use these forms improved significantly

Rule Complexity

It has been suggested that integrated FFI may be a more appropriateapproach to instruction for language features that are complex and haverules that are difficult to describe However although there is someintuitive agreement about a distinction between hard and easy rules it isnot always clear what is meant by these terms (see Hulstijn 1995 Hulstijnamp DeGraaff 1994 for useful attempts to define them) Furthermore asDeKeyser (2003) points out in addition to the inherent difficulty of aform or a rule there is also subjective difficulty ldquoRule difficulty is anindividual issue that can be described as the ratio of the rulersquos inherentlinguistic complexity to the studentsrsquo ability to handle such a rulemdasha ruleof moderate difficulty for one student may be easy for a student withmore language learning aptitude or language learning experiencerdquo (p331)

A fairly widespread assumption in the SLA literature is that that whileeasy rules can be taught hard rules are by their very nature too complexto be successfully taught in isolated instruction and thus are difficult tolearn through traditional explanation and practice pedagogy that is iso-lated from communicative use of the language Thus integrated FFI maybe more suitable for complexabstract features such as the article sys-tem in English In laboratory studies to investigate the learning of simpleand complex morphosyntactic rules DeKeyser (1995) and Robinson(1996) provide some support for this idea Participants in those studieslearned simple morphosyntactic rules better under conditions of ex-plicit-deductive learning and more complex rules better under implicit-inductive conditions Conclusions drawn from these studies remain con-troversial however and are perhaps best seen as hypotheses in need offurther study

Communicative Value

Integrated FFI may also be particularly useful with features in whicherrors are more likely to lead to communication breakdowns (eg En-glish possessive pronouns his and her) Lightbown (1998) suggests thatL2 learners at various levels of proficiency are more likely to be able tofocus on form and meaning at the same time when the ldquoform in focus ( )

196 TESOL QUARTERLY

is an important carrier of the meaning in focusrdquo (p 192) However whenerrors do not interfere with meaning (eg the absence of inversion inquestions such as What she is reading) isolation from communicativeinteraction may be necessary if learners are to notice the differencebetween what they say and the correct way to say what they mean (SpadaLightbown amp White 2005) The relative importance of using the rightword as compared with using the right grammar is also reflected inSchwartzrsquos (1993) observation that instruction and feedback are morelikely to lead to changes in learnersrsquo knowledge and use of lexical itemsthan of morphology and syntax Mackey Gass and McDonough (2000)have observed that recasts a typical characteristic of integrated FFI aremore likely to be noticed when the element being recast is a lexical itemthan when it is a morphosyntactic element (see also Lyster 1998)

Learnersrsquo Developmental Level

Once a language feature has emerged in learnersrsquo interlanguage (seePienemann 1998) more fluent and accurate use of that feature may bestbe encouraged through integrated FFI Several studies on FFI have re-ported that L2 learners benefit most from FFI when they are at a devel-opmental level in their language acquisition that enables them to com-pare their use of particular forms with that of native and more proficientspeakers (Mackey amp Philp 1998 Spada amp Lightbown 1999) Related tothis finding is the observation that learnersrsquo receptive and productiveabilities do not develop in the same way or at the same rate Howeverrecent research investigating the effects of both input- (ie comprehen-sion) and output- (ie production) based practice on L2 developmentindicates that both comprehension and production improve as long asthe practice is meaningful and learners are encouraged to make formndashmeaning connections (Morgan-Short amp Wood Bowden 2006 see alsoDeKeyser 1998)

As noted earlier learners may need isolated FFI such as VanPattenrsquosprocessing instruction to help them detect and understand formndashmeaning relationships for language features that have low salience lowfrequency or low communicative value Once the features have emergedin the interlanguage or once the formndashmeaning connections have beenmade the development of greater fluency is likely to be favored byintegrated FFI Ammar and Spada (2006) found that French-speakingchildren who were already more proficient in using possessive determin-ers his and her were able to take advantage of integrated instructionwhether in the form of recasts (where the teacher provides the correctform) or prompts (where the teacher elicits a correction from the stu-dent) However students who were less proficient benefited more from

FORM-FOCUSED INSTRUCTION ISOLATED OR INTEGRATED 197

prompts than recasts suggesting that they had greater difficulty recog-nizing the purpose of the feedback

Learnersrsquo Age

In general older learners especially those with experience in thestudy of their own or other languages are more receptive to isolatedgrammatical instruction (see eg Barkhuizen 1998) Outside the class-room in environments where they are completely immersed in the tar-get language very young learners often acquire L2 proficiency with littleor no FFI Older children adolescents and adults however appear tobenefit from instruction and may even depend on it because of the waysin which their language-learning abilities differ from those of youngchildren (Bley-Vroman 1988 DeKeyser 2000) especially if their contactwith the language is limited to the second or foreign language classroom

Research in CLT and CBI contexts has shown that children do notalways recognize integrated FFI (including enhanced input and implicitrecasts) as responses to language form rather than meaning (eg Lysteramp Ranta 1997) However they do respond to integrated feedback whichis explicit (eg through the use of emphasis prompting and elicitationas well as other nonverbal signals see eg Ammar amp Spada 2006Doughty amp Varela 1998 Lyster 2004) or which is provided within thecontext of language teaching where the overall orientation includes astrong focus on language form (Lyster amp Mori 2006) Adult learners ina variety of language learning contexts have been shown to be moreaware of integrated FFI as feedback on language form (see eg EllisBasturkmen amp Loewen 2001 Ohta 2000)

Language-Learning Aptitude

Learners who perform well on language aptitude tests or have moremetalinguistic knowledge and skill in their L1 may be better able tonotice and focus on language form within a communicative context thanthose with poorer aptitude and metalinguistic ability It has been hypoth-esized that learners with poor metalinguistic skills in their own languagemay require more explicit (possibly isolated) instruction to help themidentify some formndashmeaning connections (Ranta 2002) Mackey PhilpEgi Fujii and Tomoaki (2002) found that adult learners with higherscores on tests of working memory were more likely to report that theynoticed interactional (integrated) feedback in the form of recasts (seealso Robinson 2002)

198 TESOL QUARTERLY

Learner and Teacher Preferences for How to Teach or LearnAbout Form

Research on studentsrsquo beliefs and opinions about FFI (ie instructionand corrective feedback) has revealed that teachersrsquo and studentsrsquo viewsoften differ In two large-scale studies Schulz (1996 2001) found thatvirtually all students expressed a desire to have their errors corrected butvery few teachers felt this was desirable In addition students were morelikely than teachers to say that formal study of the language is ldquoessentialto the eventual mastery of a [foreign language]rdquo (2001 p 247) Mis-matches like these have long been reported in the literature (Cathcart ampOlsen 1976 Yorio 1986) The effects of matches and mismatches on L2learning have also been investigated (eg Spada 1987 Wesche 1981)and there is some evidence that learners benefit most from instructionthat suits their preferences (see Doumlrnyei 2005 for summary and discus-sion)

Other factors such as individual learning styles and previous experi-ence learning languages can also lead to different preferences for learn-ing As indicated earlier some L2 learners who have learned languagesvia traditional structure-based approaches often have strong preferencesfor continuing to learn via isolated grammar practice Other L2 learnerswho have learned languages informally may respond more positively toFFI that is integrated with meaning What is clear is that characteristicssuch as these can interact with type of instruction in complex waysleading to more or less successful learning (Skehan 1989)

It is not only learners who have different preferences for isolatedandor integrated FFI So do teachers Research on teacher cognitionhas revealed that L2 teachers often teach grammar in the way in whichthey were taught it themselves (Borg 2003 Farrell 1999) There is alsoevidence of a direct relationship between what teachers know aboutgrammar and how they teach it That is the extent to which grammar istaught deductively depends on how much metalinguistic knowledgeteachers possess (Borg 2001 Brumfit Mitchell amp Hooper 1996) Ofcourse there are L2 instructors who do not believe that grammar in-struction is useful In a study comparing second (English) and foreign(French) language instruction Mitchell and Hooper (1992) observedthat the English teachers rarely focused on language or explicit grammarwork but the foreign language teachers regularly did so When inter-viewed about this finding the English teachers expressed the opinionthat this type of activity was not of primary importance for developingstudentsrsquo linguistic abilitymdasha response that is not atypical of L2 instruc-tors who have adopted the strong version of CLT

It is often observed that teachers who are teaching their own nativelanguage may not have as good a grasp of the formal grammar of the

FORM-FOCUSED INSTRUCTION ISOLATED OR INTEGRATED 199

language as those whose learning has included form-focused L2 instruc-tion In a study of teachersrsquo practices Borg (1998) observed that deci-sions to include explicit formal instruction are not always based on teach-ersrsquo belief that grammar instruction works but rather on their belief thatstudents expect it He also observed that when teaching grammar teach-ers do not necessarily adhere exclusively to one particular approach(eg deductive or inductive) but will combine and alternate betweenthem Similarly in a study of 48 teachersrsquo attitudes to explicit or implicitteaching of grammar in an English for academic purposes (EAP) pro-gram Burgess and Etherington (2002) report that the majority of teach-ers believed that it is useful to integrate grammar within authentic textsrather than teach it explicitly using a grammatical syllabus At the sametime however they also expressed the belief that not all grammaticalknowledge can be learned implicitly and thus advocated explicit instruc-tion as well In our research investigating the preferences of teachers andadult learners for integrated or isolated FFI we have found that neithergroup expresses a consistent preference for one over the other Theyvalue both (Spada 2006b)

CONCLUSION

Research and theory suggest that there is a role in CLT and CBI forboth isolated and integrated FFI Each type of instruction may play adifferent role in promoting language acquisition Research and experi-ence in CLT and CBI affirm that not all language features need to betaught in isolated lessons Instead the current research on classroomlearning shows that incidental learning allows students to acquire a greatdeal of language while focused on meaning in CLT and CBI The addi-tion of integrated FFI can contribute to the automatization of languagefeatures that have emerged in studentsrsquo language but that are not usedreliably when there are competing demands for attention

Integrated FFI includes a wide range of approaches including thekind of implicit feedback that occurs as the need or opportunity arisesas well as the kind of planned interaction that requires the repeated butnatural use of a particular language form Nevertheless isolated lessonsmay be useful or even essential in promoting the acquisition of somelanguage features These features include those that are hard to perceivein the normal stream of communicative speech those for which there isa misleading similarity to the L1 and those that are unlikely to causecommunication breakdown We are currently designing quasi-experimental studies to explore the contributions of both types of FFI

The importance of isolated lessons will be determined by differences

200 TESOL QUARTERLY

in the specific language feature that is being taught as well as by differ-ences in learnersrsquo and teachersrsquo characteristics abilities and prefer-ences We find no evidence to support a suggestion that isolated gram-mar lessons without opportunities for communicative language useshould again become the dominant approach to language instructionIsolated lessons are a starting point or a follow-up for communicative orcontent-based activities Above all they should not be expected to resultin studentsrsquo immediate incorporation of the feature in focus into theircommunicative language use Nevertheless such lessons can preparestudents to make the best use of opportunities for continuing their lan-guage acquisition in meaning-focused activities and integrated FFI whenit occurs

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

The reviewers who provided feedback on earlier versions of the manuscript helpedus to make this a better article We did not always agree with the reviewers (whoindeed strongly disagreed with each other) but their feedback helped us under-stand and present our own views better We are also grateful to the graduate studentsand research assistants in N Spadarsquos research group at OISEUT for their insightfulcomments on this manuscript and related literature

THE AUTHORS

Nina Spada is a professor in the Second Language Education program at OISEUniversity of Toronto Ontario Canada where she teaches courses in L2 teachingand learning Her research focuses on the contributions of form-focused instructionto the L2 development of children and adults in communicative programs

Patsy M Lightbown is Distinguished Professor Emeritus of Concordia UniversityMontreal Canada and a former president of AAAL Her research explores relation-ships between L2 teaching and learning especially for children and adolescents

REFERENCES

Alanen R (1995) Input enhancement and rule presentation in second languageacquisition In R Schmidt (Ed) Attention and awareness in foreign language learningand teaching (pp 259ndash302) Honolulu University of Hawairsquoi Press

Ammar A amp Spada N (2006) One size fits all Recasts prompts and L2 learningStudies in Second Language Acquisition 28 543ndash574

Anderson J (1982) Acquisition of cognitive skill Psychological Review 89 369ndash406Barcroft J (2002) Semantic and structural elaboration in L2 lexical acquisition

Language Learning 52 323ndash363Barkhuizen G P (1998) Discovering learnersrsquo perceptions of ESL classroom teach-

inglearning activities in a South African context TESOL Quarterly 32 85ndash108

FORM-FOCUSED INSTRUCTION ISOLATED OR INTEGRATED 201

making a choice between integrated and isolated FFI is not necessary (oradvisable) Rather the challenge is to discover the conditions underwhich isolated and integrated FFI respectively are most appropriateThese conditions are likely to involve a number of factors including thenature of the language feature (eg its complexity and its frequencyand salience in the input) learnersrsquo developmental levels in the acqui-sition of the feature and the relationship between comparable featuresin the learnersrsquo L1 and the L2 Other important factors include teachersrsquoand learnersrsquo preferences for how to teachlearn about form learnersrsquoliteracy and metalinguistic sophistication (especially in their L1) andtheir age and overall L2 proficiency

ISOLATED AND INTEGRATED FFI

Johnson (1982) made a distinction between what he called the unifi-cationist and separationist positions on the teaching of language use andlanguage structure He described the separationist position as one withldquostructure being taught first (through a structural syllabus) followed by asecond communicative stage at which use is taught and where structuresare lsquoactivatedrsquo or lsquorecycledrsquordquo (p 129) According to Johnson the separa-tionist position implies ldquoa divorce between the teaching of forms anduses though other kinds of related separation are often also being im-pliedmdashas between knowledge and its lsquoactivitationrsquo between correctnessand fluencyrdquo (p 129) In contrast from the unificationist perspectiveldquothe divorce of form and use is seen as undesirable and probably alsountenable on linguistic and psycholinguistic grounds The position ar-gues for a communicative framework from the very beginningrdquo (p 129)

Other writers have used different labels to distinguish different typesof FFI Long (1991) has made a distinction between focus on forms andfocus on form Focus on forms refers to lessons in which language featuresare taught or practiced according to a structural syllabus that specifieswhich features are to be taught and in which sequence Focus on formsmight involve teaching approaches as varied as mimicry and memoriza-tion or grammar translation but all are based on the assumption thatlanguage features should be taught systematically one at a time Incontrast Longrsquos focus on form refers to instruction in which the mainemphasis remains on communicative activities or tasks but in which ateacher intervenes to help students use language more accurately whenthe need arises Originally Long (1991) defined focus on form as reac-tive and incidental That is it was limited to those classroom events inwhich the teacher responded to a difficulty that arose as students en-gaged in communicative activities or tasks The language feature that

FORM-FOCUSED INSTRUCTION ISOLATED OR INTEGRATED 185

required focus was not determined in advance More recent interpreta-tions of focus on form have expanded the definition to include instruc-tion in which teachers anticipate that students will have difficulty with aparticular feature as they engage in a communicative task and plan inadvance to target that feature through feedback and other pedagogicalinterventions all the while maintaining a primary focus on meaning(Doughty amp Williams 1998 Long amp Robinson 1998)

In this article we have chosen to use the terms isolated and integratedto describe two approaches to drawing learnersrsquo attention to languageform in L2 instruction4 Isolated FFI is provided in activities that areseparate from the communicative use of language but it occurs as partof a program that also includes CLT andor CBI Isolated FFI may betaught in preparation for a communicative activity or after an activity inwhich students have experienced difficulty with a particular languagefeature In isolated FFI the focus on language form is separated from thecommunicative or content-based activity This approach differs fromLongrsquos focus on forms which refers to language instruction and practiceorganized around predetermined points of grammar in a structural syl-labus that is form-based instruction that is not directly tied to genuinelycommunicative practice

In integrated FFI the learnersrsquo attention is drawn to language formduring communicative or content-based instruction This definition cor-responds to focus on form (both planned and incidental) as defined byEllis (2002a) and by Doughty and Williams (1998) That is although theform focus occurs within a communicative activity the language featuresin focus may have been anticipated and planned for by the teacher orthey may occur incidentally in the course of ongoing interaction

Before discussing the role we see for each approach a few commentsare in order on how the distinction between isolated and integrated FFIis related to other contrasts in L2 research and pedagogy such as inten-tional versus incidental learning (Hulstijn 2003) and explicit versus implicitinstruction (DeKeyser 2003)

4 One reviewer suggested that the term isolated carries ldquoa clearly negative connotationrdquo Weunderstand that interpretation and agree that the term certainly has had that connotationin much writing about language teaching Nevertheless we have chosen to retain this termbecause it allows us to emphasize the importance of instruction in which teachers andstudents focus their attention on language features that are almost impossible to perceiveor acquire when they occur in ordinary communicative interaction either because they areacoustically imperceptible (eg most grammatical morphology in English) or redundantand unlikely to affect comprehension (eg word order in English questions) We suggestthat it is sometimes necessary to isolate such formsmdashmuch as one might place a specimenunder a microscopemdashso that learners have an opportunity to perceive these features andunderstand their function in the language they encounter in communicative interactionAs we have stated previously learners cannot be expected to benefit from brief integratedfocus on form if they do not understand what the teacher is calling their attention to(Lightbown 1998 p 194)

186 TESOL QUARTERLY

Isolated FFI is the provision of instruction in lessons whose primarypurpose is to teach students about a particular language feature becausethe teacher believes that students are unlikely to acquire the featureduring communicative activities without an opportunity to learn aboutthe feature in a situation where its form and meaning can be made clearFrom the teacherrsquos perspective isolated FFI always implies intentionallearning and explicit instruction However classroom observation re-search shows that even in traditional classrooms in which grammar les-sons are based on a structural syllabus students are not always sure of theteacherrsquos intended focus (Slimani 1992) That is the explicitness andintentionality that the teacher has in mind may not be recognized by thestudents

Integrated FFI occurs in classroom activities during which the primaryfocus remains on meaning but in which feedback or brief explanationsare offered to help students express meaning more effectively or moreaccurately within the communicative interaction Some writers seem toassume that drawing learnersrsquo attention to form during meaning-basedactivities always involves implicit feedback and incidental learning butthat is not necessarily the case Again the perceptions of teachers andlearners may be different Adult learners sometimes show that they in-terpret the teacherrsquos implicit feedback (eg in the form of recasts) asexplicit guidance creating an opportunity for intentional languagelearning (eg Ohta 2000 Ellis Basturkmen amp Loewen 2001) Howevereven when they recognize the teacherrsquos implicit feedback as relevant tolanguage form learners may not correctly identify the object of theteacherrsquos attention (see Mackey Gass amp McDonough 2000 for a relatedstudy)

Both isolated and integrated FFI can include explicit feedback onerror metalinguistic terminology the statement of rules and explana-tions Consider the following example of explicit integrated FFI Thecontext is a communicative activity Grade 6 students are playing a gamein which they have to correctly guess the location of different dolls in adoll house to gain enough points to win the game Note that in prepa-ration for the game examples of appropriate questions had been writtenon the board

Student Is George is in the living room

Teacher You said ldquoisrdquo two times dear Listen to youmdashyou said ldquoIs Georgeis in Look on the board ldquoIs George in the rdquo and then yousay the name of the room

Student Is George in the living room

Teacher Yeah

Student I win (Lightbown amp Spada 2006 p 167)

FORM-FOCUSED INSTRUCTION ISOLATED OR INTEGRATED 187

In this example the teacher provided explicit corrective feedback toa student when he made an error of form even though the meaning heconveyed was comprehensible First she drew attention to the errorproviding information as to what the error was Although she explicitlyfocused on form and the student appeared to understand and use thefeedback it seems that this did not interfere with his continuing interestin the ongoing game Such FFI is thus both integrated and explicit Fromthe teacherrsquos perspective the focus on question forms was also inten-tional She had prepared for the activity with an isolated lesson on ques-tion forms writing examples of appropriate questions on the board

Another example of integrated FFI one that includes the statement ofrules and metalinguistic explanations is an activity in which pairs ofstudents respond to truendashfalse (TF) statements about medical historyusing a timeline showing names dates and descriptions of discoveriesSome of the TF statements are expressed in the active voice whileothers are in the passive (eg Freud developed a method for examining mentalprocesses known as psychoanalysis Penicillin was discovered by Alexander Flem-ing in 1928) The focus is on content and meaning As students discusstheir responses to the questions the instructor selects the two TF state-ments above and asks the students to examine them with the followingquestions in mind ldquoWhat is given more emphasis in the first sentencemdashlsquoFreud [the subject] or psychoanalysis [the object]rsquordquo ldquoWhat is moreprominent in the second sentencerdquo This leads into a brief explanation(5 or 6 minutes) of activepassive sentences how they are formed andhow they function using one or two other examples The teacher thenasks students to return to responding to the TF questions using theinformation on the timeline to assist them (See Samuda 2001 for anexample of integrated FFI targeting the use of modal auxiliaries)

One final note is essential before we discuss the different roles ofisolated and integrated FFI For purposes of the discussion we presentthese approaches as if they were entirely distinct It is clear however thatthey are really the ends of a continuum especially as we are examiningtheir role within CLT and CBI contexts for teaching and learning Thatis we do not see isolated and integrated FFI as being in competition witheach other rather we see them as complementary parts of a completelanguage learning environment Although we are convinced that there isa role for isolated FFI we see it as occurring within instruction that isprimarily interactive and communicative Ultimately the ability to uselanguage automatically in communicative settings requires experience indoing exactly that Providing integrated FFI in CLT and CBI contexts isthe instructional model that has the greatest potential for facilitating thedevelopment of fluent and accurate language that is available for useoutside the classroom We concur with DeKeyser (1998) who in hiscritique of rote drill in audiolingual language teaching commented that

188 TESOL QUARTERLY

practice is valuable for language learning when it involves practice inldquoconveying personal meaningsrdquo (pp 53ndash54)

The Role of Integrated FFI

In the pedagogical literature there is considerable support for inte-grating form focus within communicative activities as well as consider-able skepticism about the effectiveness of instruction that separates formfocus from meaningful interaction (see eg Calveacute 1994) Celce-Murcia(1991) argues that ldquogrammar should never be taught as an end in itselfbut always with reference to meaning social factors or discoursemdashor acombination of these factorsrdquo (pp 466ndash467) Brumfit (1984) asserts thatldquoteachers should not prevent learners from combining a concernwith language use with worry about formal accuracy in terms of specificlanguage itemsrdquo (p 53) Brumfitrsquos assertion may be taken as evidencethat for some learners at least feedback that comes during communi-cative interaction may have a positive effect on motivation5 Knowingthat help is available when it is needed may respond to the expectationsand preferences of studentsmdashespecially adult studentsmdashin languageclasses (see Cathcart amp Olsen 1976 Schulz 1996 2001)

Theoretical support for integration comes from both SLA and cogni-tive psychology Long (1991) has argued that focus on language formshould be fully integrated into ongoing communicative interaction Infact as noted earlier in some of his writing Long (eg 1991) arguedthat teachers should provide focus on form only on those languagefeatures that occur naturally in the course of a task or activity in whichstudents are using the language in meaningful interaction In his revisedinteraction hypothesis Long (1996) states that while comprehensibleinput and meaningful interaction provide the raw material for languageacquisition they also provide the ideal context for spontaneous (ieintegrated) attention to language form Other SLA concepts such asnegotiation of form (Lyster 1994a 1994b) and metatalk (Swain amp Lapkin2002) also point to the benefits of reflecting on language form duringcommunicative language use There are differences among these theo-retical constructs but all of them are compatible with the hypothesis thatwhile instruction may not directly alter learnersrsquo underlying languagesystems it can help them notice features in the input making it more

5 It is important to note that we do not equate integrated FFI with CLT As evident in theresearch literature and in classroom practice CLT has many different meanings some ofwhich include no attention to language form (ie the strong version of CLT) and othersthat include attention to form albeit in different ways (see Howatt 1984 and Spada 2006afor discussions of the evolution and interpretations of CLT)

FORM-FOCUSED INSTRUCTION ISOLATED OR INTEGRATED 189

likely that they will acquire them (Gass 1997 Lightbown 1998 Schmidt1990)

One theoretical approach that has recently been used to explain thepossible benefits of integrated FFI is transfer appropriate processing (TAP)According to TAP learners retrieve knowledge best if the processes forretrieval are similar to those that were used in the learning condition(Blaxton 1989 Franks Bilbrey Lien amp McNamara 2000 Morris Brans-ford amp Franks 1977) In addition the situation objects and events thatare present at the time of learning are connected through a network ofassociations Therefore retrieval is likely to be easier when learners findthemselves using similar processes or in the presence of the same objectsor situations

TAP has only recently begun to receive attention in the SLA literaturebut research on bilingualsrsquo memory for lexical items provides some in-dications of what SLA research may reveal In these studies bilingualparticipants are consistently more successful in retrieving the words theylearned when the testing tasks are similar to the learning tasks (BasdenBonilla-Meeks amp Basden 1994 Durgunoglu amp Roediger 1987) Re-search on the learning and retrieval of more complex units of languageremains to be done However it seems that TAP would predict thatlanguage learned during communicative activities in which learnersrsquo at-tention is briefly drawn to form (ie integrated FFI) would be moreeasily retrieved in communicative situations than say on decontextual-ized tests In contrast L2 knowledge learned outside communicativeactivities in isolated FFI would be more difficult to retrieve in commu-nicative situations outside the classroom (Doherty Hilberg Pinal ampTharp 2003 Segalowitz amp Gatbonton 1995 Segalowitz amp Lightbown1999) This hypothesis is consistent with the observation of many teach-ers and researchers Students who perform well on tests are not neces-sarily fluent users of the test items in spontaneous speech just as manyfluent speakers whose language acquisition has taken place primarilyoutside the classroom perform poorly on tests requiring metalinguisticknowledge or the retrieval of individual language features outside acommunicative context

Although support for integrated FFI comes primarily from theoreticalextrapolations and pedagogical principles there is also some evidence ofits effectiveness in classroom-based studies of CLT and CBI In our re-search in intensive ESL classes that were almost exclusively meaning-focused young students were successful in acquiring certain languagefeatures when their teachers provided ongoing integrated FFI on a lim-ited number of these features (Lightbown 1991 Lightbown amp Spada1990) Those receiving integrated FFI were substantially more likely toacquire these features than students in classes where there was never anyattention to form Research in French immersion programs (Day amp

190 TESOL QUARTERLY

Shapson 1991 Harley 1989 1998 Lyster 1994a 1994b 2004) and inother content-based and communicative classrooms with child and adultESL learners (Doughty amp Varela 1998 R Ellis Basturkmen amp Loewen2001 Williams amp Evans 1998) also supports the hypothesis that attentionto language form within the context of communicative practice can leadto progress in learnersrsquo language development Although this progresshas been observed in the short term for most studies long-term improve-ment has also been reported (eg Spada amp Lightbown 1993) Howeverthe research in CLT and CBI classes was not designed to directly inves-tigate the different roles of integrated and isolated FFI That is none ofthe studies compared the outcomes of L2 learners receiving isolated FFIwith learners receiving integrated FFI

Jeanrsquos (2005) study of French as a second language (nonimmersion)in a Canadian secondary school provides some related evidence of theeffectiveness of integrated FFI Jean designed an experimental study inwhich learners either (a) practiced target forms in mechanical drills thatwere separate from the communicative activities in which the forms wereexpected to be used later or (b) received FFI during ongoing meaning-based activities She found no difference in the two groupsrsquo ability to usethe target forms on subsequent measures of accuracy However shefound that students whose FFI had been integrated with meaningfulcommunicative activities used the forms with a greater variety of vocabu-lary Jean concludes that at least for the verb morphology targeted in herstudy isolated mechanical drills were not a necessary step in L2 teachingand that integrated FFI was an effective way of teaching certain verbforms She also found that the high school students in her study did notexpress a clear preference for one type of instruction over the other

The Role of Isolated FFI

Stern (1992) asserted that although ldquocommunicative activities are anessential component of a language curriculum there is a still a place fora separate analytic language syllabusrdquo (p 180 emphasis added) Morerecently Ellis (2002b) has argued that ldquowe [should] teach grammarseparately making no attempt to integrate it with the task-based com-ponent (except perhaps methodologically through feedback)rdquo (p 32)One frequently heard argument in support of isolating FFI is related tomaintaining learnersrsquo positive motivation The concern is that learnerswill become discouraged or disinterested if their attention is drawn toform while they are trying to engage in communicative practice (seeeg Raimes 2002) Thus it is sometimes suggested that teachers makenote of problems that arise during interaction activities and then bringthem up for instruction and explanation in separate isolated activities

FORM-FOCUSED INSTRUCTION ISOLATED OR INTEGRATED 191

outside the communicative activity As noted earlier however there isrelatively little evidence that language learners themselves object to FFIthat occurs during communicative activities

Some pedagogical and theoretical arguments to support the separa-tion of form and communicative practice include the assumption thatFFI should precede communicative use of a new language feature Thereis a long and strong tradition in the field of L2 teaching that the firstphase in a lesson is the presentation of a specific language form Thispresentation phase is followed by controlled practice (pattern practicestructural drills etc) and only later by activities that permit more sponta-neous use of language In a controversial article Higgs and Clifford (1982)argued that ldquothe premature immersion of a student into an unstructuredor lsquofreersquo conversational setting before certain fundamental linguistic struc-tures are more or less in place is not done without costrdquo (pp 73ndash74)

More recently drawing on research in cognitive psychology specifi-cally in the early work of Anderson (1982) on skill acquisition theoryDeKeyser (1998) has argued that ldquogrammar should first be taught ex-plicitly to achieve a maximum of understanding and then should befollowed by some exercises to anchor it solidly in the studentsrsquo conscious-ness in declarative form so that it is easy to keep in mind during com-municative exercisesrdquo (p 58) In the framework of this article DeKey-serrsquos first two phases (explicit instruction and anchoring exercises) rep-resent isolated FFI although our definition of isolated FFI includes thepossibility that such instruction may occur after students have discoveredthe need for certain language features during communicative activity6

Further support for isolated FFI comes from information processingtheory which argues that because the human mind has limited process-ing capacity it is difficult for learners to focus on form and meaning atthe same time (Ellis 1997) VanPatten (1990) suggested that noticingsome aspects of language form (eg verb morphology) while trying tograsp the meaning of a text may be particularly problematic for begin-ning learners VanPatten and his colleagues have shown how isolatingspecific features of the target language in the input can help learnerschange the way they process certain formndashmeaning mappings (VanPat-ten 1996 2004 VanPatten amp Cadierno 1993)

Recent studies by Barcroft (2002) and Trofimovich (2005) also illus-trate situations in which isolated FFI may be beneficial to students Inthese studies students were exposed to the material to be learned eitherin contexts where they needed to focus on form while also processingsemantic aspects of the language to be learned or where some formalfeature was itself the primary focus Both Barcroft and Trofimovich

6 Doughty and Williams (1998) refer to the work by DeKeyser and Lightbown regarding thesequencing of FFI as sequential focus on form

192 TESOL QUARTERLY

found that attention to meaning was associated with poorer recall offormal features such as the spelling or pronunciation of words Theyinterpreted their findings in terms of the TAP hypothesis As notedearlier according to TAP the best predictor of success in retrievinginformation is the degree of similarity between the conditions and pro-cessing demands present during learning and those present during re-trieval Thus a learning task in which cognitive effort is devoted tosemantic features of a word is not a good preparation for a test in whichlearners need to retrieve information about perceptual or formal fea-tures of the word If the assessment task requires learners to recall orrecognize the correct spelling or pronunciation of a word the learningtask should create conditions in which learners can devote more pro-cessing capacity to those features To be sure the goal of most languagelearning is ultimately to be able to use language forms correctly in com-municative contexts that include multiple demands on attention How-ever what the research by VanPatten Barcroft and Trofimovich shows isthat such contexts may not be conducive to the initial perception andinterpretation of certain language features

To our knowledge no empirical classroom-based research directlycompares the effects of isolated and integrated instruction7 It is impor-tant to keep in mind that our definition of isolated FFI is attention to formin separate lessons that occur within a program that is primarily com-municative in orientation In that sense it is not the same as Longrsquosdefinition of focus on forms which is associated with traditional discrete-point metalinguistic instruction provided in a context where little or nomeaning-based instruction or practice occurs Similarly our definition ofintegrated FFI is not the same as Longrsquos original definition of focus on formwhich includes only reactive FFI whereas integrated FFI includes bothreactive and proactive FFI In this way our definition of integrated FFI issimilar to Ellisrsquos (2001) definition of planned and incidental focus on form

7 A reviewer argues that such studies do exist and points to Sheen (2005) as an exampleWhile Sheenrsquos study does show the benefits of instruction in helping young francophonestudents make more accurate use of questions and the placement of adverbs in Englishsentences it is not a comparison of integrated and isolated FFI as we define them in thispaper As we read the report of that research it seems to show that the students in thecomparison group received almost no FFI at all It is important to emphasize again thatintegrated FFI is not simply a synonym for CLT with little or no attention to language formIntegrated FFI includes brief explanations corrective feedback explicit elicitations ofcorrect forms and input enhancement provided within the context of meaning-basedinstruction Sheenrsquos description of the comparison class in his study indicates that theinstructor did not make any special attempt to integrate FFI related to questions andadverbs in his regular classroom activities In the experimental class students receivedinstruction that is best described as focus on forms not as isolated FFI The distinctionbetween the two is that isolated FFI is provided in separate lessons that are directly relatedto the activities within a communicative or content-based syllabus whereas focus on formslessons typically occur within a structural syllabus that is not closely linked to the ongoingcommunicative activities

FORM-FOCUSED INSTRUCTION ISOLATED OR INTEGRATED 193

This review of the theoretical pedagogical and empirical support forintegrated and isolated instruction indicates that there are arguments onboth sides and that the choice between the two is likely not an absoluteone but rather a choice that is dependent on other factors In the nextsection we outline some of those factors

FACTORS THAT INFLUENCE THE CHOICE OFISOLATED OR INTEGRATED FFI

SLA research shows that some linguistic features are acquired inciden-tally that is without intentional effort or conscious awareness by learnersor guidance from teachers However it is also evident that some lan-guage features develop very slowly or not at all in the absence of guidedattention and that some types of FFI can increase the likelihood thatlearners will make progress in learning these features (Norris amp Ortega2000) Some language features develop according to a natural sequenceof stages that is not altered by instruction (For overviews see Ellis 1994Gass amp Selinker 2001 Lightbown amp Spada 2006 Mitchell amp Myles1998) However while instruction may have only a limited effect on thepath learners follow through developmental sequences it may affect therate at which learners pass through a sequence (see eg Ellis 1989Larsen-Freeman amp Long 1991 Mackey amp Philp 1998 Pienemann 1989Spada amp Lightbown 1993) Several factors may influence the relation-ship between instruction and learning outcomes These factors are dy-namic changing over the course of learnersrsquo language acquisition andwithin different teaching contexts8

L1 Influence

One hypothesis is that isolated FFI is particularly useful when the L1has a strong influence on L2 forms Errors caused by L1 influence can beproblematic in classrooms where learners share the same first languageand reinforce each otherrsquos L1-based errors (Lightbown 1991 Lyster1987) In situations like these isolated FFI may be needed to clarifymisleading similarities between the L1 and L2 Harley (1993) points tothe distinction between French avoirecirctre and havebe in English as anexample Isolated FFI may also help in those cases where learners havedeveloped based on L1 influence an interlanguage rule that is more

8 We thank one of the anonymous reviewers for emphasizing the dynamic nature of thefactors that influence instructional choices

194 TESOL QUARTERLY

general than the related rule in the L2 White (1991) discusses thisproblem with specific reference to differences between adverb place-ment in French and English subject-verb-object sentences and advocatesisolated FFI as a way of helping learners perceive those differences

Salience in the Input

Isolated FFI may be beneficial with features that are relatively simpleto explain or illustrate but are not particularly salient in oral languageDrawing attention to them in isolation may help learners seehear lan-guage features they have not been noticing in the input the first step onthe path to acquisition Although some studies have reported benefits ofinput enhancement that is increasing frequency andor salience of lan-guage features in the input (Alanen 1995 Doughty 1991) others havereported partial or no benefits (Spada amp Lightbown 1999 Trahey ampWhite 1993 White 1998) These conflicting findings appear to be re-lated to differences in the kind of enhancement More explicit enhance-ment appears to lead to more L2 progress than less explicit enhance-ment (Norris amp Ortega 2000)9 This finding suggests that isolated FFImight be useful for creating the necessary salience to help learners no-tice language forms that occur frequently but are semantically redun-dant or phonologically reduced or imperceptible in the oral input Suchforms could include for example third-person -s in English and adjec-tive agreement morphology in French

Input Frequency

Isolated FFI may also help ensure that students have opportunities tolearn forms that are rare or absent in the language they are exposed toin the CLT or CBI classroom Lyster (1994b) reports findings to supportthis idea in his investigation of the effects of FFI on the learning of thesociolinguistic distinction between second-person pronouns tu and vousin French immersion classrooms Students were familiar with the singu-larplural distinction between these two words but the social dynamicsof the classroom in which they were learning French did not give themopportunities to observe the politeness distinctions that are signaled bythe different pronoun forms Lyster developed an instructional interven-

9 It may also be that explicit instruction seems to have some benefits because the assessmentmeasures used favor explicit knowledge (see Doughty 2003 for discussion) Norris andOrtega (2000 p 501) themselves acknowledge this possibility but argue that their findingscannot be explained by this single variable

FORM-FOCUSED INSTRUCTION ISOLATED OR INTEGRATED 195

tion that included opportunities for isolated FFI Drawing studentsrsquo at-tention to this distinction probably prepared them to notice the use ofthe forms in the communicative and integrated FFI activities that fol-lowed and their ability to use these forms improved significantly

Rule Complexity

It has been suggested that integrated FFI may be a more appropriateapproach to instruction for language features that are complex and haverules that are difficult to describe However although there is someintuitive agreement about a distinction between hard and easy rules it isnot always clear what is meant by these terms (see Hulstijn 1995 Hulstijnamp DeGraaff 1994 for useful attempts to define them) Furthermore asDeKeyser (2003) points out in addition to the inherent difficulty of aform or a rule there is also subjective difficulty ldquoRule difficulty is anindividual issue that can be described as the ratio of the rulersquos inherentlinguistic complexity to the studentsrsquo ability to handle such a rulemdasha ruleof moderate difficulty for one student may be easy for a student withmore language learning aptitude or language learning experiencerdquo (p331)

A fairly widespread assumption in the SLA literature is that that whileeasy rules can be taught hard rules are by their very nature too complexto be successfully taught in isolated instruction and thus are difficult tolearn through traditional explanation and practice pedagogy that is iso-lated from communicative use of the language Thus integrated FFI maybe more suitable for complexabstract features such as the article sys-tem in English In laboratory studies to investigate the learning of simpleand complex morphosyntactic rules DeKeyser (1995) and Robinson(1996) provide some support for this idea Participants in those studieslearned simple morphosyntactic rules better under conditions of ex-plicit-deductive learning and more complex rules better under implicit-inductive conditions Conclusions drawn from these studies remain con-troversial however and are perhaps best seen as hypotheses in need offurther study

Communicative Value

Integrated FFI may also be particularly useful with features in whicherrors are more likely to lead to communication breakdowns (eg En-glish possessive pronouns his and her) Lightbown (1998) suggests thatL2 learners at various levels of proficiency are more likely to be able tofocus on form and meaning at the same time when the ldquoform in focus ( )

196 TESOL QUARTERLY

is an important carrier of the meaning in focusrdquo (p 192) However whenerrors do not interfere with meaning (eg the absence of inversion inquestions such as What she is reading) isolation from communicativeinteraction may be necessary if learners are to notice the differencebetween what they say and the correct way to say what they mean (SpadaLightbown amp White 2005) The relative importance of using the rightword as compared with using the right grammar is also reflected inSchwartzrsquos (1993) observation that instruction and feedback are morelikely to lead to changes in learnersrsquo knowledge and use of lexical itemsthan of morphology and syntax Mackey Gass and McDonough (2000)have observed that recasts a typical characteristic of integrated FFI aremore likely to be noticed when the element being recast is a lexical itemthan when it is a morphosyntactic element (see also Lyster 1998)

Learnersrsquo Developmental Level

Once a language feature has emerged in learnersrsquo interlanguage (seePienemann 1998) more fluent and accurate use of that feature may bestbe encouraged through integrated FFI Several studies on FFI have re-ported that L2 learners benefit most from FFI when they are at a devel-opmental level in their language acquisition that enables them to com-pare their use of particular forms with that of native and more proficientspeakers (Mackey amp Philp 1998 Spada amp Lightbown 1999) Related tothis finding is the observation that learnersrsquo receptive and productiveabilities do not develop in the same way or at the same rate Howeverrecent research investigating the effects of both input- (ie comprehen-sion) and output- (ie production) based practice on L2 developmentindicates that both comprehension and production improve as long asthe practice is meaningful and learners are encouraged to make formndashmeaning connections (Morgan-Short amp Wood Bowden 2006 see alsoDeKeyser 1998)

As noted earlier learners may need isolated FFI such as VanPattenrsquosprocessing instruction to help them detect and understand formndashmeaning relationships for language features that have low salience lowfrequency or low communicative value Once the features have emergedin the interlanguage or once the formndashmeaning connections have beenmade the development of greater fluency is likely to be favored byintegrated FFI Ammar and Spada (2006) found that French-speakingchildren who were already more proficient in using possessive determin-ers his and her were able to take advantage of integrated instructionwhether in the form of recasts (where the teacher provides the correctform) or prompts (where the teacher elicits a correction from the stu-dent) However students who were less proficient benefited more from

FORM-FOCUSED INSTRUCTION ISOLATED OR INTEGRATED 197

prompts than recasts suggesting that they had greater difficulty recog-nizing the purpose of the feedback

Learnersrsquo Age

In general older learners especially those with experience in thestudy of their own or other languages are more receptive to isolatedgrammatical instruction (see eg Barkhuizen 1998) Outside the class-room in environments where they are completely immersed in the tar-get language very young learners often acquire L2 proficiency with littleor no FFI Older children adolescents and adults however appear tobenefit from instruction and may even depend on it because of the waysin which their language-learning abilities differ from those of youngchildren (Bley-Vroman 1988 DeKeyser 2000) especially if their contactwith the language is limited to the second or foreign language classroom

Research in CLT and CBI contexts has shown that children do notalways recognize integrated FFI (including enhanced input and implicitrecasts) as responses to language form rather than meaning (eg Lysteramp Ranta 1997) However they do respond to integrated feedback whichis explicit (eg through the use of emphasis prompting and elicitationas well as other nonverbal signals see eg Ammar amp Spada 2006Doughty amp Varela 1998 Lyster 2004) or which is provided within thecontext of language teaching where the overall orientation includes astrong focus on language form (Lyster amp Mori 2006) Adult learners ina variety of language learning contexts have been shown to be moreaware of integrated FFI as feedback on language form (see eg EllisBasturkmen amp Loewen 2001 Ohta 2000)

Language-Learning Aptitude

Learners who perform well on language aptitude tests or have moremetalinguistic knowledge and skill in their L1 may be better able tonotice and focus on language form within a communicative context thanthose with poorer aptitude and metalinguistic ability It has been hypoth-esized that learners with poor metalinguistic skills in their own languagemay require more explicit (possibly isolated) instruction to help themidentify some formndashmeaning connections (Ranta 2002) Mackey PhilpEgi Fujii and Tomoaki (2002) found that adult learners with higherscores on tests of working memory were more likely to report that theynoticed interactional (integrated) feedback in the form of recasts (seealso Robinson 2002)

198 TESOL QUARTERLY

Learner and Teacher Preferences for How to Teach or LearnAbout Form

Research on studentsrsquo beliefs and opinions about FFI (ie instructionand corrective feedback) has revealed that teachersrsquo and studentsrsquo viewsoften differ In two large-scale studies Schulz (1996 2001) found thatvirtually all students expressed a desire to have their errors corrected butvery few teachers felt this was desirable In addition students were morelikely than teachers to say that formal study of the language is ldquoessentialto the eventual mastery of a [foreign language]rdquo (2001 p 247) Mis-matches like these have long been reported in the literature (Cathcart ampOlsen 1976 Yorio 1986) The effects of matches and mismatches on L2learning have also been investigated (eg Spada 1987 Wesche 1981)and there is some evidence that learners benefit most from instructionthat suits their preferences (see Doumlrnyei 2005 for summary and discus-sion)

Other factors such as individual learning styles and previous experi-ence learning languages can also lead to different preferences for learn-ing As indicated earlier some L2 learners who have learned languagesvia traditional structure-based approaches often have strong preferencesfor continuing to learn via isolated grammar practice Other L2 learnerswho have learned languages informally may respond more positively toFFI that is integrated with meaning What is clear is that characteristicssuch as these can interact with type of instruction in complex waysleading to more or less successful learning (Skehan 1989)

It is not only learners who have different preferences for isolatedandor integrated FFI So do teachers Research on teacher cognitionhas revealed that L2 teachers often teach grammar in the way in whichthey were taught it themselves (Borg 2003 Farrell 1999) There is alsoevidence of a direct relationship between what teachers know aboutgrammar and how they teach it That is the extent to which grammar istaught deductively depends on how much metalinguistic knowledgeteachers possess (Borg 2001 Brumfit Mitchell amp Hooper 1996) Ofcourse there are L2 instructors who do not believe that grammar in-struction is useful In a study comparing second (English) and foreign(French) language instruction Mitchell and Hooper (1992) observedthat the English teachers rarely focused on language or explicit grammarwork but the foreign language teachers regularly did so When inter-viewed about this finding the English teachers expressed the opinionthat this type of activity was not of primary importance for developingstudentsrsquo linguistic abilitymdasha response that is not atypical of L2 instruc-tors who have adopted the strong version of CLT

It is often observed that teachers who are teaching their own nativelanguage may not have as good a grasp of the formal grammar of the

FORM-FOCUSED INSTRUCTION ISOLATED OR INTEGRATED 199

language as those whose learning has included form-focused L2 instruc-tion In a study of teachersrsquo practices Borg (1998) observed that deci-sions to include explicit formal instruction are not always based on teach-ersrsquo belief that grammar instruction works but rather on their belief thatstudents expect it He also observed that when teaching grammar teach-ers do not necessarily adhere exclusively to one particular approach(eg deductive or inductive) but will combine and alternate betweenthem Similarly in a study of 48 teachersrsquo attitudes to explicit or implicitteaching of grammar in an English for academic purposes (EAP) pro-gram Burgess and Etherington (2002) report that the majority of teach-ers believed that it is useful to integrate grammar within authentic textsrather than teach it explicitly using a grammatical syllabus At the sametime however they also expressed the belief that not all grammaticalknowledge can be learned implicitly and thus advocated explicit instruc-tion as well In our research investigating the preferences of teachers andadult learners for integrated or isolated FFI we have found that neithergroup expresses a consistent preference for one over the other Theyvalue both (Spada 2006b)

CONCLUSION

Research and theory suggest that there is a role in CLT and CBI forboth isolated and integrated FFI Each type of instruction may play adifferent role in promoting language acquisition Research and experi-ence in CLT and CBI affirm that not all language features need to betaught in isolated lessons Instead the current research on classroomlearning shows that incidental learning allows students to acquire a greatdeal of language while focused on meaning in CLT and CBI The addi-tion of integrated FFI can contribute to the automatization of languagefeatures that have emerged in studentsrsquo language but that are not usedreliably when there are competing demands for attention

Integrated FFI includes a wide range of approaches including thekind of implicit feedback that occurs as the need or opportunity arisesas well as the kind of planned interaction that requires the repeated butnatural use of a particular language form Nevertheless isolated lessonsmay be useful or even essential in promoting the acquisition of somelanguage features These features include those that are hard to perceivein the normal stream of communicative speech those for which there isa misleading similarity to the L1 and those that are unlikely to causecommunication breakdown We are currently designing quasi-experimental studies to explore the contributions of both types of FFI

The importance of isolated lessons will be determined by differences

200 TESOL QUARTERLY

in the specific language feature that is being taught as well as by differ-ences in learnersrsquo and teachersrsquo characteristics abilities and prefer-ences We find no evidence to support a suggestion that isolated gram-mar lessons without opportunities for communicative language useshould again become the dominant approach to language instructionIsolated lessons are a starting point or a follow-up for communicative orcontent-based activities Above all they should not be expected to resultin studentsrsquo immediate incorporation of the feature in focus into theircommunicative language use Nevertheless such lessons can preparestudents to make the best use of opportunities for continuing their lan-guage acquisition in meaning-focused activities and integrated FFI whenit occurs

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

The reviewers who provided feedback on earlier versions of the manuscript helpedus to make this a better article We did not always agree with the reviewers (whoindeed strongly disagreed with each other) but their feedback helped us under-stand and present our own views better We are also grateful to the graduate studentsand research assistants in N Spadarsquos research group at OISEUT for their insightfulcomments on this manuscript and related literature

THE AUTHORS

Nina Spada is a professor in the Second Language Education program at OISEUniversity of Toronto Ontario Canada where she teaches courses in L2 teachingand learning Her research focuses on the contributions of form-focused instructionto the L2 development of children and adults in communicative programs

Patsy M Lightbown is Distinguished Professor Emeritus of Concordia UniversityMontreal Canada and a former president of AAAL Her research explores relation-ships between L2 teaching and learning especially for children and adolescents

REFERENCES

Alanen R (1995) Input enhancement and rule presentation in second languageacquisition In R Schmidt (Ed) Attention and awareness in foreign language learningand teaching (pp 259ndash302) Honolulu University of Hawairsquoi Press

Ammar A amp Spada N (2006) One size fits all Recasts prompts and L2 learningStudies in Second Language Acquisition 28 543ndash574

Anderson J (1982) Acquisition of cognitive skill Psychological Review 89 369ndash406Barcroft J (2002) Semantic and structural elaboration in L2 lexical acquisition

Language Learning 52 323ndash363Barkhuizen G P (1998) Discovering learnersrsquo perceptions of ESL classroom teach-

inglearning activities in a South African context TESOL Quarterly 32 85ndash108

FORM-FOCUSED INSTRUCTION ISOLATED OR INTEGRATED 201

required focus was not determined in advance More recent interpreta-tions of focus on form have expanded the definition to include instruc-tion in which teachers anticipate that students will have difficulty with aparticular feature as they engage in a communicative task and plan inadvance to target that feature through feedback and other pedagogicalinterventions all the while maintaining a primary focus on meaning(Doughty amp Williams 1998 Long amp Robinson 1998)

In this article we have chosen to use the terms isolated and integratedto describe two approaches to drawing learnersrsquo attention to languageform in L2 instruction4 Isolated FFI is provided in activities that areseparate from the communicative use of language but it occurs as partof a program that also includes CLT andor CBI Isolated FFI may betaught in preparation for a communicative activity or after an activity inwhich students have experienced difficulty with a particular languagefeature In isolated FFI the focus on language form is separated from thecommunicative or content-based activity This approach differs fromLongrsquos focus on forms which refers to language instruction and practiceorganized around predetermined points of grammar in a structural syl-labus that is form-based instruction that is not directly tied to genuinelycommunicative practice

In integrated FFI the learnersrsquo attention is drawn to language formduring communicative or content-based instruction This definition cor-responds to focus on form (both planned and incidental) as defined byEllis (2002a) and by Doughty and Williams (1998) That is although theform focus occurs within a communicative activity the language featuresin focus may have been anticipated and planned for by the teacher orthey may occur incidentally in the course of ongoing interaction

Before discussing the role we see for each approach a few commentsare in order on how the distinction between isolated and integrated FFIis related to other contrasts in L2 research and pedagogy such as inten-tional versus incidental learning (Hulstijn 2003) and explicit versus implicitinstruction (DeKeyser 2003)

4 One reviewer suggested that the term isolated carries ldquoa clearly negative connotationrdquo Weunderstand that interpretation and agree that the term certainly has had that connotationin much writing about language teaching Nevertheless we have chosen to retain this termbecause it allows us to emphasize the importance of instruction in which teachers andstudents focus their attention on language features that are almost impossible to perceiveor acquire when they occur in ordinary communicative interaction either because they areacoustically imperceptible (eg most grammatical morphology in English) or redundantand unlikely to affect comprehension (eg word order in English questions) We suggestthat it is sometimes necessary to isolate such formsmdashmuch as one might place a specimenunder a microscopemdashso that learners have an opportunity to perceive these features andunderstand their function in the language they encounter in communicative interactionAs we have stated previously learners cannot be expected to benefit from brief integratedfocus on form if they do not understand what the teacher is calling their attention to(Lightbown 1998 p 194)

186 TESOL QUARTERLY

Isolated FFI is the provision of instruction in lessons whose primarypurpose is to teach students about a particular language feature becausethe teacher believes that students are unlikely to acquire the featureduring communicative activities without an opportunity to learn aboutthe feature in a situation where its form and meaning can be made clearFrom the teacherrsquos perspective isolated FFI always implies intentionallearning and explicit instruction However classroom observation re-search shows that even in traditional classrooms in which grammar les-sons are based on a structural syllabus students are not always sure of theteacherrsquos intended focus (Slimani 1992) That is the explicitness andintentionality that the teacher has in mind may not be recognized by thestudents

Integrated FFI occurs in classroom activities during which the primaryfocus remains on meaning but in which feedback or brief explanationsare offered to help students express meaning more effectively or moreaccurately within the communicative interaction Some writers seem toassume that drawing learnersrsquo attention to form during meaning-basedactivities always involves implicit feedback and incidental learning butthat is not necessarily the case Again the perceptions of teachers andlearners may be different Adult learners sometimes show that they in-terpret the teacherrsquos implicit feedback (eg in the form of recasts) asexplicit guidance creating an opportunity for intentional languagelearning (eg Ohta 2000 Ellis Basturkmen amp Loewen 2001) Howevereven when they recognize the teacherrsquos implicit feedback as relevant tolanguage form learners may not correctly identify the object of theteacherrsquos attention (see Mackey Gass amp McDonough 2000 for a relatedstudy)

Both isolated and integrated FFI can include explicit feedback onerror metalinguistic terminology the statement of rules and explana-tions Consider the following example of explicit integrated FFI Thecontext is a communicative activity Grade 6 students are playing a gamein which they have to correctly guess the location of different dolls in adoll house to gain enough points to win the game Note that in prepa-ration for the game examples of appropriate questions had been writtenon the board

Student Is George is in the living room

Teacher You said ldquoisrdquo two times dear Listen to youmdashyou said ldquoIs Georgeis in Look on the board ldquoIs George in the rdquo and then yousay the name of the room

Student Is George in the living room

Teacher Yeah

Student I win (Lightbown amp Spada 2006 p 167)

FORM-FOCUSED INSTRUCTION ISOLATED OR INTEGRATED 187

In this example the teacher provided explicit corrective feedback toa student when he made an error of form even though the meaning heconveyed was comprehensible First she drew attention to the errorproviding information as to what the error was Although she explicitlyfocused on form and the student appeared to understand and use thefeedback it seems that this did not interfere with his continuing interestin the ongoing game Such FFI is thus both integrated and explicit Fromthe teacherrsquos perspective the focus on question forms was also inten-tional She had prepared for the activity with an isolated lesson on ques-tion forms writing examples of appropriate questions on the board

Another example of integrated FFI one that includes the statement ofrules and metalinguistic explanations is an activity in which pairs ofstudents respond to truendashfalse (TF) statements about medical historyusing a timeline showing names dates and descriptions of discoveriesSome of the TF statements are expressed in the active voice whileothers are in the passive (eg Freud developed a method for examining mentalprocesses known as psychoanalysis Penicillin was discovered by Alexander Flem-ing in 1928) The focus is on content and meaning As students discusstheir responses to the questions the instructor selects the two TF state-ments above and asks the students to examine them with the followingquestions in mind ldquoWhat is given more emphasis in the first sentencemdashlsquoFreud [the subject] or psychoanalysis [the object]rsquordquo ldquoWhat is moreprominent in the second sentencerdquo This leads into a brief explanation(5 or 6 minutes) of activepassive sentences how they are formed andhow they function using one or two other examples The teacher thenasks students to return to responding to the TF questions using theinformation on the timeline to assist them (See Samuda 2001 for anexample of integrated FFI targeting the use of modal auxiliaries)

One final note is essential before we discuss the different roles ofisolated and integrated FFI For purposes of the discussion we presentthese approaches as if they were entirely distinct It is clear however thatthey are really the ends of a continuum especially as we are examiningtheir role within CLT and CBI contexts for teaching and learning Thatis we do not see isolated and integrated FFI as being in competition witheach other rather we see them as complementary parts of a completelanguage learning environment Although we are convinced that there isa role for isolated FFI we see it as occurring within instruction that isprimarily interactive and communicative Ultimately the ability to uselanguage automatically in communicative settings requires experience indoing exactly that Providing integrated FFI in CLT and CBI contexts isthe instructional model that has the greatest potential for facilitating thedevelopment of fluent and accurate language that is available for useoutside the classroom We concur with DeKeyser (1998) who in hiscritique of rote drill in audiolingual language teaching commented that

188 TESOL QUARTERLY

practice is valuable for language learning when it involves practice inldquoconveying personal meaningsrdquo (pp 53ndash54)

The Role of Integrated FFI

In the pedagogical literature there is considerable support for inte-grating form focus within communicative activities as well as consider-able skepticism about the effectiveness of instruction that separates formfocus from meaningful interaction (see eg Calveacute 1994) Celce-Murcia(1991) argues that ldquogrammar should never be taught as an end in itselfbut always with reference to meaning social factors or discoursemdashor acombination of these factorsrdquo (pp 466ndash467) Brumfit (1984) asserts thatldquoteachers should not prevent learners from combining a concernwith language use with worry about formal accuracy in terms of specificlanguage itemsrdquo (p 53) Brumfitrsquos assertion may be taken as evidencethat for some learners at least feedback that comes during communi-cative interaction may have a positive effect on motivation5 Knowingthat help is available when it is needed may respond to the expectationsand preferences of studentsmdashespecially adult studentsmdashin languageclasses (see Cathcart amp Olsen 1976 Schulz 1996 2001)

Theoretical support for integration comes from both SLA and cogni-tive psychology Long (1991) has argued that focus on language formshould be fully integrated into ongoing communicative interaction Infact as noted earlier in some of his writing Long (eg 1991) arguedthat teachers should provide focus on form only on those languagefeatures that occur naturally in the course of a task or activity in whichstudents are using the language in meaningful interaction In his revisedinteraction hypothesis Long (1996) states that while comprehensibleinput and meaningful interaction provide the raw material for languageacquisition they also provide the ideal context for spontaneous (ieintegrated) attention to language form Other SLA concepts such asnegotiation of form (Lyster 1994a 1994b) and metatalk (Swain amp Lapkin2002) also point to the benefits of reflecting on language form duringcommunicative language use There are differences among these theo-retical constructs but all of them are compatible with the hypothesis thatwhile instruction may not directly alter learnersrsquo underlying languagesystems it can help them notice features in the input making it more

5 It is important to note that we do not equate integrated FFI with CLT As evident in theresearch literature and in classroom practice CLT has many different meanings some ofwhich include no attention to language form (ie the strong version of CLT) and othersthat include attention to form albeit in different ways (see Howatt 1984 and Spada 2006afor discussions of the evolution and interpretations of CLT)

FORM-FOCUSED INSTRUCTION ISOLATED OR INTEGRATED 189

likely that they will acquire them (Gass 1997 Lightbown 1998 Schmidt1990)

One theoretical approach that has recently been used to explain thepossible benefits of integrated FFI is transfer appropriate processing (TAP)According to TAP learners retrieve knowledge best if the processes forretrieval are similar to those that were used in the learning condition(Blaxton 1989 Franks Bilbrey Lien amp McNamara 2000 Morris Brans-ford amp Franks 1977) In addition the situation objects and events thatare present at the time of learning are connected through a network ofassociations Therefore retrieval is likely to be easier when learners findthemselves using similar processes or in the presence of the same objectsor situations

TAP has only recently begun to receive attention in the SLA literaturebut research on bilingualsrsquo memory for lexical items provides some in-dications of what SLA research may reveal In these studies bilingualparticipants are consistently more successful in retrieving the words theylearned when the testing tasks are similar to the learning tasks (BasdenBonilla-Meeks amp Basden 1994 Durgunoglu amp Roediger 1987) Re-search on the learning and retrieval of more complex units of languageremains to be done However it seems that TAP would predict thatlanguage learned during communicative activities in which learnersrsquo at-tention is briefly drawn to form (ie integrated FFI) would be moreeasily retrieved in communicative situations than say on decontextual-ized tests In contrast L2 knowledge learned outside communicativeactivities in isolated FFI would be more difficult to retrieve in commu-nicative situations outside the classroom (Doherty Hilberg Pinal ampTharp 2003 Segalowitz amp Gatbonton 1995 Segalowitz amp Lightbown1999) This hypothesis is consistent with the observation of many teach-ers and researchers Students who perform well on tests are not neces-sarily fluent users of the test items in spontaneous speech just as manyfluent speakers whose language acquisition has taken place primarilyoutside the classroom perform poorly on tests requiring metalinguisticknowledge or the retrieval of individual language features outside acommunicative context

Although support for integrated FFI comes primarily from theoreticalextrapolations and pedagogical principles there is also some evidence ofits effectiveness in classroom-based studies of CLT and CBI In our re-search in intensive ESL classes that were almost exclusively meaning-focused young students were successful in acquiring certain languagefeatures when their teachers provided ongoing integrated FFI on a lim-ited number of these features (Lightbown 1991 Lightbown amp Spada1990) Those receiving integrated FFI were substantially more likely toacquire these features than students in classes where there was never anyattention to form Research in French immersion programs (Day amp

190 TESOL QUARTERLY

Shapson 1991 Harley 1989 1998 Lyster 1994a 1994b 2004) and inother content-based and communicative classrooms with child and adultESL learners (Doughty amp Varela 1998 R Ellis Basturkmen amp Loewen2001 Williams amp Evans 1998) also supports the hypothesis that attentionto language form within the context of communicative practice can leadto progress in learnersrsquo language development Although this progresshas been observed in the short term for most studies long-term improve-ment has also been reported (eg Spada amp Lightbown 1993) Howeverthe research in CLT and CBI classes was not designed to directly inves-tigate the different roles of integrated and isolated FFI That is none ofthe studies compared the outcomes of L2 learners receiving isolated FFIwith learners receiving integrated FFI

Jeanrsquos (2005) study of French as a second language (nonimmersion)in a Canadian secondary school provides some related evidence of theeffectiveness of integrated FFI Jean designed an experimental study inwhich learners either (a) practiced target forms in mechanical drills thatwere separate from the communicative activities in which the forms wereexpected to be used later or (b) received FFI during ongoing meaning-based activities She found no difference in the two groupsrsquo ability to usethe target forms on subsequent measures of accuracy However shefound that students whose FFI had been integrated with meaningfulcommunicative activities used the forms with a greater variety of vocabu-lary Jean concludes that at least for the verb morphology targeted in herstudy isolated mechanical drills were not a necessary step in L2 teachingand that integrated FFI was an effective way of teaching certain verbforms She also found that the high school students in her study did notexpress a clear preference for one type of instruction over the other

The Role of Isolated FFI

Stern (1992) asserted that although ldquocommunicative activities are anessential component of a language curriculum there is a still a place fora separate analytic language syllabusrdquo (p 180 emphasis added) Morerecently Ellis (2002b) has argued that ldquowe [should] teach grammarseparately making no attempt to integrate it with the task-based com-ponent (except perhaps methodologically through feedback)rdquo (p 32)One frequently heard argument in support of isolating FFI is related tomaintaining learnersrsquo positive motivation The concern is that learnerswill become discouraged or disinterested if their attention is drawn toform while they are trying to engage in communicative practice (seeeg Raimes 2002) Thus it is sometimes suggested that teachers makenote of problems that arise during interaction activities and then bringthem up for instruction and explanation in separate isolated activities

FORM-FOCUSED INSTRUCTION ISOLATED OR INTEGRATED 191

outside the communicative activity As noted earlier however there isrelatively little evidence that language learners themselves object to FFIthat occurs during communicative activities

Some pedagogical and theoretical arguments to support the separa-tion of form and communicative practice include the assumption thatFFI should precede communicative use of a new language feature Thereis a long and strong tradition in the field of L2 teaching that the firstphase in a lesson is the presentation of a specific language form Thispresentation phase is followed by controlled practice (pattern practicestructural drills etc) and only later by activities that permit more sponta-neous use of language In a controversial article Higgs and Clifford (1982)argued that ldquothe premature immersion of a student into an unstructuredor lsquofreersquo conversational setting before certain fundamental linguistic struc-tures are more or less in place is not done without costrdquo (pp 73ndash74)

More recently drawing on research in cognitive psychology specifi-cally in the early work of Anderson (1982) on skill acquisition theoryDeKeyser (1998) has argued that ldquogrammar should first be taught ex-plicitly to achieve a maximum of understanding and then should befollowed by some exercises to anchor it solidly in the studentsrsquo conscious-ness in declarative form so that it is easy to keep in mind during com-municative exercisesrdquo (p 58) In the framework of this article DeKey-serrsquos first two phases (explicit instruction and anchoring exercises) rep-resent isolated FFI although our definition of isolated FFI includes thepossibility that such instruction may occur after students have discoveredthe need for certain language features during communicative activity6

Further support for isolated FFI comes from information processingtheory which argues that because the human mind has limited process-ing capacity it is difficult for learners to focus on form and meaning atthe same time (Ellis 1997) VanPatten (1990) suggested that noticingsome aspects of language form (eg verb morphology) while trying tograsp the meaning of a text may be particularly problematic for begin-ning learners VanPatten and his colleagues have shown how isolatingspecific features of the target language in the input can help learnerschange the way they process certain formndashmeaning mappings (VanPat-ten 1996 2004 VanPatten amp Cadierno 1993)

Recent studies by Barcroft (2002) and Trofimovich (2005) also illus-trate situations in which isolated FFI may be beneficial to students Inthese studies students were exposed to the material to be learned eitherin contexts where they needed to focus on form while also processingsemantic aspects of the language to be learned or where some formalfeature was itself the primary focus Both Barcroft and Trofimovich

6 Doughty and Williams (1998) refer to the work by DeKeyser and Lightbown regarding thesequencing of FFI as sequential focus on form

192 TESOL QUARTERLY

found that attention to meaning was associated with poorer recall offormal features such as the spelling or pronunciation of words Theyinterpreted their findings in terms of the TAP hypothesis As notedearlier according to TAP the best predictor of success in retrievinginformation is the degree of similarity between the conditions and pro-cessing demands present during learning and those present during re-trieval Thus a learning task in which cognitive effort is devoted tosemantic features of a word is not a good preparation for a test in whichlearners need to retrieve information about perceptual or formal fea-tures of the word If the assessment task requires learners to recall orrecognize the correct spelling or pronunciation of a word the learningtask should create conditions in which learners can devote more pro-cessing capacity to those features To be sure the goal of most languagelearning is ultimately to be able to use language forms correctly in com-municative contexts that include multiple demands on attention How-ever what the research by VanPatten Barcroft and Trofimovich shows isthat such contexts may not be conducive to the initial perception andinterpretation of certain language features

To our knowledge no empirical classroom-based research directlycompares the effects of isolated and integrated instruction7 It is impor-tant to keep in mind that our definition of isolated FFI is attention to formin separate lessons that occur within a program that is primarily com-municative in orientation In that sense it is not the same as Longrsquosdefinition of focus on forms which is associated with traditional discrete-point metalinguistic instruction provided in a context where little or nomeaning-based instruction or practice occurs Similarly our definition ofintegrated FFI is not the same as Longrsquos original definition of focus on formwhich includes only reactive FFI whereas integrated FFI includes bothreactive and proactive FFI In this way our definition of integrated FFI issimilar to Ellisrsquos (2001) definition of planned and incidental focus on form

7 A reviewer argues that such studies do exist and points to Sheen (2005) as an exampleWhile Sheenrsquos study does show the benefits of instruction in helping young francophonestudents make more accurate use of questions and the placement of adverbs in Englishsentences it is not a comparison of integrated and isolated FFI as we define them in thispaper As we read the report of that research it seems to show that the students in thecomparison group received almost no FFI at all It is important to emphasize again thatintegrated FFI is not simply a synonym for CLT with little or no attention to language formIntegrated FFI includes brief explanations corrective feedback explicit elicitations ofcorrect forms and input enhancement provided within the context of meaning-basedinstruction Sheenrsquos description of the comparison class in his study indicates that theinstructor did not make any special attempt to integrate FFI related to questions andadverbs in his regular classroom activities In the experimental class students receivedinstruction that is best described as focus on forms not as isolated FFI The distinctionbetween the two is that isolated FFI is provided in separate lessons that are directly relatedto the activities within a communicative or content-based syllabus whereas focus on formslessons typically occur within a structural syllabus that is not closely linked to the ongoingcommunicative activities

FORM-FOCUSED INSTRUCTION ISOLATED OR INTEGRATED 193

This review of the theoretical pedagogical and empirical support forintegrated and isolated instruction indicates that there are arguments onboth sides and that the choice between the two is likely not an absoluteone but rather a choice that is dependent on other factors In the nextsection we outline some of those factors

FACTORS THAT INFLUENCE THE CHOICE OFISOLATED OR INTEGRATED FFI

SLA research shows that some linguistic features are acquired inciden-tally that is without intentional effort or conscious awareness by learnersor guidance from teachers However it is also evident that some lan-guage features develop very slowly or not at all in the absence of guidedattention and that some types of FFI can increase the likelihood thatlearners will make progress in learning these features (Norris amp Ortega2000) Some language features develop according to a natural sequenceof stages that is not altered by instruction (For overviews see Ellis 1994Gass amp Selinker 2001 Lightbown amp Spada 2006 Mitchell amp Myles1998) However while instruction may have only a limited effect on thepath learners follow through developmental sequences it may affect therate at which learners pass through a sequence (see eg Ellis 1989Larsen-Freeman amp Long 1991 Mackey amp Philp 1998 Pienemann 1989Spada amp Lightbown 1993) Several factors may influence the relation-ship between instruction and learning outcomes These factors are dy-namic changing over the course of learnersrsquo language acquisition andwithin different teaching contexts8

L1 Influence

One hypothesis is that isolated FFI is particularly useful when the L1has a strong influence on L2 forms Errors caused by L1 influence can beproblematic in classrooms where learners share the same first languageand reinforce each otherrsquos L1-based errors (Lightbown 1991 Lyster1987) In situations like these isolated FFI may be needed to clarifymisleading similarities between the L1 and L2 Harley (1993) points tothe distinction between French avoirecirctre and havebe in English as anexample Isolated FFI may also help in those cases where learners havedeveloped based on L1 influence an interlanguage rule that is more

8 We thank one of the anonymous reviewers for emphasizing the dynamic nature of thefactors that influence instructional choices

194 TESOL QUARTERLY

general than the related rule in the L2 White (1991) discusses thisproblem with specific reference to differences between adverb place-ment in French and English subject-verb-object sentences and advocatesisolated FFI as a way of helping learners perceive those differences

Salience in the Input

Isolated FFI may be beneficial with features that are relatively simpleto explain or illustrate but are not particularly salient in oral languageDrawing attention to them in isolation may help learners seehear lan-guage features they have not been noticing in the input the first step onthe path to acquisition Although some studies have reported benefits ofinput enhancement that is increasing frequency andor salience of lan-guage features in the input (Alanen 1995 Doughty 1991) others havereported partial or no benefits (Spada amp Lightbown 1999 Trahey ampWhite 1993 White 1998) These conflicting findings appear to be re-lated to differences in the kind of enhancement More explicit enhance-ment appears to lead to more L2 progress than less explicit enhance-ment (Norris amp Ortega 2000)9 This finding suggests that isolated FFImight be useful for creating the necessary salience to help learners no-tice language forms that occur frequently but are semantically redun-dant or phonologically reduced or imperceptible in the oral input Suchforms could include for example third-person -s in English and adjec-tive agreement morphology in French

Input Frequency

Isolated FFI may also help ensure that students have opportunities tolearn forms that are rare or absent in the language they are exposed toin the CLT or CBI classroom Lyster (1994b) reports findings to supportthis idea in his investigation of the effects of FFI on the learning of thesociolinguistic distinction between second-person pronouns tu and vousin French immersion classrooms Students were familiar with the singu-larplural distinction between these two words but the social dynamicsof the classroom in which they were learning French did not give themopportunities to observe the politeness distinctions that are signaled bythe different pronoun forms Lyster developed an instructional interven-

9 It may also be that explicit instruction seems to have some benefits because the assessmentmeasures used favor explicit knowledge (see Doughty 2003 for discussion) Norris andOrtega (2000 p 501) themselves acknowledge this possibility but argue that their findingscannot be explained by this single variable

FORM-FOCUSED INSTRUCTION ISOLATED OR INTEGRATED 195

tion that included opportunities for isolated FFI Drawing studentsrsquo at-tention to this distinction probably prepared them to notice the use ofthe forms in the communicative and integrated FFI activities that fol-lowed and their ability to use these forms improved significantly

Rule Complexity

It has been suggested that integrated FFI may be a more appropriateapproach to instruction for language features that are complex and haverules that are difficult to describe However although there is someintuitive agreement about a distinction between hard and easy rules it isnot always clear what is meant by these terms (see Hulstijn 1995 Hulstijnamp DeGraaff 1994 for useful attempts to define them) Furthermore asDeKeyser (2003) points out in addition to the inherent difficulty of aform or a rule there is also subjective difficulty ldquoRule difficulty is anindividual issue that can be described as the ratio of the rulersquos inherentlinguistic complexity to the studentsrsquo ability to handle such a rulemdasha ruleof moderate difficulty for one student may be easy for a student withmore language learning aptitude or language learning experiencerdquo (p331)

A fairly widespread assumption in the SLA literature is that that whileeasy rules can be taught hard rules are by their very nature too complexto be successfully taught in isolated instruction and thus are difficult tolearn through traditional explanation and practice pedagogy that is iso-lated from communicative use of the language Thus integrated FFI maybe more suitable for complexabstract features such as the article sys-tem in English In laboratory studies to investigate the learning of simpleand complex morphosyntactic rules DeKeyser (1995) and Robinson(1996) provide some support for this idea Participants in those studieslearned simple morphosyntactic rules better under conditions of ex-plicit-deductive learning and more complex rules better under implicit-inductive conditions Conclusions drawn from these studies remain con-troversial however and are perhaps best seen as hypotheses in need offurther study

Communicative Value

Integrated FFI may also be particularly useful with features in whicherrors are more likely to lead to communication breakdowns (eg En-glish possessive pronouns his and her) Lightbown (1998) suggests thatL2 learners at various levels of proficiency are more likely to be able tofocus on form and meaning at the same time when the ldquoform in focus ( )

196 TESOL QUARTERLY

is an important carrier of the meaning in focusrdquo (p 192) However whenerrors do not interfere with meaning (eg the absence of inversion inquestions such as What she is reading) isolation from communicativeinteraction may be necessary if learners are to notice the differencebetween what they say and the correct way to say what they mean (SpadaLightbown amp White 2005) The relative importance of using the rightword as compared with using the right grammar is also reflected inSchwartzrsquos (1993) observation that instruction and feedback are morelikely to lead to changes in learnersrsquo knowledge and use of lexical itemsthan of morphology and syntax Mackey Gass and McDonough (2000)have observed that recasts a typical characteristic of integrated FFI aremore likely to be noticed when the element being recast is a lexical itemthan when it is a morphosyntactic element (see also Lyster 1998)

Learnersrsquo Developmental Level

Once a language feature has emerged in learnersrsquo interlanguage (seePienemann 1998) more fluent and accurate use of that feature may bestbe encouraged through integrated FFI Several studies on FFI have re-ported that L2 learners benefit most from FFI when they are at a devel-opmental level in their language acquisition that enables them to com-pare their use of particular forms with that of native and more proficientspeakers (Mackey amp Philp 1998 Spada amp Lightbown 1999) Related tothis finding is the observation that learnersrsquo receptive and productiveabilities do not develop in the same way or at the same rate Howeverrecent research investigating the effects of both input- (ie comprehen-sion) and output- (ie production) based practice on L2 developmentindicates that both comprehension and production improve as long asthe practice is meaningful and learners are encouraged to make formndashmeaning connections (Morgan-Short amp Wood Bowden 2006 see alsoDeKeyser 1998)

As noted earlier learners may need isolated FFI such as VanPattenrsquosprocessing instruction to help them detect and understand formndashmeaning relationships for language features that have low salience lowfrequency or low communicative value Once the features have emergedin the interlanguage or once the formndashmeaning connections have beenmade the development of greater fluency is likely to be favored byintegrated FFI Ammar and Spada (2006) found that French-speakingchildren who were already more proficient in using possessive determin-ers his and her were able to take advantage of integrated instructionwhether in the form of recasts (where the teacher provides the correctform) or prompts (where the teacher elicits a correction from the stu-dent) However students who were less proficient benefited more from

FORM-FOCUSED INSTRUCTION ISOLATED OR INTEGRATED 197

prompts than recasts suggesting that they had greater difficulty recog-nizing the purpose of the feedback

Learnersrsquo Age

In general older learners especially those with experience in thestudy of their own or other languages are more receptive to isolatedgrammatical instruction (see eg Barkhuizen 1998) Outside the class-room in environments where they are completely immersed in the tar-get language very young learners often acquire L2 proficiency with littleor no FFI Older children adolescents and adults however appear tobenefit from instruction and may even depend on it because of the waysin which their language-learning abilities differ from those of youngchildren (Bley-Vroman 1988 DeKeyser 2000) especially if their contactwith the language is limited to the second or foreign language classroom

Research in CLT and CBI contexts has shown that children do notalways recognize integrated FFI (including enhanced input and implicitrecasts) as responses to language form rather than meaning (eg Lysteramp Ranta 1997) However they do respond to integrated feedback whichis explicit (eg through the use of emphasis prompting and elicitationas well as other nonverbal signals see eg Ammar amp Spada 2006Doughty amp Varela 1998 Lyster 2004) or which is provided within thecontext of language teaching where the overall orientation includes astrong focus on language form (Lyster amp Mori 2006) Adult learners ina variety of language learning contexts have been shown to be moreaware of integrated FFI as feedback on language form (see eg EllisBasturkmen amp Loewen 2001 Ohta 2000)

Language-Learning Aptitude

Learners who perform well on language aptitude tests or have moremetalinguistic knowledge and skill in their L1 may be better able tonotice and focus on language form within a communicative context thanthose with poorer aptitude and metalinguistic ability It has been hypoth-esized that learners with poor metalinguistic skills in their own languagemay require more explicit (possibly isolated) instruction to help themidentify some formndashmeaning connections (Ranta 2002) Mackey PhilpEgi Fujii and Tomoaki (2002) found that adult learners with higherscores on tests of working memory were more likely to report that theynoticed interactional (integrated) feedback in the form of recasts (seealso Robinson 2002)

198 TESOL QUARTERLY

Learner and Teacher Preferences for How to Teach or LearnAbout Form

Research on studentsrsquo beliefs and opinions about FFI (ie instructionand corrective feedback) has revealed that teachersrsquo and studentsrsquo viewsoften differ In two large-scale studies Schulz (1996 2001) found thatvirtually all students expressed a desire to have their errors corrected butvery few teachers felt this was desirable In addition students were morelikely than teachers to say that formal study of the language is ldquoessentialto the eventual mastery of a [foreign language]rdquo (2001 p 247) Mis-matches like these have long been reported in the literature (Cathcart ampOlsen 1976 Yorio 1986) The effects of matches and mismatches on L2learning have also been investigated (eg Spada 1987 Wesche 1981)and there is some evidence that learners benefit most from instructionthat suits their preferences (see Doumlrnyei 2005 for summary and discus-sion)

Other factors such as individual learning styles and previous experi-ence learning languages can also lead to different preferences for learn-ing As indicated earlier some L2 learners who have learned languagesvia traditional structure-based approaches often have strong preferencesfor continuing to learn via isolated grammar practice Other L2 learnerswho have learned languages informally may respond more positively toFFI that is integrated with meaning What is clear is that characteristicssuch as these can interact with type of instruction in complex waysleading to more or less successful learning (Skehan 1989)

It is not only learners who have different preferences for isolatedandor integrated FFI So do teachers Research on teacher cognitionhas revealed that L2 teachers often teach grammar in the way in whichthey were taught it themselves (Borg 2003 Farrell 1999) There is alsoevidence of a direct relationship between what teachers know aboutgrammar and how they teach it That is the extent to which grammar istaught deductively depends on how much metalinguistic knowledgeteachers possess (Borg 2001 Brumfit Mitchell amp Hooper 1996) Ofcourse there are L2 instructors who do not believe that grammar in-struction is useful In a study comparing second (English) and foreign(French) language instruction Mitchell and Hooper (1992) observedthat the English teachers rarely focused on language or explicit grammarwork but the foreign language teachers regularly did so When inter-viewed about this finding the English teachers expressed the opinionthat this type of activity was not of primary importance for developingstudentsrsquo linguistic abilitymdasha response that is not atypical of L2 instruc-tors who have adopted the strong version of CLT

It is often observed that teachers who are teaching their own nativelanguage may not have as good a grasp of the formal grammar of the

FORM-FOCUSED INSTRUCTION ISOLATED OR INTEGRATED 199

language as those whose learning has included form-focused L2 instruc-tion In a study of teachersrsquo practices Borg (1998) observed that deci-sions to include explicit formal instruction are not always based on teach-ersrsquo belief that grammar instruction works but rather on their belief thatstudents expect it He also observed that when teaching grammar teach-ers do not necessarily adhere exclusively to one particular approach(eg deductive or inductive) but will combine and alternate betweenthem Similarly in a study of 48 teachersrsquo attitudes to explicit or implicitteaching of grammar in an English for academic purposes (EAP) pro-gram Burgess and Etherington (2002) report that the majority of teach-ers believed that it is useful to integrate grammar within authentic textsrather than teach it explicitly using a grammatical syllabus At the sametime however they also expressed the belief that not all grammaticalknowledge can be learned implicitly and thus advocated explicit instruc-tion as well In our research investigating the preferences of teachers andadult learners for integrated or isolated FFI we have found that neithergroup expresses a consistent preference for one over the other Theyvalue both (Spada 2006b)

CONCLUSION

Research and theory suggest that there is a role in CLT and CBI forboth isolated and integrated FFI Each type of instruction may play adifferent role in promoting language acquisition Research and experi-ence in CLT and CBI affirm that not all language features need to betaught in isolated lessons Instead the current research on classroomlearning shows that incidental learning allows students to acquire a greatdeal of language while focused on meaning in CLT and CBI The addi-tion of integrated FFI can contribute to the automatization of languagefeatures that have emerged in studentsrsquo language but that are not usedreliably when there are competing demands for attention

Integrated FFI includes a wide range of approaches including thekind of implicit feedback that occurs as the need or opportunity arisesas well as the kind of planned interaction that requires the repeated butnatural use of a particular language form Nevertheless isolated lessonsmay be useful or even essential in promoting the acquisition of somelanguage features These features include those that are hard to perceivein the normal stream of communicative speech those for which there isa misleading similarity to the L1 and those that are unlikely to causecommunication breakdown We are currently designing quasi-experimental studies to explore the contributions of both types of FFI

The importance of isolated lessons will be determined by differences

200 TESOL QUARTERLY

in the specific language feature that is being taught as well as by differ-ences in learnersrsquo and teachersrsquo characteristics abilities and prefer-ences We find no evidence to support a suggestion that isolated gram-mar lessons without opportunities for communicative language useshould again become the dominant approach to language instructionIsolated lessons are a starting point or a follow-up for communicative orcontent-based activities Above all they should not be expected to resultin studentsrsquo immediate incorporation of the feature in focus into theircommunicative language use Nevertheless such lessons can preparestudents to make the best use of opportunities for continuing their lan-guage acquisition in meaning-focused activities and integrated FFI whenit occurs

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

The reviewers who provided feedback on earlier versions of the manuscript helpedus to make this a better article We did not always agree with the reviewers (whoindeed strongly disagreed with each other) but their feedback helped us under-stand and present our own views better We are also grateful to the graduate studentsand research assistants in N Spadarsquos research group at OISEUT for their insightfulcomments on this manuscript and related literature

THE AUTHORS

Nina Spada is a professor in the Second Language Education program at OISEUniversity of Toronto Ontario Canada where she teaches courses in L2 teachingand learning Her research focuses on the contributions of form-focused instructionto the L2 development of children and adults in communicative programs

Patsy M Lightbown is Distinguished Professor Emeritus of Concordia UniversityMontreal Canada and a former president of AAAL Her research explores relation-ships between L2 teaching and learning especially for children and adolescents

REFERENCES

Alanen R (1995) Input enhancement and rule presentation in second languageacquisition In R Schmidt (Ed) Attention and awareness in foreign language learningand teaching (pp 259ndash302) Honolulu University of Hawairsquoi Press

Ammar A amp Spada N (2006) One size fits all Recasts prompts and L2 learningStudies in Second Language Acquisition 28 543ndash574

Anderson J (1982) Acquisition of cognitive skill Psychological Review 89 369ndash406Barcroft J (2002) Semantic and structural elaboration in L2 lexical acquisition

Language Learning 52 323ndash363Barkhuizen G P (1998) Discovering learnersrsquo perceptions of ESL classroom teach-

inglearning activities in a South African context TESOL Quarterly 32 85ndash108

FORM-FOCUSED INSTRUCTION ISOLATED OR INTEGRATED 201

Isolated FFI is the provision of instruction in lessons whose primarypurpose is to teach students about a particular language feature becausethe teacher believes that students are unlikely to acquire the featureduring communicative activities without an opportunity to learn aboutthe feature in a situation where its form and meaning can be made clearFrom the teacherrsquos perspective isolated FFI always implies intentionallearning and explicit instruction However classroom observation re-search shows that even in traditional classrooms in which grammar les-sons are based on a structural syllabus students are not always sure of theteacherrsquos intended focus (Slimani 1992) That is the explicitness andintentionality that the teacher has in mind may not be recognized by thestudents

Integrated FFI occurs in classroom activities during which the primaryfocus remains on meaning but in which feedback or brief explanationsare offered to help students express meaning more effectively or moreaccurately within the communicative interaction Some writers seem toassume that drawing learnersrsquo attention to form during meaning-basedactivities always involves implicit feedback and incidental learning butthat is not necessarily the case Again the perceptions of teachers andlearners may be different Adult learners sometimes show that they in-terpret the teacherrsquos implicit feedback (eg in the form of recasts) asexplicit guidance creating an opportunity for intentional languagelearning (eg Ohta 2000 Ellis Basturkmen amp Loewen 2001) Howevereven when they recognize the teacherrsquos implicit feedback as relevant tolanguage form learners may not correctly identify the object of theteacherrsquos attention (see Mackey Gass amp McDonough 2000 for a relatedstudy)

Both isolated and integrated FFI can include explicit feedback onerror metalinguistic terminology the statement of rules and explana-tions Consider the following example of explicit integrated FFI Thecontext is a communicative activity Grade 6 students are playing a gamein which they have to correctly guess the location of different dolls in adoll house to gain enough points to win the game Note that in prepa-ration for the game examples of appropriate questions had been writtenon the board

Student Is George is in the living room

Teacher You said ldquoisrdquo two times dear Listen to youmdashyou said ldquoIs Georgeis in Look on the board ldquoIs George in the rdquo and then yousay the name of the room

Student Is George in the living room

Teacher Yeah

Student I win (Lightbown amp Spada 2006 p 167)

FORM-FOCUSED INSTRUCTION ISOLATED OR INTEGRATED 187

In this example the teacher provided explicit corrective feedback toa student when he made an error of form even though the meaning heconveyed was comprehensible First she drew attention to the errorproviding information as to what the error was Although she explicitlyfocused on form and the student appeared to understand and use thefeedback it seems that this did not interfere with his continuing interestin the ongoing game Such FFI is thus both integrated and explicit Fromthe teacherrsquos perspective the focus on question forms was also inten-tional She had prepared for the activity with an isolated lesson on ques-tion forms writing examples of appropriate questions on the board

Another example of integrated FFI one that includes the statement ofrules and metalinguistic explanations is an activity in which pairs ofstudents respond to truendashfalse (TF) statements about medical historyusing a timeline showing names dates and descriptions of discoveriesSome of the TF statements are expressed in the active voice whileothers are in the passive (eg Freud developed a method for examining mentalprocesses known as psychoanalysis Penicillin was discovered by Alexander Flem-ing in 1928) The focus is on content and meaning As students discusstheir responses to the questions the instructor selects the two TF state-ments above and asks the students to examine them with the followingquestions in mind ldquoWhat is given more emphasis in the first sentencemdashlsquoFreud [the subject] or psychoanalysis [the object]rsquordquo ldquoWhat is moreprominent in the second sentencerdquo This leads into a brief explanation(5 or 6 minutes) of activepassive sentences how they are formed andhow they function using one or two other examples The teacher thenasks students to return to responding to the TF questions using theinformation on the timeline to assist them (See Samuda 2001 for anexample of integrated FFI targeting the use of modal auxiliaries)

One final note is essential before we discuss the different roles ofisolated and integrated FFI For purposes of the discussion we presentthese approaches as if they were entirely distinct It is clear however thatthey are really the ends of a continuum especially as we are examiningtheir role within CLT and CBI contexts for teaching and learning Thatis we do not see isolated and integrated FFI as being in competition witheach other rather we see them as complementary parts of a completelanguage learning environment Although we are convinced that there isa role for isolated FFI we see it as occurring within instruction that isprimarily interactive and communicative Ultimately the ability to uselanguage automatically in communicative settings requires experience indoing exactly that Providing integrated FFI in CLT and CBI contexts isthe instructional model that has the greatest potential for facilitating thedevelopment of fluent and accurate language that is available for useoutside the classroom We concur with DeKeyser (1998) who in hiscritique of rote drill in audiolingual language teaching commented that

188 TESOL QUARTERLY

practice is valuable for language learning when it involves practice inldquoconveying personal meaningsrdquo (pp 53ndash54)

The Role of Integrated FFI

In the pedagogical literature there is considerable support for inte-grating form focus within communicative activities as well as consider-able skepticism about the effectiveness of instruction that separates formfocus from meaningful interaction (see eg Calveacute 1994) Celce-Murcia(1991) argues that ldquogrammar should never be taught as an end in itselfbut always with reference to meaning social factors or discoursemdashor acombination of these factorsrdquo (pp 466ndash467) Brumfit (1984) asserts thatldquoteachers should not prevent learners from combining a concernwith language use with worry about formal accuracy in terms of specificlanguage itemsrdquo (p 53) Brumfitrsquos assertion may be taken as evidencethat for some learners at least feedback that comes during communi-cative interaction may have a positive effect on motivation5 Knowingthat help is available when it is needed may respond to the expectationsand preferences of studentsmdashespecially adult studentsmdashin languageclasses (see Cathcart amp Olsen 1976 Schulz 1996 2001)

Theoretical support for integration comes from both SLA and cogni-tive psychology Long (1991) has argued that focus on language formshould be fully integrated into ongoing communicative interaction Infact as noted earlier in some of his writing Long (eg 1991) arguedthat teachers should provide focus on form only on those languagefeatures that occur naturally in the course of a task or activity in whichstudents are using the language in meaningful interaction In his revisedinteraction hypothesis Long (1996) states that while comprehensibleinput and meaningful interaction provide the raw material for languageacquisition they also provide the ideal context for spontaneous (ieintegrated) attention to language form Other SLA concepts such asnegotiation of form (Lyster 1994a 1994b) and metatalk (Swain amp Lapkin2002) also point to the benefits of reflecting on language form duringcommunicative language use There are differences among these theo-retical constructs but all of them are compatible with the hypothesis thatwhile instruction may not directly alter learnersrsquo underlying languagesystems it can help them notice features in the input making it more

5 It is important to note that we do not equate integrated FFI with CLT As evident in theresearch literature and in classroom practice CLT has many different meanings some ofwhich include no attention to language form (ie the strong version of CLT) and othersthat include attention to form albeit in different ways (see Howatt 1984 and Spada 2006afor discussions of the evolution and interpretations of CLT)

FORM-FOCUSED INSTRUCTION ISOLATED OR INTEGRATED 189

likely that they will acquire them (Gass 1997 Lightbown 1998 Schmidt1990)

One theoretical approach that has recently been used to explain thepossible benefits of integrated FFI is transfer appropriate processing (TAP)According to TAP learners retrieve knowledge best if the processes forretrieval are similar to those that were used in the learning condition(Blaxton 1989 Franks Bilbrey Lien amp McNamara 2000 Morris Brans-ford amp Franks 1977) In addition the situation objects and events thatare present at the time of learning are connected through a network ofassociations Therefore retrieval is likely to be easier when learners findthemselves using similar processes or in the presence of the same objectsor situations

TAP has only recently begun to receive attention in the SLA literaturebut research on bilingualsrsquo memory for lexical items provides some in-dications of what SLA research may reveal In these studies bilingualparticipants are consistently more successful in retrieving the words theylearned when the testing tasks are similar to the learning tasks (BasdenBonilla-Meeks amp Basden 1994 Durgunoglu amp Roediger 1987) Re-search on the learning and retrieval of more complex units of languageremains to be done However it seems that TAP would predict thatlanguage learned during communicative activities in which learnersrsquo at-tention is briefly drawn to form (ie integrated FFI) would be moreeasily retrieved in communicative situations than say on decontextual-ized tests In contrast L2 knowledge learned outside communicativeactivities in isolated FFI would be more difficult to retrieve in commu-nicative situations outside the classroom (Doherty Hilberg Pinal ampTharp 2003 Segalowitz amp Gatbonton 1995 Segalowitz amp Lightbown1999) This hypothesis is consistent with the observation of many teach-ers and researchers Students who perform well on tests are not neces-sarily fluent users of the test items in spontaneous speech just as manyfluent speakers whose language acquisition has taken place primarilyoutside the classroom perform poorly on tests requiring metalinguisticknowledge or the retrieval of individual language features outside acommunicative context

Although support for integrated FFI comes primarily from theoreticalextrapolations and pedagogical principles there is also some evidence ofits effectiveness in classroom-based studies of CLT and CBI In our re-search in intensive ESL classes that were almost exclusively meaning-focused young students were successful in acquiring certain languagefeatures when their teachers provided ongoing integrated FFI on a lim-ited number of these features (Lightbown 1991 Lightbown amp Spada1990) Those receiving integrated FFI were substantially more likely toacquire these features than students in classes where there was never anyattention to form Research in French immersion programs (Day amp

190 TESOL QUARTERLY

Shapson 1991 Harley 1989 1998 Lyster 1994a 1994b 2004) and inother content-based and communicative classrooms with child and adultESL learners (Doughty amp Varela 1998 R Ellis Basturkmen amp Loewen2001 Williams amp Evans 1998) also supports the hypothesis that attentionto language form within the context of communicative practice can leadto progress in learnersrsquo language development Although this progresshas been observed in the short term for most studies long-term improve-ment has also been reported (eg Spada amp Lightbown 1993) Howeverthe research in CLT and CBI classes was not designed to directly inves-tigate the different roles of integrated and isolated FFI That is none ofthe studies compared the outcomes of L2 learners receiving isolated FFIwith learners receiving integrated FFI

Jeanrsquos (2005) study of French as a second language (nonimmersion)in a Canadian secondary school provides some related evidence of theeffectiveness of integrated FFI Jean designed an experimental study inwhich learners either (a) practiced target forms in mechanical drills thatwere separate from the communicative activities in which the forms wereexpected to be used later or (b) received FFI during ongoing meaning-based activities She found no difference in the two groupsrsquo ability to usethe target forms on subsequent measures of accuracy However shefound that students whose FFI had been integrated with meaningfulcommunicative activities used the forms with a greater variety of vocabu-lary Jean concludes that at least for the verb morphology targeted in herstudy isolated mechanical drills were not a necessary step in L2 teachingand that integrated FFI was an effective way of teaching certain verbforms She also found that the high school students in her study did notexpress a clear preference for one type of instruction over the other

The Role of Isolated FFI

Stern (1992) asserted that although ldquocommunicative activities are anessential component of a language curriculum there is a still a place fora separate analytic language syllabusrdquo (p 180 emphasis added) Morerecently Ellis (2002b) has argued that ldquowe [should] teach grammarseparately making no attempt to integrate it with the task-based com-ponent (except perhaps methodologically through feedback)rdquo (p 32)One frequently heard argument in support of isolating FFI is related tomaintaining learnersrsquo positive motivation The concern is that learnerswill become discouraged or disinterested if their attention is drawn toform while they are trying to engage in communicative practice (seeeg Raimes 2002) Thus it is sometimes suggested that teachers makenote of problems that arise during interaction activities and then bringthem up for instruction and explanation in separate isolated activities

FORM-FOCUSED INSTRUCTION ISOLATED OR INTEGRATED 191

outside the communicative activity As noted earlier however there isrelatively little evidence that language learners themselves object to FFIthat occurs during communicative activities

Some pedagogical and theoretical arguments to support the separa-tion of form and communicative practice include the assumption thatFFI should precede communicative use of a new language feature Thereis a long and strong tradition in the field of L2 teaching that the firstphase in a lesson is the presentation of a specific language form Thispresentation phase is followed by controlled practice (pattern practicestructural drills etc) and only later by activities that permit more sponta-neous use of language In a controversial article Higgs and Clifford (1982)argued that ldquothe premature immersion of a student into an unstructuredor lsquofreersquo conversational setting before certain fundamental linguistic struc-tures are more or less in place is not done without costrdquo (pp 73ndash74)

More recently drawing on research in cognitive psychology specifi-cally in the early work of Anderson (1982) on skill acquisition theoryDeKeyser (1998) has argued that ldquogrammar should first be taught ex-plicitly to achieve a maximum of understanding and then should befollowed by some exercises to anchor it solidly in the studentsrsquo conscious-ness in declarative form so that it is easy to keep in mind during com-municative exercisesrdquo (p 58) In the framework of this article DeKey-serrsquos first two phases (explicit instruction and anchoring exercises) rep-resent isolated FFI although our definition of isolated FFI includes thepossibility that such instruction may occur after students have discoveredthe need for certain language features during communicative activity6

Further support for isolated FFI comes from information processingtheory which argues that because the human mind has limited process-ing capacity it is difficult for learners to focus on form and meaning atthe same time (Ellis 1997) VanPatten (1990) suggested that noticingsome aspects of language form (eg verb morphology) while trying tograsp the meaning of a text may be particularly problematic for begin-ning learners VanPatten and his colleagues have shown how isolatingspecific features of the target language in the input can help learnerschange the way they process certain formndashmeaning mappings (VanPat-ten 1996 2004 VanPatten amp Cadierno 1993)

Recent studies by Barcroft (2002) and Trofimovich (2005) also illus-trate situations in which isolated FFI may be beneficial to students Inthese studies students were exposed to the material to be learned eitherin contexts where they needed to focus on form while also processingsemantic aspects of the language to be learned or where some formalfeature was itself the primary focus Both Barcroft and Trofimovich

6 Doughty and Williams (1998) refer to the work by DeKeyser and Lightbown regarding thesequencing of FFI as sequential focus on form

192 TESOL QUARTERLY

found that attention to meaning was associated with poorer recall offormal features such as the spelling or pronunciation of words Theyinterpreted their findings in terms of the TAP hypothesis As notedearlier according to TAP the best predictor of success in retrievinginformation is the degree of similarity between the conditions and pro-cessing demands present during learning and those present during re-trieval Thus a learning task in which cognitive effort is devoted tosemantic features of a word is not a good preparation for a test in whichlearners need to retrieve information about perceptual or formal fea-tures of the word If the assessment task requires learners to recall orrecognize the correct spelling or pronunciation of a word the learningtask should create conditions in which learners can devote more pro-cessing capacity to those features To be sure the goal of most languagelearning is ultimately to be able to use language forms correctly in com-municative contexts that include multiple demands on attention How-ever what the research by VanPatten Barcroft and Trofimovich shows isthat such contexts may not be conducive to the initial perception andinterpretation of certain language features

To our knowledge no empirical classroom-based research directlycompares the effects of isolated and integrated instruction7 It is impor-tant to keep in mind that our definition of isolated FFI is attention to formin separate lessons that occur within a program that is primarily com-municative in orientation In that sense it is not the same as Longrsquosdefinition of focus on forms which is associated with traditional discrete-point metalinguistic instruction provided in a context where little or nomeaning-based instruction or practice occurs Similarly our definition ofintegrated FFI is not the same as Longrsquos original definition of focus on formwhich includes only reactive FFI whereas integrated FFI includes bothreactive and proactive FFI In this way our definition of integrated FFI issimilar to Ellisrsquos (2001) definition of planned and incidental focus on form

7 A reviewer argues that such studies do exist and points to Sheen (2005) as an exampleWhile Sheenrsquos study does show the benefits of instruction in helping young francophonestudents make more accurate use of questions and the placement of adverbs in Englishsentences it is not a comparison of integrated and isolated FFI as we define them in thispaper As we read the report of that research it seems to show that the students in thecomparison group received almost no FFI at all It is important to emphasize again thatintegrated FFI is not simply a synonym for CLT with little or no attention to language formIntegrated FFI includes brief explanations corrective feedback explicit elicitations ofcorrect forms and input enhancement provided within the context of meaning-basedinstruction Sheenrsquos description of the comparison class in his study indicates that theinstructor did not make any special attempt to integrate FFI related to questions andadverbs in his regular classroom activities In the experimental class students receivedinstruction that is best described as focus on forms not as isolated FFI The distinctionbetween the two is that isolated FFI is provided in separate lessons that are directly relatedto the activities within a communicative or content-based syllabus whereas focus on formslessons typically occur within a structural syllabus that is not closely linked to the ongoingcommunicative activities

FORM-FOCUSED INSTRUCTION ISOLATED OR INTEGRATED 193

This review of the theoretical pedagogical and empirical support forintegrated and isolated instruction indicates that there are arguments onboth sides and that the choice between the two is likely not an absoluteone but rather a choice that is dependent on other factors In the nextsection we outline some of those factors

FACTORS THAT INFLUENCE THE CHOICE OFISOLATED OR INTEGRATED FFI

SLA research shows that some linguistic features are acquired inciden-tally that is without intentional effort or conscious awareness by learnersor guidance from teachers However it is also evident that some lan-guage features develop very slowly or not at all in the absence of guidedattention and that some types of FFI can increase the likelihood thatlearners will make progress in learning these features (Norris amp Ortega2000) Some language features develop according to a natural sequenceof stages that is not altered by instruction (For overviews see Ellis 1994Gass amp Selinker 2001 Lightbown amp Spada 2006 Mitchell amp Myles1998) However while instruction may have only a limited effect on thepath learners follow through developmental sequences it may affect therate at which learners pass through a sequence (see eg Ellis 1989Larsen-Freeman amp Long 1991 Mackey amp Philp 1998 Pienemann 1989Spada amp Lightbown 1993) Several factors may influence the relation-ship between instruction and learning outcomes These factors are dy-namic changing over the course of learnersrsquo language acquisition andwithin different teaching contexts8

L1 Influence

One hypothesis is that isolated FFI is particularly useful when the L1has a strong influence on L2 forms Errors caused by L1 influence can beproblematic in classrooms where learners share the same first languageand reinforce each otherrsquos L1-based errors (Lightbown 1991 Lyster1987) In situations like these isolated FFI may be needed to clarifymisleading similarities between the L1 and L2 Harley (1993) points tothe distinction between French avoirecirctre and havebe in English as anexample Isolated FFI may also help in those cases where learners havedeveloped based on L1 influence an interlanguage rule that is more

8 We thank one of the anonymous reviewers for emphasizing the dynamic nature of thefactors that influence instructional choices

194 TESOL QUARTERLY

general than the related rule in the L2 White (1991) discusses thisproblem with specific reference to differences between adverb place-ment in French and English subject-verb-object sentences and advocatesisolated FFI as a way of helping learners perceive those differences

Salience in the Input

Isolated FFI may be beneficial with features that are relatively simpleto explain or illustrate but are not particularly salient in oral languageDrawing attention to them in isolation may help learners seehear lan-guage features they have not been noticing in the input the first step onthe path to acquisition Although some studies have reported benefits ofinput enhancement that is increasing frequency andor salience of lan-guage features in the input (Alanen 1995 Doughty 1991) others havereported partial or no benefits (Spada amp Lightbown 1999 Trahey ampWhite 1993 White 1998) These conflicting findings appear to be re-lated to differences in the kind of enhancement More explicit enhance-ment appears to lead to more L2 progress than less explicit enhance-ment (Norris amp Ortega 2000)9 This finding suggests that isolated FFImight be useful for creating the necessary salience to help learners no-tice language forms that occur frequently but are semantically redun-dant or phonologically reduced or imperceptible in the oral input Suchforms could include for example third-person -s in English and adjec-tive agreement morphology in French

Input Frequency

Isolated FFI may also help ensure that students have opportunities tolearn forms that are rare or absent in the language they are exposed toin the CLT or CBI classroom Lyster (1994b) reports findings to supportthis idea in his investigation of the effects of FFI on the learning of thesociolinguistic distinction between second-person pronouns tu and vousin French immersion classrooms Students were familiar with the singu-larplural distinction between these two words but the social dynamicsof the classroom in which they were learning French did not give themopportunities to observe the politeness distinctions that are signaled bythe different pronoun forms Lyster developed an instructional interven-

9 It may also be that explicit instruction seems to have some benefits because the assessmentmeasures used favor explicit knowledge (see Doughty 2003 for discussion) Norris andOrtega (2000 p 501) themselves acknowledge this possibility but argue that their findingscannot be explained by this single variable

FORM-FOCUSED INSTRUCTION ISOLATED OR INTEGRATED 195

tion that included opportunities for isolated FFI Drawing studentsrsquo at-tention to this distinction probably prepared them to notice the use ofthe forms in the communicative and integrated FFI activities that fol-lowed and their ability to use these forms improved significantly

Rule Complexity

It has been suggested that integrated FFI may be a more appropriateapproach to instruction for language features that are complex and haverules that are difficult to describe However although there is someintuitive agreement about a distinction between hard and easy rules it isnot always clear what is meant by these terms (see Hulstijn 1995 Hulstijnamp DeGraaff 1994 for useful attempts to define them) Furthermore asDeKeyser (2003) points out in addition to the inherent difficulty of aform or a rule there is also subjective difficulty ldquoRule difficulty is anindividual issue that can be described as the ratio of the rulersquos inherentlinguistic complexity to the studentsrsquo ability to handle such a rulemdasha ruleof moderate difficulty for one student may be easy for a student withmore language learning aptitude or language learning experiencerdquo (p331)

A fairly widespread assumption in the SLA literature is that that whileeasy rules can be taught hard rules are by their very nature too complexto be successfully taught in isolated instruction and thus are difficult tolearn through traditional explanation and practice pedagogy that is iso-lated from communicative use of the language Thus integrated FFI maybe more suitable for complexabstract features such as the article sys-tem in English In laboratory studies to investigate the learning of simpleand complex morphosyntactic rules DeKeyser (1995) and Robinson(1996) provide some support for this idea Participants in those studieslearned simple morphosyntactic rules better under conditions of ex-plicit-deductive learning and more complex rules better under implicit-inductive conditions Conclusions drawn from these studies remain con-troversial however and are perhaps best seen as hypotheses in need offurther study

Communicative Value

Integrated FFI may also be particularly useful with features in whicherrors are more likely to lead to communication breakdowns (eg En-glish possessive pronouns his and her) Lightbown (1998) suggests thatL2 learners at various levels of proficiency are more likely to be able tofocus on form and meaning at the same time when the ldquoform in focus ( )

196 TESOL QUARTERLY

is an important carrier of the meaning in focusrdquo (p 192) However whenerrors do not interfere with meaning (eg the absence of inversion inquestions such as What she is reading) isolation from communicativeinteraction may be necessary if learners are to notice the differencebetween what they say and the correct way to say what they mean (SpadaLightbown amp White 2005) The relative importance of using the rightword as compared with using the right grammar is also reflected inSchwartzrsquos (1993) observation that instruction and feedback are morelikely to lead to changes in learnersrsquo knowledge and use of lexical itemsthan of morphology and syntax Mackey Gass and McDonough (2000)have observed that recasts a typical characteristic of integrated FFI aremore likely to be noticed when the element being recast is a lexical itemthan when it is a morphosyntactic element (see also Lyster 1998)

Learnersrsquo Developmental Level

Once a language feature has emerged in learnersrsquo interlanguage (seePienemann 1998) more fluent and accurate use of that feature may bestbe encouraged through integrated FFI Several studies on FFI have re-ported that L2 learners benefit most from FFI when they are at a devel-opmental level in their language acquisition that enables them to com-pare their use of particular forms with that of native and more proficientspeakers (Mackey amp Philp 1998 Spada amp Lightbown 1999) Related tothis finding is the observation that learnersrsquo receptive and productiveabilities do not develop in the same way or at the same rate Howeverrecent research investigating the effects of both input- (ie comprehen-sion) and output- (ie production) based practice on L2 developmentindicates that both comprehension and production improve as long asthe practice is meaningful and learners are encouraged to make formndashmeaning connections (Morgan-Short amp Wood Bowden 2006 see alsoDeKeyser 1998)

As noted earlier learners may need isolated FFI such as VanPattenrsquosprocessing instruction to help them detect and understand formndashmeaning relationships for language features that have low salience lowfrequency or low communicative value Once the features have emergedin the interlanguage or once the formndashmeaning connections have beenmade the development of greater fluency is likely to be favored byintegrated FFI Ammar and Spada (2006) found that French-speakingchildren who were already more proficient in using possessive determin-ers his and her were able to take advantage of integrated instructionwhether in the form of recasts (where the teacher provides the correctform) or prompts (where the teacher elicits a correction from the stu-dent) However students who were less proficient benefited more from

FORM-FOCUSED INSTRUCTION ISOLATED OR INTEGRATED 197

prompts than recasts suggesting that they had greater difficulty recog-nizing the purpose of the feedback

Learnersrsquo Age

In general older learners especially those with experience in thestudy of their own or other languages are more receptive to isolatedgrammatical instruction (see eg Barkhuizen 1998) Outside the class-room in environments where they are completely immersed in the tar-get language very young learners often acquire L2 proficiency with littleor no FFI Older children adolescents and adults however appear tobenefit from instruction and may even depend on it because of the waysin which their language-learning abilities differ from those of youngchildren (Bley-Vroman 1988 DeKeyser 2000) especially if their contactwith the language is limited to the second or foreign language classroom

Research in CLT and CBI contexts has shown that children do notalways recognize integrated FFI (including enhanced input and implicitrecasts) as responses to language form rather than meaning (eg Lysteramp Ranta 1997) However they do respond to integrated feedback whichis explicit (eg through the use of emphasis prompting and elicitationas well as other nonverbal signals see eg Ammar amp Spada 2006Doughty amp Varela 1998 Lyster 2004) or which is provided within thecontext of language teaching where the overall orientation includes astrong focus on language form (Lyster amp Mori 2006) Adult learners ina variety of language learning contexts have been shown to be moreaware of integrated FFI as feedback on language form (see eg EllisBasturkmen amp Loewen 2001 Ohta 2000)

Language-Learning Aptitude

Learners who perform well on language aptitude tests or have moremetalinguistic knowledge and skill in their L1 may be better able tonotice and focus on language form within a communicative context thanthose with poorer aptitude and metalinguistic ability It has been hypoth-esized that learners with poor metalinguistic skills in their own languagemay require more explicit (possibly isolated) instruction to help themidentify some formndashmeaning connections (Ranta 2002) Mackey PhilpEgi Fujii and Tomoaki (2002) found that adult learners with higherscores on tests of working memory were more likely to report that theynoticed interactional (integrated) feedback in the form of recasts (seealso Robinson 2002)

198 TESOL QUARTERLY

Learner and Teacher Preferences for How to Teach or LearnAbout Form

Research on studentsrsquo beliefs and opinions about FFI (ie instructionand corrective feedback) has revealed that teachersrsquo and studentsrsquo viewsoften differ In two large-scale studies Schulz (1996 2001) found thatvirtually all students expressed a desire to have their errors corrected butvery few teachers felt this was desirable In addition students were morelikely than teachers to say that formal study of the language is ldquoessentialto the eventual mastery of a [foreign language]rdquo (2001 p 247) Mis-matches like these have long been reported in the literature (Cathcart ampOlsen 1976 Yorio 1986) The effects of matches and mismatches on L2learning have also been investigated (eg Spada 1987 Wesche 1981)and there is some evidence that learners benefit most from instructionthat suits their preferences (see Doumlrnyei 2005 for summary and discus-sion)

Other factors such as individual learning styles and previous experi-ence learning languages can also lead to different preferences for learn-ing As indicated earlier some L2 learners who have learned languagesvia traditional structure-based approaches often have strong preferencesfor continuing to learn via isolated grammar practice Other L2 learnerswho have learned languages informally may respond more positively toFFI that is integrated with meaning What is clear is that characteristicssuch as these can interact with type of instruction in complex waysleading to more or less successful learning (Skehan 1989)

It is not only learners who have different preferences for isolatedandor integrated FFI So do teachers Research on teacher cognitionhas revealed that L2 teachers often teach grammar in the way in whichthey were taught it themselves (Borg 2003 Farrell 1999) There is alsoevidence of a direct relationship between what teachers know aboutgrammar and how they teach it That is the extent to which grammar istaught deductively depends on how much metalinguistic knowledgeteachers possess (Borg 2001 Brumfit Mitchell amp Hooper 1996) Ofcourse there are L2 instructors who do not believe that grammar in-struction is useful In a study comparing second (English) and foreign(French) language instruction Mitchell and Hooper (1992) observedthat the English teachers rarely focused on language or explicit grammarwork but the foreign language teachers regularly did so When inter-viewed about this finding the English teachers expressed the opinionthat this type of activity was not of primary importance for developingstudentsrsquo linguistic abilitymdasha response that is not atypical of L2 instruc-tors who have adopted the strong version of CLT

It is often observed that teachers who are teaching their own nativelanguage may not have as good a grasp of the formal grammar of the

FORM-FOCUSED INSTRUCTION ISOLATED OR INTEGRATED 199

language as those whose learning has included form-focused L2 instruc-tion In a study of teachersrsquo practices Borg (1998) observed that deci-sions to include explicit formal instruction are not always based on teach-ersrsquo belief that grammar instruction works but rather on their belief thatstudents expect it He also observed that when teaching grammar teach-ers do not necessarily adhere exclusively to one particular approach(eg deductive or inductive) but will combine and alternate betweenthem Similarly in a study of 48 teachersrsquo attitudes to explicit or implicitteaching of grammar in an English for academic purposes (EAP) pro-gram Burgess and Etherington (2002) report that the majority of teach-ers believed that it is useful to integrate grammar within authentic textsrather than teach it explicitly using a grammatical syllabus At the sametime however they also expressed the belief that not all grammaticalknowledge can be learned implicitly and thus advocated explicit instruc-tion as well In our research investigating the preferences of teachers andadult learners for integrated or isolated FFI we have found that neithergroup expresses a consistent preference for one over the other Theyvalue both (Spada 2006b)

CONCLUSION

Research and theory suggest that there is a role in CLT and CBI forboth isolated and integrated FFI Each type of instruction may play adifferent role in promoting language acquisition Research and experi-ence in CLT and CBI affirm that not all language features need to betaught in isolated lessons Instead the current research on classroomlearning shows that incidental learning allows students to acquire a greatdeal of language while focused on meaning in CLT and CBI The addi-tion of integrated FFI can contribute to the automatization of languagefeatures that have emerged in studentsrsquo language but that are not usedreliably when there are competing demands for attention

Integrated FFI includes a wide range of approaches including thekind of implicit feedback that occurs as the need or opportunity arisesas well as the kind of planned interaction that requires the repeated butnatural use of a particular language form Nevertheless isolated lessonsmay be useful or even essential in promoting the acquisition of somelanguage features These features include those that are hard to perceivein the normal stream of communicative speech those for which there isa misleading similarity to the L1 and those that are unlikely to causecommunication breakdown We are currently designing quasi-experimental studies to explore the contributions of both types of FFI

The importance of isolated lessons will be determined by differences

200 TESOL QUARTERLY

in the specific language feature that is being taught as well as by differ-ences in learnersrsquo and teachersrsquo characteristics abilities and prefer-ences We find no evidence to support a suggestion that isolated gram-mar lessons without opportunities for communicative language useshould again become the dominant approach to language instructionIsolated lessons are a starting point or a follow-up for communicative orcontent-based activities Above all they should not be expected to resultin studentsrsquo immediate incorporation of the feature in focus into theircommunicative language use Nevertheless such lessons can preparestudents to make the best use of opportunities for continuing their lan-guage acquisition in meaning-focused activities and integrated FFI whenit occurs

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

The reviewers who provided feedback on earlier versions of the manuscript helpedus to make this a better article We did not always agree with the reviewers (whoindeed strongly disagreed with each other) but their feedback helped us under-stand and present our own views better We are also grateful to the graduate studentsand research assistants in N Spadarsquos research group at OISEUT for their insightfulcomments on this manuscript and related literature

THE AUTHORS

Nina Spada is a professor in the Second Language Education program at OISEUniversity of Toronto Ontario Canada where she teaches courses in L2 teachingand learning Her research focuses on the contributions of form-focused instructionto the L2 development of children and adults in communicative programs

Patsy M Lightbown is Distinguished Professor Emeritus of Concordia UniversityMontreal Canada and a former president of AAAL Her research explores relation-ships between L2 teaching and learning especially for children and adolescents

REFERENCES

Alanen R (1995) Input enhancement and rule presentation in second languageacquisition In R Schmidt (Ed) Attention and awareness in foreign language learningand teaching (pp 259ndash302) Honolulu University of Hawairsquoi Press

Ammar A amp Spada N (2006) One size fits all Recasts prompts and L2 learningStudies in Second Language Acquisition 28 543ndash574

Anderson J (1982) Acquisition of cognitive skill Psychological Review 89 369ndash406Barcroft J (2002) Semantic and structural elaboration in L2 lexical acquisition

Language Learning 52 323ndash363Barkhuizen G P (1998) Discovering learnersrsquo perceptions of ESL classroom teach-

inglearning activities in a South African context TESOL Quarterly 32 85ndash108

FORM-FOCUSED INSTRUCTION ISOLATED OR INTEGRATED 201

In this example the teacher provided explicit corrective feedback toa student when he made an error of form even though the meaning heconveyed was comprehensible First she drew attention to the errorproviding information as to what the error was Although she explicitlyfocused on form and the student appeared to understand and use thefeedback it seems that this did not interfere with his continuing interestin the ongoing game Such FFI is thus both integrated and explicit Fromthe teacherrsquos perspective the focus on question forms was also inten-tional She had prepared for the activity with an isolated lesson on ques-tion forms writing examples of appropriate questions on the board

Another example of integrated FFI one that includes the statement ofrules and metalinguistic explanations is an activity in which pairs ofstudents respond to truendashfalse (TF) statements about medical historyusing a timeline showing names dates and descriptions of discoveriesSome of the TF statements are expressed in the active voice whileothers are in the passive (eg Freud developed a method for examining mentalprocesses known as psychoanalysis Penicillin was discovered by Alexander Flem-ing in 1928) The focus is on content and meaning As students discusstheir responses to the questions the instructor selects the two TF state-ments above and asks the students to examine them with the followingquestions in mind ldquoWhat is given more emphasis in the first sentencemdashlsquoFreud [the subject] or psychoanalysis [the object]rsquordquo ldquoWhat is moreprominent in the second sentencerdquo This leads into a brief explanation(5 or 6 minutes) of activepassive sentences how they are formed andhow they function using one or two other examples The teacher thenasks students to return to responding to the TF questions using theinformation on the timeline to assist them (See Samuda 2001 for anexample of integrated FFI targeting the use of modal auxiliaries)

One final note is essential before we discuss the different roles ofisolated and integrated FFI For purposes of the discussion we presentthese approaches as if they were entirely distinct It is clear however thatthey are really the ends of a continuum especially as we are examiningtheir role within CLT and CBI contexts for teaching and learning Thatis we do not see isolated and integrated FFI as being in competition witheach other rather we see them as complementary parts of a completelanguage learning environment Although we are convinced that there isa role for isolated FFI we see it as occurring within instruction that isprimarily interactive and communicative Ultimately the ability to uselanguage automatically in communicative settings requires experience indoing exactly that Providing integrated FFI in CLT and CBI contexts isthe instructional model that has the greatest potential for facilitating thedevelopment of fluent and accurate language that is available for useoutside the classroom We concur with DeKeyser (1998) who in hiscritique of rote drill in audiolingual language teaching commented that

188 TESOL QUARTERLY

practice is valuable for language learning when it involves practice inldquoconveying personal meaningsrdquo (pp 53ndash54)

The Role of Integrated FFI

In the pedagogical literature there is considerable support for inte-grating form focus within communicative activities as well as consider-able skepticism about the effectiveness of instruction that separates formfocus from meaningful interaction (see eg Calveacute 1994) Celce-Murcia(1991) argues that ldquogrammar should never be taught as an end in itselfbut always with reference to meaning social factors or discoursemdashor acombination of these factorsrdquo (pp 466ndash467) Brumfit (1984) asserts thatldquoteachers should not prevent learners from combining a concernwith language use with worry about formal accuracy in terms of specificlanguage itemsrdquo (p 53) Brumfitrsquos assertion may be taken as evidencethat for some learners at least feedback that comes during communi-cative interaction may have a positive effect on motivation5 Knowingthat help is available when it is needed may respond to the expectationsand preferences of studentsmdashespecially adult studentsmdashin languageclasses (see Cathcart amp Olsen 1976 Schulz 1996 2001)

Theoretical support for integration comes from both SLA and cogni-tive psychology Long (1991) has argued that focus on language formshould be fully integrated into ongoing communicative interaction Infact as noted earlier in some of his writing Long (eg 1991) arguedthat teachers should provide focus on form only on those languagefeatures that occur naturally in the course of a task or activity in whichstudents are using the language in meaningful interaction In his revisedinteraction hypothesis Long (1996) states that while comprehensibleinput and meaningful interaction provide the raw material for languageacquisition they also provide the ideal context for spontaneous (ieintegrated) attention to language form Other SLA concepts such asnegotiation of form (Lyster 1994a 1994b) and metatalk (Swain amp Lapkin2002) also point to the benefits of reflecting on language form duringcommunicative language use There are differences among these theo-retical constructs but all of them are compatible with the hypothesis thatwhile instruction may not directly alter learnersrsquo underlying languagesystems it can help them notice features in the input making it more

5 It is important to note that we do not equate integrated FFI with CLT As evident in theresearch literature and in classroom practice CLT has many different meanings some ofwhich include no attention to language form (ie the strong version of CLT) and othersthat include attention to form albeit in different ways (see Howatt 1984 and Spada 2006afor discussions of the evolution and interpretations of CLT)

FORM-FOCUSED INSTRUCTION ISOLATED OR INTEGRATED 189

likely that they will acquire them (Gass 1997 Lightbown 1998 Schmidt1990)

One theoretical approach that has recently been used to explain thepossible benefits of integrated FFI is transfer appropriate processing (TAP)According to TAP learners retrieve knowledge best if the processes forretrieval are similar to those that were used in the learning condition(Blaxton 1989 Franks Bilbrey Lien amp McNamara 2000 Morris Brans-ford amp Franks 1977) In addition the situation objects and events thatare present at the time of learning are connected through a network ofassociations Therefore retrieval is likely to be easier when learners findthemselves using similar processes or in the presence of the same objectsor situations

TAP has only recently begun to receive attention in the SLA literaturebut research on bilingualsrsquo memory for lexical items provides some in-dications of what SLA research may reveal In these studies bilingualparticipants are consistently more successful in retrieving the words theylearned when the testing tasks are similar to the learning tasks (BasdenBonilla-Meeks amp Basden 1994 Durgunoglu amp Roediger 1987) Re-search on the learning and retrieval of more complex units of languageremains to be done However it seems that TAP would predict thatlanguage learned during communicative activities in which learnersrsquo at-tention is briefly drawn to form (ie integrated FFI) would be moreeasily retrieved in communicative situations than say on decontextual-ized tests In contrast L2 knowledge learned outside communicativeactivities in isolated FFI would be more difficult to retrieve in commu-nicative situations outside the classroom (Doherty Hilberg Pinal ampTharp 2003 Segalowitz amp Gatbonton 1995 Segalowitz amp Lightbown1999) This hypothesis is consistent with the observation of many teach-ers and researchers Students who perform well on tests are not neces-sarily fluent users of the test items in spontaneous speech just as manyfluent speakers whose language acquisition has taken place primarilyoutside the classroom perform poorly on tests requiring metalinguisticknowledge or the retrieval of individual language features outside acommunicative context

Although support for integrated FFI comes primarily from theoreticalextrapolations and pedagogical principles there is also some evidence ofits effectiveness in classroom-based studies of CLT and CBI In our re-search in intensive ESL classes that were almost exclusively meaning-focused young students were successful in acquiring certain languagefeatures when their teachers provided ongoing integrated FFI on a lim-ited number of these features (Lightbown 1991 Lightbown amp Spada1990) Those receiving integrated FFI were substantially more likely toacquire these features than students in classes where there was never anyattention to form Research in French immersion programs (Day amp

190 TESOL QUARTERLY

Shapson 1991 Harley 1989 1998 Lyster 1994a 1994b 2004) and inother content-based and communicative classrooms with child and adultESL learners (Doughty amp Varela 1998 R Ellis Basturkmen amp Loewen2001 Williams amp Evans 1998) also supports the hypothesis that attentionto language form within the context of communicative practice can leadto progress in learnersrsquo language development Although this progresshas been observed in the short term for most studies long-term improve-ment has also been reported (eg Spada amp Lightbown 1993) Howeverthe research in CLT and CBI classes was not designed to directly inves-tigate the different roles of integrated and isolated FFI That is none ofthe studies compared the outcomes of L2 learners receiving isolated FFIwith learners receiving integrated FFI

Jeanrsquos (2005) study of French as a second language (nonimmersion)in a Canadian secondary school provides some related evidence of theeffectiveness of integrated FFI Jean designed an experimental study inwhich learners either (a) practiced target forms in mechanical drills thatwere separate from the communicative activities in which the forms wereexpected to be used later or (b) received FFI during ongoing meaning-based activities She found no difference in the two groupsrsquo ability to usethe target forms on subsequent measures of accuracy However shefound that students whose FFI had been integrated with meaningfulcommunicative activities used the forms with a greater variety of vocabu-lary Jean concludes that at least for the verb morphology targeted in herstudy isolated mechanical drills were not a necessary step in L2 teachingand that integrated FFI was an effective way of teaching certain verbforms She also found that the high school students in her study did notexpress a clear preference for one type of instruction over the other

The Role of Isolated FFI

Stern (1992) asserted that although ldquocommunicative activities are anessential component of a language curriculum there is a still a place fora separate analytic language syllabusrdquo (p 180 emphasis added) Morerecently Ellis (2002b) has argued that ldquowe [should] teach grammarseparately making no attempt to integrate it with the task-based com-ponent (except perhaps methodologically through feedback)rdquo (p 32)One frequently heard argument in support of isolating FFI is related tomaintaining learnersrsquo positive motivation The concern is that learnerswill become discouraged or disinterested if their attention is drawn toform while they are trying to engage in communicative practice (seeeg Raimes 2002) Thus it is sometimes suggested that teachers makenote of problems that arise during interaction activities and then bringthem up for instruction and explanation in separate isolated activities

FORM-FOCUSED INSTRUCTION ISOLATED OR INTEGRATED 191

outside the communicative activity As noted earlier however there isrelatively little evidence that language learners themselves object to FFIthat occurs during communicative activities

Some pedagogical and theoretical arguments to support the separa-tion of form and communicative practice include the assumption thatFFI should precede communicative use of a new language feature Thereis a long and strong tradition in the field of L2 teaching that the firstphase in a lesson is the presentation of a specific language form Thispresentation phase is followed by controlled practice (pattern practicestructural drills etc) and only later by activities that permit more sponta-neous use of language In a controversial article Higgs and Clifford (1982)argued that ldquothe premature immersion of a student into an unstructuredor lsquofreersquo conversational setting before certain fundamental linguistic struc-tures are more or less in place is not done without costrdquo (pp 73ndash74)

More recently drawing on research in cognitive psychology specifi-cally in the early work of Anderson (1982) on skill acquisition theoryDeKeyser (1998) has argued that ldquogrammar should first be taught ex-plicitly to achieve a maximum of understanding and then should befollowed by some exercises to anchor it solidly in the studentsrsquo conscious-ness in declarative form so that it is easy to keep in mind during com-municative exercisesrdquo (p 58) In the framework of this article DeKey-serrsquos first two phases (explicit instruction and anchoring exercises) rep-resent isolated FFI although our definition of isolated FFI includes thepossibility that such instruction may occur after students have discoveredthe need for certain language features during communicative activity6

Further support for isolated FFI comes from information processingtheory which argues that because the human mind has limited process-ing capacity it is difficult for learners to focus on form and meaning atthe same time (Ellis 1997) VanPatten (1990) suggested that noticingsome aspects of language form (eg verb morphology) while trying tograsp the meaning of a text may be particularly problematic for begin-ning learners VanPatten and his colleagues have shown how isolatingspecific features of the target language in the input can help learnerschange the way they process certain formndashmeaning mappings (VanPat-ten 1996 2004 VanPatten amp Cadierno 1993)

Recent studies by Barcroft (2002) and Trofimovich (2005) also illus-trate situations in which isolated FFI may be beneficial to students Inthese studies students were exposed to the material to be learned eitherin contexts where they needed to focus on form while also processingsemantic aspects of the language to be learned or where some formalfeature was itself the primary focus Both Barcroft and Trofimovich

6 Doughty and Williams (1998) refer to the work by DeKeyser and Lightbown regarding thesequencing of FFI as sequential focus on form

192 TESOL QUARTERLY

found that attention to meaning was associated with poorer recall offormal features such as the spelling or pronunciation of words Theyinterpreted their findings in terms of the TAP hypothesis As notedearlier according to TAP the best predictor of success in retrievinginformation is the degree of similarity between the conditions and pro-cessing demands present during learning and those present during re-trieval Thus a learning task in which cognitive effort is devoted tosemantic features of a word is not a good preparation for a test in whichlearners need to retrieve information about perceptual or formal fea-tures of the word If the assessment task requires learners to recall orrecognize the correct spelling or pronunciation of a word the learningtask should create conditions in which learners can devote more pro-cessing capacity to those features To be sure the goal of most languagelearning is ultimately to be able to use language forms correctly in com-municative contexts that include multiple demands on attention How-ever what the research by VanPatten Barcroft and Trofimovich shows isthat such contexts may not be conducive to the initial perception andinterpretation of certain language features

To our knowledge no empirical classroom-based research directlycompares the effects of isolated and integrated instruction7 It is impor-tant to keep in mind that our definition of isolated FFI is attention to formin separate lessons that occur within a program that is primarily com-municative in orientation In that sense it is not the same as Longrsquosdefinition of focus on forms which is associated with traditional discrete-point metalinguistic instruction provided in a context where little or nomeaning-based instruction or practice occurs Similarly our definition ofintegrated FFI is not the same as Longrsquos original definition of focus on formwhich includes only reactive FFI whereas integrated FFI includes bothreactive and proactive FFI In this way our definition of integrated FFI issimilar to Ellisrsquos (2001) definition of planned and incidental focus on form

7 A reviewer argues that such studies do exist and points to Sheen (2005) as an exampleWhile Sheenrsquos study does show the benefits of instruction in helping young francophonestudents make more accurate use of questions and the placement of adverbs in Englishsentences it is not a comparison of integrated and isolated FFI as we define them in thispaper As we read the report of that research it seems to show that the students in thecomparison group received almost no FFI at all It is important to emphasize again thatintegrated FFI is not simply a synonym for CLT with little or no attention to language formIntegrated FFI includes brief explanations corrective feedback explicit elicitations ofcorrect forms and input enhancement provided within the context of meaning-basedinstruction Sheenrsquos description of the comparison class in his study indicates that theinstructor did not make any special attempt to integrate FFI related to questions andadverbs in his regular classroom activities In the experimental class students receivedinstruction that is best described as focus on forms not as isolated FFI The distinctionbetween the two is that isolated FFI is provided in separate lessons that are directly relatedto the activities within a communicative or content-based syllabus whereas focus on formslessons typically occur within a structural syllabus that is not closely linked to the ongoingcommunicative activities

FORM-FOCUSED INSTRUCTION ISOLATED OR INTEGRATED 193

This review of the theoretical pedagogical and empirical support forintegrated and isolated instruction indicates that there are arguments onboth sides and that the choice between the two is likely not an absoluteone but rather a choice that is dependent on other factors In the nextsection we outline some of those factors

FACTORS THAT INFLUENCE THE CHOICE OFISOLATED OR INTEGRATED FFI

SLA research shows that some linguistic features are acquired inciden-tally that is without intentional effort or conscious awareness by learnersor guidance from teachers However it is also evident that some lan-guage features develop very slowly or not at all in the absence of guidedattention and that some types of FFI can increase the likelihood thatlearners will make progress in learning these features (Norris amp Ortega2000) Some language features develop according to a natural sequenceof stages that is not altered by instruction (For overviews see Ellis 1994Gass amp Selinker 2001 Lightbown amp Spada 2006 Mitchell amp Myles1998) However while instruction may have only a limited effect on thepath learners follow through developmental sequences it may affect therate at which learners pass through a sequence (see eg Ellis 1989Larsen-Freeman amp Long 1991 Mackey amp Philp 1998 Pienemann 1989Spada amp Lightbown 1993) Several factors may influence the relation-ship between instruction and learning outcomes These factors are dy-namic changing over the course of learnersrsquo language acquisition andwithin different teaching contexts8

L1 Influence

One hypothesis is that isolated FFI is particularly useful when the L1has a strong influence on L2 forms Errors caused by L1 influence can beproblematic in classrooms where learners share the same first languageand reinforce each otherrsquos L1-based errors (Lightbown 1991 Lyster1987) In situations like these isolated FFI may be needed to clarifymisleading similarities between the L1 and L2 Harley (1993) points tothe distinction between French avoirecirctre and havebe in English as anexample Isolated FFI may also help in those cases where learners havedeveloped based on L1 influence an interlanguage rule that is more

8 We thank one of the anonymous reviewers for emphasizing the dynamic nature of thefactors that influence instructional choices

194 TESOL QUARTERLY

general than the related rule in the L2 White (1991) discusses thisproblem with specific reference to differences between adverb place-ment in French and English subject-verb-object sentences and advocatesisolated FFI as a way of helping learners perceive those differences

Salience in the Input

Isolated FFI may be beneficial with features that are relatively simpleto explain or illustrate but are not particularly salient in oral languageDrawing attention to them in isolation may help learners seehear lan-guage features they have not been noticing in the input the first step onthe path to acquisition Although some studies have reported benefits ofinput enhancement that is increasing frequency andor salience of lan-guage features in the input (Alanen 1995 Doughty 1991) others havereported partial or no benefits (Spada amp Lightbown 1999 Trahey ampWhite 1993 White 1998) These conflicting findings appear to be re-lated to differences in the kind of enhancement More explicit enhance-ment appears to lead to more L2 progress than less explicit enhance-ment (Norris amp Ortega 2000)9 This finding suggests that isolated FFImight be useful for creating the necessary salience to help learners no-tice language forms that occur frequently but are semantically redun-dant or phonologically reduced or imperceptible in the oral input Suchforms could include for example third-person -s in English and adjec-tive agreement morphology in French

Input Frequency

Isolated FFI may also help ensure that students have opportunities tolearn forms that are rare or absent in the language they are exposed toin the CLT or CBI classroom Lyster (1994b) reports findings to supportthis idea in his investigation of the effects of FFI on the learning of thesociolinguistic distinction between second-person pronouns tu and vousin French immersion classrooms Students were familiar with the singu-larplural distinction between these two words but the social dynamicsof the classroom in which they were learning French did not give themopportunities to observe the politeness distinctions that are signaled bythe different pronoun forms Lyster developed an instructional interven-

9 It may also be that explicit instruction seems to have some benefits because the assessmentmeasures used favor explicit knowledge (see Doughty 2003 for discussion) Norris andOrtega (2000 p 501) themselves acknowledge this possibility but argue that their findingscannot be explained by this single variable

FORM-FOCUSED INSTRUCTION ISOLATED OR INTEGRATED 195

tion that included opportunities for isolated FFI Drawing studentsrsquo at-tention to this distinction probably prepared them to notice the use ofthe forms in the communicative and integrated FFI activities that fol-lowed and their ability to use these forms improved significantly

Rule Complexity

It has been suggested that integrated FFI may be a more appropriateapproach to instruction for language features that are complex and haverules that are difficult to describe However although there is someintuitive agreement about a distinction between hard and easy rules it isnot always clear what is meant by these terms (see Hulstijn 1995 Hulstijnamp DeGraaff 1994 for useful attempts to define them) Furthermore asDeKeyser (2003) points out in addition to the inherent difficulty of aform or a rule there is also subjective difficulty ldquoRule difficulty is anindividual issue that can be described as the ratio of the rulersquos inherentlinguistic complexity to the studentsrsquo ability to handle such a rulemdasha ruleof moderate difficulty for one student may be easy for a student withmore language learning aptitude or language learning experiencerdquo (p331)

A fairly widespread assumption in the SLA literature is that that whileeasy rules can be taught hard rules are by their very nature too complexto be successfully taught in isolated instruction and thus are difficult tolearn through traditional explanation and practice pedagogy that is iso-lated from communicative use of the language Thus integrated FFI maybe more suitable for complexabstract features such as the article sys-tem in English In laboratory studies to investigate the learning of simpleand complex morphosyntactic rules DeKeyser (1995) and Robinson(1996) provide some support for this idea Participants in those studieslearned simple morphosyntactic rules better under conditions of ex-plicit-deductive learning and more complex rules better under implicit-inductive conditions Conclusions drawn from these studies remain con-troversial however and are perhaps best seen as hypotheses in need offurther study

Communicative Value

Integrated FFI may also be particularly useful with features in whicherrors are more likely to lead to communication breakdowns (eg En-glish possessive pronouns his and her) Lightbown (1998) suggests thatL2 learners at various levels of proficiency are more likely to be able tofocus on form and meaning at the same time when the ldquoform in focus ( )

196 TESOL QUARTERLY

is an important carrier of the meaning in focusrdquo (p 192) However whenerrors do not interfere with meaning (eg the absence of inversion inquestions such as What she is reading) isolation from communicativeinteraction may be necessary if learners are to notice the differencebetween what they say and the correct way to say what they mean (SpadaLightbown amp White 2005) The relative importance of using the rightword as compared with using the right grammar is also reflected inSchwartzrsquos (1993) observation that instruction and feedback are morelikely to lead to changes in learnersrsquo knowledge and use of lexical itemsthan of morphology and syntax Mackey Gass and McDonough (2000)have observed that recasts a typical characteristic of integrated FFI aremore likely to be noticed when the element being recast is a lexical itemthan when it is a morphosyntactic element (see also Lyster 1998)

Learnersrsquo Developmental Level

Once a language feature has emerged in learnersrsquo interlanguage (seePienemann 1998) more fluent and accurate use of that feature may bestbe encouraged through integrated FFI Several studies on FFI have re-ported that L2 learners benefit most from FFI when they are at a devel-opmental level in their language acquisition that enables them to com-pare their use of particular forms with that of native and more proficientspeakers (Mackey amp Philp 1998 Spada amp Lightbown 1999) Related tothis finding is the observation that learnersrsquo receptive and productiveabilities do not develop in the same way or at the same rate Howeverrecent research investigating the effects of both input- (ie comprehen-sion) and output- (ie production) based practice on L2 developmentindicates that both comprehension and production improve as long asthe practice is meaningful and learners are encouraged to make formndashmeaning connections (Morgan-Short amp Wood Bowden 2006 see alsoDeKeyser 1998)

As noted earlier learners may need isolated FFI such as VanPattenrsquosprocessing instruction to help them detect and understand formndashmeaning relationships for language features that have low salience lowfrequency or low communicative value Once the features have emergedin the interlanguage or once the formndashmeaning connections have beenmade the development of greater fluency is likely to be favored byintegrated FFI Ammar and Spada (2006) found that French-speakingchildren who were already more proficient in using possessive determin-ers his and her were able to take advantage of integrated instructionwhether in the form of recasts (where the teacher provides the correctform) or prompts (where the teacher elicits a correction from the stu-dent) However students who were less proficient benefited more from

FORM-FOCUSED INSTRUCTION ISOLATED OR INTEGRATED 197

prompts than recasts suggesting that they had greater difficulty recog-nizing the purpose of the feedback

Learnersrsquo Age

In general older learners especially those with experience in thestudy of their own or other languages are more receptive to isolatedgrammatical instruction (see eg Barkhuizen 1998) Outside the class-room in environments where they are completely immersed in the tar-get language very young learners often acquire L2 proficiency with littleor no FFI Older children adolescents and adults however appear tobenefit from instruction and may even depend on it because of the waysin which their language-learning abilities differ from those of youngchildren (Bley-Vroman 1988 DeKeyser 2000) especially if their contactwith the language is limited to the second or foreign language classroom

Research in CLT and CBI contexts has shown that children do notalways recognize integrated FFI (including enhanced input and implicitrecasts) as responses to language form rather than meaning (eg Lysteramp Ranta 1997) However they do respond to integrated feedback whichis explicit (eg through the use of emphasis prompting and elicitationas well as other nonverbal signals see eg Ammar amp Spada 2006Doughty amp Varela 1998 Lyster 2004) or which is provided within thecontext of language teaching where the overall orientation includes astrong focus on language form (Lyster amp Mori 2006) Adult learners ina variety of language learning contexts have been shown to be moreaware of integrated FFI as feedback on language form (see eg EllisBasturkmen amp Loewen 2001 Ohta 2000)

Language-Learning Aptitude

Learners who perform well on language aptitude tests or have moremetalinguistic knowledge and skill in their L1 may be better able tonotice and focus on language form within a communicative context thanthose with poorer aptitude and metalinguistic ability It has been hypoth-esized that learners with poor metalinguistic skills in their own languagemay require more explicit (possibly isolated) instruction to help themidentify some formndashmeaning connections (Ranta 2002) Mackey PhilpEgi Fujii and Tomoaki (2002) found that adult learners with higherscores on tests of working memory were more likely to report that theynoticed interactional (integrated) feedback in the form of recasts (seealso Robinson 2002)

198 TESOL QUARTERLY

Learner and Teacher Preferences for How to Teach or LearnAbout Form

Research on studentsrsquo beliefs and opinions about FFI (ie instructionand corrective feedback) has revealed that teachersrsquo and studentsrsquo viewsoften differ In two large-scale studies Schulz (1996 2001) found thatvirtually all students expressed a desire to have their errors corrected butvery few teachers felt this was desirable In addition students were morelikely than teachers to say that formal study of the language is ldquoessentialto the eventual mastery of a [foreign language]rdquo (2001 p 247) Mis-matches like these have long been reported in the literature (Cathcart ampOlsen 1976 Yorio 1986) The effects of matches and mismatches on L2learning have also been investigated (eg Spada 1987 Wesche 1981)and there is some evidence that learners benefit most from instructionthat suits their preferences (see Doumlrnyei 2005 for summary and discus-sion)

Other factors such as individual learning styles and previous experi-ence learning languages can also lead to different preferences for learn-ing As indicated earlier some L2 learners who have learned languagesvia traditional structure-based approaches often have strong preferencesfor continuing to learn via isolated grammar practice Other L2 learnerswho have learned languages informally may respond more positively toFFI that is integrated with meaning What is clear is that characteristicssuch as these can interact with type of instruction in complex waysleading to more or less successful learning (Skehan 1989)

It is not only learners who have different preferences for isolatedandor integrated FFI So do teachers Research on teacher cognitionhas revealed that L2 teachers often teach grammar in the way in whichthey were taught it themselves (Borg 2003 Farrell 1999) There is alsoevidence of a direct relationship between what teachers know aboutgrammar and how they teach it That is the extent to which grammar istaught deductively depends on how much metalinguistic knowledgeteachers possess (Borg 2001 Brumfit Mitchell amp Hooper 1996) Ofcourse there are L2 instructors who do not believe that grammar in-struction is useful In a study comparing second (English) and foreign(French) language instruction Mitchell and Hooper (1992) observedthat the English teachers rarely focused on language or explicit grammarwork but the foreign language teachers regularly did so When inter-viewed about this finding the English teachers expressed the opinionthat this type of activity was not of primary importance for developingstudentsrsquo linguistic abilitymdasha response that is not atypical of L2 instruc-tors who have adopted the strong version of CLT

It is often observed that teachers who are teaching their own nativelanguage may not have as good a grasp of the formal grammar of the

FORM-FOCUSED INSTRUCTION ISOLATED OR INTEGRATED 199

language as those whose learning has included form-focused L2 instruc-tion In a study of teachersrsquo practices Borg (1998) observed that deci-sions to include explicit formal instruction are not always based on teach-ersrsquo belief that grammar instruction works but rather on their belief thatstudents expect it He also observed that when teaching grammar teach-ers do not necessarily adhere exclusively to one particular approach(eg deductive or inductive) but will combine and alternate betweenthem Similarly in a study of 48 teachersrsquo attitudes to explicit or implicitteaching of grammar in an English for academic purposes (EAP) pro-gram Burgess and Etherington (2002) report that the majority of teach-ers believed that it is useful to integrate grammar within authentic textsrather than teach it explicitly using a grammatical syllabus At the sametime however they also expressed the belief that not all grammaticalknowledge can be learned implicitly and thus advocated explicit instruc-tion as well In our research investigating the preferences of teachers andadult learners for integrated or isolated FFI we have found that neithergroup expresses a consistent preference for one over the other Theyvalue both (Spada 2006b)

CONCLUSION

Research and theory suggest that there is a role in CLT and CBI forboth isolated and integrated FFI Each type of instruction may play adifferent role in promoting language acquisition Research and experi-ence in CLT and CBI affirm that not all language features need to betaught in isolated lessons Instead the current research on classroomlearning shows that incidental learning allows students to acquire a greatdeal of language while focused on meaning in CLT and CBI The addi-tion of integrated FFI can contribute to the automatization of languagefeatures that have emerged in studentsrsquo language but that are not usedreliably when there are competing demands for attention

Integrated FFI includes a wide range of approaches including thekind of implicit feedback that occurs as the need or opportunity arisesas well as the kind of planned interaction that requires the repeated butnatural use of a particular language form Nevertheless isolated lessonsmay be useful or even essential in promoting the acquisition of somelanguage features These features include those that are hard to perceivein the normal stream of communicative speech those for which there isa misleading similarity to the L1 and those that are unlikely to causecommunication breakdown We are currently designing quasi-experimental studies to explore the contributions of both types of FFI

The importance of isolated lessons will be determined by differences

200 TESOL QUARTERLY

in the specific language feature that is being taught as well as by differ-ences in learnersrsquo and teachersrsquo characteristics abilities and prefer-ences We find no evidence to support a suggestion that isolated gram-mar lessons without opportunities for communicative language useshould again become the dominant approach to language instructionIsolated lessons are a starting point or a follow-up for communicative orcontent-based activities Above all they should not be expected to resultin studentsrsquo immediate incorporation of the feature in focus into theircommunicative language use Nevertheless such lessons can preparestudents to make the best use of opportunities for continuing their lan-guage acquisition in meaning-focused activities and integrated FFI whenit occurs

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

The reviewers who provided feedback on earlier versions of the manuscript helpedus to make this a better article We did not always agree with the reviewers (whoindeed strongly disagreed with each other) but their feedback helped us under-stand and present our own views better We are also grateful to the graduate studentsand research assistants in N Spadarsquos research group at OISEUT for their insightfulcomments on this manuscript and related literature

THE AUTHORS

Nina Spada is a professor in the Second Language Education program at OISEUniversity of Toronto Ontario Canada where she teaches courses in L2 teachingand learning Her research focuses on the contributions of form-focused instructionto the L2 development of children and adults in communicative programs

Patsy M Lightbown is Distinguished Professor Emeritus of Concordia UniversityMontreal Canada and a former president of AAAL Her research explores relation-ships between L2 teaching and learning especially for children and adolescents

REFERENCES

Alanen R (1995) Input enhancement and rule presentation in second languageacquisition In R Schmidt (Ed) Attention and awareness in foreign language learningand teaching (pp 259ndash302) Honolulu University of Hawairsquoi Press

Ammar A amp Spada N (2006) One size fits all Recasts prompts and L2 learningStudies in Second Language Acquisition 28 543ndash574

Anderson J (1982) Acquisition of cognitive skill Psychological Review 89 369ndash406Barcroft J (2002) Semantic and structural elaboration in L2 lexical acquisition

Language Learning 52 323ndash363Barkhuizen G P (1998) Discovering learnersrsquo perceptions of ESL classroom teach-

inglearning activities in a South African context TESOL Quarterly 32 85ndash108

FORM-FOCUSED INSTRUCTION ISOLATED OR INTEGRATED 201

practice is valuable for language learning when it involves practice inldquoconveying personal meaningsrdquo (pp 53ndash54)

The Role of Integrated FFI

In the pedagogical literature there is considerable support for inte-grating form focus within communicative activities as well as consider-able skepticism about the effectiveness of instruction that separates formfocus from meaningful interaction (see eg Calveacute 1994) Celce-Murcia(1991) argues that ldquogrammar should never be taught as an end in itselfbut always with reference to meaning social factors or discoursemdashor acombination of these factorsrdquo (pp 466ndash467) Brumfit (1984) asserts thatldquoteachers should not prevent learners from combining a concernwith language use with worry about formal accuracy in terms of specificlanguage itemsrdquo (p 53) Brumfitrsquos assertion may be taken as evidencethat for some learners at least feedback that comes during communi-cative interaction may have a positive effect on motivation5 Knowingthat help is available when it is needed may respond to the expectationsand preferences of studentsmdashespecially adult studentsmdashin languageclasses (see Cathcart amp Olsen 1976 Schulz 1996 2001)

Theoretical support for integration comes from both SLA and cogni-tive psychology Long (1991) has argued that focus on language formshould be fully integrated into ongoing communicative interaction Infact as noted earlier in some of his writing Long (eg 1991) arguedthat teachers should provide focus on form only on those languagefeatures that occur naturally in the course of a task or activity in whichstudents are using the language in meaningful interaction In his revisedinteraction hypothesis Long (1996) states that while comprehensibleinput and meaningful interaction provide the raw material for languageacquisition they also provide the ideal context for spontaneous (ieintegrated) attention to language form Other SLA concepts such asnegotiation of form (Lyster 1994a 1994b) and metatalk (Swain amp Lapkin2002) also point to the benefits of reflecting on language form duringcommunicative language use There are differences among these theo-retical constructs but all of them are compatible with the hypothesis thatwhile instruction may not directly alter learnersrsquo underlying languagesystems it can help them notice features in the input making it more

5 It is important to note that we do not equate integrated FFI with CLT As evident in theresearch literature and in classroom practice CLT has many different meanings some ofwhich include no attention to language form (ie the strong version of CLT) and othersthat include attention to form albeit in different ways (see Howatt 1984 and Spada 2006afor discussions of the evolution and interpretations of CLT)

FORM-FOCUSED INSTRUCTION ISOLATED OR INTEGRATED 189

likely that they will acquire them (Gass 1997 Lightbown 1998 Schmidt1990)

One theoretical approach that has recently been used to explain thepossible benefits of integrated FFI is transfer appropriate processing (TAP)According to TAP learners retrieve knowledge best if the processes forretrieval are similar to those that were used in the learning condition(Blaxton 1989 Franks Bilbrey Lien amp McNamara 2000 Morris Brans-ford amp Franks 1977) In addition the situation objects and events thatare present at the time of learning are connected through a network ofassociations Therefore retrieval is likely to be easier when learners findthemselves using similar processes or in the presence of the same objectsor situations

TAP has only recently begun to receive attention in the SLA literaturebut research on bilingualsrsquo memory for lexical items provides some in-dications of what SLA research may reveal In these studies bilingualparticipants are consistently more successful in retrieving the words theylearned when the testing tasks are similar to the learning tasks (BasdenBonilla-Meeks amp Basden 1994 Durgunoglu amp Roediger 1987) Re-search on the learning and retrieval of more complex units of languageremains to be done However it seems that TAP would predict thatlanguage learned during communicative activities in which learnersrsquo at-tention is briefly drawn to form (ie integrated FFI) would be moreeasily retrieved in communicative situations than say on decontextual-ized tests In contrast L2 knowledge learned outside communicativeactivities in isolated FFI would be more difficult to retrieve in commu-nicative situations outside the classroom (Doherty Hilberg Pinal ampTharp 2003 Segalowitz amp Gatbonton 1995 Segalowitz amp Lightbown1999) This hypothesis is consistent with the observation of many teach-ers and researchers Students who perform well on tests are not neces-sarily fluent users of the test items in spontaneous speech just as manyfluent speakers whose language acquisition has taken place primarilyoutside the classroom perform poorly on tests requiring metalinguisticknowledge or the retrieval of individual language features outside acommunicative context

Although support for integrated FFI comes primarily from theoreticalextrapolations and pedagogical principles there is also some evidence ofits effectiveness in classroom-based studies of CLT and CBI In our re-search in intensive ESL classes that were almost exclusively meaning-focused young students were successful in acquiring certain languagefeatures when their teachers provided ongoing integrated FFI on a lim-ited number of these features (Lightbown 1991 Lightbown amp Spada1990) Those receiving integrated FFI were substantially more likely toacquire these features than students in classes where there was never anyattention to form Research in French immersion programs (Day amp

190 TESOL QUARTERLY

Shapson 1991 Harley 1989 1998 Lyster 1994a 1994b 2004) and inother content-based and communicative classrooms with child and adultESL learners (Doughty amp Varela 1998 R Ellis Basturkmen amp Loewen2001 Williams amp Evans 1998) also supports the hypothesis that attentionto language form within the context of communicative practice can leadto progress in learnersrsquo language development Although this progresshas been observed in the short term for most studies long-term improve-ment has also been reported (eg Spada amp Lightbown 1993) Howeverthe research in CLT and CBI classes was not designed to directly inves-tigate the different roles of integrated and isolated FFI That is none ofthe studies compared the outcomes of L2 learners receiving isolated FFIwith learners receiving integrated FFI

Jeanrsquos (2005) study of French as a second language (nonimmersion)in a Canadian secondary school provides some related evidence of theeffectiveness of integrated FFI Jean designed an experimental study inwhich learners either (a) practiced target forms in mechanical drills thatwere separate from the communicative activities in which the forms wereexpected to be used later or (b) received FFI during ongoing meaning-based activities She found no difference in the two groupsrsquo ability to usethe target forms on subsequent measures of accuracy However shefound that students whose FFI had been integrated with meaningfulcommunicative activities used the forms with a greater variety of vocabu-lary Jean concludes that at least for the verb morphology targeted in herstudy isolated mechanical drills were not a necessary step in L2 teachingand that integrated FFI was an effective way of teaching certain verbforms She also found that the high school students in her study did notexpress a clear preference for one type of instruction over the other

The Role of Isolated FFI

Stern (1992) asserted that although ldquocommunicative activities are anessential component of a language curriculum there is a still a place fora separate analytic language syllabusrdquo (p 180 emphasis added) Morerecently Ellis (2002b) has argued that ldquowe [should] teach grammarseparately making no attempt to integrate it with the task-based com-ponent (except perhaps methodologically through feedback)rdquo (p 32)One frequently heard argument in support of isolating FFI is related tomaintaining learnersrsquo positive motivation The concern is that learnerswill become discouraged or disinterested if their attention is drawn toform while they are trying to engage in communicative practice (seeeg Raimes 2002) Thus it is sometimes suggested that teachers makenote of problems that arise during interaction activities and then bringthem up for instruction and explanation in separate isolated activities

FORM-FOCUSED INSTRUCTION ISOLATED OR INTEGRATED 191

outside the communicative activity As noted earlier however there isrelatively little evidence that language learners themselves object to FFIthat occurs during communicative activities

Some pedagogical and theoretical arguments to support the separa-tion of form and communicative practice include the assumption thatFFI should precede communicative use of a new language feature Thereis a long and strong tradition in the field of L2 teaching that the firstphase in a lesson is the presentation of a specific language form Thispresentation phase is followed by controlled practice (pattern practicestructural drills etc) and only later by activities that permit more sponta-neous use of language In a controversial article Higgs and Clifford (1982)argued that ldquothe premature immersion of a student into an unstructuredor lsquofreersquo conversational setting before certain fundamental linguistic struc-tures are more or less in place is not done without costrdquo (pp 73ndash74)

More recently drawing on research in cognitive psychology specifi-cally in the early work of Anderson (1982) on skill acquisition theoryDeKeyser (1998) has argued that ldquogrammar should first be taught ex-plicitly to achieve a maximum of understanding and then should befollowed by some exercises to anchor it solidly in the studentsrsquo conscious-ness in declarative form so that it is easy to keep in mind during com-municative exercisesrdquo (p 58) In the framework of this article DeKey-serrsquos first two phases (explicit instruction and anchoring exercises) rep-resent isolated FFI although our definition of isolated FFI includes thepossibility that such instruction may occur after students have discoveredthe need for certain language features during communicative activity6

Further support for isolated FFI comes from information processingtheory which argues that because the human mind has limited process-ing capacity it is difficult for learners to focus on form and meaning atthe same time (Ellis 1997) VanPatten (1990) suggested that noticingsome aspects of language form (eg verb morphology) while trying tograsp the meaning of a text may be particularly problematic for begin-ning learners VanPatten and his colleagues have shown how isolatingspecific features of the target language in the input can help learnerschange the way they process certain formndashmeaning mappings (VanPat-ten 1996 2004 VanPatten amp Cadierno 1993)

Recent studies by Barcroft (2002) and Trofimovich (2005) also illus-trate situations in which isolated FFI may be beneficial to students Inthese studies students were exposed to the material to be learned eitherin contexts where they needed to focus on form while also processingsemantic aspects of the language to be learned or where some formalfeature was itself the primary focus Both Barcroft and Trofimovich

6 Doughty and Williams (1998) refer to the work by DeKeyser and Lightbown regarding thesequencing of FFI as sequential focus on form

192 TESOL QUARTERLY

found that attention to meaning was associated with poorer recall offormal features such as the spelling or pronunciation of words Theyinterpreted their findings in terms of the TAP hypothesis As notedearlier according to TAP the best predictor of success in retrievinginformation is the degree of similarity between the conditions and pro-cessing demands present during learning and those present during re-trieval Thus a learning task in which cognitive effort is devoted tosemantic features of a word is not a good preparation for a test in whichlearners need to retrieve information about perceptual or formal fea-tures of the word If the assessment task requires learners to recall orrecognize the correct spelling or pronunciation of a word the learningtask should create conditions in which learners can devote more pro-cessing capacity to those features To be sure the goal of most languagelearning is ultimately to be able to use language forms correctly in com-municative contexts that include multiple demands on attention How-ever what the research by VanPatten Barcroft and Trofimovich shows isthat such contexts may not be conducive to the initial perception andinterpretation of certain language features

To our knowledge no empirical classroom-based research directlycompares the effects of isolated and integrated instruction7 It is impor-tant to keep in mind that our definition of isolated FFI is attention to formin separate lessons that occur within a program that is primarily com-municative in orientation In that sense it is not the same as Longrsquosdefinition of focus on forms which is associated with traditional discrete-point metalinguistic instruction provided in a context where little or nomeaning-based instruction or practice occurs Similarly our definition ofintegrated FFI is not the same as Longrsquos original definition of focus on formwhich includes only reactive FFI whereas integrated FFI includes bothreactive and proactive FFI In this way our definition of integrated FFI issimilar to Ellisrsquos (2001) definition of planned and incidental focus on form

7 A reviewer argues that such studies do exist and points to Sheen (2005) as an exampleWhile Sheenrsquos study does show the benefits of instruction in helping young francophonestudents make more accurate use of questions and the placement of adverbs in Englishsentences it is not a comparison of integrated and isolated FFI as we define them in thispaper As we read the report of that research it seems to show that the students in thecomparison group received almost no FFI at all It is important to emphasize again thatintegrated FFI is not simply a synonym for CLT with little or no attention to language formIntegrated FFI includes brief explanations corrective feedback explicit elicitations ofcorrect forms and input enhancement provided within the context of meaning-basedinstruction Sheenrsquos description of the comparison class in his study indicates that theinstructor did not make any special attempt to integrate FFI related to questions andadverbs in his regular classroom activities In the experimental class students receivedinstruction that is best described as focus on forms not as isolated FFI The distinctionbetween the two is that isolated FFI is provided in separate lessons that are directly relatedto the activities within a communicative or content-based syllabus whereas focus on formslessons typically occur within a structural syllabus that is not closely linked to the ongoingcommunicative activities

FORM-FOCUSED INSTRUCTION ISOLATED OR INTEGRATED 193

This review of the theoretical pedagogical and empirical support forintegrated and isolated instruction indicates that there are arguments onboth sides and that the choice between the two is likely not an absoluteone but rather a choice that is dependent on other factors In the nextsection we outline some of those factors

FACTORS THAT INFLUENCE THE CHOICE OFISOLATED OR INTEGRATED FFI

SLA research shows that some linguistic features are acquired inciden-tally that is without intentional effort or conscious awareness by learnersor guidance from teachers However it is also evident that some lan-guage features develop very slowly or not at all in the absence of guidedattention and that some types of FFI can increase the likelihood thatlearners will make progress in learning these features (Norris amp Ortega2000) Some language features develop according to a natural sequenceof stages that is not altered by instruction (For overviews see Ellis 1994Gass amp Selinker 2001 Lightbown amp Spada 2006 Mitchell amp Myles1998) However while instruction may have only a limited effect on thepath learners follow through developmental sequences it may affect therate at which learners pass through a sequence (see eg Ellis 1989Larsen-Freeman amp Long 1991 Mackey amp Philp 1998 Pienemann 1989Spada amp Lightbown 1993) Several factors may influence the relation-ship between instruction and learning outcomes These factors are dy-namic changing over the course of learnersrsquo language acquisition andwithin different teaching contexts8

L1 Influence

One hypothesis is that isolated FFI is particularly useful when the L1has a strong influence on L2 forms Errors caused by L1 influence can beproblematic in classrooms where learners share the same first languageand reinforce each otherrsquos L1-based errors (Lightbown 1991 Lyster1987) In situations like these isolated FFI may be needed to clarifymisleading similarities between the L1 and L2 Harley (1993) points tothe distinction between French avoirecirctre and havebe in English as anexample Isolated FFI may also help in those cases where learners havedeveloped based on L1 influence an interlanguage rule that is more

8 We thank one of the anonymous reviewers for emphasizing the dynamic nature of thefactors that influence instructional choices

194 TESOL QUARTERLY

general than the related rule in the L2 White (1991) discusses thisproblem with specific reference to differences between adverb place-ment in French and English subject-verb-object sentences and advocatesisolated FFI as a way of helping learners perceive those differences

Salience in the Input

Isolated FFI may be beneficial with features that are relatively simpleto explain or illustrate but are not particularly salient in oral languageDrawing attention to them in isolation may help learners seehear lan-guage features they have not been noticing in the input the first step onthe path to acquisition Although some studies have reported benefits ofinput enhancement that is increasing frequency andor salience of lan-guage features in the input (Alanen 1995 Doughty 1991) others havereported partial or no benefits (Spada amp Lightbown 1999 Trahey ampWhite 1993 White 1998) These conflicting findings appear to be re-lated to differences in the kind of enhancement More explicit enhance-ment appears to lead to more L2 progress than less explicit enhance-ment (Norris amp Ortega 2000)9 This finding suggests that isolated FFImight be useful for creating the necessary salience to help learners no-tice language forms that occur frequently but are semantically redun-dant or phonologically reduced or imperceptible in the oral input Suchforms could include for example third-person -s in English and adjec-tive agreement morphology in French

Input Frequency

Isolated FFI may also help ensure that students have opportunities tolearn forms that are rare or absent in the language they are exposed toin the CLT or CBI classroom Lyster (1994b) reports findings to supportthis idea in his investigation of the effects of FFI on the learning of thesociolinguistic distinction between second-person pronouns tu and vousin French immersion classrooms Students were familiar with the singu-larplural distinction between these two words but the social dynamicsof the classroom in which they were learning French did not give themopportunities to observe the politeness distinctions that are signaled bythe different pronoun forms Lyster developed an instructional interven-

9 It may also be that explicit instruction seems to have some benefits because the assessmentmeasures used favor explicit knowledge (see Doughty 2003 for discussion) Norris andOrtega (2000 p 501) themselves acknowledge this possibility but argue that their findingscannot be explained by this single variable

FORM-FOCUSED INSTRUCTION ISOLATED OR INTEGRATED 195

tion that included opportunities for isolated FFI Drawing studentsrsquo at-tention to this distinction probably prepared them to notice the use ofthe forms in the communicative and integrated FFI activities that fol-lowed and their ability to use these forms improved significantly

Rule Complexity

It has been suggested that integrated FFI may be a more appropriateapproach to instruction for language features that are complex and haverules that are difficult to describe However although there is someintuitive agreement about a distinction between hard and easy rules it isnot always clear what is meant by these terms (see Hulstijn 1995 Hulstijnamp DeGraaff 1994 for useful attempts to define them) Furthermore asDeKeyser (2003) points out in addition to the inherent difficulty of aform or a rule there is also subjective difficulty ldquoRule difficulty is anindividual issue that can be described as the ratio of the rulersquos inherentlinguistic complexity to the studentsrsquo ability to handle such a rulemdasha ruleof moderate difficulty for one student may be easy for a student withmore language learning aptitude or language learning experiencerdquo (p331)

A fairly widespread assumption in the SLA literature is that that whileeasy rules can be taught hard rules are by their very nature too complexto be successfully taught in isolated instruction and thus are difficult tolearn through traditional explanation and practice pedagogy that is iso-lated from communicative use of the language Thus integrated FFI maybe more suitable for complexabstract features such as the article sys-tem in English In laboratory studies to investigate the learning of simpleand complex morphosyntactic rules DeKeyser (1995) and Robinson(1996) provide some support for this idea Participants in those studieslearned simple morphosyntactic rules better under conditions of ex-plicit-deductive learning and more complex rules better under implicit-inductive conditions Conclusions drawn from these studies remain con-troversial however and are perhaps best seen as hypotheses in need offurther study

Communicative Value

Integrated FFI may also be particularly useful with features in whicherrors are more likely to lead to communication breakdowns (eg En-glish possessive pronouns his and her) Lightbown (1998) suggests thatL2 learners at various levels of proficiency are more likely to be able tofocus on form and meaning at the same time when the ldquoform in focus ( )

196 TESOL QUARTERLY

is an important carrier of the meaning in focusrdquo (p 192) However whenerrors do not interfere with meaning (eg the absence of inversion inquestions such as What she is reading) isolation from communicativeinteraction may be necessary if learners are to notice the differencebetween what they say and the correct way to say what they mean (SpadaLightbown amp White 2005) The relative importance of using the rightword as compared with using the right grammar is also reflected inSchwartzrsquos (1993) observation that instruction and feedback are morelikely to lead to changes in learnersrsquo knowledge and use of lexical itemsthan of morphology and syntax Mackey Gass and McDonough (2000)have observed that recasts a typical characteristic of integrated FFI aremore likely to be noticed when the element being recast is a lexical itemthan when it is a morphosyntactic element (see also Lyster 1998)

Learnersrsquo Developmental Level

Once a language feature has emerged in learnersrsquo interlanguage (seePienemann 1998) more fluent and accurate use of that feature may bestbe encouraged through integrated FFI Several studies on FFI have re-ported that L2 learners benefit most from FFI when they are at a devel-opmental level in their language acquisition that enables them to com-pare their use of particular forms with that of native and more proficientspeakers (Mackey amp Philp 1998 Spada amp Lightbown 1999) Related tothis finding is the observation that learnersrsquo receptive and productiveabilities do not develop in the same way or at the same rate Howeverrecent research investigating the effects of both input- (ie comprehen-sion) and output- (ie production) based practice on L2 developmentindicates that both comprehension and production improve as long asthe practice is meaningful and learners are encouraged to make formndashmeaning connections (Morgan-Short amp Wood Bowden 2006 see alsoDeKeyser 1998)

As noted earlier learners may need isolated FFI such as VanPattenrsquosprocessing instruction to help them detect and understand formndashmeaning relationships for language features that have low salience lowfrequency or low communicative value Once the features have emergedin the interlanguage or once the formndashmeaning connections have beenmade the development of greater fluency is likely to be favored byintegrated FFI Ammar and Spada (2006) found that French-speakingchildren who were already more proficient in using possessive determin-ers his and her were able to take advantage of integrated instructionwhether in the form of recasts (where the teacher provides the correctform) or prompts (where the teacher elicits a correction from the stu-dent) However students who were less proficient benefited more from

FORM-FOCUSED INSTRUCTION ISOLATED OR INTEGRATED 197

prompts than recasts suggesting that they had greater difficulty recog-nizing the purpose of the feedback

Learnersrsquo Age

In general older learners especially those with experience in thestudy of their own or other languages are more receptive to isolatedgrammatical instruction (see eg Barkhuizen 1998) Outside the class-room in environments where they are completely immersed in the tar-get language very young learners often acquire L2 proficiency with littleor no FFI Older children adolescents and adults however appear tobenefit from instruction and may even depend on it because of the waysin which their language-learning abilities differ from those of youngchildren (Bley-Vroman 1988 DeKeyser 2000) especially if their contactwith the language is limited to the second or foreign language classroom

Research in CLT and CBI contexts has shown that children do notalways recognize integrated FFI (including enhanced input and implicitrecasts) as responses to language form rather than meaning (eg Lysteramp Ranta 1997) However they do respond to integrated feedback whichis explicit (eg through the use of emphasis prompting and elicitationas well as other nonverbal signals see eg Ammar amp Spada 2006Doughty amp Varela 1998 Lyster 2004) or which is provided within thecontext of language teaching where the overall orientation includes astrong focus on language form (Lyster amp Mori 2006) Adult learners ina variety of language learning contexts have been shown to be moreaware of integrated FFI as feedback on language form (see eg EllisBasturkmen amp Loewen 2001 Ohta 2000)

Language-Learning Aptitude

Learners who perform well on language aptitude tests or have moremetalinguistic knowledge and skill in their L1 may be better able tonotice and focus on language form within a communicative context thanthose with poorer aptitude and metalinguistic ability It has been hypoth-esized that learners with poor metalinguistic skills in their own languagemay require more explicit (possibly isolated) instruction to help themidentify some formndashmeaning connections (Ranta 2002) Mackey PhilpEgi Fujii and Tomoaki (2002) found that adult learners with higherscores on tests of working memory were more likely to report that theynoticed interactional (integrated) feedback in the form of recasts (seealso Robinson 2002)

198 TESOL QUARTERLY

Learner and Teacher Preferences for How to Teach or LearnAbout Form

Research on studentsrsquo beliefs and opinions about FFI (ie instructionand corrective feedback) has revealed that teachersrsquo and studentsrsquo viewsoften differ In two large-scale studies Schulz (1996 2001) found thatvirtually all students expressed a desire to have their errors corrected butvery few teachers felt this was desirable In addition students were morelikely than teachers to say that formal study of the language is ldquoessentialto the eventual mastery of a [foreign language]rdquo (2001 p 247) Mis-matches like these have long been reported in the literature (Cathcart ampOlsen 1976 Yorio 1986) The effects of matches and mismatches on L2learning have also been investigated (eg Spada 1987 Wesche 1981)and there is some evidence that learners benefit most from instructionthat suits their preferences (see Doumlrnyei 2005 for summary and discus-sion)

Other factors such as individual learning styles and previous experi-ence learning languages can also lead to different preferences for learn-ing As indicated earlier some L2 learners who have learned languagesvia traditional structure-based approaches often have strong preferencesfor continuing to learn via isolated grammar practice Other L2 learnerswho have learned languages informally may respond more positively toFFI that is integrated with meaning What is clear is that characteristicssuch as these can interact with type of instruction in complex waysleading to more or less successful learning (Skehan 1989)

It is not only learners who have different preferences for isolatedandor integrated FFI So do teachers Research on teacher cognitionhas revealed that L2 teachers often teach grammar in the way in whichthey were taught it themselves (Borg 2003 Farrell 1999) There is alsoevidence of a direct relationship between what teachers know aboutgrammar and how they teach it That is the extent to which grammar istaught deductively depends on how much metalinguistic knowledgeteachers possess (Borg 2001 Brumfit Mitchell amp Hooper 1996) Ofcourse there are L2 instructors who do not believe that grammar in-struction is useful In a study comparing second (English) and foreign(French) language instruction Mitchell and Hooper (1992) observedthat the English teachers rarely focused on language or explicit grammarwork but the foreign language teachers regularly did so When inter-viewed about this finding the English teachers expressed the opinionthat this type of activity was not of primary importance for developingstudentsrsquo linguistic abilitymdasha response that is not atypical of L2 instruc-tors who have adopted the strong version of CLT

It is often observed that teachers who are teaching their own nativelanguage may not have as good a grasp of the formal grammar of the

FORM-FOCUSED INSTRUCTION ISOLATED OR INTEGRATED 199

language as those whose learning has included form-focused L2 instruc-tion In a study of teachersrsquo practices Borg (1998) observed that deci-sions to include explicit formal instruction are not always based on teach-ersrsquo belief that grammar instruction works but rather on their belief thatstudents expect it He also observed that when teaching grammar teach-ers do not necessarily adhere exclusively to one particular approach(eg deductive or inductive) but will combine and alternate betweenthem Similarly in a study of 48 teachersrsquo attitudes to explicit or implicitteaching of grammar in an English for academic purposes (EAP) pro-gram Burgess and Etherington (2002) report that the majority of teach-ers believed that it is useful to integrate grammar within authentic textsrather than teach it explicitly using a grammatical syllabus At the sametime however they also expressed the belief that not all grammaticalknowledge can be learned implicitly and thus advocated explicit instruc-tion as well In our research investigating the preferences of teachers andadult learners for integrated or isolated FFI we have found that neithergroup expresses a consistent preference for one over the other Theyvalue both (Spada 2006b)

CONCLUSION

Research and theory suggest that there is a role in CLT and CBI forboth isolated and integrated FFI Each type of instruction may play adifferent role in promoting language acquisition Research and experi-ence in CLT and CBI affirm that not all language features need to betaught in isolated lessons Instead the current research on classroomlearning shows that incidental learning allows students to acquire a greatdeal of language while focused on meaning in CLT and CBI The addi-tion of integrated FFI can contribute to the automatization of languagefeatures that have emerged in studentsrsquo language but that are not usedreliably when there are competing demands for attention

Integrated FFI includes a wide range of approaches including thekind of implicit feedback that occurs as the need or opportunity arisesas well as the kind of planned interaction that requires the repeated butnatural use of a particular language form Nevertheless isolated lessonsmay be useful or even essential in promoting the acquisition of somelanguage features These features include those that are hard to perceivein the normal stream of communicative speech those for which there isa misleading similarity to the L1 and those that are unlikely to causecommunication breakdown We are currently designing quasi-experimental studies to explore the contributions of both types of FFI

The importance of isolated lessons will be determined by differences

200 TESOL QUARTERLY

in the specific language feature that is being taught as well as by differ-ences in learnersrsquo and teachersrsquo characteristics abilities and prefer-ences We find no evidence to support a suggestion that isolated gram-mar lessons without opportunities for communicative language useshould again become the dominant approach to language instructionIsolated lessons are a starting point or a follow-up for communicative orcontent-based activities Above all they should not be expected to resultin studentsrsquo immediate incorporation of the feature in focus into theircommunicative language use Nevertheless such lessons can preparestudents to make the best use of opportunities for continuing their lan-guage acquisition in meaning-focused activities and integrated FFI whenit occurs

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

The reviewers who provided feedback on earlier versions of the manuscript helpedus to make this a better article We did not always agree with the reviewers (whoindeed strongly disagreed with each other) but their feedback helped us under-stand and present our own views better We are also grateful to the graduate studentsand research assistants in N Spadarsquos research group at OISEUT for their insightfulcomments on this manuscript and related literature

THE AUTHORS

Nina Spada is a professor in the Second Language Education program at OISEUniversity of Toronto Ontario Canada where she teaches courses in L2 teachingand learning Her research focuses on the contributions of form-focused instructionto the L2 development of children and adults in communicative programs

Patsy M Lightbown is Distinguished Professor Emeritus of Concordia UniversityMontreal Canada and a former president of AAAL Her research explores relation-ships between L2 teaching and learning especially for children and adolescents

REFERENCES

Alanen R (1995) Input enhancement and rule presentation in second languageacquisition In R Schmidt (Ed) Attention and awareness in foreign language learningand teaching (pp 259ndash302) Honolulu University of Hawairsquoi Press

Ammar A amp Spada N (2006) One size fits all Recasts prompts and L2 learningStudies in Second Language Acquisition 28 543ndash574

Anderson J (1982) Acquisition of cognitive skill Psychological Review 89 369ndash406Barcroft J (2002) Semantic and structural elaboration in L2 lexical acquisition

Language Learning 52 323ndash363Barkhuizen G P (1998) Discovering learnersrsquo perceptions of ESL classroom teach-

inglearning activities in a South African context TESOL Quarterly 32 85ndash108

FORM-FOCUSED INSTRUCTION ISOLATED OR INTEGRATED 201

likely that they will acquire them (Gass 1997 Lightbown 1998 Schmidt1990)

One theoretical approach that has recently been used to explain thepossible benefits of integrated FFI is transfer appropriate processing (TAP)According to TAP learners retrieve knowledge best if the processes forretrieval are similar to those that were used in the learning condition(Blaxton 1989 Franks Bilbrey Lien amp McNamara 2000 Morris Brans-ford amp Franks 1977) In addition the situation objects and events thatare present at the time of learning are connected through a network ofassociations Therefore retrieval is likely to be easier when learners findthemselves using similar processes or in the presence of the same objectsor situations

TAP has only recently begun to receive attention in the SLA literaturebut research on bilingualsrsquo memory for lexical items provides some in-dications of what SLA research may reveal In these studies bilingualparticipants are consistently more successful in retrieving the words theylearned when the testing tasks are similar to the learning tasks (BasdenBonilla-Meeks amp Basden 1994 Durgunoglu amp Roediger 1987) Re-search on the learning and retrieval of more complex units of languageremains to be done However it seems that TAP would predict thatlanguage learned during communicative activities in which learnersrsquo at-tention is briefly drawn to form (ie integrated FFI) would be moreeasily retrieved in communicative situations than say on decontextual-ized tests In contrast L2 knowledge learned outside communicativeactivities in isolated FFI would be more difficult to retrieve in commu-nicative situations outside the classroom (Doherty Hilberg Pinal ampTharp 2003 Segalowitz amp Gatbonton 1995 Segalowitz amp Lightbown1999) This hypothesis is consistent with the observation of many teach-ers and researchers Students who perform well on tests are not neces-sarily fluent users of the test items in spontaneous speech just as manyfluent speakers whose language acquisition has taken place primarilyoutside the classroom perform poorly on tests requiring metalinguisticknowledge or the retrieval of individual language features outside acommunicative context

Although support for integrated FFI comes primarily from theoreticalextrapolations and pedagogical principles there is also some evidence ofits effectiveness in classroom-based studies of CLT and CBI In our re-search in intensive ESL classes that were almost exclusively meaning-focused young students were successful in acquiring certain languagefeatures when their teachers provided ongoing integrated FFI on a lim-ited number of these features (Lightbown 1991 Lightbown amp Spada1990) Those receiving integrated FFI were substantially more likely toacquire these features than students in classes where there was never anyattention to form Research in French immersion programs (Day amp

190 TESOL QUARTERLY

Shapson 1991 Harley 1989 1998 Lyster 1994a 1994b 2004) and inother content-based and communicative classrooms with child and adultESL learners (Doughty amp Varela 1998 R Ellis Basturkmen amp Loewen2001 Williams amp Evans 1998) also supports the hypothesis that attentionto language form within the context of communicative practice can leadto progress in learnersrsquo language development Although this progresshas been observed in the short term for most studies long-term improve-ment has also been reported (eg Spada amp Lightbown 1993) Howeverthe research in CLT and CBI classes was not designed to directly inves-tigate the different roles of integrated and isolated FFI That is none ofthe studies compared the outcomes of L2 learners receiving isolated FFIwith learners receiving integrated FFI

Jeanrsquos (2005) study of French as a second language (nonimmersion)in a Canadian secondary school provides some related evidence of theeffectiveness of integrated FFI Jean designed an experimental study inwhich learners either (a) practiced target forms in mechanical drills thatwere separate from the communicative activities in which the forms wereexpected to be used later or (b) received FFI during ongoing meaning-based activities She found no difference in the two groupsrsquo ability to usethe target forms on subsequent measures of accuracy However shefound that students whose FFI had been integrated with meaningfulcommunicative activities used the forms with a greater variety of vocabu-lary Jean concludes that at least for the verb morphology targeted in herstudy isolated mechanical drills were not a necessary step in L2 teachingand that integrated FFI was an effective way of teaching certain verbforms She also found that the high school students in her study did notexpress a clear preference for one type of instruction over the other

The Role of Isolated FFI

Stern (1992) asserted that although ldquocommunicative activities are anessential component of a language curriculum there is a still a place fora separate analytic language syllabusrdquo (p 180 emphasis added) Morerecently Ellis (2002b) has argued that ldquowe [should] teach grammarseparately making no attempt to integrate it with the task-based com-ponent (except perhaps methodologically through feedback)rdquo (p 32)One frequently heard argument in support of isolating FFI is related tomaintaining learnersrsquo positive motivation The concern is that learnerswill become discouraged or disinterested if their attention is drawn toform while they are trying to engage in communicative practice (seeeg Raimes 2002) Thus it is sometimes suggested that teachers makenote of problems that arise during interaction activities and then bringthem up for instruction and explanation in separate isolated activities

FORM-FOCUSED INSTRUCTION ISOLATED OR INTEGRATED 191

outside the communicative activity As noted earlier however there isrelatively little evidence that language learners themselves object to FFIthat occurs during communicative activities

Some pedagogical and theoretical arguments to support the separa-tion of form and communicative practice include the assumption thatFFI should precede communicative use of a new language feature Thereis a long and strong tradition in the field of L2 teaching that the firstphase in a lesson is the presentation of a specific language form Thispresentation phase is followed by controlled practice (pattern practicestructural drills etc) and only later by activities that permit more sponta-neous use of language In a controversial article Higgs and Clifford (1982)argued that ldquothe premature immersion of a student into an unstructuredor lsquofreersquo conversational setting before certain fundamental linguistic struc-tures are more or less in place is not done without costrdquo (pp 73ndash74)

More recently drawing on research in cognitive psychology specifi-cally in the early work of Anderson (1982) on skill acquisition theoryDeKeyser (1998) has argued that ldquogrammar should first be taught ex-plicitly to achieve a maximum of understanding and then should befollowed by some exercises to anchor it solidly in the studentsrsquo conscious-ness in declarative form so that it is easy to keep in mind during com-municative exercisesrdquo (p 58) In the framework of this article DeKey-serrsquos first two phases (explicit instruction and anchoring exercises) rep-resent isolated FFI although our definition of isolated FFI includes thepossibility that such instruction may occur after students have discoveredthe need for certain language features during communicative activity6

Further support for isolated FFI comes from information processingtheory which argues that because the human mind has limited process-ing capacity it is difficult for learners to focus on form and meaning atthe same time (Ellis 1997) VanPatten (1990) suggested that noticingsome aspects of language form (eg verb morphology) while trying tograsp the meaning of a text may be particularly problematic for begin-ning learners VanPatten and his colleagues have shown how isolatingspecific features of the target language in the input can help learnerschange the way they process certain formndashmeaning mappings (VanPat-ten 1996 2004 VanPatten amp Cadierno 1993)

Recent studies by Barcroft (2002) and Trofimovich (2005) also illus-trate situations in which isolated FFI may be beneficial to students Inthese studies students were exposed to the material to be learned eitherin contexts where they needed to focus on form while also processingsemantic aspects of the language to be learned or where some formalfeature was itself the primary focus Both Barcroft and Trofimovich

6 Doughty and Williams (1998) refer to the work by DeKeyser and Lightbown regarding thesequencing of FFI as sequential focus on form

192 TESOL QUARTERLY

found that attention to meaning was associated with poorer recall offormal features such as the spelling or pronunciation of words Theyinterpreted their findings in terms of the TAP hypothesis As notedearlier according to TAP the best predictor of success in retrievinginformation is the degree of similarity between the conditions and pro-cessing demands present during learning and those present during re-trieval Thus a learning task in which cognitive effort is devoted tosemantic features of a word is not a good preparation for a test in whichlearners need to retrieve information about perceptual or formal fea-tures of the word If the assessment task requires learners to recall orrecognize the correct spelling or pronunciation of a word the learningtask should create conditions in which learners can devote more pro-cessing capacity to those features To be sure the goal of most languagelearning is ultimately to be able to use language forms correctly in com-municative contexts that include multiple demands on attention How-ever what the research by VanPatten Barcroft and Trofimovich shows isthat such contexts may not be conducive to the initial perception andinterpretation of certain language features

To our knowledge no empirical classroom-based research directlycompares the effects of isolated and integrated instruction7 It is impor-tant to keep in mind that our definition of isolated FFI is attention to formin separate lessons that occur within a program that is primarily com-municative in orientation In that sense it is not the same as Longrsquosdefinition of focus on forms which is associated with traditional discrete-point metalinguistic instruction provided in a context where little or nomeaning-based instruction or practice occurs Similarly our definition ofintegrated FFI is not the same as Longrsquos original definition of focus on formwhich includes only reactive FFI whereas integrated FFI includes bothreactive and proactive FFI In this way our definition of integrated FFI issimilar to Ellisrsquos (2001) definition of planned and incidental focus on form

7 A reviewer argues that such studies do exist and points to Sheen (2005) as an exampleWhile Sheenrsquos study does show the benefits of instruction in helping young francophonestudents make more accurate use of questions and the placement of adverbs in Englishsentences it is not a comparison of integrated and isolated FFI as we define them in thispaper As we read the report of that research it seems to show that the students in thecomparison group received almost no FFI at all It is important to emphasize again thatintegrated FFI is not simply a synonym for CLT with little or no attention to language formIntegrated FFI includes brief explanations corrective feedback explicit elicitations ofcorrect forms and input enhancement provided within the context of meaning-basedinstruction Sheenrsquos description of the comparison class in his study indicates that theinstructor did not make any special attempt to integrate FFI related to questions andadverbs in his regular classroom activities In the experimental class students receivedinstruction that is best described as focus on forms not as isolated FFI The distinctionbetween the two is that isolated FFI is provided in separate lessons that are directly relatedto the activities within a communicative or content-based syllabus whereas focus on formslessons typically occur within a structural syllabus that is not closely linked to the ongoingcommunicative activities

FORM-FOCUSED INSTRUCTION ISOLATED OR INTEGRATED 193

This review of the theoretical pedagogical and empirical support forintegrated and isolated instruction indicates that there are arguments onboth sides and that the choice between the two is likely not an absoluteone but rather a choice that is dependent on other factors In the nextsection we outline some of those factors

FACTORS THAT INFLUENCE THE CHOICE OFISOLATED OR INTEGRATED FFI

SLA research shows that some linguistic features are acquired inciden-tally that is without intentional effort or conscious awareness by learnersor guidance from teachers However it is also evident that some lan-guage features develop very slowly or not at all in the absence of guidedattention and that some types of FFI can increase the likelihood thatlearners will make progress in learning these features (Norris amp Ortega2000) Some language features develop according to a natural sequenceof stages that is not altered by instruction (For overviews see Ellis 1994Gass amp Selinker 2001 Lightbown amp Spada 2006 Mitchell amp Myles1998) However while instruction may have only a limited effect on thepath learners follow through developmental sequences it may affect therate at which learners pass through a sequence (see eg Ellis 1989Larsen-Freeman amp Long 1991 Mackey amp Philp 1998 Pienemann 1989Spada amp Lightbown 1993) Several factors may influence the relation-ship between instruction and learning outcomes These factors are dy-namic changing over the course of learnersrsquo language acquisition andwithin different teaching contexts8

L1 Influence

One hypothesis is that isolated FFI is particularly useful when the L1has a strong influence on L2 forms Errors caused by L1 influence can beproblematic in classrooms where learners share the same first languageand reinforce each otherrsquos L1-based errors (Lightbown 1991 Lyster1987) In situations like these isolated FFI may be needed to clarifymisleading similarities between the L1 and L2 Harley (1993) points tothe distinction between French avoirecirctre and havebe in English as anexample Isolated FFI may also help in those cases where learners havedeveloped based on L1 influence an interlanguage rule that is more

8 We thank one of the anonymous reviewers for emphasizing the dynamic nature of thefactors that influence instructional choices

194 TESOL QUARTERLY

general than the related rule in the L2 White (1991) discusses thisproblem with specific reference to differences between adverb place-ment in French and English subject-verb-object sentences and advocatesisolated FFI as a way of helping learners perceive those differences

Salience in the Input

Isolated FFI may be beneficial with features that are relatively simpleto explain or illustrate but are not particularly salient in oral languageDrawing attention to them in isolation may help learners seehear lan-guage features they have not been noticing in the input the first step onthe path to acquisition Although some studies have reported benefits ofinput enhancement that is increasing frequency andor salience of lan-guage features in the input (Alanen 1995 Doughty 1991) others havereported partial or no benefits (Spada amp Lightbown 1999 Trahey ampWhite 1993 White 1998) These conflicting findings appear to be re-lated to differences in the kind of enhancement More explicit enhance-ment appears to lead to more L2 progress than less explicit enhance-ment (Norris amp Ortega 2000)9 This finding suggests that isolated FFImight be useful for creating the necessary salience to help learners no-tice language forms that occur frequently but are semantically redun-dant or phonologically reduced or imperceptible in the oral input Suchforms could include for example third-person -s in English and adjec-tive agreement morphology in French

Input Frequency

Isolated FFI may also help ensure that students have opportunities tolearn forms that are rare or absent in the language they are exposed toin the CLT or CBI classroom Lyster (1994b) reports findings to supportthis idea in his investigation of the effects of FFI on the learning of thesociolinguistic distinction between second-person pronouns tu and vousin French immersion classrooms Students were familiar with the singu-larplural distinction between these two words but the social dynamicsof the classroom in which they were learning French did not give themopportunities to observe the politeness distinctions that are signaled bythe different pronoun forms Lyster developed an instructional interven-

9 It may also be that explicit instruction seems to have some benefits because the assessmentmeasures used favor explicit knowledge (see Doughty 2003 for discussion) Norris andOrtega (2000 p 501) themselves acknowledge this possibility but argue that their findingscannot be explained by this single variable

FORM-FOCUSED INSTRUCTION ISOLATED OR INTEGRATED 195

tion that included opportunities for isolated FFI Drawing studentsrsquo at-tention to this distinction probably prepared them to notice the use ofthe forms in the communicative and integrated FFI activities that fol-lowed and their ability to use these forms improved significantly

Rule Complexity

It has been suggested that integrated FFI may be a more appropriateapproach to instruction for language features that are complex and haverules that are difficult to describe However although there is someintuitive agreement about a distinction between hard and easy rules it isnot always clear what is meant by these terms (see Hulstijn 1995 Hulstijnamp DeGraaff 1994 for useful attempts to define them) Furthermore asDeKeyser (2003) points out in addition to the inherent difficulty of aform or a rule there is also subjective difficulty ldquoRule difficulty is anindividual issue that can be described as the ratio of the rulersquos inherentlinguistic complexity to the studentsrsquo ability to handle such a rulemdasha ruleof moderate difficulty for one student may be easy for a student withmore language learning aptitude or language learning experiencerdquo (p331)

A fairly widespread assumption in the SLA literature is that that whileeasy rules can be taught hard rules are by their very nature too complexto be successfully taught in isolated instruction and thus are difficult tolearn through traditional explanation and practice pedagogy that is iso-lated from communicative use of the language Thus integrated FFI maybe more suitable for complexabstract features such as the article sys-tem in English In laboratory studies to investigate the learning of simpleand complex morphosyntactic rules DeKeyser (1995) and Robinson(1996) provide some support for this idea Participants in those studieslearned simple morphosyntactic rules better under conditions of ex-plicit-deductive learning and more complex rules better under implicit-inductive conditions Conclusions drawn from these studies remain con-troversial however and are perhaps best seen as hypotheses in need offurther study

Communicative Value

Integrated FFI may also be particularly useful with features in whicherrors are more likely to lead to communication breakdowns (eg En-glish possessive pronouns his and her) Lightbown (1998) suggests thatL2 learners at various levels of proficiency are more likely to be able tofocus on form and meaning at the same time when the ldquoform in focus ( )

196 TESOL QUARTERLY

is an important carrier of the meaning in focusrdquo (p 192) However whenerrors do not interfere with meaning (eg the absence of inversion inquestions such as What she is reading) isolation from communicativeinteraction may be necessary if learners are to notice the differencebetween what they say and the correct way to say what they mean (SpadaLightbown amp White 2005) The relative importance of using the rightword as compared with using the right grammar is also reflected inSchwartzrsquos (1993) observation that instruction and feedback are morelikely to lead to changes in learnersrsquo knowledge and use of lexical itemsthan of morphology and syntax Mackey Gass and McDonough (2000)have observed that recasts a typical characteristic of integrated FFI aremore likely to be noticed when the element being recast is a lexical itemthan when it is a morphosyntactic element (see also Lyster 1998)

Learnersrsquo Developmental Level

Once a language feature has emerged in learnersrsquo interlanguage (seePienemann 1998) more fluent and accurate use of that feature may bestbe encouraged through integrated FFI Several studies on FFI have re-ported that L2 learners benefit most from FFI when they are at a devel-opmental level in their language acquisition that enables them to com-pare their use of particular forms with that of native and more proficientspeakers (Mackey amp Philp 1998 Spada amp Lightbown 1999) Related tothis finding is the observation that learnersrsquo receptive and productiveabilities do not develop in the same way or at the same rate Howeverrecent research investigating the effects of both input- (ie comprehen-sion) and output- (ie production) based practice on L2 developmentindicates that both comprehension and production improve as long asthe practice is meaningful and learners are encouraged to make formndashmeaning connections (Morgan-Short amp Wood Bowden 2006 see alsoDeKeyser 1998)

As noted earlier learners may need isolated FFI such as VanPattenrsquosprocessing instruction to help them detect and understand formndashmeaning relationships for language features that have low salience lowfrequency or low communicative value Once the features have emergedin the interlanguage or once the formndashmeaning connections have beenmade the development of greater fluency is likely to be favored byintegrated FFI Ammar and Spada (2006) found that French-speakingchildren who were already more proficient in using possessive determin-ers his and her were able to take advantage of integrated instructionwhether in the form of recasts (where the teacher provides the correctform) or prompts (where the teacher elicits a correction from the stu-dent) However students who were less proficient benefited more from

FORM-FOCUSED INSTRUCTION ISOLATED OR INTEGRATED 197

prompts than recasts suggesting that they had greater difficulty recog-nizing the purpose of the feedback

Learnersrsquo Age

In general older learners especially those with experience in thestudy of their own or other languages are more receptive to isolatedgrammatical instruction (see eg Barkhuizen 1998) Outside the class-room in environments where they are completely immersed in the tar-get language very young learners often acquire L2 proficiency with littleor no FFI Older children adolescents and adults however appear tobenefit from instruction and may even depend on it because of the waysin which their language-learning abilities differ from those of youngchildren (Bley-Vroman 1988 DeKeyser 2000) especially if their contactwith the language is limited to the second or foreign language classroom

Research in CLT and CBI contexts has shown that children do notalways recognize integrated FFI (including enhanced input and implicitrecasts) as responses to language form rather than meaning (eg Lysteramp Ranta 1997) However they do respond to integrated feedback whichis explicit (eg through the use of emphasis prompting and elicitationas well as other nonverbal signals see eg Ammar amp Spada 2006Doughty amp Varela 1998 Lyster 2004) or which is provided within thecontext of language teaching where the overall orientation includes astrong focus on language form (Lyster amp Mori 2006) Adult learners ina variety of language learning contexts have been shown to be moreaware of integrated FFI as feedback on language form (see eg EllisBasturkmen amp Loewen 2001 Ohta 2000)

Language-Learning Aptitude

Learners who perform well on language aptitude tests or have moremetalinguistic knowledge and skill in their L1 may be better able tonotice and focus on language form within a communicative context thanthose with poorer aptitude and metalinguistic ability It has been hypoth-esized that learners with poor metalinguistic skills in their own languagemay require more explicit (possibly isolated) instruction to help themidentify some formndashmeaning connections (Ranta 2002) Mackey PhilpEgi Fujii and Tomoaki (2002) found that adult learners with higherscores on tests of working memory were more likely to report that theynoticed interactional (integrated) feedback in the form of recasts (seealso Robinson 2002)

198 TESOL QUARTERLY

Learner and Teacher Preferences for How to Teach or LearnAbout Form

Research on studentsrsquo beliefs and opinions about FFI (ie instructionand corrective feedback) has revealed that teachersrsquo and studentsrsquo viewsoften differ In two large-scale studies Schulz (1996 2001) found thatvirtually all students expressed a desire to have their errors corrected butvery few teachers felt this was desirable In addition students were morelikely than teachers to say that formal study of the language is ldquoessentialto the eventual mastery of a [foreign language]rdquo (2001 p 247) Mis-matches like these have long been reported in the literature (Cathcart ampOlsen 1976 Yorio 1986) The effects of matches and mismatches on L2learning have also been investigated (eg Spada 1987 Wesche 1981)and there is some evidence that learners benefit most from instructionthat suits their preferences (see Doumlrnyei 2005 for summary and discus-sion)

Other factors such as individual learning styles and previous experi-ence learning languages can also lead to different preferences for learn-ing As indicated earlier some L2 learners who have learned languagesvia traditional structure-based approaches often have strong preferencesfor continuing to learn via isolated grammar practice Other L2 learnerswho have learned languages informally may respond more positively toFFI that is integrated with meaning What is clear is that characteristicssuch as these can interact with type of instruction in complex waysleading to more or less successful learning (Skehan 1989)

It is not only learners who have different preferences for isolatedandor integrated FFI So do teachers Research on teacher cognitionhas revealed that L2 teachers often teach grammar in the way in whichthey were taught it themselves (Borg 2003 Farrell 1999) There is alsoevidence of a direct relationship between what teachers know aboutgrammar and how they teach it That is the extent to which grammar istaught deductively depends on how much metalinguistic knowledgeteachers possess (Borg 2001 Brumfit Mitchell amp Hooper 1996) Ofcourse there are L2 instructors who do not believe that grammar in-struction is useful In a study comparing second (English) and foreign(French) language instruction Mitchell and Hooper (1992) observedthat the English teachers rarely focused on language or explicit grammarwork but the foreign language teachers regularly did so When inter-viewed about this finding the English teachers expressed the opinionthat this type of activity was not of primary importance for developingstudentsrsquo linguistic abilitymdasha response that is not atypical of L2 instruc-tors who have adopted the strong version of CLT

It is often observed that teachers who are teaching their own nativelanguage may not have as good a grasp of the formal grammar of the

FORM-FOCUSED INSTRUCTION ISOLATED OR INTEGRATED 199

language as those whose learning has included form-focused L2 instruc-tion In a study of teachersrsquo practices Borg (1998) observed that deci-sions to include explicit formal instruction are not always based on teach-ersrsquo belief that grammar instruction works but rather on their belief thatstudents expect it He also observed that when teaching grammar teach-ers do not necessarily adhere exclusively to one particular approach(eg deductive or inductive) but will combine and alternate betweenthem Similarly in a study of 48 teachersrsquo attitudes to explicit or implicitteaching of grammar in an English for academic purposes (EAP) pro-gram Burgess and Etherington (2002) report that the majority of teach-ers believed that it is useful to integrate grammar within authentic textsrather than teach it explicitly using a grammatical syllabus At the sametime however they also expressed the belief that not all grammaticalknowledge can be learned implicitly and thus advocated explicit instruc-tion as well In our research investigating the preferences of teachers andadult learners for integrated or isolated FFI we have found that neithergroup expresses a consistent preference for one over the other Theyvalue both (Spada 2006b)

CONCLUSION

Research and theory suggest that there is a role in CLT and CBI forboth isolated and integrated FFI Each type of instruction may play adifferent role in promoting language acquisition Research and experi-ence in CLT and CBI affirm that not all language features need to betaught in isolated lessons Instead the current research on classroomlearning shows that incidental learning allows students to acquire a greatdeal of language while focused on meaning in CLT and CBI The addi-tion of integrated FFI can contribute to the automatization of languagefeatures that have emerged in studentsrsquo language but that are not usedreliably when there are competing demands for attention

Integrated FFI includes a wide range of approaches including thekind of implicit feedback that occurs as the need or opportunity arisesas well as the kind of planned interaction that requires the repeated butnatural use of a particular language form Nevertheless isolated lessonsmay be useful or even essential in promoting the acquisition of somelanguage features These features include those that are hard to perceivein the normal stream of communicative speech those for which there isa misleading similarity to the L1 and those that are unlikely to causecommunication breakdown We are currently designing quasi-experimental studies to explore the contributions of both types of FFI

The importance of isolated lessons will be determined by differences

200 TESOL QUARTERLY

in the specific language feature that is being taught as well as by differ-ences in learnersrsquo and teachersrsquo characteristics abilities and prefer-ences We find no evidence to support a suggestion that isolated gram-mar lessons without opportunities for communicative language useshould again become the dominant approach to language instructionIsolated lessons are a starting point or a follow-up for communicative orcontent-based activities Above all they should not be expected to resultin studentsrsquo immediate incorporation of the feature in focus into theircommunicative language use Nevertheless such lessons can preparestudents to make the best use of opportunities for continuing their lan-guage acquisition in meaning-focused activities and integrated FFI whenit occurs

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

The reviewers who provided feedback on earlier versions of the manuscript helpedus to make this a better article We did not always agree with the reviewers (whoindeed strongly disagreed with each other) but their feedback helped us under-stand and present our own views better We are also grateful to the graduate studentsand research assistants in N Spadarsquos research group at OISEUT for their insightfulcomments on this manuscript and related literature

THE AUTHORS

Nina Spada is a professor in the Second Language Education program at OISEUniversity of Toronto Ontario Canada where she teaches courses in L2 teachingand learning Her research focuses on the contributions of form-focused instructionto the L2 development of children and adults in communicative programs

Patsy M Lightbown is Distinguished Professor Emeritus of Concordia UniversityMontreal Canada and a former president of AAAL Her research explores relation-ships between L2 teaching and learning especially for children and adolescents

REFERENCES

Alanen R (1995) Input enhancement and rule presentation in second languageacquisition In R Schmidt (Ed) Attention and awareness in foreign language learningand teaching (pp 259ndash302) Honolulu University of Hawairsquoi Press

Ammar A amp Spada N (2006) One size fits all Recasts prompts and L2 learningStudies in Second Language Acquisition 28 543ndash574

Anderson J (1982) Acquisition of cognitive skill Psychological Review 89 369ndash406Barcroft J (2002) Semantic and structural elaboration in L2 lexical acquisition

Language Learning 52 323ndash363Barkhuizen G P (1998) Discovering learnersrsquo perceptions of ESL classroom teach-

inglearning activities in a South African context TESOL Quarterly 32 85ndash108

FORM-FOCUSED INSTRUCTION ISOLATED OR INTEGRATED 201

Shapson 1991 Harley 1989 1998 Lyster 1994a 1994b 2004) and inother content-based and communicative classrooms with child and adultESL learners (Doughty amp Varela 1998 R Ellis Basturkmen amp Loewen2001 Williams amp Evans 1998) also supports the hypothesis that attentionto language form within the context of communicative practice can leadto progress in learnersrsquo language development Although this progresshas been observed in the short term for most studies long-term improve-ment has also been reported (eg Spada amp Lightbown 1993) Howeverthe research in CLT and CBI classes was not designed to directly inves-tigate the different roles of integrated and isolated FFI That is none ofthe studies compared the outcomes of L2 learners receiving isolated FFIwith learners receiving integrated FFI

Jeanrsquos (2005) study of French as a second language (nonimmersion)in a Canadian secondary school provides some related evidence of theeffectiveness of integrated FFI Jean designed an experimental study inwhich learners either (a) practiced target forms in mechanical drills thatwere separate from the communicative activities in which the forms wereexpected to be used later or (b) received FFI during ongoing meaning-based activities She found no difference in the two groupsrsquo ability to usethe target forms on subsequent measures of accuracy However shefound that students whose FFI had been integrated with meaningfulcommunicative activities used the forms with a greater variety of vocabu-lary Jean concludes that at least for the verb morphology targeted in herstudy isolated mechanical drills were not a necessary step in L2 teachingand that integrated FFI was an effective way of teaching certain verbforms She also found that the high school students in her study did notexpress a clear preference for one type of instruction over the other

The Role of Isolated FFI

Stern (1992) asserted that although ldquocommunicative activities are anessential component of a language curriculum there is a still a place fora separate analytic language syllabusrdquo (p 180 emphasis added) Morerecently Ellis (2002b) has argued that ldquowe [should] teach grammarseparately making no attempt to integrate it with the task-based com-ponent (except perhaps methodologically through feedback)rdquo (p 32)One frequently heard argument in support of isolating FFI is related tomaintaining learnersrsquo positive motivation The concern is that learnerswill become discouraged or disinterested if their attention is drawn toform while they are trying to engage in communicative practice (seeeg Raimes 2002) Thus it is sometimes suggested that teachers makenote of problems that arise during interaction activities and then bringthem up for instruction and explanation in separate isolated activities

FORM-FOCUSED INSTRUCTION ISOLATED OR INTEGRATED 191

outside the communicative activity As noted earlier however there isrelatively little evidence that language learners themselves object to FFIthat occurs during communicative activities

Some pedagogical and theoretical arguments to support the separa-tion of form and communicative practice include the assumption thatFFI should precede communicative use of a new language feature Thereis a long and strong tradition in the field of L2 teaching that the firstphase in a lesson is the presentation of a specific language form Thispresentation phase is followed by controlled practice (pattern practicestructural drills etc) and only later by activities that permit more sponta-neous use of language In a controversial article Higgs and Clifford (1982)argued that ldquothe premature immersion of a student into an unstructuredor lsquofreersquo conversational setting before certain fundamental linguistic struc-tures are more or less in place is not done without costrdquo (pp 73ndash74)

More recently drawing on research in cognitive psychology specifi-cally in the early work of Anderson (1982) on skill acquisition theoryDeKeyser (1998) has argued that ldquogrammar should first be taught ex-plicitly to achieve a maximum of understanding and then should befollowed by some exercises to anchor it solidly in the studentsrsquo conscious-ness in declarative form so that it is easy to keep in mind during com-municative exercisesrdquo (p 58) In the framework of this article DeKey-serrsquos first two phases (explicit instruction and anchoring exercises) rep-resent isolated FFI although our definition of isolated FFI includes thepossibility that such instruction may occur after students have discoveredthe need for certain language features during communicative activity6

Further support for isolated FFI comes from information processingtheory which argues that because the human mind has limited process-ing capacity it is difficult for learners to focus on form and meaning atthe same time (Ellis 1997) VanPatten (1990) suggested that noticingsome aspects of language form (eg verb morphology) while trying tograsp the meaning of a text may be particularly problematic for begin-ning learners VanPatten and his colleagues have shown how isolatingspecific features of the target language in the input can help learnerschange the way they process certain formndashmeaning mappings (VanPat-ten 1996 2004 VanPatten amp Cadierno 1993)

Recent studies by Barcroft (2002) and Trofimovich (2005) also illus-trate situations in which isolated FFI may be beneficial to students Inthese studies students were exposed to the material to be learned eitherin contexts where they needed to focus on form while also processingsemantic aspects of the language to be learned or where some formalfeature was itself the primary focus Both Barcroft and Trofimovich

6 Doughty and Williams (1998) refer to the work by DeKeyser and Lightbown regarding thesequencing of FFI as sequential focus on form

192 TESOL QUARTERLY

found that attention to meaning was associated with poorer recall offormal features such as the spelling or pronunciation of words Theyinterpreted their findings in terms of the TAP hypothesis As notedearlier according to TAP the best predictor of success in retrievinginformation is the degree of similarity between the conditions and pro-cessing demands present during learning and those present during re-trieval Thus a learning task in which cognitive effort is devoted tosemantic features of a word is not a good preparation for a test in whichlearners need to retrieve information about perceptual or formal fea-tures of the word If the assessment task requires learners to recall orrecognize the correct spelling or pronunciation of a word the learningtask should create conditions in which learners can devote more pro-cessing capacity to those features To be sure the goal of most languagelearning is ultimately to be able to use language forms correctly in com-municative contexts that include multiple demands on attention How-ever what the research by VanPatten Barcroft and Trofimovich shows isthat such contexts may not be conducive to the initial perception andinterpretation of certain language features

To our knowledge no empirical classroom-based research directlycompares the effects of isolated and integrated instruction7 It is impor-tant to keep in mind that our definition of isolated FFI is attention to formin separate lessons that occur within a program that is primarily com-municative in orientation In that sense it is not the same as Longrsquosdefinition of focus on forms which is associated with traditional discrete-point metalinguistic instruction provided in a context where little or nomeaning-based instruction or practice occurs Similarly our definition ofintegrated FFI is not the same as Longrsquos original definition of focus on formwhich includes only reactive FFI whereas integrated FFI includes bothreactive and proactive FFI In this way our definition of integrated FFI issimilar to Ellisrsquos (2001) definition of planned and incidental focus on form

7 A reviewer argues that such studies do exist and points to Sheen (2005) as an exampleWhile Sheenrsquos study does show the benefits of instruction in helping young francophonestudents make more accurate use of questions and the placement of adverbs in Englishsentences it is not a comparison of integrated and isolated FFI as we define them in thispaper As we read the report of that research it seems to show that the students in thecomparison group received almost no FFI at all It is important to emphasize again thatintegrated FFI is not simply a synonym for CLT with little or no attention to language formIntegrated FFI includes brief explanations corrective feedback explicit elicitations ofcorrect forms and input enhancement provided within the context of meaning-basedinstruction Sheenrsquos description of the comparison class in his study indicates that theinstructor did not make any special attempt to integrate FFI related to questions andadverbs in his regular classroom activities In the experimental class students receivedinstruction that is best described as focus on forms not as isolated FFI The distinctionbetween the two is that isolated FFI is provided in separate lessons that are directly relatedto the activities within a communicative or content-based syllabus whereas focus on formslessons typically occur within a structural syllabus that is not closely linked to the ongoingcommunicative activities

FORM-FOCUSED INSTRUCTION ISOLATED OR INTEGRATED 193

This review of the theoretical pedagogical and empirical support forintegrated and isolated instruction indicates that there are arguments onboth sides and that the choice between the two is likely not an absoluteone but rather a choice that is dependent on other factors In the nextsection we outline some of those factors

FACTORS THAT INFLUENCE THE CHOICE OFISOLATED OR INTEGRATED FFI

SLA research shows that some linguistic features are acquired inciden-tally that is without intentional effort or conscious awareness by learnersor guidance from teachers However it is also evident that some lan-guage features develop very slowly or not at all in the absence of guidedattention and that some types of FFI can increase the likelihood thatlearners will make progress in learning these features (Norris amp Ortega2000) Some language features develop according to a natural sequenceof stages that is not altered by instruction (For overviews see Ellis 1994Gass amp Selinker 2001 Lightbown amp Spada 2006 Mitchell amp Myles1998) However while instruction may have only a limited effect on thepath learners follow through developmental sequences it may affect therate at which learners pass through a sequence (see eg Ellis 1989Larsen-Freeman amp Long 1991 Mackey amp Philp 1998 Pienemann 1989Spada amp Lightbown 1993) Several factors may influence the relation-ship between instruction and learning outcomes These factors are dy-namic changing over the course of learnersrsquo language acquisition andwithin different teaching contexts8

L1 Influence

One hypothesis is that isolated FFI is particularly useful when the L1has a strong influence on L2 forms Errors caused by L1 influence can beproblematic in classrooms where learners share the same first languageand reinforce each otherrsquos L1-based errors (Lightbown 1991 Lyster1987) In situations like these isolated FFI may be needed to clarifymisleading similarities between the L1 and L2 Harley (1993) points tothe distinction between French avoirecirctre and havebe in English as anexample Isolated FFI may also help in those cases where learners havedeveloped based on L1 influence an interlanguage rule that is more

8 We thank one of the anonymous reviewers for emphasizing the dynamic nature of thefactors that influence instructional choices

194 TESOL QUARTERLY

general than the related rule in the L2 White (1991) discusses thisproblem with specific reference to differences between adverb place-ment in French and English subject-verb-object sentences and advocatesisolated FFI as a way of helping learners perceive those differences

Salience in the Input

Isolated FFI may be beneficial with features that are relatively simpleto explain or illustrate but are not particularly salient in oral languageDrawing attention to them in isolation may help learners seehear lan-guage features they have not been noticing in the input the first step onthe path to acquisition Although some studies have reported benefits ofinput enhancement that is increasing frequency andor salience of lan-guage features in the input (Alanen 1995 Doughty 1991) others havereported partial or no benefits (Spada amp Lightbown 1999 Trahey ampWhite 1993 White 1998) These conflicting findings appear to be re-lated to differences in the kind of enhancement More explicit enhance-ment appears to lead to more L2 progress than less explicit enhance-ment (Norris amp Ortega 2000)9 This finding suggests that isolated FFImight be useful for creating the necessary salience to help learners no-tice language forms that occur frequently but are semantically redun-dant or phonologically reduced or imperceptible in the oral input Suchforms could include for example third-person -s in English and adjec-tive agreement morphology in French

Input Frequency

Isolated FFI may also help ensure that students have opportunities tolearn forms that are rare or absent in the language they are exposed toin the CLT or CBI classroom Lyster (1994b) reports findings to supportthis idea in his investigation of the effects of FFI on the learning of thesociolinguistic distinction between second-person pronouns tu and vousin French immersion classrooms Students were familiar with the singu-larplural distinction between these two words but the social dynamicsof the classroom in which they were learning French did not give themopportunities to observe the politeness distinctions that are signaled bythe different pronoun forms Lyster developed an instructional interven-

9 It may also be that explicit instruction seems to have some benefits because the assessmentmeasures used favor explicit knowledge (see Doughty 2003 for discussion) Norris andOrtega (2000 p 501) themselves acknowledge this possibility but argue that their findingscannot be explained by this single variable

FORM-FOCUSED INSTRUCTION ISOLATED OR INTEGRATED 195

tion that included opportunities for isolated FFI Drawing studentsrsquo at-tention to this distinction probably prepared them to notice the use ofthe forms in the communicative and integrated FFI activities that fol-lowed and their ability to use these forms improved significantly

Rule Complexity

It has been suggested that integrated FFI may be a more appropriateapproach to instruction for language features that are complex and haverules that are difficult to describe However although there is someintuitive agreement about a distinction between hard and easy rules it isnot always clear what is meant by these terms (see Hulstijn 1995 Hulstijnamp DeGraaff 1994 for useful attempts to define them) Furthermore asDeKeyser (2003) points out in addition to the inherent difficulty of aform or a rule there is also subjective difficulty ldquoRule difficulty is anindividual issue that can be described as the ratio of the rulersquos inherentlinguistic complexity to the studentsrsquo ability to handle such a rulemdasha ruleof moderate difficulty for one student may be easy for a student withmore language learning aptitude or language learning experiencerdquo (p331)

A fairly widespread assumption in the SLA literature is that that whileeasy rules can be taught hard rules are by their very nature too complexto be successfully taught in isolated instruction and thus are difficult tolearn through traditional explanation and practice pedagogy that is iso-lated from communicative use of the language Thus integrated FFI maybe more suitable for complexabstract features such as the article sys-tem in English In laboratory studies to investigate the learning of simpleand complex morphosyntactic rules DeKeyser (1995) and Robinson(1996) provide some support for this idea Participants in those studieslearned simple morphosyntactic rules better under conditions of ex-plicit-deductive learning and more complex rules better under implicit-inductive conditions Conclusions drawn from these studies remain con-troversial however and are perhaps best seen as hypotheses in need offurther study

Communicative Value

Integrated FFI may also be particularly useful with features in whicherrors are more likely to lead to communication breakdowns (eg En-glish possessive pronouns his and her) Lightbown (1998) suggests thatL2 learners at various levels of proficiency are more likely to be able tofocus on form and meaning at the same time when the ldquoform in focus ( )

196 TESOL QUARTERLY

is an important carrier of the meaning in focusrdquo (p 192) However whenerrors do not interfere with meaning (eg the absence of inversion inquestions such as What she is reading) isolation from communicativeinteraction may be necessary if learners are to notice the differencebetween what they say and the correct way to say what they mean (SpadaLightbown amp White 2005) The relative importance of using the rightword as compared with using the right grammar is also reflected inSchwartzrsquos (1993) observation that instruction and feedback are morelikely to lead to changes in learnersrsquo knowledge and use of lexical itemsthan of morphology and syntax Mackey Gass and McDonough (2000)have observed that recasts a typical characteristic of integrated FFI aremore likely to be noticed when the element being recast is a lexical itemthan when it is a morphosyntactic element (see also Lyster 1998)

Learnersrsquo Developmental Level

Once a language feature has emerged in learnersrsquo interlanguage (seePienemann 1998) more fluent and accurate use of that feature may bestbe encouraged through integrated FFI Several studies on FFI have re-ported that L2 learners benefit most from FFI when they are at a devel-opmental level in their language acquisition that enables them to com-pare their use of particular forms with that of native and more proficientspeakers (Mackey amp Philp 1998 Spada amp Lightbown 1999) Related tothis finding is the observation that learnersrsquo receptive and productiveabilities do not develop in the same way or at the same rate Howeverrecent research investigating the effects of both input- (ie comprehen-sion) and output- (ie production) based practice on L2 developmentindicates that both comprehension and production improve as long asthe practice is meaningful and learners are encouraged to make formndashmeaning connections (Morgan-Short amp Wood Bowden 2006 see alsoDeKeyser 1998)

As noted earlier learners may need isolated FFI such as VanPattenrsquosprocessing instruction to help them detect and understand formndashmeaning relationships for language features that have low salience lowfrequency or low communicative value Once the features have emergedin the interlanguage or once the formndashmeaning connections have beenmade the development of greater fluency is likely to be favored byintegrated FFI Ammar and Spada (2006) found that French-speakingchildren who were already more proficient in using possessive determin-ers his and her were able to take advantage of integrated instructionwhether in the form of recasts (where the teacher provides the correctform) or prompts (where the teacher elicits a correction from the stu-dent) However students who were less proficient benefited more from

FORM-FOCUSED INSTRUCTION ISOLATED OR INTEGRATED 197

prompts than recasts suggesting that they had greater difficulty recog-nizing the purpose of the feedback

Learnersrsquo Age

In general older learners especially those with experience in thestudy of their own or other languages are more receptive to isolatedgrammatical instruction (see eg Barkhuizen 1998) Outside the class-room in environments where they are completely immersed in the tar-get language very young learners often acquire L2 proficiency with littleor no FFI Older children adolescents and adults however appear tobenefit from instruction and may even depend on it because of the waysin which their language-learning abilities differ from those of youngchildren (Bley-Vroman 1988 DeKeyser 2000) especially if their contactwith the language is limited to the second or foreign language classroom

Research in CLT and CBI contexts has shown that children do notalways recognize integrated FFI (including enhanced input and implicitrecasts) as responses to language form rather than meaning (eg Lysteramp Ranta 1997) However they do respond to integrated feedback whichis explicit (eg through the use of emphasis prompting and elicitationas well as other nonverbal signals see eg Ammar amp Spada 2006Doughty amp Varela 1998 Lyster 2004) or which is provided within thecontext of language teaching where the overall orientation includes astrong focus on language form (Lyster amp Mori 2006) Adult learners ina variety of language learning contexts have been shown to be moreaware of integrated FFI as feedback on language form (see eg EllisBasturkmen amp Loewen 2001 Ohta 2000)

Language-Learning Aptitude

Learners who perform well on language aptitude tests or have moremetalinguistic knowledge and skill in their L1 may be better able tonotice and focus on language form within a communicative context thanthose with poorer aptitude and metalinguistic ability It has been hypoth-esized that learners with poor metalinguistic skills in their own languagemay require more explicit (possibly isolated) instruction to help themidentify some formndashmeaning connections (Ranta 2002) Mackey PhilpEgi Fujii and Tomoaki (2002) found that adult learners with higherscores on tests of working memory were more likely to report that theynoticed interactional (integrated) feedback in the form of recasts (seealso Robinson 2002)

198 TESOL QUARTERLY

Learner and Teacher Preferences for How to Teach or LearnAbout Form

Research on studentsrsquo beliefs and opinions about FFI (ie instructionand corrective feedback) has revealed that teachersrsquo and studentsrsquo viewsoften differ In two large-scale studies Schulz (1996 2001) found thatvirtually all students expressed a desire to have their errors corrected butvery few teachers felt this was desirable In addition students were morelikely than teachers to say that formal study of the language is ldquoessentialto the eventual mastery of a [foreign language]rdquo (2001 p 247) Mis-matches like these have long been reported in the literature (Cathcart ampOlsen 1976 Yorio 1986) The effects of matches and mismatches on L2learning have also been investigated (eg Spada 1987 Wesche 1981)and there is some evidence that learners benefit most from instructionthat suits their preferences (see Doumlrnyei 2005 for summary and discus-sion)

Other factors such as individual learning styles and previous experi-ence learning languages can also lead to different preferences for learn-ing As indicated earlier some L2 learners who have learned languagesvia traditional structure-based approaches often have strong preferencesfor continuing to learn via isolated grammar practice Other L2 learnerswho have learned languages informally may respond more positively toFFI that is integrated with meaning What is clear is that characteristicssuch as these can interact with type of instruction in complex waysleading to more or less successful learning (Skehan 1989)

It is not only learners who have different preferences for isolatedandor integrated FFI So do teachers Research on teacher cognitionhas revealed that L2 teachers often teach grammar in the way in whichthey were taught it themselves (Borg 2003 Farrell 1999) There is alsoevidence of a direct relationship between what teachers know aboutgrammar and how they teach it That is the extent to which grammar istaught deductively depends on how much metalinguistic knowledgeteachers possess (Borg 2001 Brumfit Mitchell amp Hooper 1996) Ofcourse there are L2 instructors who do not believe that grammar in-struction is useful In a study comparing second (English) and foreign(French) language instruction Mitchell and Hooper (1992) observedthat the English teachers rarely focused on language or explicit grammarwork but the foreign language teachers regularly did so When inter-viewed about this finding the English teachers expressed the opinionthat this type of activity was not of primary importance for developingstudentsrsquo linguistic abilitymdasha response that is not atypical of L2 instruc-tors who have adopted the strong version of CLT

It is often observed that teachers who are teaching their own nativelanguage may not have as good a grasp of the formal grammar of the

FORM-FOCUSED INSTRUCTION ISOLATED OR INTEGRATED 199

language as those whose learning has included form-focused L2 instruc-tion In a study of teachersrsquo practices Borg (1998) observed that deci-sions to include explicit formal instruction are not always based on teach-ersrsquo belief that grammar instruction works but rather on their belief thatstudents expect it He also observed that when teaching grammar teach-ers do not necessarily adhere exclusively to one particular approach(eg deductive or inductive) but will combine and alternate betweenthem Similarly in a study of 48 teachersrsquo attitudes to explicit or implicitteaching of grammar in an English for academic purposes (EAP) pro-gram Burgess and Etherington (2002) report that the majority of teach-ers believed that it is useful to integrate grammar within authentic textsrather than teach it explicitly using a grammatical syllabus At the sametime however they also expressed the belief that not all grammaticalknowledge can be learned implicitly and thus advocated explicit instruc-tion as well In our research investigating the preferences of teachers andadult learners for integrated or isolated FFI we have found that neithergroup expresses a consistent preference for one over the other Theyvalue both (Spada 2006b)

CONCLUSION

Research and theory suggest that there is a role in CLT and CBI forboth isolated and integrated FFI Each type of instruction may play adifferent role in promoting language acquisition Research and experi-ence in CLT and CBI affirm that not all language features need to betaught in isolated lessons Instead the current research on classroomlearning shows that incidental learning allows students to acquire a greatdeal of language while focused on meaning in CLT and CBI The addi-tion of integrated FFI can contribute to the automatization of languagefeatures that have emerged in studentsrsquo language but that are not usedreliably when there are competing demands for attention

Integrated FFI includes a wide range of approaches including thekind of implicit feedback that occurs as the need or opportunity arisesas well as the kind of planned interaction that requires the repeated butnatural use of a particular language form Nevertheless isolated lessonsmay be useful or even essential in promoting the acquisition of somelanguage features These features include those that are hard to perceivein the normal stream of communicative speech those for which there isa misleading similarity to the L1 and those that are unlikely to causecommunication breakdown We are currently designing quasi-experimental studies to explore the contributions of both types of FFI

The importance of isolated lessons will be determined by differences

200 TESOL QUARTERLY

in the specific language feature that is being taught as well as by differ-ences in learnersrsquo and teachersrsquo characteristics abilities and prefer-ences We find no evidence to support a suggestion that isolated gram-mar lessons without opportunities for communicative language useshould again become the dominant approach to language instructionIsolated lessons are a starting point or a follow-up for communicative orcontent-based activities Above all they should not be expected to resultin studentsrsquo immediate incorporation of the feature in focus into theircommunicative language use Nevertheless such lessons can preparestudents to make the best use of opportunities for continuing their lan-guage acquisition in meaning-focused activities and integrated FFI whenit occurs

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

The reviewers who provided feedback on earlier versions of the manuscript helpedus to make this a better article We did not always agree with the reviewers (whoindeed strongly disagreed with each other) but their feedback helped us under-stand and present our own views better We are also grateful to the graduate studentsand research assistants in N Spadarsquos research group at OISEUT for their insightfulcomments on this manuscript and related literature

THE AUTHORS

Nina Spada is a professor in the Second Language Education program at OISEUniversity of Toronto Ontario Canada where she teaches courses in L2 teachingand learning Her research focuses on the contributions of form-focused instructionto the L2 development of children and adults in communicative programs

Patsy M Lightbown is Distinguished Professor Emeritus of Concordia UniversityMontreal Canada and a former president of AAAL Her research explores relation-ships between L2 teaching and learning especially for children and adolescents

REFERENCES

Alanen R (1995) Input enhancement and rule presentation in second languageacquisition In R Schmidt (Ed) Attention and awareness in foreign language learningand teaching (pp 259ndash302) Honolulu University of Hawairsquoi Press

Ammar A amp Spada N (2006) One size fits all Recasts prompts and L2 learningStudies in Second Language Acquisition 28 543ndash574

Anderson J (1982) Acquisition of cognitive skill Psychological Review 89 369ndash406Barcroft J (2002) Semantic and structural elaboration in L2 lexical acquisition

Language Learning 52 323ndash363Barkhuizen G P (1998) Discovering learnersrsquo perceptions of ESL classroom teach-

inglearning activities in a South African context TESOL Quarterly 32 85ndash108

FORM-FOCUSED INSTRUCTION ISOLATED OR INTEGRATED 201

outside the communicative activity As noted earlier however there isrelatively little evidence that language learners themselves object to FFIthat occurs during communicative activities

Some pedagogical and theoretical arguments to support the separa-tion of form and communicative practice include the assumption thatFFI should precede communicative use of a new language feature Thereis a long and strong tradition in the field of L2 teaching that the firstphase in a lesson is the presentation of a specific language form Thispresentation phase is followed by controlled practice (pattern practicestructural drills etc) and only later by activities that permit more sponta-neous use of language In a controversial article Higgs and Clifford (1982)argued that ldquothe premature immersion of a student into an unstructuredor lsquofreersquo conversational setting before certain fundamental linguistic struc-tures are more or less in place is not done without costrdquo (pp 73ndash74)

More recently drawing on research in cognitive psychology specifi-cally in the early work of Anderson (1982) on skill acquisition theoryDeKeyser (1998) has argued that ldquogrammar should first be taught ex-plicitly to achieve a maximum of understanding and then should befollowed by some exercises to anchor it solidly in the studentsrsquo conscious-ness in declarative form so that it is easy to keep in mind during com-municative exercisesrdquo (p 58) In the framework of this article DeKey-serrsquos first two phases (explicit instruction and anchoring exercises) rep-resent isolated FFI although our definition of isolated FFI includes thepossibility that such instruction may occur after students have discoveredthe need for certain language features during communicative activity6

Further support for isolated FFI comes from information processingtheory which argues that because the human mind has limited process-ing capacity it is difficult for learners to focus on form and meaning atthe same time (Ellis 1997) VanPatten (1990) suggested that noticingsome aspects of language form (eg verb morphology) while trying tograsp the meaning of a text may be particularly problematic for begin-ning learners VanPatten and his colleagues have shown how isolatingspecific features of the target language in the input can help learnerschange the way they process certain formndashmeaning mappings (VanPat-ten 1996 2004 VanPatten amp Cadierno 1993)

Recent studies by Barcroft (2002) and Trofimovich (2005) also illus-trate situations in which isolated FFI may be beneficial to students Inthese studies students were exposed to the material to be learned eitherin contexts where they needed to focus on form while also processingsemantic aspects of the language to be learned or where some formalfeature was itself the primary focus Both Barcroft and Trofimovich

6 Doughty and Williams (1998) refer to the work by DeKeyser and Lightbown regarding thesequencing of FFI as sequential focus on form

192 TESOL QUARTERLY

found that attention to meaning was associated with poorer recall offormal features such as the spelling or pronunciation of words Theyinterpreted their findings in terms of the TAP hypothesis As notedearlier according to TAP the best predictor of success in retrievinginformation is the degree of similarity between the conditions and pro-cessing demands present during learning and those present during re-trieval Thus a learning task in which cognitive effort is devoted tosemantic features of a word is not a good preparation for a test in whichlearners need to retrieve information about perceptual or formal fea-tures of the word If the assessment task requires learners to recall orrecognize the correct spelling or pronunciation of a word the learningtask should create conditions in which learners can devote more pro-cessing capacity to those features To be sure the goal of most languagelearning is ultimately to be able to use language forms correctly in com-municative contexts that include multiple demands on attention How-ever what the research by VanPatten Barcroft and Trofimovich shows isthat such contexts may not be conducive to the initial perception andinterpretation of certain language features

To our knowledge no empirical classroom-based research directlycompares the effects of isolated and integrated instruction7 It is impor-tant to keep in mind that our definition of isolated FFI is attention to formin separate lessons that occur within a program that is primarily com-municative in orientation In that sense it is not the same as Longrsquosdefinition of focus on forms which is associated with traditional discrete-point metalinguistic instruction provided in a context where little or nomeaning-based instruction or practice occurs Similarly our definition ofintegrated FFI is not the same as Longrsquos original definition of focus on formwhich includes only reactive FFI whereas integrated FFI includes bothreactive and proactive FFI In this way our definition of integrated FFI issimilar to Ellisrsquos (2001) definition of planned and incidental focus on form

7 A reviewer argues that such studies do exist and points to Sheen (2005) as an exampleWhile Sheenrsquos study does show the benefits of instruction in helping young francophonestudents make more accurate use of questions and the placement of adverbs in Englishsentences it is not a comparison of integrated and isolated FFI as we define them in thispaper As we read the report of that research it seems to show that the students in thecomparison group received almost no FFI at all It is important to emphasize again thatintegrated FFI is not simply a synonym for CLT with little or no attention to language formIntegrated FFI includes brief explanations corrective feedback explicit elicitations ofcorrect forms and input enhancement provided within the context of meaning-basedinstruction Sheenrsquos description of the comparison class in his study indicates that theinstructor did not make any special attempt to integrate FFI related to questions andadverbs in his regular classroom activities In the experimental class students receivedinstruction that is best described as focus on forms not as isolated FFI The distinctionbetween the two is that isolated FFI is provided in separate lessons that are directly relatedto the activities within a communicative or content-based syllabus whereas focus on formslessons typically occur within a structural syllabus that is not closely linked to the ongoingcommunicative activities

FORM-FOCUSED INSTRUCTION ISOLATED OR INTEGRATED 193

This review of the theoretical pedagogical and empirical support forintegrated and isolated instruction indicates that there are arguments onboth sides and that the choice between the two is likely not an absoluteone but rather a choice that is dependent on other factors In the nextsection we outline some of those factors

FACTORS THAT INFLUENCE THE CHOICE OFISOLATED OR INTEGRATED FFI

SLA research shows that some linguistic features are acquired inciden-tally that is without intentional effort or conscious awareness by learnersor guidance from teachers However it is also evident that some lan-guage features develop very slowly or not at all in the absence of guidedattention and that some types of FFI can increase the likelihood thatlearners will make progress in learning these features (Norris amp Ortega2000) Some language features develop according to a natural sequenceof stages that is not altered by instruction (For overviews see Ellis 1994Gass amp Selinker 2001 Lightbown amp Spada 2006 Mitchell amp Myles1998) However while instruction may have only a limited effect on thepath learners follow through developmental sequences it may affect therate at which learners pass through a sequence (see eg Ellis 1989Larsen-Freeman amp Long 1991 Mackey amp Philp 1998 Pienemann 1989Spada amp Lightbown 1993) Several factors may influence the relation-ship between instruction and learning outcomes These factors are dy-namic changing over the course of learnersrsquo language acquisition andwithin different teaching contexts8

L1 Influence

One hypothesis is that isolated FFI is particularly useful when the L1has a strong influence on L2 forms Errors caused by L1 influence can beproblematic in classrooms where learners share the same first languageand reinforce each otherrsquos L1-based errors (Lightbown 1991 Lyster1987) In situations like these isolated FFI may be needed to clarifymisleading similarities between the L1 and L2 Harley (1993) points tothe distinction between French avoirecirctre and havebe in English as anexample Isolated FFI may also help in those cases where learners havedeveloped based on L1 influence an interlanguage rule that is more

8 We thank one of the anonymous reviewers for emphasizing the dynamic nature of thefactors that influence instructional choices

194 TESOL QUARTERLY

general than the related rule in the L2 White (1991) discusses thisproblem with specific reference to differences between adverb place-ment in French and English subject-verb-object sentences and advocatesisolated FFI as a way of helping learners perceive those differences

Salience in the Input

Isolated FFI may be beneficial with features that are relatively simpleto explain or illustrate but are not particularly salient in oral languageDrawing attention to them in isolation may help learners seehear lan-guage features they have not been noticing in the input the first step onthe path to acquisition Although some studies have reported benefits ofinput enhancement that is increasing frequency andor salience of lan-guage features in the input (Alanen 1995 Doughty 1991) others havereported partial or no benefits (Spada amp Lightbown 1999 Trahey ampWhite 1993 White 1998) These conflicting findings appear to be re-lated to differences in the kind of enhancement More explicit enhance-ment appears to lead to more L2 progress than less explicit enhance-ment (Norris amp Ortega 2000)9 This finding suggests that isolated FFImight be useful for creating the necessary salience to help learners no-tice language forms that occur frequently but are semantically redun-dant or phonologically reduced or imperceptible in the oral input Suchforms could include for example third-person -s in English and adjec-tive agreement morphology in French

Input Frequency

Isolated FFI may also help ensure that students have opportunities tolearn forms that are rare or absent in the language they are exposed toin the CLT or CBI classroom Lyster (1994b) reports findings to supportthis idea in his investigation of the effects of FFI on the learning of thesociolinguistic distinction between second-person pronouns tu and vousin French immersion classrooms Students were familiar with the singu-larplural distinction between these two words but the social dynamicsof the classroom in which they were learning French did not give themopportunities to observe the politeness distinctions that are signaled bythe different pronoun forms Lyster developed an instructional interven-

9 It may also be that explicit instruction seems to have some benefits because the assessmentmeasures used favor explicit knowledge (see Doughty 2003 for discussion) Norris andOrtega (2000 p 501) themselves acknowledge this possibility but argue that their findingscannot be explained by this single variable

FORM-FOCUSED INSTRUCTION ISOLATED OR INTEGRATED 195

tion that included opportunities for isolated FFI Drawing studentsrsquo at-tention to this distinction probably prepared them to notice the use ofthe forms in the communicative and integrated FFI activities that fol-lowed and their ability to use these forms improved significantly

Rule Complexity

It has been suggested that integrated FFI may be a more appropriateapproach to instruction for language features that are complex and haverules that are difficult to describe However although there is someintuitive agreement about a distinction between hard and easy rules it isnot always clear what is meant by these terms (see Hulstijn 1995 Hulstijnamp DeGraaff 1994 for useful attempts to define them) Furthermore asDeKeyser (2003) points out in addition to the inherent difficulty of aform or a rule there is also subjective difficulty ldquoRule difficulty is anindividual issue that can be described as the ratio of the rulersquos inherentlinguistic complexity to the studentsrsquo ability to handle such a rulemdasha ruleof moderate difficulty for one student may be easy for a student withmore language learning aptitude or language learning experiencerdquo (p331)

A fairly widespread assumption in the SLA literature is that that whileeasy rules can be taught hard rules are by their very nature too complexto be successfully taught in isolated instruction and thus are difficult tolearn through traditional explanation and practice pedagogy that is iso-lated from communicative use of the language Thus integrated FFI maybe more suitable for complexabstract features such as the article sys-tem in English In laboratory studies to investigate the learning of simpleand complex morphosyntactic rules DeKeyser (1995) and Robinson(1996) provide some support for this idea Participants in those studieslearned simple morphosyntactic rules better under conditions of ex-plicit-deductive learning and more complex rules better under implicit-inductive conditions Conclusions drawn from these studies remain con-troversial however and are perhaps best seen as hypotheses in need offurther study

Communicative Value

Integrated FFI may also be particularly useful with features in whicherrors are more likely to lead to communication breakdowns (eg En-glish possessive pronouns his and her) Lightbown (1998) suggests thatL2 learners at various levels of proficiency are more likely to be able tofocus on form and meaning at the same time when the ldquoform in focus ( )

196 TESOL QUARTERLY

is an important carrier of the meaning in focusrdquo (p 192) However whenerrors do not interfere with meaning (eg the absence of inversion inquestions such as What she is reading) isolation from communicativeinteraction may be necessary if learners are to notice the differencebetween what they say and the correct way to say what they mean (SpadaLightbown amp White 2005) The relative importance of using the rightword as compared with using the right grammar is also reflected inSchwartzrsquos (1993) observation that instruction and feedback are morelikely to lead to changes in learnersrsquo knowledge and use of lexical itemsthan of morphology and syntax Mackey Gass and McDonough (2000)have observed that recasts a typical characteristic of integrated FFI aremore likely to be noticed when the element being recast is a lexical itemthan when it is a morphosyntactic element (see also Lyster 1998)

Learnersrsquo Developmental Level

Once a language feature has emerged in learnersrsquo interlanguage (seePienemann 1998) more fluent and accurate use of that feature may bestbe encouraged through integrated FFI Several studies on FFI have re-ported that L2 learners benefit most from FFI when they are at a devel-opmental level in their language acquisition that enables them to com-pare their use of particular forms with that of native and more proficientspeakers (Mackey amp Philp 1998 Spada amp Lightbown 1999) Related tothis finding is the observation that learnersrsquo receptive and productiveabilities do not develop in the same way or at the same rate Howeverrecent research investigating the effects of both input- (ie comprehen-sion) and output- (ie production) based practice on L2 developmentindicates that both comprehension and production improve as long asthe practice is meaningful and learners are encouraged to make formndashmeaning connections (Morgan-Short amp Wood Bowden 2006 see alsoDeKeyser 1998)

As noted earlier learners may need isolated FFI such as VanPattenrsquosprocessing instruction to help them detect and understand formndashmeaning relationships for language features that have low salience lowfrequency or low communicative value Once the features have emergedin the interlanguage or once the formndashmeaning connections have beenmade the development of greater fluency is likely to be favored byintegrated FFI Ammar and Spada (2006) found that French-speakingchildren who were already more proficient in using possessive determin-ers his and her were able to take advantage of integrated instructionwhether in the form of recasts (where the teacher provides the correctform) or prompts (where the teacher elicits a correction from the stu-dent) However students who were less proficient benefited more from

FORM-FOCUSED INSTRUCTION ISOLATED OR INTEGRATED 197

prompts than recasts suggesting that they had greater difficulty recog-nizing the purpose of the feedback

Learnersrsquo Age

In general older learners especially those with experience in thestudy of their own or other languages are more receptive to isolatedgrammatical instruction (see eg Barkhuizen 1998) Outside the class-room in environments where they are completely immersed in the tar-get language very young learners often acquire L2 proficiency with littleor no FFI Older children adolescents and adults however appear tobenefit from instruction and may even depend on it because of the waysin which their language-learning abilities differ from those of youngchildren (Bley-Vroman 1988 DeKeyser 2000) especially if their contactwith the language is limited to the second or foreign language classroom

Research in CLT and CBI contexts has shown that children do notalways recognize integrated FFI (including enhanced input and implicitrecasts) as responses to language form rather than meaning (eg Lysteramp Ranta 1997) However they do respond to integrated feedback whichis explicit (eg through the use of emphasis prompting and elicitationas well as other nonverbal signals see eg Ammar amp Spada 2006Doughty amp Varela 1998 Lyster 2004) or which is provided within thecontext of language teaching where the overall orientation includes astrong focus on language form (Lyster amp Mori 2006) Adult learners ina variety of language learning contexts have been shown to be moreaware of integrated FFI as feedback on language form (see eg EllisBasturkmen amp Loewen 2001 Ohta 2000)

Language-Learning Aptitude

Learners who perform well on language aptitude tests or have moremetalinguistic knowledge and skill in their L1 may be better able tonotice and focus on language form within a communicative context thanthose with poorer aptitude and metalinguistic ability It has been hypoth-esized that learners with poor metalinguistic skills in their own languagemay require more explicit (possibly isolated) instruction to help themidentify some formndashmeaning connections (Ranta 2002) Mackey PhilpEgi Fujii and Tomoaki (2002) found that adult learners with higherscores on tests of working memory were more likely to report that theynoticed interactional (integrated) feedback in the form of recasts (seealso Robinson 2002)

198 TESOL QUARTERLY

Learner and Teacher Preferences for How to Teach or LearnAbout Form

Research on studentsrsquo beliefs and opinions about FFI (ie instructionand corrective feedback) has revealed that teachersrsquo and studentsrsquo viewsoften differ In two large-scale studies Schulz (1996 2001) found thatvirtually all students expressed a desire to have their errors corrected butvery few teachers felt this was desirable In addition students were morelikely than teachers to say that formal study of the language is ldquoessentialto the eventual mastery of a [foreign language]rdquo (2001 p 247) Mis-matches like these have long been reported in the literature (Cathcart ampOlsen 1976 Yorio 1986) The effects of matches and mismatches on L2learning have also been investigated (eg Spada 1987 Wesche 1981)and there is some evidence that learners benefit most from instructionthat suits their preferences (see Doumlrnyei 2005 for summary and discus-sion)

Other factors such as individual learning styles and previous experi-ence learning languages can also lead to different preferences for learn-ing As indicated earlier some L2 learners who have learned languagesvia traditional structure-based approaches often have strong preferencesfor continuing to learn via isolated grammar practice Other L2 learnerswho have learned languages informally may respond more positively toFFI that is integrated with meaning What is clear is that characteristicssuch as these can interact with type of instruction in complex waysleading to more or less successful learning (Skehan 1989)

It is not only learners who have different preferences for isolatedandor integrated FFI So do teachers Research on teacher cognitionhas revealed that L2 teachers often teach grammar in the way in whichthey were taught it themselves (Borg 2003 Farrell 1999) There is alsoevidence of a direct relationship between what teachers know aboutgrammar and how they teach it That is the extent to which grammar istaught deductively depends on how much metalinguistic knowledgeteachers possess (Borg 2001 Brumfit Mitchell amp Hooper 1996) Ofcourse there are L2 instructors who do not believe that grammar in-struction is useful In a study comparing second (English) and foreign(French) language instruction Mitchell and Hooper (1992) observedthat the English teachers rarely focused on language or explicit grammarwork but the foreign language teachers regularly did so When inter-viewed about this finding the English teachers expressed the opinionthat this type of activity was not of primary importance for developingstudentsrsquo linguistic abilitymdasha response that is not atypical of L2 instruc-tors who have adopted the strong version of CLT

It is often observed that teachers who are teaching their own nativelanguage may not have as good a grasp of the formal grammar of the

FORM-FOCUSED INSTRUCTION ISOLATED OR INTEGRATED 199

language as those whose learning has included form-focused L2 instruc-tion In a study of teachersrsquo practices Borg (1998) observed that deci-sions to include explicit formal instruction are not always based on teach-ersrsquo belief that grammar instruction works but rather on their belief thatstudents expect it He also observed that when teaching grammar teach-ers do not necessarily adhere exclusively to one particular approach(eg deductive or inductive) but will combine and alternate betweenthem Similarly in a study of 48 teachersrsquo attitudes to explicit or implicitteaching of grammar in an English for academic purposes (EAP) pro-gram Burgess and Etherington (2002) report that the majority of teach-ers believed that it is useful to integrate grammar within authentic textsrather than teach it explicitly using a grammatical syllabus At the sametime however they also expressed the belief that not all grammaticalknowledge can be learned implicitly and thus advocated explicit instruc-tion as well In our research investigating the preferences of teachers andadult learners for integrated or isolated FFI we have found that neithergroup expresses a consistent preference for one over the other Theyvalue both (Spada 2006b)

CONCLUSION

Research and theory suggest that there is a role in CLT and CBI forboth isolated and integrated FFI Each type of instruction may play adifferent role in promoting language acquisition Research and experi-ence in CLT and CBI affirm that not all language features need to betaught in isolated lessons Instead the current research on classroomlearning shows that incidental learning allows students to acquire a greatdeal of language while focused on meaning in CLT and CBI The addi-tion of integrated FFI can contribute to the automatization of languagefeatures that have emerged in studentsrsquo language but that are not usedreliably when there are competing demands for attention

Integrated FFI includes a wide range of approaches including thekind of implicit feedback that occurs as the need or opportunity arisesas well as the kind of planned interaction that requires the repeated butnatural use of a particular language form Nevertheless isolated lessonsmay be useful or even essential in promoting the acquisition of somelanguage features These features include those that are hard to perceivein the normal stream of communicative speech those for which there isa misleading similarity to the L1 and those that are unlikely to causecommunication breakdown We are currently designing quasi-experimental studies to explore the contributions of both types of FFI

The importance of isolated lessons will be determined by differences

200 TESOL QUARTERLY

in the specific language feature that is being taught as well as by differ-ences in learnersrsquo and teachersrsquo characteristics abilities and prefer-ences We find no evidence to support a suggestion that isolated gram-mar lessons without opportunities for communicative language useshould again become the dominant approach to language instructionIsolated lessons are a starting point or a follow-up for communicative orcontent-based activities Above all they should not be expected to resultin studentsrsquo immediate incorporation of the feature in focus into theircommunicative language use Nevertheless such lessons can preparestudents to make the best use of opportunities for continuing their lan-guage acquisition in meaning-focused activities and integrated FFI whenit occurs

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

The reviewers who provided feedback on earlier versions of the manuscript helpedus to make this a better article We did not always agree with the reviewers (whoindeed strongly disagreed with each other) but their feedback helped us under-stand and present our own views better We are also grateful to the graduate studentsand research assistants in N Spadarsquos research group at OISEUT for their insightfulcomments on this manuscript and related literature

THE AUTHORS

Nina Spada is a professor in the Second Language Education program at OISEUniversity of Toronto Ontario Canada where she teaches courses in L2 teachingand learning Her research focuses on the contributions of form-focused instructionto the L2 development of children and adults in communicative programs

Patsy M Lightbown is Distinguished Professor Emeritus of Concordia UniversityMontreal Canada and a former president of AAAL Her research explores relation-ships between L2 teaching and learning especially for children and adolescents

REFERENCES

Alanen R (1995) Input enhancement and rule presentation in second languageacquisition In R Schmidt (Ed) Attention and awareness in foreign language learningand teaching (pp 259ndash302) Honolulu University of Hawairsquoi Press

Ammar A amp Spada N (2006) One size fits all Recasts prompts and L2 learningStudies in Second Language Acquisition 28 543ndash574

Anderson J (1982) Acquisition of cognitive skill Psychological Review 89 369ndash406Barcroft J (2002) Semantic and structural elaboration in L2 lexical acquisition

Language Learning 52 323ndash363Barkhuizen G P (1998) Discovering learnersrsquo perceptions of ESL classroom teach-

inglearning activities in a South African context TESOL Quarterly 32 85ndash108

FORM-FOCUSED INSTRUCTION ISOLATED OR INTEGRATED 201

found that attention to meaning was associated with poorer recall offormal features such as the spelling or pronunciation of words Theyinterpreted their findings in terms of the TAP hypothesis As notedearlier according to TAP the best predictor of success in retrievinginformation is the degree of similarity between the conditions and pro-cessing demands present during learning and those present during re-trieval Thus a learning task in which cognitive effort is devoted tosemantic features of a word is not a good preparation for a test in whichlearners need to retrieve information about perceptual or formal fea-tures of the word If the assessment task requires learners to recall orrecognize the correct spelling or pronunciation of a word the learningtask should create conditions in which learners can devote more pro-cessing capacity to those features To be sure the goal of most languagelearning is ultimately to be able to use language forms correctly in com-municative contexts that include multiple demands on attention How-ever what the research by VanPatten Barcroft and Trofimovich shows isthat such contexts may not be conducive to the initial perception andinterpretation of certain language features

To our knowledge no empirical classroom-based research directlycompares the effects of isolated and integrated instruction7 It is impor-tant to keep in mind that our definition of isolated FFI is attention to formin separate lessons that occur within a program that is primarily com-municative in orientation In that sense it is not the same as Longrsquosdefinition of focus on forms which is associated with traditional discrete-point metalinguistic instruction provided in a context where little or nomeaning-based instruction or practice occurs Similarly our definition ofintegrated FFI is not the same as Longrsquos original definition of focus on formwhich includes only reactive FFI whereas integrated FFI includes bothreactive and proactive FFI In this way our definition of integrated FFI issimilar to Ellisrsquos (2001) definition of planned and incidental focus on form

7 A reviewer argues that such studies do exist and points to Sheen (2005) as an exampleWhile Sheenrsquos study does show the benefits of instruction in helping young francophonestudents make more accurate use of questions and the placement of adverbs in Englishsentences it is not a comparison of integrated and isolated FFI as we define them in thispaper As we read the report of that research it seems to show that the students in thecomparison group received almost no FFI at all It is important to emphasize again thatintegrated FFI is not simply a synonym for CLT with little or no attention to language formIntegrated FFI includes brief explanations corrective feedback explicit elicitations ofcorrect forms and input enhancement provided within the context of meaning-basedinstruction Sheenrsquos description of the comparison class in his study indicates that theinstructor did not make any special attempt to integrate FFI related to questions andadverbs in his regular classroom activities In the experimental class students receivedinstruction that is best described as focus on forms not as isolated FFI The distinctionbetween the two is that isolated FFI is provided in separate lessons that are directly relatedto the activities within a communicative or content-based syllabus whereas focus on formslessons typically occur within a structural syllabus that is not closely linked to the ongoingcommunicative activities

FORM-FOCUSED INSTRUCTION ISOLATED OR INTEGRATED 193

This review of the theoretical pedagogical and empirical support forintegrated and isolated instruction indicates that there are arguments onboth sides and that the choice between the two is likely not an absoluteone but rather a choice that is dependent on other factors In the nextsection we outline some of those factors

FACTORS THAT INFLUENCE THE CHOICE OFISOLATED OR INTEGRATED FFI

SLA research shows that some linguistic features are acquired inciden-tally that is without intentional effort or conscious awareness by learnersor guidance from teachers However it is also evident that some lan-guage features develop very slowly or not at all in the absence of guidedattention and that some types of FFI can increase the likelihood thatlearners will make progress in learning these features (Norris amp Ortega2000) Some language features develop according to a natural sequenceof stages that is not altered by instruction (For overviews see Ellis 1994Gass amp Selinker 2001 Lightbown amp Spada 2006 Mitchell amp Myles1998) However while instruction may have only a limited effect on thepath learners follow through developmental sequences it may affect therate at which learners pass through a sequence (see eg Ellis 1989Larsen-Freeman amp Long 1991 Mackey amp Philp 1998 Pienemann 1989Spada amp Lightbown 1993) Several factors may influence the relation-ship between instruction and learning outcomes These factors are dy-namic changing over the course of learnersrsquo language acquisition andwithin different teaching contexts8

L1 Influence

One hypothesis is that isolated FFI is particularly useful when the L1has a strong influence on L2 forms Errors caused by L1 influence can beproblematic in classrooms where learners share the same first languageand reinforce each otherrsquos L1-based errors (Lightbown 1991 Lyster1987) In situations like these isolated FFI may be needed to clarifymisleading similarities between the L1 and L2 Harley (1993) points tothe distinction between French avoirecirctre and havebe in English as anexample Isolated FFI may also help in those cases where learners havedeveloped based on L1 influence an interlanguage rule that is more

8 We thank one of the anonymous reviewers for emphasizing the dynamic nature of thefactors that influence instructional choices

194 TESOL QUARTERLY

general than the related rule in the L2 White (1991) discusses thisproblem with specific reference to differences between adverb place-ment in French and English subject-verb-object sentences and advocatesisolated FFI as a way of helping learners perceive those differences

Salience in the Input

Isolated FFI may be beneficial with features that are relatively simpleto explain or illustrate but are not particularly salient in oral languageDrawing attention to them in isolation may help learners seehear lan-guage features they have not been noticing in the input the first step onthe path to acquisition Although some studies have reported benefits ofinput enhancement that is increasing frequency andor salience of lan-guage features in the input (Alanen 1995 Doughty 1991) others havereported partial or no benefits (Spada amp Lightbown 1999 Trahey ampWhite 1993 White 1998) These conflicting findings appear to be re-lated to differences in the kind of enhancement More explicit enhance-ment appears to lead to more L2 progress than less explicit enhance-ment (Norris amp Ortega 2000)9 This finding suggests that isolated FFImight be useful for creating the necessary salience to help learners no-tice language forms that occur frequently but are semantically redun-dant or phonologically reduced or imperceptible in the oral input Suchforms could include for example third-person -s in English and adjec-tive agreement morphology in French

Input Frequency

Isolated FFI may also help ensure that students have opportunities tolearn forms that are rare or absent in the language they are exposed toin the CLT or CBI classroom Lyster (1994b) reports findings to supportthis idea in his investigation of the effects of FFI on the learning of thesociolinguistic distinction between second-person pronouns tu and vousin French immersion classrooms Students were familiar with the singu-larplural distinction between these two words but the social dynamicsof the classroom in which they were learning French did not give themopportunities to observe the politeness distinctions that are signaled bythe different pronoun forms Lyster developed an instructional interven-

9 It may also be that explicit instruction seems to have some benefits because the assessmentmeasures used favor explicit knowledge (see Doughty 2003 for discussion) Norris andOrtega (2000 p 501) themselves acknowledge this possibility but argue that their findingscannot be explained by this single variable

FORM-FOCUSED INSTRUCTION ISOLATED OR INTEGRATED 195

tion that included opportunities for isolated FFI Drawing studentsrsquo at-tention to this distinction probably prepared them to notice the use ofthe forms in the communicative and integrated FFI activities that fol-lowed and their ability to use these forms improved significantly

Rule Complexity

It has been suggested that integrated FFI may be a more appropriateapproach to instruction for language features that are complex and haverules that are difficult to describe However although there is someintuitive agreement about a distinction between hard and easy rules it isnot always clear what is meant by these terms (see Hulstijn 1995 Hulstijnamp DeGraaff 1994 for useful attempts to define them) Furthermore asDeKeyser (2003) points out in addition to the inherent difficulty of aform or a rule there is also subjective difficulty ldquoRule difficulty is anindividual issue that can be described as the ratio of the rulersquos inherentlinguistic complexity to the studentsrsquo ability to handle such a rulemdasha ruleof moderate difficulty for one student may be easy for a student withmore language learning aptitude or language learning experiencerdquo (p331)

A fairly widespread assumption in the SLA literature is that that whileeasy rules can be taught hard rules are by their very nature too complexto be successfully taught in isolated instruction and thus are difficult tolearn through traditional explanation and practice pedagogy that is iso-lated from communicative use of the language Thus integrated FFI maybe more suitable for complexabstract features such as the article sys-tem in English In laboratory studies to investigate the learning of simpleand complex morphosyntactic rules DeKeyser (1995) and Robinson(1996) provide some support for this idea Participants in those studieslearned simple morphosyntactic rules better under conditions of ex-plicit-deductive learning and more complex rules better under implicit-inductive conditions Conclusions drawn from these studies remain con-troversial however and are perhaps best seen as hypotheses in need offurther study

Communicative Value

Integrated FFI may also be particularly useful with features in whicherrors are more likely to lead to communication breakdowns (eg En-glish possessive pronouns his and her) Lightbown (1998) suggests thatL2 learners at various levels of proficiency are more likely to be able tofocus on form and meaning at the same time when the ldquoform in focus ( )

196 TESOL QUARTERLY

is an important carrier of the meaning in focusrdquo (p 192) However whenerrors do not interfere with meaning (eg the absence of inversion inquestions such as What she is reading) isolation from communicativeinteraction may be necessary if learners are to notice the differencebetween what they say and the correct way to say what they mean (SpadaLightbown amp White 2005) The relative importance of using the rightword as compared with using the right grammar is also reflected inSchwartzrsquos (1993) observation that instruction and feedback are morelikely to lead to changes in learnersrsquo knowledge and use of lexical itemsthan of morphology and syntax Mackey Gass and McDonough (2000)have observed that recasts a typical characteristic of integrated FFI aremore likely to be noticed when the element being recast is a lexical itemthan when it is a morphosyntactic element (see also Lyster 1998)

Learnersrsquo Developmental Level

Once a language feature has emerged in learnersrsquo interlanguage (seePienemann 1998) more fluent and accurate use of that feature may bestbe encouraged through integrated FFI Several studies on FFI have re-ported that L2 learners benefit most from FFI when they are at a devel-opmental level in their language acquisition that enables them to com-pare their use of particular forms with that of native and more proficientspeakers (Mackey amp Philp 1998 Spada amp Lightbown 1999) Related tothis finding is the observation that learnersrsquo receptive and productiveabilities do not develop in the same way or at the same rate Howeverrecent research investigating the effects of both input- (ie comprehen-sion) and output- (ie production) based practice on L2 developmentindicates that both comprehension and production improve as long asthe practice is meaningful and learners are encouraged to make formndashmeaning connections (Morgan-Short amp Wood Bowden 2006 see alsoDeKeyser 1998)

As noted earlier learners may need isolated FFI such as VanPattenrsquosprocessing instruction to help them detect and understand formndashmeaning relationships for language features that have low salience lowfrequency or low communicative value Once the features have emergedin the interlanguage or once the formndashmeaning connections have beenmade the development of greater fluency is likely to be favored byintegrated FFI Ammar and Spada (2006) found that French-speakingchildren who were already more proficient in using possessive determin-ers his and her were able to take advantage of integrated instructionwhether in the form of recasts (where the teacher provides the correctform) or prompts (where the teacher elicits a correction from the stu-dent) However students who were less proficient benefited more from

FORM-FOCUSED INSTRUCTION ISOLATED OR INTEGRATED 197

prompts than recasts suggesting that they had greater difficulty recog-nizing the purpose of the feedback

Learnersrsquo Age

In general older learners especially those with experience in thestudy of their own or other languages are more receptive to isolatedgrammatical instruction (see eg Barkhuizen 1998) Outside the class-room in environments where they are completely immersed in the tar-get language very young learners often acquire L2 proficiency with littleor no FFI Older children adolescents and adults however appear tobenefit from instruction and may even depend on it because of the waysin which their language-learning abilities differ from those of youngchildren (Bley-Vroman 1988 DeKeyser 2000) especially if their contactwith the language is limited to the second or foreign language classroom

Research in CLT and CBI contexts has shown that children do notalways recognize integrated FFI (including enhanced input and implicitrecasts) as responses to language form rather than meaning (eg Lysteramp Ranta 1997) However they do respond to integrated feedback whichis explicit (eg through the use of emphasis prompting and elicitationas well as other nonverbal signals see eg Ammar amp Spada 2006Doughty amp Varela 1998 Lyster 2004) or which is provided within thecontext of language teaching where the overall orientation includes astrong focus on language form (Lyster amp Mori 2006) Adult learners ina variety of language learning contexts have been shown to be moreaware of integrated FFI as feedback on language form (see eg EllisBasturkmen amp Loewen 2001 Ohta 2000)

Language-Learning Aptitude

Learners who perform well on language aptitude tests or have moremetalinguistic knowledge and skill in their L1 may be better able tonotice and focus on language form within a communicative context thanthose with poorer aptitude and metalinguistic ability It has been hypoth-esized that learners with poor metalinguistic skills in their own languagemay require more explicit (possibly isolated) instruction to help themidentify some formndashmeaning connections (Ranta 2002) Mackey PhilpEgi Fujii and Tomoaki (2002) found that adult learners with higherscores on tests of working memory were more likely to report that theynoticed interactional (integrated) feedback in the form of recasts (seealso Robinson 2002)

198 TESOL QUARTERLY

Learner and Teacher Preferences for How to Teach or LearnAbout Form

Research on studentsrsquo beliefs and opinions about FFI (ie instructionand corrective feedback) has revealed that teachersrsquo and studentsrsquo viewsoften differ In two large-scale studies Schulz (1996 2001) found thatvirtually all students expressed a desire to have their errors corrected butvery few teachers felt this was desirable In addition students were morelikely than teachers to say that formal study of the language is ldquoessentialto the eventual mastery of a [foreign language]rdquo (2001 p 247) Mis-matches like these have long been reported in the literature (Cathcart ampOlsen 1976 Yorio 1986) The effects of matches and mismatches on L2learning have also been investigated (eg Spada 1987 Wesche 1981)and there is some evidence that learners benefit most from instructionthat suits their preferences (see Doumlrnyei 2005 for summary and discus-sion)

Other factors such as individual learning styles and previous experi-ence learning languages can also lead to different preferences for learn-ing As indicated earlier some L2 learners who have learned languagesvia traditional structure-based approaches often have strong preferencesfor continuing to learn via isolated grammar practice Other L2 learnerswho have learned languages informally may respond more positively toFFI that is integrated with meaning What is clear is that characteristicssuch as these can interact with type of instruction in complex waysleading to more or less successful learning (Skehan 1989)

It is not only learners who have different preferences for isolatedandor integrated FFI So do teachers Research on teacher cognitionhas revealed that L2 teachers often teach grammar in the way in whichthey were taught it themselves (Borg 2003 Farrell 1999) There is alsoevidence of a direct relationship between what teachers know aboutgrammar and how they teach it That is the extent to which grammar istaught deductively depends on how much metalinguistic knowledgeteachers possess (Borg 2001 Brumfit Mitchell amp Hooper 1996) Ofcourse there are L2 instructors who do not believe that grammar in-struction is useful In a study comparing second (English) and foreign(French) language instruction Mitchell and Hooper (1992) observedthat the English teachers rarely focused on language or explicit grammarwork but the foreign language teachers regularly did so When inter-viewed about this finding the English teachers expressed the opinionthat this type of activity was not of primary importance for developingstudentsrsquo linguistic abilitymdasha response that is not atypical of L2 instruc-tors who have adopted the strong version of CLT

It is often observed that teachers who are teaching their own nativelanguage may not have as good a grasp of the formal grammar of the

FORM-FOCUSED INSTRUCTION ISOLATED OR INTEGRATED 199

language as those whose learning has included form-focused L2 instruc-tion In a study of teachersrsquo practices Borg (1998) observed that deci-sions to include explicit formal instruction are not always based on teach-ersrsquo belief that grammar instruction works but rather on their belief thatstudents expect it He also observed that when teaching grammar teach-ers do not necessarily adhere exclusively to one particular approach(eg deductive or inductive) but will combine and alternate betweenthem Similarly in a study of 48 teachersrsquo attitudes to explicit or implicitteaching of grammar in an English for academic purposes (EAP) pro-gram Burgess and Etherington (2002) report that the majority of teach-ers believed that it is useful to integrate grammar within authentic textsrather than teach it explicitly using a grammatical syllabus At the sametime however they also expressed the belief that not all grammaticalknowledge can be learned implicitly and thus advocated explicit instruc-tion as well In our research investigating the preferences of teachers andadult learners for integrated or isolated FFI we have found that neithergroup expresses a consistent preference for one over the other Theyvalue both (Spada 2006b)

CONCLUSION

Research and theory suggest that there is a role in CLT and CBI forboth isolated and integrated FFI Each type of instruction may play adifferent role in promoting language acquisition Research and experi-ence in CLT and CBI affirm that not all language features need to betaught in isolated lessons Instead the current research on classroomlearning shows that incidental learning allows students to acquire a greatdeal of language while focused on meaning in CLT and CBI The addi-tion of integrated FFI can contribute to the automatization of languagefeatures that have emerged in studentsrsquo language but that are not usedreliably when there are competing demands for attention

Integrated FFI includes a wide range of approaches including thekind of implicit feedback that occurs as the need or opportunity arisesas well as the kind of planned interaction that requires the repeated butnatural use of a particular language form Nevertheless isolated lessonsmay be useful or even essential in promoting the acquisition of somelanguage features These features include those that are hard to perceivein the normal stream of communicative speech those for which there isa misleading similarity to the L1 and those that are unlikely to causecommunication breakdown We are currently designing quasi-experimental studies to explore the contributions of both types of FFI

The importance of isolated lessons will be determined by differences

200 TESOL QUARTERLY

in the specific language feature that is being taught as well as by differ-ences in learnersrsquo and teachersrsquo characteristics abilities and prefer-ences We find no evidence to support a suggestion that isolated gram-mar lessons without opportunities for communicative language useshould again become the dominant approach to language instructionIsolated lessons are a starting point or a follow-up for communicative orcontent-based activities Above all they should not be expected to resultin studentsrsquo immediate incorporation of the feature in focus into theircommunicative language use Nevertheless such lessons can preparestudents to make the best use of opportunities for continuing their lan-guage acquisition in meaning-focused activities and integrated FFI whenit occurs

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

The reviewers who provided feedback on earlier versions of the manuscript helpedus to make this a better article We did not always agree with the reviewers (whoindeed strongly disagreed with each other) but their feedback helped us under-stand and present our own views better We are also grateful to the graduate studentsand research assistants in N Spadarsquos research group at OISEUT for their insightfulcomments on this manuscript and related literature

THE AUTHORS

Nina Spada is a professor in the Second Language Education program at OISEUniversity of Toronto Ontario Canada where she teaches courses in L2 teachingand learning Her research focuses on the contributions of form-focused instructionto the L2 development of children and adults in communicative programs

Patsy M Lightbown is Distinguished Professor Emeritus of Concordia UniversityMontreal Canada and a former president of AAAL Her research explores relation-ships between L2 teaching and learning especially for children and adolescents

REFERENCES

Alanen R (1995) Input enhancement and rule presentation in second languageacquisition In R Schmidt (Ed) Attention and awareness in foreign language learningand teaching (pp 259ndash302) Honolulu University of Hawairsquoi Press

Ammar A amp Spada N (2006) One size fits all Recasts prompts and L2 learningStudies in Second Language Acquisition 28 543ndash574

Anderson J (1982) Acquisition of cognitive skill Psychological Review 89 369ndash406Barcroft J (2002) Semantic and structural elaboration in L2 lexical acquisition

Language Learning 52 323ndash363Barkhuizen G P (1998) Discovering learnersrsquo perceptions of ESL classroom teach-

inglearning activities in a South African context TESOL Quarterly 32 85ndash108

FORM-FOCUSED INSTRUCTION ISOLATED OR INTEGRATED 201

This review of the theoretical pedagogical and empirical support forintegrated and isolated instruction indicates that there are arguments onboth sides and that the choice between the two is likely not an absoluteone but rather a choice that is dependent on other factors In the nextsection we outline some of those factors

FACTORS THAT INFLUENCE THE CHOICE OFISOLATED OR INTEGRATED FFI

SLA research shows that some linguistic features are acquired inciden-tally that is without intentional effort or conscious awareness by learnersor guidance from teachers However it is also evident that some lan-guage features develop very slowly or not at all in the absence of guidedattention and that some types of FFI can increase the likelihood thatlearners will make progress in learning these features (Norris amp Ortega2000) Some language features develop according to a natural sequenceof stages that is not altered by instruction (For overviews see Ellis 1994Gass amp Selinker 2001 Lightbown amp Spada 2006 Mitchell amp Myles1998) However while instruction may have only a limited effect on thepath learners follow through developmental sequences it may affect therate at which learners pass through a sequence (see eg Ellis 1989Larsen-Freeman amp Long 1991 Mackey amp Philp 1998 Pienemann 1989Spada amp Lightbown 1993) Several factors may influence the relation-ship between instruction and learning outcomes These factors are dy-namic changing over the course of learnersrsquo language acquisition andwithin different teaching contexts8

L1 Influence

One hypothesis is that isolated FFI is particularly useful when the L1has a strong influence on L2 forms Errors caused by L1 influence can beproblematic in classrooms where learners share the same first languageand reinforce each otherrsquos L1-based errors (Lightbown 1991 Lyster1987) In situations like these isolated FFI may be needed to clarifymisleading similarities between the L1 and L2 Harley (1993) points tothe distinction between French avoirecirctre and havebe in English as anexample Isolated FFI may also help in those cases where learners havedeveloped based on L1 influence an interlanguage rule that is more

8 We thank one of the anonymous reviewers for emphasizing the dynamic nature of thefactors that influence instructional choices

194 TESOL QUARTERLY

general than the related rule in the L2 White (1991) discusses thisproblem with specific reference to differences between adverb place-ment in French and English subject-verb-object sentences and advocatesisolated FFI as a way of helping learners perceive those differences

Salience in the Input

Isolated FFI may be beneficial with features that are relatively simpleto explain or illustrate but are not particularly salient in oral languageDrawing attention to them in isolation may help learners seehear lan-guage features they have not been noticing in the input the first step onthe path to acquisition Although some studies have reported benefits ofinput enhancement that is increasing frequency andor salience of lan-guage features in the input (Alanen 1995 Doughty 1991) others havereported partial or no benefits (Spada amp Lightbown 1999 Trahey ampWhite 1993 White 1998) These conflicting findings appear to be re-lated to differences in the kind of enhancement More explicit enhance-ment appears to lead to more L2 progress than less explicit enhance-ment (Norris amp Ortega 2000)9 This finding suggests that isolated FFImight be useful for creating the necessary salience to help learners no-tice language forms that occur frequently but are semantically redun-dant or phonologically reduced or imperceptible in the oral input Suchforms could include for example third-person -s in English and adjec-tive agreement morphology in French

Input Frequency

Isolated FFI may also help ensure that students have opportunities tolearn forms that are rare or absent in the language they are exposed toin the CLT or CBI classroom Lyster (1994b) reports findings to supportthis idea in his investigation of the effects of FFI on the learning of thesociolinguistic distinction between second-person pronouns tu and vousin French immersion classrooms Students were familiar with the singu-larplural distinction between these two words but the social dynamicsof the classroom in which they were learning French did not give themopportunities to observe the politeness distinctions that are signaled bythe different pronoun forms Lyster developed an instructional interven-

9 It may also be that explicit instruction seems to have some benefits because the assessmentmeasures used favor explicit knowledge (see Doughty 2003 for discussion) Norris andOrtega (2000 p 501) themselves acknowledge this possibility but argue that their findingscannot be explained by this single variable

FORM-FOCUSED INSTRUCTION ISOLATED OR INTEGRATED 195

tion that included opportunities for isolated FFI Drawing studentsrsquo at-tention to this distinction probably prepared them to notice the use ofthe forms in the communicative and integrated FFI activities that fol-lowed and their ability to use these forms improved significantly

Rule Complexity

It has been suggested that integrated FFI may be a more appropriateapproach to instruction for language features that are complex and haverules that are difficult to describe However although there is someintuitive agreement about a distinction between hard and easy rules it isnot always clear what is meant by these terms (see Hulstijn 1995 Hulstijnamp DeGraaff 1994 for useful attempts to define them) Furthermore asDeKeyser (2003) points out in addition to the inherent difficulty of aform or a rule there is also subjective difficulty ldquoRule difficulty is anindividual issue that can be described as the ratio of the rulersquos inherentlinguistic complexity to the studentsrsquo ability to handle such a rulemdasha ruleof moderate difficulty for one student may be easy for a student withmore language learning aptitude or language learning experiencerdquo (p331)

A fairly widespread assumption in the SLA literature is that that whileeasy rules can be taught hard rules are by their very nature too complexto be successfully taught in isolated instruction and thus are difficult tolearn through traditional explanation and practice pedagogy that is iso-lated from communicative use of the language Thus integrated FFI maybe more suitable for complexabstract features such as the article sys-tem in English In laboratory studies to investigate the learning of simpleand complex morphosyntactic rules DeKeyser (1995) and Robinson(1996) provide some support for this idea Participants in those studieslearned simple morphosyntactic rules better under conditions of ex-plicit-deductive learning and more complex rules better under implicit-inductive conditions Conclusions drawn from these studies remain con-troversial however and are perhaps best seen as hypotheses in need offurther study

Communicative Value

Integrated FFI may also be particularly useful with features in whicherrors are more likely to lead to communication breakdowns (eg En-glish possessive pronouns his and her) Lightbown (1998) suggests thatL2 learners at various levels of proficiency are more likely to be able tofocus on form and meaning at the same time when the ldquoform in focus ( )

196 TESOL QUARTERLY

is an important carrier of the meaning in focusrdquo (p 192) However whenerrors do not interfere with meaning (eg the absence of inversion inquestions such as What she is reading) isolation from communicativeinteraction may be necessary if learners are to notice the differencebetween what they say and the correct way to say what they mean (SpadaLightbown amp White 2005) The relative importance of using the rightword as compared with using the right grammar is also reflected inSchwartzrsquos (1993) observation that instruction and feedback are morelikely to lead to changes in learnersrsquo knowledge and use of lexical itemsthan of morphology and syntax Mackey Gass and McDonough (2000)have observed that recasts a typical characteristic of integrated FFI aremore likely to be noticed when the element being recast is a lexical itemthan when it is a morphosyntactic element (see also Lyster 1998)

Learnersrsquo Developmental Level

Once a language feature has emerged in learnersrsquo interlanguage (seePienemann 1998) more fluent and accurate use of that feature may bestbe encouraged through integrated FFI Several studies on FFI have re-ported that L2 learners benefit most from FFI when they are at a devel-opmental level in their language acquisition that enables them to com-pare their use of particular forms with that of native and more proficientspeakers (Mackey amp Philp 1998 Spada amp Lightbown 1999) Related tothis finding is the observation that learnersrsquo receptive and productiveabilities do not develop in the same way or at the same rate Howeverrecent research investigating the effects of both input- (ie comprehen-sion) and output- (ie production) based practice on L2 developmentindicates that both comprehension and production improve as long asthe practice is meaningful and learners are encouraged to make formndashmeaning connections (Morgan-Short amp Wood Bowden 2006 see alsoDeKeyser 1998)

As noted earlier learners may need isolated FFI such as VanPattenrsquosprocessing instruction to help them detect and understand formndashmeaning relationships for language features that have low salience lowfrequency or low communicative value Once the features have emergedin the interlanguage or once the formndashmeaning connections have beenmade the development of greater fluency is likely to be favored byintegrated FFI Ammar and Spada (2006) found that French-speakingchildren who were already more proficient in using possessive determin-ers his and her were able to take advantage of integrated instructionwhether in the form of recasts (where the teacher provides the correctform) or prompts (where the teacher elicits a correction from the stu-dent) However students who were less proficient benefited more from

FORM-FOCUSED INSTRUCTION ISOLATED OR INTEGRATED 197

prompts than recasts suggesting that they had greater difficulty recog-nizing the purpose of the feedback

Learnersrsquo Age

In general older learners especially those with experience in thestudy of their own or other languages are more receptive to isolatedgrammatical instruction (see eg Barkhuizen 1998) Outside the class-room in environments where they are completely immersed in the tar-get language very young learners often acquire L2 proficiency with littleor no FFI Older children adolescents and adults however appear tobenefit from instruction and may even depend on it because of the waysin which their language-learning abilities differ from those of youngchildren (Bley-Vroman 1988 DeKeyser 2000) especially if their contactwith the language is limited to the second or foreign language classroom

Research in CLT and CBI contexts has shown that children do notalways recognize integrated FFI (including enhanced input and implicitrecasts) as responses to language form rather than meaning (eg Lysteramp Ranta 1997) However they do respond to integrated feedback whichis explicit (eg through the use of emphasis prompting and elicitationas well as other nonverbal signals see eg Ammar amp Spada 2006Doughty amp Varela 1998 Lyster 2004) or which is provided within thecontext of language teaching where the overall orientation includes astrong focus on language form (Lyster amp Mori 2006) Adult learners ina variety of language learning contexts have been shown to be moreaware of integrated FFI as feedback on language form (see eg EllisBasturkmen amp Loewen 2001 Ohta 2000)

Language-Learning Aptitude

Learners who perform well on language aptitude tests or have moremetalinguistic knowledge and skill in their L1 may be better able tonotice and focus on language form within a communicative context thanthose with poorer aptitude and metalinguistic ability It has been hypoth-esized that learners with poor metalinguistic skills in their own languagemay require more explicit (possibly isolated) instruction to help themidentify some formndashmeaning connections (Ranta 2002) Mackey PhilpEgi Fujii and Tomoaki (2002) found that adult learners with higherscores on tests of working memory were more likely to report that theynoticed interactional (integrated) feedback in the form of recasts (seealso Robinson 2002)

198 TESOL QUARTERLY

Learner and Teacher Preferences for How to Teach or LearnAbout Form

Research on studentsrsquo beliefs and opinions about FFI (ie instructionand corrective feedback) has revealed that teachersrsquo and studentsrsquo viewsoften differ In two large-scale studies Schulz (1996 2001) found thatvirtually all students expressed a desire to have their errors corrected butvery few teachers felt this was desirable In addition students were morelikely than teachers to say that formal study of the language is ldquoessentialto the eventual mastery of a [foreign language]rdquo (2001 p 247) Mis-matches like these have long been reported in the literature (Cathcart ampOlsen 1976 Yorio 1986) The effects of matches and mismatches on L2learning have also been investigated (eg Spada 1987 Wesche 1981)and there is some evidence that learners benefit most from instructionthat suits their preferences (see Doumlrnyei 2005 for summary and discus-sion)

Other factors such as individual learning styles and previous experi-ence learning languages can also lead to different preferences for learn-ing As indicated earlier some L2 learners who have learned languagesvia traditional structure-based approaches often have strong preferencesfor continuing to learn via isolated grammar practice Other L2 learnerswho have learned languages informally may respond more positively toFFI that is integrated with meaning What is clear is that characteristicssuch as these can interact with type of instruction in complex waysleading to more or less successful learning (Skehan 1989)

It is not only learners who have different preferences for isolatedandor integrated FFI So do teachers Research on teacher cognitionhas revealed that L2 teachers often teach grammar in the way in whichthey were taught it themselves (Borg 2003 Farrell 1999) There is alsoevidence of a direct relationship between what teachers know aboutgrammar and how they teach it That is the extent to which grammar istaught deductively depends on how much metalinguistic knowledgeteachers possess (Borg 2001 Brumfit Mitchell amp Hooper 1996) Ofcourse there are L2 instructors who do not believe that grammar in-struction is useful In a study comparing second (English) and foreign(French) language instruction Mitchell and Hooper (1992) observedthat the English teachers rarely focused on language or explicit grammarwork but the foreign language teachers regularly did so When inter-viewed about this finding the English teachers expressed the opinionthat this type of activity was not of primary importance for developingstudentsrsquo linguistic abilitymdasha response that is not atypical of L2 instruc-tors who have adopted the strong version of CLT

It is often observed that teachers who are teaching their own nativelanguage may not have as good a grasp of the formal grammar of the

FORM-FOCUSED INSTRUCTION ISOLATED OR INTEGRATED 199

language as those whose learning has included form-focused L2 instruc-tion In a study of teachersrsquo practices Borg (1998) observed that deci-sions to include explicit formal instruction are not always based on teach-ersrsquo belief that grammar instruction works but rather on their belief thatstudents expect it He also observed that when teaching grammar teach-ers do not necessarily adhere exclusively to one particular approach(eg deductive or inductive) but will combine and alternate betweenthem Similarly in a study of 48 teachersrsquo attitudes to explicit or implicitteaching of grammar in an English for academic purposes (EAP) pro-gram Burgess and Etherington (2002) report that the majority of teach-ers believed that it is useful to integrate grammar within authentic textsrather than teach it explicitly using a grammatical syllabus At the sametime however they also expressed the belief that not all grammaticalknowledge can be learned implicitly and thus advocated explicit instruc-tion as well In our research investigating the preferences of teachers andadult learners for integrated or isolated FFI we have found that neithergroup expresses a consistent preference for one over the other Theyvalue both (Spada 2006b)

CONCLUSION

Research and theory suggest that there is a role in CLT and CBI forboth isolated and integrated FFI Each type of instruction may play adifferent role in promoting language acquisition Research and experi-ence in CLT and CBI affirm that not all language features need to betaught in isolated lessons Instead the current research on classroomlearning shows that incidental learning allows students to acquire a greatdeal of language while focused on meaning in CLT and CBI The addi-tion of integrated FFI can contribute to the automatization of languagefeatures that have emerged in studentsrsquo language but that are not usedreliably when there are competing demands for attention

Integrated FFI includes a wide range of approaches including thekind of implicit feedback that occurs as the need or opportunity arisesas well as the kind of planned interaction that requires the repeated butnatural use of a particular language form Nevertheless isolated lessonsmay be useful or even essential in promoting the acquisition of somelanguage features These features include those that are hard to perceivein the normal stream of communicative speech those for which there isa misleading similarity to the L1 and those that are unlikely to causecommunication breakdown We are currently designing quasi-experimental studies to explore the contributions of both types of FFI

The importance of isolated lessons will be determined by differences

200 TESOL QUARTERLY

in the specific language feature that is being taught as well as by differ-ences in learnersrsquo and teachersrsquo characteristics abilities and prefer-ences We find no evidence to support a suggestion that isolated gram-mar lessons without opportunities for communicative language useshould again become the dominant approach to language instructionIsolated lessons are a starting point or a follow-up for communicative orcontent-based activities Above all they should not be expected to resultin studentsrsquo immediate incorporation of the feature in focus into theircommunicative language use Nevertheless such lessons can preparestudents to make the best use of opportunities for continuing their lan-guage acquisition in meaning-focused activities and integrated FFI whenit occurs

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

The reviewers who provided feedback on earlier versions of the manuscript helpedus to make this a better article We did not always agree with the reviewers (whoindeed strongly disagreed with each other) but their feedback helped us under-stand and present our own views better We are also grateful to the graduate studentsand research assistants in N Spadarsquos research group at OISEUT for their insightfulcomments on this manuscript and related literature

THE AUTHORS

Nina Spada is a professor in the Second Language Education program at OISEUniversity of Toronto Ontario Canada where she teaches courses in L2 teachingand learning Her research focuses on the contributions of form-focused instructionto the L2 development of children and adults in communicative programs

Patsy M Lightbown is Distinguished Professor Emeritus of Concordia UniversityMontreal Canada and a former president of AAAL Her research explores relation-ships between L2 teaching and learning especially for children and adolescents

REFERENCES

Alanen R (1995) Input enhancement and rule presentation in second languageacquisition In R Schmidt (Ed) Attention and awareness in foreign language learningand teaching (pp 259ndash302) Honolulu University of Hawairsquoi Press

Ammar A amp Spada N (2006) One size fits all Recasts prompts and L2 learningStudies in Second Language Acquisition 28 543ndash574

Anderson J (1982) Acquisition of cognitive skill Psychological Review 89 369ndash406Barcroft J (2002) Semantic and structural elaboration in L2 lexical acquisition

Language Learning 52 323ndash363Barkhuizen G P (1998) Discovering learnersrsquo perceptions of ESL classroom teach-

inglearning activities in a South African context TESOL Quarterly 32 85ndash108

FORM-FOCUSED INSTRUCTION ISOLATED OR INTEGRATED 201

general than the related rule in the L2 White (1991) discusses thisproblem with specific reference to differences between adverb place-ment in French and English subject-verb-object sentences and advocatesisolated FFI as a way of helping learners perceive those differences

Salience in the Input

Isolated FFI may be beneficial with features that are relatively simpleto explain or illustrate but are not particularly salient in oral languageDrawing attention to them in isolation may help learners seehear lan-guage features they have not been noticing in the input the first step onthe path to acquisition Although some studies have reported benefits ofinput enhancement that is increasing frequency andor salience of lan-guage features in the input (Alanen 1995 Doughty 1991) others havereported partial or no benefits (Spada amp Lightbown 1999 Trahey ampWhite 1993 White 1998) These conflicting findings appear to be re-lated to differences in the kind of enhancement More explicit enhance-ment appears to lead to more L2 progress than less explicit enhance-ment (Norris amp Ortega 2000)9 This finding suggests that isolated FFImight be useful for creating the necessary salience to help learners no-tice language forms that occur frequently but are semantically redun-dant or phonologically reduced or imperceptible in the oral input Suchforms could include for example third-person -s in English and adjec-tive agreement morphology in French

Input Frequency

Isolated FFI may also help ensure that students have opportunities tolearn forms that are rare or absent in the language they are exposed toin the CLT or CBI classroom Lyster (1994b) reports findings to supportthis idea in his investigation of the effects of FFI on the learning of thesociolinguistic distinction between second-person pronouns tu and vousin French immersion classrooms Students were familiar with the singu-larplural distinction between these two words but the social dynamicsof the classroom in which they were learning French did not give themopportunities to observe the politeness distinctions that are signaled bythe different pronoun forms Lyster developed an instructional interven-

9 It may also be that explicit instruction seems to have some benefits because the assessmentmeasures used favor explicit knowledge (see Doughty 2003 for discussion) Norris andOrtega (2000 p 501) themselves acknowledge this possibility but argue that their findingscannot be explained by this single variable

FORM-FOCUSED INSTRUCTION ISOLATED OR INTEGRATED 195

tion that included opportunities for isolated FFI Drawing studentsrsquo at-tention to this distinction probably prepared them to notice the use ofthe forms in the communicative and integrated FFI activities that fol-lowed and their ability to use these forms improved significantly

Rule Complexity

It has been suggested that integrated FFI may be a more appropriateapproach to instruction for language features that are complex and haverules that are difficult to describe However although there is someintuitive agreement about a distinction between hard and easy rules it isnot always clear what is meant by these terms (see Hulstijn 1995 Hulstijnamp DeGraaff 1994 for useful attempts to define them) Furthermore asDeKeyser (2003) points out in addition to the inherent difficulty of aform or a rule there is also subjective difficulty ldquoRule difficulty is anindividual issue that can be described as the ratio of the rulersquos inherentlinguistic complexity to the studentsrsquo ability to handle such a rulemdasha ruleof moderate difficulty for one student may be easy for a student withmore language learning aptitude or language learning experiencerdquo (p331)

A fairly widespread assumption in the SLA literature is that that whileeasy rules can be taught hard rules are by their very nature too complexto be successfully taught in isolated instruction and thus are difficult tolearn through traditional explanation and practice pedagogy that is iso-lated from communicative use of the language Thus integrated FFI maybe more suitable for complexabstract features such as the article sys-tem in English In laboratory studies to investigate the learning of simpleand complex morphosyntactic rules DeKeyser (1995) and Robinson(1996) provide some support for this idea Participants in those studieslearned simple morphosyntactic rules better under conditions of ex-plicit-deductive learning and more complex rules better under implicit-inductive conditions Conclusions drawn from these studies remain con-troversial however and are perhaps best seen as hypotheses in need offurther study

Communicative Value

Integrated FFI may also be particularly useful with features in whicherrors are more likely to lead to communication breakdowns (eg En-glish possessive pronouns his and her) Lightbown (1998) suggests thatL2 learners at various levels of proficiency are more likely to be able tofocus on form and meaning at the same time when the ldquoform in focus ( )

196 TESOL QUARTERLY

is an important carrier of the meaning in focusrdquo (p 192) However whenerrors do not interfere with meaning (eg the absence of inversion inquestions such as What she is reading) isolation from communicativeinteraction may be necessary if learners are to notice the differencebetween what they say and the correct way to say what they mean (SpadaLightbown amp White 2005) The relative importance of using the rightword as compared with using the right grammar is also reflected inSchwartzrsquos (1993) observation that instruction and feedback are morelikely to lead to changes in learnersrsquo knowledge and use of lexical itemsthan of morphology and syntax Mackey Gass and McDonough (2000)have observed that recasts a typical characteristic of integrated FFI aremore likely to be noticed when the element being recast is a lexical itemthan when it is a morphosyntactic element (see also Lyster 1998)

Learnersrsquo Developmental Level

Once a language feature has emerged in learnersrsquo interlanguage (seePienemann 1998) more fluent and accurate use of that feature may bestbe encouraged through integrated FFI Several studies on FFI have re-ported that L2 learners benefit most from FFI when they are at a devel-opmental level in their language acquisition that enables them to com-pare their use of particular forms with that of native and more proficientspeakers (Mackey amp Philp 1998 Spada amp Lightbown 1999) Related tothis finding is the observation that learnersrsquo receptive and productiveabilities do not develop in the same way or at the same rate Howeverrecent research investigating the effects of both input- (ie comprehen-sion) and output- (ie production) based practice on L2 developmentindicates that both comprehension and production improve as long asthe practice is meaningful and learners are encouraged to make formndashmeaning connections (Morgan-Short amp Wood Bowden 2006 see alsoDeKeyser 1998)

As noted earlier learners may need isolated FFI such as VanPattenrsquosprocessing instruction to help them detect and understand formndashmeaning relationships for language features that have low salience lowfrequency or low communicative value Once the features have emergedin the interlanguage or once the formndashmeaning connections have beenmade the development of greater fluency is likely to be favored byintegrated FFI Ammar and Spada (2006) found that French-speakingchildren who were already more proficient in using possessive determin-ers his and her were able to take advantage of integrated instructionwhether in the form of recasts (where the teacher provides the correctform) or prompts (where the teacher elicits a correction from the stu-dent) However students who were less proficient benefited more from

FORM-FOCUSED INSTRUCTION ISOLATED OR INTEGRATED 197

prompts than recasts suggesting that they had greater difficulty recog-nizing the purpose of the feedback

Learnersrsquo Age

In general older learners especially those with experience in thestudy of their own or other languages are more receptive to isolatedgrammatical instruction (see eg Barkhuizen 1998) Outside the class-room in environments where they are completely immersed in the tar-get language very young learners often acquire L2 proficiency with littleor no FFI Older children adolescents and adults however appear tobenefit from instruction and may even depend on it because of the waysin which their language-learning abilities differ from those of youngchildren (Bley-Vroman 1988 DeKeyser 2000) especially if their contactwith the language is limited to the second or foreign language classroom

Research in CLT and CBI contexts has shown that children do notalways recognize integrated FFI (including enhanced input and implicitrecasts) as responses to language form rather than meaning (eg Lysteramp Ranta 1997) However they do respond to integrated feedback whichis explicit (eg through the use of emphasis prompting and elicitationas well as other nonverbal signals see eg Ammar amp Spada 2006Doughty amp Varela 1998 Lyster 2004) or which is provided within thecontext of language teaching where the overall orientation includes astrong focus on language form (Lyster amp Mori 2006) Adult learners ina variety of language learning contexts have been shown to be moreaware of integrated FFI as feedback on language form (see eg EllisBasturkmen amp Loewen 2001 Ohta 2000)

Language-Learning Aptitude

Learners who perform well on language aptitude tests or have moremetalinguistic knowledge and skill in their L1 may be better able tonotice and focus on language form within a communicative context thanthose with poorer aptitude and metalinguistic ability It has been hypoth-esized that learners with poor metalinguistic skills in their own languagemay require more explicit (possibly isolated) instruction to help themidentify some formndashmeaning connections (Ranta 2002) Mackey PhilpEgi Fujii and Tomoaki (2002) found that adult learners with higherscores on tests of working memory were more likely to report that theynoticed interactional (integrated) feedback in the form of recasts (seealso Robinson 2002)

198 TESOL QUARTERLY

Learner and Teacher Preferences for How to Teach or LearnAbout Form

Research on studentsrsquo beliefs and opinions about FFI (ie instructionand corrective feedback) has revealed that teachersrsquo and studentsrsquo viewsoften differ In two large-scale studies Schulz (1996 2001) found thatvirtually all students expressed a desire to have their errors corrected butvery few teachers felt this was desirable In addition students were morelikely than teachers to say that formal study of the language is ldquoessentialto the eventual mastery of a [foreign language]rdquo (2001 p 247) Mis-matches like these have long been reported in the literature (Cathcart ampOlsen 1976 Yorio 1986) The effects of matches and mismatches on L2learning have also been investigated (eg Spada 1987 Wesche 1981)and there is some evidence that learners benefit most from instructionthat suits their preferences (see Doumlrnyei 2005 for summary and discus-sion)

Other factors such as individual learning styles and previous experi-ence learning languages can also lead to different preferences for learn-ing As indicated earlier some L2 learners who have learned languagesvia traditional structure-based approaches often have strong preferencesfor continuing to learn via isolated grammar practice Other L2 learnerswho have learned languages informally may respond more positively toFFI that is integrated with meaning What is clear is that characteristicssuch as these can interact with type of instruction in complex waysleading to more or less successful learning (Skehan 1989)

It is not only learners who have different preferences for isolatedandor integrated FFI So do teachers Research on teacher cognitionhas revealed that L2 teachers often teach grammar in the way in whichthey were taught it themselves (Borg 2003 Farrell 1999) There is alsoevidence of a direct relationship between what teachers know aboutgrammar and how they teach it That is the extent to which grammar istaught deductively depends on how much metalinguistic knowledgeteachers possess (Borg 2001 Brumfit Mitchell amp Hooper 1996) Ofcourse there are L2 instructors who do not believe that grammar in-struction is useful In a study comparing second (English) and foreign(French) language instruction Mitchell and Hooper (1992) observedthat the English teachers rarely focused on language or explicit grammarwork but the foreign language teachers regularly did so When inter-viewed about this finding the English teachers expressed the opinionthat this type of activity was not of primary importance for developingstudentsrsquo linguistic abilitymdasha response that is not atypical of L2 instruc-tors who have adopted the strong version of CLT

It is often observed that teachers who are teaching their own nativelanguage may not have as good a grasp of the formal grammar of the

FORM-FOCUSED INSTRUCTION ISOLATED OR INTEGRATED 199

language as those whose learning has included form-focused L2 instruc-tion In a study of teachersrsquo practices Borg (1998) observed that deci-sions to include explicit formal instruction are not always based on teach-ersrsquo belief that grammar instruction works but rather on their belief thatstudents expect it He also observed that when teaching grammar teach-ers do not necessarily adhere exclusively to one particular approach(eg deductive or inductive) but will combine and alternate betweenthem Similarly in a study of 48 teachersrsquo attitudes to explicit or implicitteaching of grammar in an English for academic purposes (EAP) pro-gram Burgess and Etherington (2002) report that the majority of teach-ers believed that it is useful to integrate grammar within authentic textsrather than teach it explicitly using a grammatical syllabus At the sametime however they also expressed the belief that not all grammaticalknowledge can be learned implicitly and thus advocated explicit instruc-tion as well In our research investigating the preferences of teachers andadult learners for integrated or isolated FFI we have found that neithergroup expresses a consistent preference for one over the other Theyvalue both (Spada 2006b)

CONCLUSION

Research and theory suggest that there is a role in CLT and CBI forboth isolated and integrated FFI Each type of instruction may play adifferent role in promoting language acquisition Research and experi-ence in CLT and CBI affirm that not all language features need to betaught in isolated lessons Instead the current research on classroomlearning shows that incidental learning allows students to acquire a greatdeal of language while focused on meaning in CLT and CBI The addi-tion of integrated FFI can contribute to the automatization of languagefeatures that have emerged in studentsrsquo language but that are not usedreliably when there are competing demands for attention

Integrated FFI includes a wide range of approaches including thekind of implicit feedback that occurs as the need or opportunity arisesas well as the kind of planned interaction that requires the repeated butnatural use of a particular language form Nevertheless isolated lessonsmay be useful or even essential in promoting the acquisition of somelanguage features These features include those that are hard to perceivein the normal stream of communicative speech those for which there isa misleading similarity to the L1 and those that are unlikely to causecommunication breakdown We are currently designing quasi-experimental studies to explore the contributions of both types of FFI

The importance of isolated lessons will be determined by differences

200 TESOL QUARTERLY

in the specific language feature that is being taught as well as by differ-ences in learnersrsquo and teachersrsquo characteristics abilities and prefer-ences We find no evidence to support a suggestion that isolated gram-mar lessons without opportunities for communicative language useshould again become the dominant approach to language instructionIsolated lessons are a starting point or a follow-up for communicative orcontent-based activities Above all they should not be expected to resultin studentsrsquo immediate incorporation of the feature in focus into theircommunicative language use Nevertheless such lessons can preparestudents to make the best use of opportunities for continuing their lan-guage acquisition in meaning-focused activities and integrated FFI whenit occurs

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

The reviewers who provided feedback on earlier versions of the manuscript helpedus to make this a better article We did not always agree with the reviewers (whoindeed strongly disagreed with each other) but their feedback helped us under-stand and present our own views better We are also grateful to the graduate studentsand research assistants in N Spadarsquos research group at OISEUT for their insightfulcomments on this manuscript and related literature

THE AUTHORS

Nina Spada is a professor in the Second Language Education program at OISEUniversity of Toronto Ontario Canada where she teaches courses in L2 teachingand learning Her research focuses on the contributions of form-focused instructionto the L2 development of children and adults in communicative programs

Patsy M Lightbown is Distinguished Professor Emeritus of Concordia UniversityMontreal Canada and a former president of AAAL Her research explores relation-ships between L2 teaching and learning especially for children and adolescents

REFERENCES

Alanen R (1995) Input enhancement and rule presentation in second languageacquisition In R Schmidt (Ed) Attention and awareness in foreign language learningand teaching (pp 259ndash302) Honolulu University of Hawairsquoi Press

Ammar A amp Spada N (2006) One size fits all Recasts prompts and L2 learningStudies in Second Language Acquisition 28 543ndash574

Anderson J (1982) Acquisition of cognitive skill Psychological Review 89 369ndash406Barcroft J (2002) Semantic and structural elaboration in L2 lexical acquisition

Language Learning 52 323ndash363Barkhuizen G P (1998) Discovering learnersrsquo perceptions of ESL classroom teach-

inglearning activities in a South African context TESOL Quarterly 32 85ndash108

FORM-FOCUSED INSTRUCTION ISOLATED OR INTEGRATED 201

tion that included opportunities for isolated FFI Drawing studentsrsquo at-tention to this distinction probably prepared them to notice the use ofthe forms in the communicative and integrated FFI activities that fol-lowed and their ability to use these forms improved significantly

Rule Complexity

It has been suggested that integrated FFI may be a more appropriateapproach to instruction for language features that are complex and haverules that are difficult to describe However although there is someintuitive agreement about a distinction between hard and easy rules it isnot always clear what is meant by these terms (see Hulstijn 1995 Hulstijnamp DeGraaff 1994 for useful attempts to define them) Furthermore asDeKeyser (2003) points out in addition to the inherent difficulty of aform or a rule there is also subjective difficulty ldquoRule difficulty is anindividual issue that can be described as the ratio of the rulersquos inherentlinguistic complexity to the studentsrsquo ability to handle such a rulemdasha ruleof moderate difficulty for one student may be easy for a student withmore language learning aptitude or language learning experiencerdquo (p331)

A fairly widespread assumption in the SLA literature is that that whileeasy rules can be taught hard rules are by their very nature too complexto be successfully taught in isolated instruction and thus are difficult tolearn through traditional explanation and practice pedagogy that is iso-lated from communicative use of the language Thus integrated FFI maybe more suitable for complexabstract features such as the article sys-tem in English In laboratory studies to investigate the learning of simpleand complex morphosyntactic rules DeKeyser (1995) and Robinson(1996) provide some support for this idea Participants in those studieslearned simple morphosyntactic rules better under conditions of ex-plicit-deductive learning and more complex rules better under implicit-inductive conditions Conclusions drawn from these studies remain con-troversial however and are perhaps best seen as hypotheses in need offurther study

Communicative Value

Integrated FFI may also be particularly useful with features in whicherrors are more likely to lead to communication breakdowns (eg En-glish possessive pronouns his and her) Lightbown (1998) suggests thatL2 learners at various levels of proficiency are more likely to be able tofocus on form and meaning at the same time when the ldquoform in focus ( )

196 TESOL QUARTERLY

is an important carrier of the meaning in focusrdquo (p 192) However whenerrors do not interfere with meaning (eg the absence of inversion inquestions such as What she is reading) isolation from communicativeinteraction may be necessary if learners are to notice the differencebetween what they say and the correct way to say what they mean (SpadaLightbown amp White 2005) The relative importance of using the rightword as compared with using the right grammar is also reflected inSchwartzrsquos (1993) observation that instruction and feedback are morelikely to lead to changes in learnersrsquo knowledge and use of lexical itemsthan of morphology and syntax Mackey Gass and McDonough (2000)have observed that recasts a typical characteristic of integrated FFI aremore likely to be noticed when the element being recast is a lexical itemthan when it is a morphosyntactic element (see also Lyster 1998)

Learnersrsquo Developmental Level

Once a language feature has emerged in learnersrsquo interlanguage (seePienemann 1998) more fluent and accurate use of that feature may bestbe encouraged through integrated FFI Several studies on FFI have re-ported that L2 learners benefit most from FFI when they are at a devel-opmental level in their language acquisition that enables them to com-pare their use of particular forms with that of native and more proficientspeakers (Mackey amp Philp 1998 Spada amp Lightbown 1999) Related tothis finding is the observation that learnersrsquo receptive and productiveabilities do not develop in the same way or at the same rate Howeverrecent research investigating the effects of both input- (ie comprehen-sion) and output- (ie production) based practice on L2 developmentindicates that both comprehension and production improve as long asthe practice is meaningful and learners are encouraged to make formndashmeaning connections (Morgan-Short amp Wood Bowden 2006 see alsoDeKeyser 1998)

As noted earlier learners may need isolated FFI such as VanPattenrsquosprocessing instruction to help them detect and understand formndashmeaning relationships for language features that have low salience lowfrequency or low communicative value Once the features have emergedin the interlanguage or once the formndashmeaning connections have beenmade the development of greater fluency is likely to be favored byintegrated FFI Ammar and Spada (2006) found that French-speakingchildren who were already more proficient in using possessive determin-ers his and her were able to take advantage of integrated instructionwhether in the form of recasts (where the teacher provides the correctform) or prompts (where the teacher elicits a correction from the stu-dent) However students who were less proficient benefited more from

FORM-FOCUSED INSTRUCTION ISOLATED OR INTEGRATED 197

prompts than recasts suggesting that they had greater difficulty recog-nizing the purpose of the feedback

Learnersrsquo Age

In general older learners especially those with experience in thestudy of their own or other languages are more receptive to isolatedgrammatical instruction (see eg Barkhuizen 1998) Outside the class-room in environments where they are completely immersed in the tar-get language very young learners often acquire L2 proficiency with littleor no FFI Older children adolescents and adults however appear tobenefit from instruction and may even depend on it because of the waysin which their language-learning abilities differ from those of youngchildren (Bley-Vroman 1988 DeKeyser 2000) especially if their contactwith the language is limited to the second or foreign language classroom

Research in CLT and CBI contexts has shown that children do notalways recognize integrated FFI (including enhanced input and implicitrecasts) as responses to language form rather than meaning (eg Lysteramp Ranta 1997) However they do respond to integrated feedback whichis explicit (eg through the use of emphasis prompting and elicitationas well as other nonverbal signals see eg Ammar amp Spada 2006Doughty amp Varela 1998 Lyster 2004) or which is provided within thecontext of language teaching where the overall orientation includes astrong focus on language form (Lyster amp Mori 2006) Adult learners ina variety of language learning contexts have been shown to be moreaware of integrated FFI as feedback on language form (see eg EllisBasturkmen amp Loewen 2001 Ohta 2000)

Language-Learning Aptitude

Learners who perform well on language aptitude tests or have moremetalinguistic knowledge and skill in their L1 may be better able tonotice and focus on language form within a communicative context thanthose with poorer aptitude and metalinguistic ability It has been hypoth-esized that learners with poor metalinguistic skills in their own languagemay require more explicit (possibly isolated) instruction to help themidentify some formndashmeaning connections (Ranta 2002) Mackey PhilpEgi Fujii and Tomoaki (2002) found that adult learners with higherscores on tests of working memory were more likely to report that theynoticed interactional (integrated) feedback in the form of recasts (seealso Robinson 2002)

198 TESOL QUARTERLY

Learner and Teacher Preferences for How to Teach or LearnAbout Form

Research on studentsrsquo beliefs and opinions about FFI (ie instructionand corrective feedback) has revealed that teachersrsquo and studentsrsquo viewsoften differ In two large-scale studies Schulz (1996 2001) found thatvirtually all students expressed a desire to have their errors corrected butvery few teachers felt this was desirable In addition students were morelikely than teachers to say that formal study of the language is ldquoessentialto the eventual mastery of a [foreign language]rdquo (2001 p 247) Mis-matches like these have long been reported in the literature (Cathcart ampOlsen 1976 Yorio 1986) The effects of matches and mismatches on L2learning have also been investigated (eg Spada 1987 Wesche 1981)and there is some evidence that learners benefit most from instructionthat suits their preferences (see Doumlrnyei 2005 for summary and discus-sion)

Other factors such as individual learning styles and previous experi-ence learning languages can also lead to different preferences for learn-ing As indicated earlier some L2 learners who have learned languagesvia traditional structure-based approaches often have strong preferencesfor continuing to learn via isolated grammar practice Other L2 learnerswho have learned languages informally may respond more positively toFFI that is integrated with meaning What is clear is that characteristicssuch as these can interact with type of instruction in complex waysleading to more or less successful learning (Skehan 1989)

It is not only learners who have different preferences for isolatedandor integrated FFI So do teachers Research on teacher cognitionhas revealed that L2 teachers often teach grammar in the way in whichthey were taught it themselves (Borg 2003 Farrell 1999) There is alsoevidence of a direct relationship between what teachers know aboutgrammar and how they teach it That is the extent to which grammar istaught deductively depends on how much metalinguistic knowledgeteachers possess (Borg 2001 Brumfit Mitchell amp Hooper 1996) Ofcourse there are L2 instructors who do not believe that grammar in-struction is useful In a study comparing second (English) and foreign(French) language instruction Mitchell and Hooper (1992) observedthat the English teachers rarely focused on language or explicit grammarwork but the foreign language teachers regularly did so When inter-viewed about this finding the English teachers expressed the opinionthat this type of activity was not of primary importance for developingstudentsrsquo linguistic abilitymdasha response that is not atypical of L2 instruc-tors who have adopted the strong version of CLT

It is often observed that teachers who are teaching their own nativelanguage may not have as good a grasp of the formal grammar of the

FORM-FOCUSED INSTRUCTION ISOLATED OR INTEGRATED 199

language as those whose learning has included form-focused L2 instruc-tion In a study of teachersrsquo practices Borg (1998) observed that deci-sions to include explicit formal instruction are not always based on teach-ersrsquo belief that grammar instruction works but rather on their belief thatstudents expect it He also observed that when teaching grammar teach-ers do not necessarily adhere exclusively to one particular approach(eg deductive or inductive) but will combine and alternate betweenthem Similarly in a study of 48 teachersrsquo attitudes to explicit or implicitteaching of grammar in an English for academic purposes (EAP) pro-gram Burgess and Etherington (2002) report that the majority of teach-ers believed that it is useful to integrate grammar within authentic textsrather than teach it explicitly using a grammatical syllabus At the sametime however they also expressed the belief that not all grammaticalknowledge can be learned implicitly and thus advocated explicit instruc-tion as well In our research investigating the preferences of teachers andadult learners for integrated or isolated FFI we have found that neithergroup expresses a consistent preference for one over the other Theyvalue both (Spada 2006b)

CONCLUSION

Research and theory suggest that there is a role in CLT and CBI forboth isolated and integrated FFI Each type of instruction may play adifferent role in promoting language acquisition Research and experi-ence in CLT and CBI affirm that not all language features need to betaught in isolated lessons Instead the current research on classroomlearning shows that incidental learning allows students to acquire a greatdeal of language while focused on meaning in CLT and CBI The addi-tion of integrated FFI can contribute to the automatization of languagefeatures that have emerged in studentsrsquo language but that are not usedreliably when there are competing demands for attention

Integrated FFI includes a wide range of approaches including thekind of implicit feedback that occurs as the need or opportunity arisesas well as the kind of planned interaction that requires the repeated butnatural use of a particular language form Nevertheless isolated lessonsmay be useful or even essential in promoting the acquisition of somelanguage features These features include those that are hard to perceivein the normal stream of communicative speech those for which there isa misleading similarity to the L1 and those that are unlikely to causecommunication breakdown We are currently designing quasi-experimental studies to explore the contributions of both types of FFI

The importance of isolated lessons will be determined by differences

200 TESOL QUARTERLY

in the specific language feature that is being taught as well as by differ-ences in learnersrsquo and teachersrsquo characteristics abilities and prefer-ences We find no evidence to support a suggestion that isolated gram-mar lessons without opportunities for communicative language useshould again become the dominant approach to language instructionIsolated lessons are a starting point or a follow-up for communicative orcontent-based activities Above all they should not be expected to resultin studentsrsquo immediate incorporation of the feature in focus into theircommunicative language use Nevertheless such lessons can preparestudents to make the best use of opportunities for continuing their lan-guage acquisition in meaning-focused activities and integrated FFI whenit occurs

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

The reviewers who provided feedback on earlier versions of the manuscript helpedus to make this a better article We did not always agree with the reviewers (whoindeed strongly disagreed with each other) but their feedback helped us under-stand and present our own views better We are also grateful to the graduate studentsand research assistants in N Spadarsquos research group at OISEUT for their insightfulcomments on this manuscript and related literature

THE AUTHORS

Nina Spada is a professor in the Second Language Education program at OISEUniversity of Toronto Ontario Canada where she teaches courses in L2 teachingand learning Her research focuses on the contributions of form-focused instructionto the L2 development of children and adults in communicative programs

Patsy M Lightbown is Distinguished Professor Emeritus of Concordia UniversityMontreal Canada and a former president of AAAL Her research explores relation-ships between L2 teaching and learning especially for children and adolescents

REFERENCES

Alanen R (1995) Input enhancement and rule presentation in second languageacquisition In R Schmidt (Ed) Attention and awareness in foreign language learningand teaching (pp 259ndash302) Honolulu University of Hawairsquoi Press

Ammar A amp Spada N (2006) One size fits all Recasts prompts and L2 learningStudies in Second Language Acquisition 28 543ndash574

Anderson J (1982) Acquisition of cognitive skill Psychological Review 89 369ndash406Barcroft J (2002) Semantic and structural elaboration in L2 lexical acquisition

Language Learning 52 323ndash363Barkhuizen G P (1998) Discovering learnersrsquo perceptions of ESL classroom teach-

inglearning activities in a South African context TESOL Quarterly 32 85ndash108

FORM-FOCUSED INSTRUCTION ISOLATED OR INTEGRATED 201

is an important carrier of the meaning in focusrdquo (p 192) However whenerrors do not interfere with meaning (eg the absence of inversion inquestions such as What she is reading) isolation from communicativeinteraction may be necessary if learners are to notice the differencebetween what they say and the correct way to say what they mean (SpadaLightbown amp White 2005) The relative importance of using the rightword as compared with using the right grammar is also reflected inSchwartzrsquos (1993) observation that instruction and feedback are morelikely to lead to changes in learnersrsquo knowledge and use of lexical itemsthan of morphology and syntax Mackey Gass and McDonough (2000)have observed that recasts a typical characteristic of integrated FFI aremore likely to be noticed when the element being recast is a lexical itemthan when it is a morphosyntactic element (see also Lyster 1998)

Learnersrsquo Developmental Level

Once a language feature has emerged in learnersrsquo interlanguage (seePienemann 1998) more fluent and accurate use of that feature may bestbe encouraged through integrated FFI Several studies on FFI have re-ported that L2 learners benefit most from FFI when they are at a devel-opmental level in their language acquisition that enables them to com-pare their use of particular forms with that of native and more proficientspeakers (Mackey amp Philp 1998 Spada amp Lightbown 1999) Related tothis finding is the observation that learnersrsquo receptive and productiveabilities do not develop in the same way or at the same rate Howeverrecent research investigating the effects of both input- (ie comprehen-sion) and output- (ie production) based practice on L2 developmentindicates that both comprehension and production improve as long asthe practice is meaningful and learners are encouraged to make formndashmeaning connections (Morgan-Short amp Wood Bowden 2006 see alsoDeKeyser 1998)

As noted earlier learners may need isolated FFI such as VanPattenrsquosprocessing instruction to help them detect and understand formndashmeaning relationships for language features that have low salience lowfrequency or low communicative value Once the features have emergedin the interlanguage or once the formndashmeaning connections have beenmade the development of greater fluency is likely to be favored byintegrated FFI Ammar and Spada (2006) found that French-speakingchildren who were already more proficient in using possessive determin-ers his and her were able to take advantage of integrated instructionwhether in the form of recasts (where the teacher provides the correctform) or prompts (where the teacher elicits a correction from the stu-dent) However students who were less proficient benefited more from

FORM-FOCUSED INSTRUCTION ISOLATED OR INTEGRATED 197

prompts than recasts suggesting that they had greater difficulty recog-nizing the purpose of the feedback

Learnersrsquo Age

In general older learners especially those with experience in thestudy of their own or other languages are more receptive to isolatedgrammatical instruction (see eg Barkhuizen 1998) Outside the class-room in environments where they are completely immersed in the tar-get language very young learners often acquire L2 proficiency with littleor no FFI Older children adolescents and adults however appear tobenefit from instruction and may even depend on it because of the waysin which their language-learning abilities differ from those of youngchildren (Bley-Vroman 1988 DeKeyser 2000) especially if their contactwith the language is limited to the second or foreign language classroom

Research in CLT and CBI contexts has shown that children do notalways recognize integrated FFI (including enhanced input and implicitrecasts) as responses to language form rather than meaning (eg Lysteramp Ranta 1997) However they do respond to integrated feedback whichis explicit (eg through the use of emphasis prompting and elicitationas well as other nonverbal signals see eg Ammar amp Spada 2006Doughty amp Varela 1998 Lyster 2004) or which is provided within thecontext of language teaching where the overall orientation includes astrong focus on language form (Lyster amp Mori 2006) Adult learners ina variety of language learning contexts have been shown to be moreaware of integrated FFI as feedback on language form (see eg EllisBasturkmen amp Loewen 2001 Ohta 2000)

Language-Learning Aptitude

Learners who perform well on language aptitude tests or have moremetalinguistic knowledge and skill in their L1 may be better able tonotice and focus on language form within a communicative context thanthose with poorer aptitude and metalinguistic ability It has been hypoth-esized that learners with poor metalinguistic skills in their own languagemay require more explicit (possibly isolated) instruction to help themidentify some formndashmeaning connections (Ranta 2002) Mackey PhilpEgi Fujii and Tomoaki (2002) found that adult learners with higherscores on tests of working memory were more likely to report that theynoticed interactional (integrated) feedback in the form of recasts (seealso Robinson 2002)

198 TESOL QUARTERLY

Learner and Teacher Preferences for How to Teach or LearnAbout Form

Research on studentsrsquo beliefs and opinions about FFI (ie instructionand corrective feedback) has revealed that teachersrsquo and studentsrsquo viewsoften differ In two large-scale studies Schulz (1996 2001) found thatvirtually all students expressed a desire to have their errors corrected butvery few teachers felt this was desirable In addition students were morelikely than teachers to say that formal study of the language is ldquoessentialto the eventual mastery of a [foreign language]rdquo (2001 p 247) Mis-matches like these have long been reported in the literature (Cathcart ampOlsen 1976 Yorio 1986) The effects of matches and mismatches on L2learning have also been investigated (eg Spada 1987 Wesche 1981)and there is some evidence that learners benefit most from instructionthat suits their preferences (see Doumlrnyei 2005 for summary and discus-sion)

Other factors such as individual learning styles and previous experi-ence learning languages can also lead to different preferences for learn-ing As indicated earlier some L2 learners who have learned languagesvia traditional structure-based approaches often have strong preferencesfor continuing to learn via isolated grammar practice Other L2 learnerswho have learned languages informally may respond more positively toFFI that is integrated with meaning What is clear is that characteristicssuch as these can interact with type of instruction in complex waysleading to more or less successful learning (Skehan 1989)

It is not only learners who have different preferences for isolatedandor integrated FFI So do teachers Research on teacher cognitionhas revealed that L2 teachers often teach grammar in the way in whichthey were taught it themselves (Borg 2003 Farrell 1999) There is alsoevidence of a direct relationship between what teachers know aboutgrammar and how they teach it That is the extent to which grammar istaught deductively depends on how much metalinguistic knowledgeteachers possess (Borg 2001 Brumfit Mitchell amp Hooper 1996) Ofcourse there are L2 instructors who do not believe that grammar in-struction is useful In a study comparing second (English) and foreign(French) language instruction Mitchell and Hooper (1992) observedthat the English teachers rarely focused on language or explicit grammarwork but the foreign language teachers regularly did so When inter-viewed about this finding the English teachers expressed the opinionthat this type of activity was not of primary importance for developingstudentsrsquo linguistic abilitymdasha response that is not atypical of L2 instruc-tors who have adopted the strong version of CLT

It is often observed that teachers who are teaching their own nativelanguage may not have as good a grasp of the formal grammar of the

FORM-FOCUSED INSTRUCTION ISOLATED OR INTEGRATED 199

language as those whose learning has included form-focused L2 instruc-tion In a study of teachersrsquo practices Borg (1998) observed that deci-sions to include explicit formal instruction are not always based on teach-ersrsquo belief that grammar instruction works but rather on their belief thatstudents expect it He also observed that when teaching grammar teach-ers do not necessarily adhere exclusively to one particular approach(eg deductive or inductive) but will combine and alternate betweenthem Similarly in a study of 48 teachersrsquo attitudes to explicit or implicitteaching of grammar in an English for academic purposes (EAP) pro-gram Burgess and Etherington (2002) report that the majority of teach-ers believed that it is useful to integrate grammar within authentic textsrather than teach it explicitly using a grammatical syllabus At the sametime however they also expressed the belief that not all grammaticalknowledge can be learned implicitly and thus advocated explicit instruc-tion as well In our research investigating the preferences of teachers andadult learners for integrated or isolated FFI we have found that neithergroup expresses a consistent preference for one over the other Theyvalue both (Spada 2006b)

CONCLUSION

Research and theory suggest that there is a role in CLT and CBI forboth isolated and integrated FFI Each type of instruction may play adifferent role in promoting language acquisition Research and experi-ence in CLT and CBI affirm that not all language features need to betaught in isolated lessons Instead the current research on classroomlearning shows that incidental learning allows students to acquire a greatdeal of language while focused on meaning in CLT and CBI The addi-tion of integrated FFI can contribute to the automatization of languagefeatures that have emerged in studentsrsquo language but that are not usedreliably when there are competing demands for attention

Integrated FFI includes a wide range of approaches including thekind of implicit feedback that occurs as the need or opportunity arisesas well as the kind of planned interaction that requires the repeated butnatural use of a particular language form Nevertheless isolated lessonsmay be useful or even essential in promoting the acquisition of somelanguage features These features include those that are hard to perceivein the normal stream of communicative speech those for which there isa misleading similarity to the L1 and those that are unlikely to causecommunication breakdown We are currently designing quasi-experimental studies to explore the contributions of both types of FFI

The importance of isolated lessons will be determined by differences

200 TESOL QUARTERLY

in the specific language feature that is being taught as well as by differ-ences in learnersrsquo and teachersrsquo characteristics abilities and prefer-ences We find no evidence to support a suggestion that isolated gram-mar lessons without opportunities for communicative language useshould again become the dominant approach to language instructionIsolated lessons are a starting point or a follow-up for communicative orcontent-based activities Above all they should not be expected to resultin studentsrsquo immediate incorporation of the feature in focus into theircommunicative language use Nevertheless such lessons can preparestudents to make the best use of opportunities for continuing their lan-guage acquisition in meaning-focused activities and integrated FFI whenit occurs

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

The reviewers who provided feedback on earlier versions of the manuscript helpedus to make this a better article We did not always agree with the reviewers (whoindeed strongly disagreed with each other) but their feedback helped us under-stand and present our own views better We are also grateful to the graduate studentsand research assistants in N Spadarsquos research group at OISEUT for their insightfulcomments on this manuscript and related literature

THE AUTHORS

Nina Spada is a professor in the Second Language Education program at OISEUniversity of Toronto Ontario Canada where she teaches courses in L2 teachingand learning Her research focuses on the contributions of form-focused instructionto the L2 development of children and adults in communicative programs

Patsy M Lightbown is Distinguished Professor Emeritus of Concordia UniversityMontreal Canada and a former president of AAAL Her research explores relation-ships between L2 teaching and learning especially for children and adolescents

REFERENCES

Alanen R (1995) Input enhancement and rule presentation in second languageacquisition In R Schmidt (Ed) Attention and awareness in foreign language learningand teaching (pp 259ndash302) Honolulu University of Hawairsquoi Press

Ammar A amp Spada N (2006) One size fits all Recasts prompts and L2 learningStudies in Second Language Acquisition 28 543ndash574

Anderson J (1982) Acquisition of cognitive skill Psychological Review 89 369ndash406Barcroft J (2002) Semantic and structural elaboration in L2 lexical acquisition

Language Learning 52 323ndash363Barkhuizen G P (1998) Discovering learnersrsquo perceptions of ESL classroom teach-

inglearning activities in a South African context TESOL Quarterly 32 85ndash108

FORM-FOCUSED INSTRUCTION ISOLATED OR INTEGRATED 201

prompts than recasts suggesting that they had greater difficulty recog-nizing the purpose of the feedback

Learnersrsquo Age

In general older learners especially those with experience in thestudy of their own or other languages are more receptive to isolatedgrammatical instruction (see eg Barkhuizen 1998) Outside the class-room in environments where they are completely immersed in the tar-get language very young learners often acquire L2 proficiency with littleor no FFI Older children adolescents and adults however appear tobenefit from instruction and may even depend on it because of the waysin which their language-learning abilities differ from those of youngchildren (Bley-Vroman 1988 DeKeyser 2000) especially if their contactwith the language is limited to the second or foreign language classroom

Research in CLT and CBI contexts has shown that children do notalways recognize integrated FFI (including enhanced input and implicitrecasts) as responses to language form rather than meaning (eg Lysteramp Ranta 1997) However they do respond to integrated feedback whichis explicit (eg through the use of emphasis prompting and elicitationas well as other nonverbal signals see eg Ammar amp Spada 2006Doughty amp Varela 1998 Lyster 2004) or which is provided within thecontext of language teaching where the overall orientation includes astrong focus on language form (Lyster amp Mori 2006) Adult learners ina variety of language learning contexts have been shown to be moreaware of integrated FFI as feedback on language form (see eg EllisBasturkmen amp Loewen 2001 Ohta 2000)

Language-Learning Aptitude

Learners who perform well on language aptitude tests or have moremetalinguistic knowledge and skill in their L1 may be better able tonotice and focus on language form within a communicative context thanthose with poorer aptitude and metalinguistic ability It has been hypoth-esized that learners with poor metalinguistic skills in their own languagemay require more explicit (possibly isolated) instruction to help themidentify some formndashmeaning connections (Ranta 2002) Mackey PhilpEgi Fujii and Tomoaki (2002) found that adult learners with higherscores on tests of working memory were more likely to report that theynoticed interactional (integrated) feedback in the form of recasts (seealso Robinson 2002)

198 TESOL QUARTERLY

Learner and Teacher Preferences for How to Teach or LearnAbout Form

Research on studentsrsquo beliefs and opinions about FFI (ie instructionand corrective feedback) has revealed that teachersrsquo and studentsrsquo viewsoften differ In two large-scale studies Schulz (1996 2001) found thatvirtually all students expressed a desire to have their errors corrected butvery few teachers felt this was desirable In addition students were morelikely than teachers to say that formal study of the language is ldquoessentialto the eventual mastery of a [foreign language]rdquo (2001 p 247) Mis-matches like these have long been reported in the literature (Cathcart ampOlsen 1976 Yorio 1986) The effects of matches and mismatches on L2learning have also been investigated (eg Spada 1987 Wesche 1981)and there is some evidence that learners benefit most from instructionthat suits their preferences (see Doumlrnyei 2005 for summary and discus-sion)

Other factors such as individual learning styles and previous experi-ence learning languages can also lead to different preferences for learn-ing As indicated earlier some L2 learners who have learned languagesvia traditional structure-based approaches often have strong preferencesfor continuing to learn via isolated grammar practice Other L2 learnerswho have learned languages informally may respond more positively toFFI that is integrated with meaning What is clear is that characteristicssuch as these can interact with type of instruction in complex waysleading to more or less successful learning (Skehan 1989)

It is not only learners who have different preferences for isolatedandor integrated FFI So do teachers Research on teacher cognitionhas revealed that L2 teachers often teach grammar in the way in whichthey were taught it themselves (Borg 2003 Farrell 1999) There is alsoevidence of a direct relationship between what teachers know aboutgrammar and how they teach it That is the extent to which grammar istaught deductively depends on how much metalinguistic knowledgeteachers possess (Borg 2001 Brumfit Mitchell amp Hooper 1996) Ofcourse there are L2 instructors who do not believe that grammar in-struction is useful In a study comparing second (English) and foreign(French) language instruction Mitchell and Hooper (1992) observedthat the English teachers rarely focused on language or explicit grammarwork but the foreign language teachers regularly did so When inter-viewed about this finding the English teachers expressed the opinionthat this type of activity was not of primary importance for developingstudentsrsquo linguistic abilitymdasha response that is not atypical of L2 instruc-tors who have adopted the strong version of CLT

It is often observed that teachers who are teaching their own nativelanguage may not have as good a grasp of the formal grammar of the

FORM-FOCUSED INSTRUCTION ISOLATED OR INTEGRATED 199

language as those whose learning has included form-focused L2 instruc-tion In a study of teachersrsquo practices Borg (1998) observed that deci-sions to include explicit formal instruction are not always based on teach-ersrsquo belief that grammar instruction works but rather on their belief thatstudents expect it He also observed that when teaching grammar teach-ers do not necessarily adhere exclusively to one particular approach(eg deductive or inductive) but will combine and alternate betweenthem Similarly in a study of 48 teachersrsquo attitudes to explicit or implicitteaching of grammar in an English for academic purposes (EAP) pro-gram Burgess and Etherington (2002) report that the majority of teach-ers believed that it is useful to integrate grammar within authentic textsrather than teach it explicitly using a grammatical syllabus At the sametime however they also expressed the belief that not all grammaticalknowledge can be learned implicitly and thus advocated explicit instruc-tion as well In our research investigating the preferences of teachers andadult learners for integrated or isolated FFI we have found that neithergroup expresses a consistent preference for one over the other Theyvalue both (Spada 2006b)

CONCLUSION

Research and theory suggest that there is a role in CLT and CBI forboth isolated and integrated FFI Each type of instruction may play adifferent role in promoting language acquisition Research and experi-ence in CLT and CBI affirm that not all language features need to betaught in isolated lessons Instead the current research on classroomlearning shows that incidental learning allows students to acquire a greatdeal of language while focused on meaning in CLT and CBI The addi-tion of integrated FFI can contribute to the automatization of languagefeatures that have emerged in studentsrsquo language but that are not usedreliably when there are competing demands for attention

Integrated FFI includes a wide range of approaches including thekind of implicit feedback that occurs as the need or opportunity arisesas well as the kind of planned interaction that requires the repeated butnatural use of a particular language form Nevertheless isolated lessonsmay be useful or even essential in promoting the acquisition of somelanguage features These features include those that are hard to perceivein the normal stream of communicative speech those for which there isa misleading similarity to the L1 and those that are unlikely to causecommunication breakdown We are currently designing quasi-experimental studies to explore the contributions of both types of FFI

The importance of isolated lessons will be determined by differences

200 TESOL QUARTERLY

in the specific language feature that is being taught as well as by differ-ences in learnersrsquo and teachersrsquo characteristics abilities and prefer-ences We find no evidence to support a suggestion that isolated gram-mar lessons without opportunities for communicative language useshould again become the dominant approach to language instructionIsolated lessons are a starting point or a follow-up for communicative orcontent-based activities Above all they should not be expected to resultin studentsrsquo immediate incorporation of the feature in focus into theircommunicative language use Nevertheless such lessons can preparestudents to make the best use of opportunities for continuing their lan-guage acquisition in meaning-focused activities and integrated FFI whenit occurs

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

The reviewers who provided feedback on earlier versions of the manuscript helpedus to make this a better article We did not always agree with the reviewers (whoindeed strongly disagreed with each other) but their feedback helped us under-stand and present our own views better We are also grateful to the graduate studentsand research assistants in N Spadarsquos research group at OISEUT for their insightfulcomments on this manuscript and related literature

THE AUTHORS

Nina Spada is a professor in the Second Language Education program at OISEUniversity of Toronto Ontario Canada where she teaches courses in L2 teachingand learning Her research focuses on the contributions of form-focused instructionto the L2 development of children and adults in communicative programs

Patsy M Lightbown is Distinguished Professor Emeritus of Concordia UniversityMontreal Canada and a former president of AAAL Her research explores relation-ships between L2 teaching and learning especially for children and adolescents

REFERENCES

Alanen R (1995) Input enhancement and rule presentation in second languageacquisition In R Schmidt (Ed) Attention and awareness in foreign language learningand teaching (pp 259ndash302) Honolulu University of Hawairsquoi Press

Ammar A amp Spada N (2006) One size fits all Recasts prompts and L2 learningStudies in Second Language Acquisition 28 543ndash574

Anderson J (1982) Acquisition of cognitive skill Psychological Review 89 369ndash406Barcroft J (2002) Semantic and structural elaboration in L2 lexical acquisition

Language Learning 52 323ndash363Barkhuizen G P (1998) Discovering learnersrsquo perceptions of ESL classroom teach-

inglearning activities in a South African context TESOL Quarterly 32 85ndash108

FORM-FOCUSED INSTRUCTION ISOLATED OR INTEGRATED 201

Learner and Teacher Preferences for How to Teach or LearnAbout Form

Research on studentsrsquo beliefs and opinions about FFI (ie instructionand corrective feedback) has revealed that teachersrsquo and studentsrsquo viewsoften differ In two large-scale studies Schulz (1996 2001) found thatvirtually all students expressed a desire to have their errors corrected butvery few teachers felt this was desirable In addition students were morelikely than teachers to say that formal study of the language is ldquoessentialto the eventual mastery of a [foreign language]rdquo (2001 p 247) Mis-matches like these have long been reported in the literature (Cathcart ampOlsen 1976 Yorio 1986) The effects of matches and mismatches on L2learning have also been investigated (eg Spada 1987 Wesche 1981)and there is some evidence that learners benefit most from instructionthat suits their preferences (see Doumlrnyei 2005 for summary and discus-sion)

Other factors such as individual learning styles and previous experi-ence learning languages can also lead to different preferences for learn-ing As indicated earlier some L2 learners who have learned languagesvia traditional structure-based approaches often have strong preferencesfor continuing to learn via isolated grammar practice Other L2 learnerswho have learned languages informally may respond more positively toFFI that is integrated with meaning What is clear is that characteristicssuch as these can interact with type of instruction in complex waysleading to more or less successful learning (Skehan 1989)

It is not only learners who have different preferences for isolatedandor integrated FFI So do teachers Research on teacher cognitionhas revealed that L2 teachers often teach grammar in the way in whichthey were taught it themselves (Borg 2003 Farrell 1999) There is alsoevidence of a direct relationship between what teachers know aboutgrammar and how they teach it That is the extent to which grammar istaught deductively depends on how much metalinguistic knowledgeteachers possess (Borg 2001 Brumfit Mitchell amp Hooper 1996) Ofcourse there are L2 instructors who do not believe that grammar in-struction is useful In a study comparing second (English) and foreign(French) language instruction Mitchell and Hooper (1992) observedthat the English teachers rarely focused on language or explicit grammarwork but the foreign language teachers regularly did so When inter-viewed about this finding the English teachers expressed the opinionthat this type of activity was not of primary importance for developingstudentsrsquo linguistic abilitymdasha response that is not atypical of L2 instruc-tors who have adopted the strong version of CLT

It is often observed that teachers who are teaching their own nativelanguage may not have as good a grasp of the formal grammar of the

FORM-FOCUSED INSTRUCTION ISOLATED OR INTEGRATED 199

language as those whose learning has included form-focused L2 instruc-tion In a study of teachersrsquo practices Borg (1998) observed that deci-sions to include explicit formal instruction are not always based on teach-ersrsquo belief that grammar instruction works but rather on their belief thatstudents expect it He also observed that when teaching grammar teach-ers do not necessarily adhere exclusively to one particular approach(eg deductive or inductive) but will combine and alternate betweenthem Similarly in a study of 48 teachersrsquo attitudes to explicit or implicitteaching of grammar in an English for academic purposes (EAP) pro-gram Burgess and Etherington (2002) report that the majority of teach-ers believed that it is useful to integrate grammar within authentic textsrather than teach it explicitly using a grammatical syllabus At the sametime however they also expressed the belief that not all grammaticalknowledge can be learned implicitly and thus advocated explicit instruc-tion as well In our research investigating the preferences of teachers andadult learners for integrated or isolated FFI we have found that neithergroup expresses a consistent preference for one over the other Theyvalue both (Spada 2006b)

CONCLUSION

Research and theory suggest that there is a role in CLT and CBI forboth isolated and integrated FFI Each type of instruction may play adifferent role in promoting language acquisition Research and experi-ence in CLT and CBI affirm that not all language features need to betaught in isolated lessons Instead the current research on classroomlearning shows that incidental learning allows students to acquire a greatdeal of language while focused on meaning in CLT and CBI The addi-tion of integrated FFI can contribute to the automatization of languagefeatures that have emerged in studentsrsquo language but that are not usedreliably when there are competing demands for attention

Integrated FFI includes a wide range of approaches including thekind of implicit feedback that occurs as the need or opportunity arisesas well as the kind of planned interaction that requires the repeated butnatural use of a particular language form Nevertheless isolated lessonsmay be useful or even essential in promoting the acquisition of somelanguage features These features include those that are hard to perceivein the normal stream of communicative speech those for which there isa misleading similarity to the L1 and those that are unlikely to causecommunication breakdown We are currently designing quasi-experimental studies to explore the contributions of both types of FFI

The importance of isolated lessons will be determined by differences

200 TESOL QUARTERLY

in the specific language feature that is being taught as well as by differ-ences in learnersrsquo and teachersrsquo characteristics abilities and prefer-ences We find no evidence to support a suggestion that isolated gram-mar lessons without opportunities for communicative language useshould again become the dominant approach to language instructionIsolated lessons are a starting point or a follow-up for communicative orcontent-based activities Above all they should not be expected to resultin studentsrsquo immediate incorporation of the feature in focus into theircommunicative language use Nevertheless such lessons can preparestudents to make the best use of opportunities for continuing their lan-guage acquisition in meaning-focused activities and integrated FFI whenit occurs

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

The reviewers who provided feedback on earlier versions of the manuscript helpedus to make this a better article We did not always agree with the reviewers (whoindeed strongly disagreed with each other) but their feedback helped us under-stand and present our own views better We are also grateful to the graduate studentsand research assistants in N Spadarsquos research group at OISEUT for their insightfulcomments on this manuscript and related literature

THE AUTHORS

Nina Spada is a professor in the Second Language Education program at OISEUniversity of Toronto Ontario Canada where she teaches courses in L2 teachingand learning Her research focuses on the contributions of form-focused instructionto the L2 development of children and adults in communicative programs

Patsy M Lightbown is Distinguished Professor Emeritus of Concordia UniversityMontreal Canada and a former president of AAAL Her research explores relation-ships between L2 teaching and learning especially for children and adolescents

REFERENCES

Alanen R (1995) Input enhancement and rule presentation in second languageacquisition In R Schmidt (Ed) Attention and awareness in foreign language learningand teaching (pp 259ndash302) Honolulu University of Hawairsquoi Press

Ammar A amp Spada N (2006) One size fits all Recasts prompts and L2 learningStudies in Second Language Acquisition 28 543ndash574

Anderson J (1982) Acquisition of cognitive skill Psychological Review 89 369ndash406Barcroft J (2002) Semantic and structural elaboration in L2 lexical acquisition

Language Learning 52 323ndash363Barkhuizen G P (1998) Discovering learnersrsquo perceptions of ESL classroom teach-

inglearning activities in a South African context TESOL Quarterly 32 85ndash108

FORM-FOCUSED INSTRUCTION ISOLATED OR INTEGRATED 201

language as those whose learning has included form-focused L2 instruc-tion In a study of teachersrsquo practices Borg (1998) observed that deci-sions to include explicit formal instruction are not always based on teach-ersrsquo belief that grammar instruction works but rather on their belief thatstudents expect it He also observed that when teaching grammar teach-ers do not necessarily adhere exclusively to one particular approach(eg deductive or inductive) but will combine and alternate betweenthem Similarly in a study of 48 teachersrsquo attitudes to explicit or implicitteaching of grammar in an English for academic purposes (EAP) pro-gram Burgess and Etherington (2002) report that the majority of teach-ers believed that it is useful to integrate grammar within authentic textsrather than teach it explicitly using a grammatical syllabus At the sametime however they also expressed the belief that not all grammaticalknowledge can be learned implicitly and thus advocated explicit instruc-tion as well In our research investigating the preferences of teachers andadult learners for integrated or isolated FFI we have found that neithergroup expresses a consistent preference for one over the other Theyvalue both (Spada 2006b)

CONCLUSION

Research and theory suggest that there is a role in CLT and CBI forboth isolated and integrated FFI Each type of instruction may play adifferent role in promoting language acquisition Research and experi-ence in CLT and CBI affirm that not all language features need to betaught in isolated lessons Instead the current research on classroomlearning shows that incidental learning allows students to acquire a greatdeal of language while focused on meaning in CLT and CBI The addi-tion of integrated FFI can contribute to the automatization of languagefeatures that have emerged in studentsrsquo language but that are not usedreliably when there are competing demands for attention

Integrated FFI includes a wide range of approaches including thekind of implicit feedback that occurs as the need or opportunity arisesas well as the kind of planned interaction that requires the repeated butnatural use of a particular language form Nevertheless isolated lessonsmay be useful or even essential in promoting the acquisition of somelanguage features These features include those that are hard to perceivein the normal stream of communicative speech those for which there isa misleading similarity to the L1 and those that are unlikely to causecommunication breakdown We are currently designing quasi-experimental studies to explore the contributions of both types of FFI

The importance of isolated lessons will be determined by differences

200 TESOL QUARTERLY

in the specific language feature that is being taught as well as by differ-ences in learnersrsquo and teachersrsquo characteristics abilities and prefer-ences We find no evidence to support a suggestion that isolated gram-mar lessons without opportunities for communicative language useshould again become the dominant approach to language instructionIsolated lessons are a starting point or a follow-up for communicative orcontent-based activities Above all they should not be expected to resultin studentsrsquo immediate incorporation of the feature in focus into theircommunicative language use Nevertheless such lessons can preparestudents to make the best use of opportunities for continuing their lan-guage acquisition in meaning-focused activities and integrated FFI whenit occurs

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

The reviewers who provided feedback on earlier versions of the manuscript helpedus to make this a better article We did not always agree with the reviewers (whoindeed strongly disagreed with each other) but their feedback helped us under-stand and present our own views better We are also grateful to the graduate studentsand research assistants in N Spadarsquos research group at OISEUT for their insightfulcomments on this manuscript and related literature

THE AUTHORS

Nina Spada is a professor in the Second Language Education program at OISEUniversity of Toronto Ontario Canada where she teaches courses in L2 teachingand learning Her research focuses on the contributions of form-focused instructionto the L2 development of children and adults in communicative programs

Patsy M Lightbown is Distinguished Professor Emeritus of Concordia UniversityMontreal Canada and a former president of AAAL Her research explores relation-ships between L2 teaching and learning especially for children and adolescents

REFERENCES

Alanen R (1995) Input enhancement and rule presentation in second languageacquisition In R Schmidt (Ed) Attention and awareness in foreign language learningand teaching (pp 259ndash302) Honolulu University of Hawairsquoi Press

Ammar A amp Spada N (2006) One size fits all Recasts prompts and L2 learningStudies in Second Language Acquisition 28 543ndash574

Anderson J (1982) Acquisition of cognitive skill Psychological Review 89 369ndash406Barcroft J (2002) Semantic and structural elaboration in L2 lexical acquisition

Language Learning 52 323ndash363Barkhuizen G P (1998) Discovering learnersrsquo perceptions of ESL classroom teach-

inglearning activities in a South African context TESOL Quarterly 32 85ndash108

FORM-FOCUSED INSTRUCTION ISOLATED OR INTEGRATED 201

in the specific language feature that is being taught as well as by differ-ences in learnersrsquo and teachersrsquo characteristics abilities and prefer-ences We find no evidence to support a suggestion that isolated gram-mar lessons without opportunities for communicative language useshould again become the dominant approach to language instructionIsolated lessons are a starting point or a follow-up for communicative orcontent-based activities Above all they should not be expected to resultin studentsrsquo immediate incorporation of the feature in focus into theircommunicative language use Nevertheless such lessons can preparestudents to make the best use of opportunities for continuing their lan-guage acquisition in meaning-focused activities and integrated FFI whenit occurs

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

The reviewers who provided feedback on earlier versions of the manuscript helpedus to make this a better article We did not always agree with the reviewers (whoindeed strongly disagreed with each other) but their feedback helped us under-stand and present our own views better We are also grateful to the graduate studentsand research assistants in N Spadarsquos research group at OISEUT for their insightfulcomments on this manuscript and related literature

THE AUTHORS

Nina Spada is a professor in the Second Language Education program at OISEUniversity of Toronto Ontario Canada where she teaches courses in L2 teachingand learning Her research focuses on the contributions of form-focused instructionto the L2 development of children and adults in communicative programs

Patsy M Lightbown is Distinguished Professor Emeritus of Concordia UniversityMontreal Canada and a former president of AAAL Her research explores relation-ships between L2 teaching and learning especially for children and adolescents

REFERENCES

Alanen R (1995) Input enhancement and rule presentation in second languageacquisition In R Schmidt (Ed) Attention and awareness in foreign language learningand teaching (pp 259ndash302) Honolulu University of Hawairsquoi Press

Ammar A amp Spada N (2006) One size fits all Recasts prompts and L2 learningStudies in Second Language Acquisition 28 543ndash574

Anderson J (1982) Acquisition of cognitive skill Psychological Review 89 369ndash406Barcroft J (2002) Semantic and structural elaboration in L2 lexical acquisition

Language Learning 52 323ndash363Barkhuizen G P (1998) Discovering learnersrsquo perceptions of ESL classroom teach-

inglearning activities in a South African context TESOL Quarterly 32 85ndash108

FORM-FOCUSED INSTRUCTION ISOLATED OR INTEGRATED 201

Basden B H Bonilla-Meeks J L amp Basden D R (1994) Cross-language primingin word-fragment completion Journal of Memory and Language 33 69ndash82

Blaxton T A (1989) Investigating dissociations among memory measures Supportfor a transfer-appropriate processing framework Journal of Experimental PsychologyLearning Memory and Cognition 15 657ndash668

Bley-Vroman R (1988) The fundamental character of foreign language learning InW Rutherford amp M Sharwood Smith (Eds) Grammar and second language teaching(pp 19ndash30) New York Newbury House

Borg S (1998) Talking about grammar in the foreign language classroom LanguageAwareness 7 159ndash175

Borg S (2001) Self-perception and practice in teaching grammar ELT Journal 5521ndash29

Borg S (2003) Teacher cognition in language teaching A review of research onwhat language teachers think know believe and do Language Teaching 36 81ndash109

Brumfit C J (1984) Communicative methodology in language teaching The roles of fluencyand accuracy Cambridge Cambridge University Press

Brumfit C Mitchell R amp Hooper J (1996) Grammar language and classroompractice In M Hughes (Ed) Teaching and learning in changing times (pp 70ndash87)Oxford Blackwell

Burgess J amp Etherington S (2002) Explicit or implicit grammar System 30 433ndash458

Calveacute P (1994) Comment faire de la grammaire sans trahir le discours Le cas desexercices grammaticaux Canadian Modern Language Review 50 636ndash645

Cathcart R amp Olsen J W B (1976) Teachersrsquo and studentsrsquo preferences forcorrection of classroom conversation errors In J Fanselow amp R Crymes (Eds)On TESOL rsquo76 Selections Based on Teaching Done at the 10th annual TESOL Convention(pp 41ndash53) Washington DC TESOL

Celce-Murcia M (1991) Discourse analysis and grammar instruction Annual Reviewof Applied Linguistics 11 135ndash151

Day E amp Shapson S (1991) Integrating formal and functional approaches inlanguage teaching in French immersion An experimental study Language Learn-ing 41 25ndash58

DeKeyser R (1995) Learning second language grammar rules An experiment witha miniature linguistic system Studies in Second Language Acquisition 19 249ndash297

DeKeyser R (1998) Beyond focus on form Cognitive perspectives on learning andpractising second language grammar In C Doughty amp J Williams (Eds) Focus onform in classroom second language acquisition (pp 42ndash63) New York CambridgeUniversity Press

DeKeyser R M (2000) The robustness of critical period effects in second languageacquisition Studies in Second Language Acquisition 22 493ndash533

DeKeyser R (2003) Implicit and explicit learning In C J Doughty amp M H Long(Eds) The handbook of second language acquisition (pp 313ndash348) Malden MABlackwell

Doherty R W Hilberg R S Pinal A amp Tharp R G (2003) Five standards andstudent achievement NABE Journal of Research and Practice 1 1ndash24

Doumlrnyei Z (2005) The psychology of the language learner Mahwah NJ LawrenceErlbaum

Doughty C (1991) Second language instruction does make a difference Evidencefrom an empirical study of ESL relativization Studies in Second Language Acquisi-tion 13 431ndash469

Doughty C (2003) Instructed SLA Constraints compensation and enhancement

202 TESOL QUARTERLY

In C J Doughty amp M H Long (Eds) The handbook of second language acquisition(pp 256ndash310) Malden MA Blackwell

Doughty C amp Varela E (1998) Communicative focus on form In C Doughty amp JWilliams (Eds) Focus on form in classroom second language acquisition (pp 114ndash138)Cambridge Cambridge University Press

Doughty C amp Williams J (1998) Pedagogical choices in focus on form In CDoughty amp J Williams (Eds) Focus on form in classroom second language acquisition(pp 197ndash261) Cambridge Cambridge University Press

Durgunoglu A Y amp Roediger H L III (1987) Test differences in assessing bi-lingual memory Journal of Memory and Language 26 377ndash391

Echevarria J Vogt M amp Short D J (2004) Making content comprehensible for Englishlearners The SIOP model Boston Pearson

Ellis N C (1997) Vocabulary acquisition word structure collocation word-classand meaning In N Schmitt amp M McCarthy (Eds) Vocabulary Description acqui-sition and pedagogy (pp 122ndash139) Cambridge Cambridge University Press

Ellis N C (2005) At the interface Dynamic interactions of explicit and implicitlanguage knowledge Studies in Second Language Acquisition 27 305ndash352

Ellis R (1989) Are classroom and naturalistic language acquisition the same Astudy of the classroom acquisition of German word order rules Studies in SecondLanguage Acquisition 11 305ndash328

Ellis R (1994) The study of second language acquisition Oxford Oxford UniversityPress

Ellis R (2001) Introduction Investigating form-focused instruction LanguageLearning 51(Supplement 1) 1ndash46

Ellis R (2002a) Does form-focused instruction affect the acquisition of implicitknowledge A review of the research Studies in Second Language Acquisition 24223ndash236

Ellis R (2002b) The place of grammar instruction in the secondforeign languagecurriculum In E Hinkel amp S Fotos (Eds) New perspectives on grammar teaching insecond language classrooms (pp 17ndash34) Mahwah NJ Lawrence Erlbaum

Ellis R Basturkmen H amp Loewen S (2001) Learner uptake in communicativeESL lessons Language Learning 51 281ndash318

Farrell T S C (1999) The reflective assignment Unlocking pre-service teachersrsquobeliefs on grammar teaching RELC Journal 30 1ndash17

Franks J J Bilbrey C W Lien K G amp McNamara T P (2000) Transfer-appropriate processing (TAP) and repetition priming Memory amp Cognition 281140ndash1151

Gass S (1997) Input interaction and the second language learner Mahwah NJLawrence Erlbaum

Gass S amp Selinker L (2001) Second language acquisition An introductory course (2nded) Mahwah NJ Lawrence Erlbaum

Harley B (1989) Functional grammar in French immersion A classroom experi-ment Applied Linguistics 10 331ndash359

Harley B (1993) Instructional strategies and SLA in early French immersion Studiesin Second Language Acquisition 15 245ndash259

Harley B (1998) The role of focus-on-form tasks in promoting child L2 acquisitionIn C Doughty amp J Williams (Eds) Focus on form in classroom second languageacquisition (pp 156ndash174) Cambridge Cambridge University Press

Harley B amp Swain M (1984) The interlanguage of immersion students and itsimplications for second language teaching In A Davies C Criper amp A Howatt(Eds) Interlanguage (pp 291ndash311) Edinburgh Edinburgh University Press

Higgs T V amp Clifford R (1982) The push toward communication In T V Higgs

FORM-FOCUSED INSTRUCTION ISOLATED OR INTEGRATED 203

(Ed) Curriculum competence and the foreign language teacher (pp 57ndash79) SkokieIL National Textbook Company

Howatt A P R (1984) A history of English language teaching Oxford Oxford Uni-versity Press

Hulstijn J (1995) Not all grammar rules are equal Giving grammar instruction itsproper place in foreign language teaching In R Schmidt (Ed) Attention andawareness in foreign language learning (pp 359ndash386) Honolulu University ofHawairsquoi

Hulstijn J (2003) Incidental and intentional learning In C J Doughty amp M HLong (Eds) The handbook of second language acquisition (pp 349ndash382) MaldenMA Blackwell

Hulstijn J amp DeGraaff R (1994) Under what conditions does explicit knowledgeof a second language facilitate the acquisition of implicit knowledge A researchproposal AILA Review 11 97ndash112

Jean G (2005) Inteacutegration de la grammaire dans lrsquoenseignement des langues sec-ondes Le cas des exercices grammaticaux Canadian Modern Language Review 61519ndash542

Johnson K (1982) Communicative syllabus design and methodology Oxford PergamonPress

Krashen S D (1982) Principles and practice in second language acquisition OxfordPergamon Press

Krashen S D (1994) The input hypothesis and its rivals In N Ellis (Ed) Implicitand explicit learning of language (pp 45ndash77) London Academic Press

Larsen-Freeman D amp Long M H (1991) An introduction to second language acqui-sition research New York Longman

Lightbown P M (1991) What have we here Some observations on the role ofinstruction in second language acquisition In R Phillipson E Kellerman LSelinker M Sharwood Smith amp M Swain (Eds) Foreignsecond language pedagogyresearch A commemorative volume for Claus Faerch (pp 197ndash212) Clevedon Multi-lingual Matters

Lightbown P M (1998) The importance of timing in focus on form In C Doughtyamp J Williams (Eds) Focus on form in classroom second language acquisition (pp177ndash196) Cambridge Cambridge University Press

Lightbown P M amp Spada N (1990) Focus-on-form and corrective feedback incommunicative language teaching Effects on second language learning Studies inSecond Language Acquisition 12 429ndash448

Lightbown P M amp Spada N (2006) How languages are learned (3rd ed) OxfordOxford University Press

Long M H (1991) Focus on form A design feature in language teaching meth-odology In K de Bot R Ginsberg amp C Kramsch (Eds) Foreign language researchin cross-cultural perspective (pp 39ndash52) Amsterdam John Benjamins

Long M H (1996) The role of the linguistic environment in second languageacquisition In W Ritchie amp T Bhatia (Eds) Handbook of second language acquisi-tion (pp 413ndash468) San Diego CA Academic Press

Long M amp Robinson P (1998) Focus on form Theory research and practice InC Doughty amp J Williams (Eds) Focus on form in classroom second language acquisi-tion (pp 15ndash41) Cambridge Cambridge University Press

Lyster R (1987) Speaking immersion Canadian Modern Language Review 43 701ndash717

Lyster R (1994a) La neacutegotiation de la forme Strateacutegie analytique en classedrsquoimmersion Canadian Modern Language Review 50 446ndash465

204 TESOL QUARTERLY

Lyster R (1994b) The effect of functional-analytic teaching on aspects of Frenchimmersion learnersrsquo sociolinguistic competence Applied Linguistics 15 263ndash287

Lyster R (1998) Negotiation of form recasts and explicit correction in relation toerror types and learner repair in immersion classrooms Language Learning 48183ndash218

Lyster R (2004) Differential effects of prompts and recasts in form-focused instruc-tion Studies in Second Language Acquisition 26 399ndash432

Lyster R amp Mori H (2006) Interactional feedback and instructional counterbal-ance Studies in Second Language Acquisition 28 269ndash300

Lyster R amp Ranta L (1997) Corrective feedback and learner uptake Negotiationof form in communicative classrooms Studies in Second Language Acquisition 1937ndash66

Mackey A Gass S amp McDonough K (2000) How do learners perceive interac-tional feedback Studies in Second Language Acquisition 22 471ndash497

Mackey A amp Philp J (1998) Conversational interaction and second languagedevelopment Recasts responses and red herrings Modern Language Journal 82338ndash356

Mackey A Philp J Egi T Fujii A amp Tomoaki T (2002) Individual differencesin working memory noticing of interactional feedback and L2 development In PRobinson (Ed) Individual differences and instructed language learning (pp 181ndash209) Amsterdam John Benjamins

Mitchell R amp Hooper J (1992) Teachersrsquo views of language knowledge In CJames amp P Garrett (Eds) Language awareness in the classroom (pp 40ndash50) LondonLongman

Mitchell R amp Myles F (1998) Second language learning theories London ArnoldMorgan-Short K amp Wood Bowden H (2006) Processing instruction and mean-

ingful output-based instruction Effects on second language development Studiesin Second Language Acquisition 28 31ndash66

Morris D D Bransford J D amp Franks J J (1977) Levels of processing versustransfer appropriate processing Journal of Verbal Learning and Verbal Behavior 16519ndash533

Norris J M amp Ortega L (2000) Effectiveness of L2 instruction A research syn-thesis and quantitative meta-analysis Language Learning 50 417ndash528

Norris J amp Ortega L (2003) Defining and measuring SLA In C J Doughty amp MH Long (Eds) The handbook of second language acquisition (pp 717ndash761) MaldenMA Blackwell

Ohta A (2000) Rethinking recasts A learner-centered examination of correctivefeedback in the Japanese classroom In J K Hall amp L Verplaetse (Eds) Secondand foreign language learning through classroom interaction (pp 47ndash71) Mahwah NJLawrence Erlbaum

Pica T (2002) Subject-matter content How does it assist the interactional andlinguistic needs of classroom language learners The Modern Language Journal 861ndash19

Pienemann M (1989) Is language teachable Applied Linguistics 10 52ndash79Pienemann M (1998) Language processing and second language development Process-

ability theory Amsterdam John BenjaminsRaimes A (2002) Errors Windows into the mind In G DeLuca L Fox M Johnson

amp M Kogen (Eds) Dialogue on writing Rethinking ESL basic writing and first-yearcomposition (pp 279ndash287) Mahwah NJ Lawrence Erlbaum

Ranta L (2002) The role of learnersrsquo language analytic ability in the communicativeclassroom In P Robinson (Ed) Individual differences and instructed language learn-ing (pp 159ndash180) Amsterdam John Benjamins

FORM-FOCUSED INSTRUCTION ISOLATED OR INTEGRATED 205

Robinson P (1996) Learning simple and complex second language rules underimplicit incidental rule-search and instructed conditions Studies in Second Lan-guage Acquisition 19 233ndash247

Robinson P (2002) Effects of individual differences in intelligence aptitude andworking memory on adult incidental SLA A replication and extension of ReberWalkenfield and Hernstadt (1991) In P Robinson (Ed) Individual differences andinstructed language learning (pp 211ndash266) Amsterdam John Benjamins

Samuda V (2001) Guiding relationships between form and meaning during taskperformance The role of the teacher In M Bygate P Skehan amp M Swain (Eds)Researching pedagogic tasks Second language learning teaching and testing (pp 119ndash140) London Longman

Schleppergrell M J Achugar M amp Oteiacuteza T (2004) The grammar of historyEnhancing content-based instruction through a functional focus on languageTESOL Quarterly 38 67ndash93

Schmidt R (1990) The role of consciousness in second language learning AppliedLinguistics 11 17ndash46

Schulz R A (1996) Focus on form in the foreign language classroom Studentsrsquo andteachersrsquo views on error correction and the role of grammar Foreign LanguageAnnals 29 343ndash364

Schulz R A (2001) Cultural differences in student and teacher perceptions con-cerning the role of grammar teaching and corrective feedback USA-ColombiaModern Language Journal 85 244ndash258

Schwartz B (1993) On explicit and negative data effecting and affecting compe-tence and linguistic behavior Studies in Second Language Acquisition 15 147ndash162

Segalowitz N amp Gatbonton E (1995) Automaticity and lexical skills in secondlanguage fluency Implications for computer assisted language learning ComputerAssisted Language Learning 8 129ndash149

Segalowitz N amp Lightbown P M (1999) Psycholinguistic approaches to SLA TheAnnual Review of Applied Linguistics 19 23ndash43

Sharwood Smith M (2004) In two minds about grammar On the interaction oflinguistic and metalinguistic knowledge in performance Transactions of the Philo-logical Society 102 255ndash280

Sheen R (2005) Focus on formS as a means of improving accurate oral productionIn A Housen amp M Pierrard (Eds) Investigations in instructed second languageacquisition (pp 271ndash310) Berlin Mouton de Gruyter

Skehan P (1989) Individual differences in second language learning London ArnoldSlimani A (1992) Evaluation of classroom interaction In C Alderson amp A Beretta

(Eds) Evaluation in second language education (pp 197ndash220) Cambridge Cam-bridge University Press

Snow M A Met M amp Genesee F (1992) A conceptual framework for the inte-gration of language and content instruction In P A Richard-Amato amp M A Snow(Eds) The multicultural classroom Readings for content-area teachers (pp 27ndash38)Reading MA Addison-Wesley

Spada N (1987) Relationships between instructional differences and learning out-comes A process-product study of communicative language teaching AppliedLinguistics 8 137ndash155

Spada N (2006a) Communicative language teaching Current status and futureprospects In J Cummins amp C Davis (Eds) The international handbook of Englishlanguage teaching Norwell MA Springer

Spada N (2006b) Teacher and learner preferences for isolated and integrated instruction[Research report prepared for the Continuing Education English Language Pro-

206 TESOL QUARTERLY

gram of the University of Toronto and the Toronto Catholic District SchoolBoard] Toronto OISEUniversity of Toronto

Spada N amp Lightbown P M (1993) Instruction and the development of questionsin L2 classrooms Studies in Second Language Acquisition 15 205ndash224

Spada N amp Lightbown P M (1999) Instruction L1 influence and developmentalreadiness in second language acquisition Modern Language Journal 83 1ndash22

Spada N Lightbown P M amp White J L (2005) The importance of formmeaning mappings in explicit form-focussed instruction In A Housen amp MPierrard (Eds) Current issues in instructed second language learning (pp 199ndash234)Berlin Mouton de Gruyter

Stern H H (1992) Issues and options in language teaching Oxford Oxford UniversityPress

Swain M (1988) Manipulating and complementing content teaching to maximizesecond language learning TESL Canada Journal 6 68ndash83

Swain M amp Lapkin S (2002) Talking it through Two French immersion learnersrsquoresponses to reformulation International Journal of Educational Research 37 285ndash304

Trahey M amp White L (1993) Positive evidence and preemption in the secondlanguage classroom Studies in Second Language Acquisition 15 181ndash204

Trofimovich P (2005) Spoken-word processing in a native and a second languageAn investigation of auditory word priming Applied Psycholinguistics 26 479ndash504

Truscott J (1996) The case against grammar correction in L2 writing classes Lan-guage Learning 46 327ndash369

Truscott J (1999) Whatrsquos wrong with oral grammar correction Canadian ModernLanguage Review 55 437ndash456

VanPatten B (1990) Attending to content and form in the input An experiment inconsciousness Studies in Second Language Acquisition 12 287ndash301

VanPatten B (1996) Input processing and grammar instruction Theory and researchNorwood NJ Ablex

VanPatten B (2004) Input processing in SLA In B VanPatten (Ed) Processinginstruction Theory research and commentary (pp 5ndash31) Mahwah NJ LawrenceErlbaum

VanPatten B amp Cadierno T (1993) Explicit instruction and input processingStudies in Second Language Acquisition 15 225ndash243

Wesche M (1981) Language aptitude measures in streaming matching studentswith methods and diagnosis of learning problems In K C Diller (Ed) Individualdifferences and universals in language learning aptitude (pp 119ndash154) Rowley MANewbury House

White J (1998) Getting the learnersrsquo attention A typographical input enhance-ment study In C Doughty amp J Williams (Eds) Focus on form in classroom secondlanguage acquisition (pp 85ndash113) Cambridge Cambridge University Press

White L (1991) Adverb placement in second language acquisition Some effects ofpositive and negative evidence in the classroom Second Language Research 7 133ndash161

White L Spada N Lightbown P M amp Ranta L (1991) Input enhancement andL2 question formation Applied Linguistics 12 416ndash432

Williams J amp Evans J (1998) What kind of focus and on which forms In CDoughty amp J Williams (Eds) Focus on form in classroom second language acquisition(pp 139ndash155) Cambridge Cambridge University Press

Yorio C (1986) Consumerism in second language learning and teaching CanadianModern Language Review 42 668ndash687

FORM-FOCUSED INSTRUCTION ISOLATED OR INTEGRATED 207