Preemptive Focus on Form in the ESL Classroom

Abstract

This article contributes to the growing body of descriptive research investigating focus on form, defined as the incidental attention that teachers and L2 learners pay to form in the context of meaningfocussed instruction. Whereas previous research addressed reactive focus on form (i.e., corrective feedback), the study reported in this article investigated preemptive focus on form (i.e., occasions when either the teacher or a student chose to make a specific form the topic of the discourse). The study found that in 12 hours of meaningfocussed instruction, there were as many preemptive focus-on-form episodes (FFEs) as reactive FFEs. The majority of the preemptive FFEs were initiated by students rather than the teacher and dealt with vocabulary. Students were more likely to uptake a form (i.e., incorporate it into an utterance of their own) if the FFE was student initiated. The preemptive FFEs were typically direct, that is, they dealt with form explicitly rather than implicitly. Despite this, they did not appear to interfere unduly with the communicative flow of the teaching. The article concludes by arguing that preemptive focus on form deserves more attention from classroom researchers than it has received to date.

Role of focus-on-form instruction, corrective feedback and uptake in second language classrooms: some insights from recent second language acquisition research

“…Mackey et al (2000) conducted an observational study which revealed that uptake occurred in more than half (52%) of all feedback episodes, a relatively high rate. Similarly, Ellis et al (2001a) found that learner uptake after incidental focus on form was generally high and successful in the immersion classrooms they examined. Similarly, Panova and LysterÕs (2002) observational study of the range and types of teacher feedback, and their relationship to learner uptake and immediate repair, found relatively high rates of learner uptake (47%) but rates of learner uptake with immediate repair were low in the examined classrooms (16%).…”

“…There has been considerable research on uptake (Mackey et al 2000;Oliver 2000;Ellis et al 2001a;Panova and Lyster 2002;McDonough 2005). Some argue that learner uptake plays a positive role in learnersÕ second language development (McDonough 2005;Loewen 2005); others, even though they admit that uptake may be an important and observable source for understanding the impact of the feedback, doubt that it leads to long-term learning (Nabei and Swain 2002;Morris and Tarone 2003).…”

“…Table 1 below summarises key findings from the research reviewed above on focus on form. Lightbown and Spada (1990), Doughty and Varela (1998), Harley (1998), Muranoi (2000), Ellis (2002), Mennim (2003), Lyster (2004), Loewen (2005), Bouffard and Sarkar (2008) Use of focuson-form instruction in CLT classrooms Focus on form may occur without interfering with the communicative flow of the lessons Seedhouse (1997), Doughty and Varela (1998), Ellis et al (2001aEllis et al ( 2001b Effectiveness of focus-onform instruction depending on type Using both explicit and implicit focus-on-form strategies can promote language learning Spada (1997) Using implicit eliciting focus on form can promote language learning Lyster (2004) and Loewen (2004) Using explicit focus-on-form strategies can promote language learning Ellis (2002) and Fuente (2006) Research on learners Learners believe that they can attend to form and meaning at the same time Doughty and Varela (1998) Learner-driven independent focus on form (learner noticing) seems to have positive impact on their L2 proficiency Mackey (2006), Mennim, (2007, Hanaoka (2007) When learners initiate focus on form they seem to address lexical aspects in particular Williams (1999), Ellis et al (2001a) More proficient learners are likely to pay more attention to form than less proficient learners Williams (1999) Research on teachers Discrepancies in teacher beliefs and practice in relation to their use of focus on form in communicatively oriented classrooms Basturkmen et al (2004) TeachersÕ experience seems to play a role in teachersÕ use of focus on form Mackey, et al (2004) Corrective feedback Iwashita (2003: 2) defines corrective feedback as Ôsome kind of native speaker response to what the learner has saidÕ; it may in fact be better understood as some kind of response from a more expert language user, often a teac...…”

Negotiation for Meaning and Peer Assistance in Second Language Classrooms

“…Similarly, Mackey et al (2000: 476) situate NfM at points of 'communication breakdown' and describe it as triggered by 'something incomprehensible [which] becomes the impetus for learners to recognize an inadequacy in their own rule system. ' For Ellis (1999: 3) it is a 'communicative impasse' which leads to NfM and similarly in Ellis et al (2001) negotiation is something which occurs after a signal that there is a linguistic problem which needs explicit resolution.…”

“…Oliver 1995;Lyster 1998;Long et al 1998;Braidi 2002) and focus-on-form episodes that are available in whole class settings (e.g. Doughty and Varela 1998;Ellis et al 2001) and are often, although not always, initiated by a native speaker or teacher who has not encountered a communication failure, impasse, or breakdown, (i.e. who has understood what the non-native speaker meant) but who has chosen where some language focus would be most useful.…”