Focus on form

Focus on form (FonF) is an approach to language education in which learners are made aware of the grammatical form of language features that they are already able to use communicatively. It is contrasted with focus on forms,[1] which is limited solely to the explicit focus on language features, and focus on meaning, which is limited to focus on meaning with no attention paid to form at all. For a teaching intervention to qualify as focus on form and not as focus on forms, the learner must be aware of the meaning and use of the language features before the form is brought to their attention.[2] Focus on form was proposed by Michael Long in 1988.[3]

Background

The FonF (focus on form) model of practice introduced by Bahari (2019a) was prepared and contextualized based on the effectiveness of FonF-based instruction for its potential for incidental and preplanned L2 learning (Bahari, 2018a; Fredricks, Blumenfeld, & Paris, 2004; Nassaji, 1999, 2016; Nassaji & Fotos, 2007, 2011; Williams, 2005). The FonF practice model has proved effective in catering for learners’ nonlinear and dynamic motivational factors at individual level and taking advantage of the CALL affordances towards developing listening and speaking skills (Bahari, 2019a). In keeping with Nassaji and Fotos (2011) the FonF is considered as an optimal approach for learning which aims at mixing the best features of classroom L2 learning with computer-assisted L2 learning by using CALL tools and applications to facilitate L2 learning process. In contrast to previous L2 learning practice models sharing the feature of generality at group level, the FonF practice model addresses the nonlinearity and dynamicity of individual differences during learning process (Bahari, 2018a). This is in response to the call for integrating complex dynamic systems perspective (Larsen-Freeman & Cameron, 2008) towards implementing interactive-collaborative CALL environment. Under the FonF practice model, on the one hand, form, meaning and communication are addressed as critical learning components and on the other hand, individual learner’s motivation is catered to by selecting learning materials with respect to the nonlinearity and dynamicity of individual learners (Dörnyei & Ottó, 1998) in a systematic but flexible framework.

The concept of focus on form was motivated by the lack of support for the efficacy of focus on forms on the one hand, and clear advantages demonstrated by instructed language learning over uninstructed learning on the other.[3] The research conflicting with focus on forms has been wide-ranging;[4] learners typically acquire language features in sequences, not all at once,[5] and most of the stages the learners' interlanguages pass through will exhibit non-native-like language forms.[6] Furthermore, the progression of these stages is not clean; learners may use language features correctly in some situations but not in others,[7] or they may exhibit U-shaped learning, in which native-like use may temporarily revert to non-native-like use.[8] None of these findings sit well with the idea that students will learn exactly what you teach them, when you teach it.[4]

In a review of the literature comparing instructed with uninstructed language learning, Long found a clear advantage for instructed learning in both the rate of learning and the ultimate level reached.[3] An important finding that supported Long's view came from French language immersion programs in Canada; even after students had years of meaning-focused lessons filled with comprehensible input, their spoken language remained far from native-like, with many grammatical errors. This is despite the fact that they could speak fluently and had native-like listening abilities.[9]

Notes
  1. Sometimes the final "S" is capitalized, making focus on formS, or form-focused instruction,; this is done to more readily distinguish it from focus on form,
  2. Doughty & Williams 1998, p. 4.
  3. Long 1991. This paper was originally presented at the European-North-American Symposium on Needed Research in Foreign Language Education, Bellagio, Italy, in 1988.
  4. Long & Robinson 1998, pp. 16–17.
  5. For review, see e.g. Gass & Selinker (2008, pp. 126–135).
  6. Andersen 1984, Huebner 1983.
  7. Pica 1983, Young 1988.
  8. Kellerman 1985.
  9. Swain 1991.
gollark: As well as the standard 9-axis IMU, ambient light sensor, etc., GTech™ GPhone™ can read atmospheric bee concentrations, lightning strikes, the precise emission/absorption spectrum of objects and the atmosphere, changes to 15 fundamental physical constants, RAM contents of lesser computers, DNA, and bismuth levels.
gollark: GTech™ GPhone™ is compatible with all mobile network standards, including in-development ones, and even has a handy "wireless base station" mode to complement WiFi hotspot capabilities.
gollark: Unlike its bad competing phones, which only contain maybe 5 computers, GTech™ GPhone™ contains 10^16 using our patented hyperfractal computer nesting.
gollark: 0.03. But I haven't even gone through the advertising yet.
gollark: Buy a GTech™ GPhone™.

References
  • Andersen, Roger (1984). "What's gender good for, anyway?". In Andersen, Roger (ed.). Second languages: a cross-linguistic perspective. Rowley, MA: Newbury House. pp. 77–99. ISBN 978-0-88377-440-3.CS1 maint: ref=harv (link)
  • Doughty, Catherine; Williams, Jessica, eds. (1998). Focus on form in classroom second language acquisition. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. ISBN 978-0-521-62390-2.CS1 maint: ref=harv (link)
  • Gass, Susan; Selinker, Larry (2008). Second Language Acquisition: An Introductory Course. New York, NY: Routledge. ISBN 978-0-8058-5497-8.CS1 maint: ref=harv (link)
  • Huebner, T. (2008). "Linguistic Systems and Linguistic Change in an Interlanguage". Studies in Second Language Acquisition. 6: 33. doi:10.1017/S0272263100000280.CS1 maint: ref=harv (link)
  • Kellerman, Eric (1985). "Input and second language acquisition theory". In Gass, Susan; Madden, Carolyn (eds.). Input in second language acquisition. Rowley, MA: Newbury House. pp. 345–353. ISBN 978-0-88377-284-3.CS1 maint: ref=harv (link)
  • Krashen, Stephen (1981). Second Language Acquisition and Second Language Learning. New York: Pergamon Press. ISBN 0-08-025338-5. Archived from the original on 2011-07-16. Retrieved 2011-02-28.CS1 maint: ref=harv (link)
  • Krashen, Stephen (2004). The Power of Reading, Second Edition. Littleton: Libraries Unlimited. ISBN 978-1-59158-169-7.CS1 maint: ref=harv (link)
  • Long, Michael (1991). "Focus on form: A design feature in language teaching methodology". In De Bot, Kees; Ginsberg, Ralph; Kramsch, Claire (eds.). Foreign language research in cross-cultural perspective. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. pp. 39–52. ISBN 978-1-55619-345-3.CS1 maint: ref=harv (link)
  • Long, Michael; Robinson, Peter (1998). "Focus on form: Theory, research and practice". In Doughty, Catherine; Williams, Jessica (eds.). Focus on form in classroom second language acquisition. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. pp. 15–41. ISBN 978-0-521-62390-2.CS1 maint: ref=harv (link)
  • Pica, T. (1983). "Adult Acquisition of English As a Second Language Under Different Conditions of Exposure". Language Learning. 33 (4): 465–497. doi:10.1111/j.1467-1770.1983.tb00945.x.CS1 maint: ref=harv (link)
  • Swain, Merrill (1991). "French immersion and its offshoots: Getting two for one". In Freed, Barbara (ed.). Foreign language acquisition research and the classroom. Lexington, MA: Heath. pp. 91–103. ISBN 978-0-669-24263-8.CS1 maint: ref=harv (link)
  • Young, R. (1988). "Variation and the Interlanguage Hypothesis". Studies in Second Language Acquisition. 10 (3): 281–302. doi:10.1017/S0272263100007464.CS1 maint: ref=harv (link)


This article is issued from Wikipedia. The text is licensed under Creative Commons - Attribution - Sharealike. Additional terms may apply for the media files.