Читать книгу Form-Focused Instruction and Teacher Education - Hossein Nassaji - Страница 5

HOSSEIN NASSAJI and SANDRA FOTOS

IN RECENT YEARS the role of FFI in language teaching has become an important issue in the field of SLA. Research suggests that traditional instruction on isolated grammar forms is insufficient to promote their acquisition (Long 1991; Long and Robinson 1998), yet purely communicative approaches have been found inadequate for developing high levels of target language (TL) accuracy (Harley and Swain 1984; Swain 1985, 1998; Swain and Lapkin 1998). Two general solutions have been proposed in the research literature: one is to encourage learners to attend to target forms by noticing them in input (Schmidt 1990, 1993; Doughty and Williams 1998a; R. Ellis 1994a, 2001a), thus assisting in their processing. The other is to provide learners with opportunities to produce output containing target forms, again enabling learners to notice the gap between their current TL ability and the correct use of the target form (Swain 1985, 2005).

Teacher education: the gap between SLA research and pedagogy

Regarding past and current approaches to teacher education, the point has often been made (Crandall 2000: 35) that traditional approaches have usually been top-down, viewing teachers as passive knowledge recipients, whereas current constructivist approaches emphasize active roles for teacher cognition, reflection, and research. Widdowson (1990: 62) distinguishes between teacher training and teacher education, arguing that training has traditionally been viewed as ‘a process of preparation towards the achievement of a range of outcomes which are specified in advance’, and the development of skills for predictable situations. Teacher education, however, allows for unpredictability and equips prospective teachers for ‘situations which cannot be accommodated into preconceived patterns of response but which require a reformulation of ideas and the modification of established formulae’ (ibid.: 62). This view of teacher education as the flexible development of professional knowledge to be applied when needed is emphasized in the present volume.

Two areas of SLA have been identified by R. Ellis (1997a) as having particular relevance for teacher education. One is the role of input and interaction, and the other is the role of FFI. R. Ellis (2001a) considers FFI to be any instructional activity, planned or incidental, that is used to draw the learner’s attention to language forms. A number of studies have investigated the role of FFI in SLA and their findings have been reviewed extensively (for example, Long 1983; Larsen-Freeman and Long 1991; R. Ellis 1994a, 1997a, 2001a, 2001b; Spada 1997; Doughty and Williams 1998a; Norris and Ortega 2000, 2001). However, despite these reviews, there has often been a gap between SLA research and its successful application to language pedagogy (Stenhouse 1981, 1983; Widdowson 1990; Crookes 1997a, 1997b, 1998; R. Ellis 1997a, 1997b, 2001a; Lightbown 2000; Liu and Master 2003; Nassaji 2005). For example, surveying English as a second/foreign language teachers, Nassaji (2005) found that while many teachers acknowledged the importance of SLA research, few mentioned that they regularly read such research. One reason for this could be that research results are often published in venues not easily accessible (Crookes 1997a; R. Ellis 1997a). In addition research reports are often perceived as too theoretical, with findings not directly applicable to classroom practice. Robbins (2003: 59) stated:

To date, much SLA research remains within categorical lists, little of which have been translated into teaching materials, learner expectancies, or topics in teacher training courses. To some degree this trend has resulted in theory for theory’s sake.

The purpose of the current book is to address this gap by providing chapters authored by SLA experts who are language teachers or teacher educators. The main theme is how theory and research in FFI can inform classroom pedagogy and teacher education. However, for theory and research to be useful to teachers, their connection with pedagogy should be made explicit so that they can be conceived of as relevant. For example, with respect to pedagogical grammars, defined as ‘the types of grammatical analysis and instruction designed for the needs of second language students’ (Odlin 1994: 1), it has been noted that grammar can be taught as prescription, description, an internalized system or as an axiomatic system, the latter being the kind of pedagogical grammar needed for teacher education (Fotos 2005). As the articles in a recent book on grammar teaching in teacher education emphasize (Liu and Master 2003), although teachers believe that pedagogical grammar is essential for the language classroom, many find it challenging – not only because it is difficult to learn and teach, but also partially because of the emphasis on communicative pedagogy many received during their training. Thus, the questions the authors have addressed in this volume are those asked by language teachers, and the research reported has been conducted from the vantage point of informing L2 pedagogical practices.

Theoretical research in language pedagogy

Considerable research has been conducted over the past few decades on the ways in which second languages can be best taught. R. Ellis (2001a) provides an overview of these studies outlining their origins, the research questions they have addressed, and the research methods they have used. (See also Lightbown 2000; Mitchell 2000; see Fotos 2005, for a historical survey.) As R. Ellis points out, much of the early SLA research has been method-driven with the aim of comparing language teaching methods that differed in the extent to which they taught language forms explicitly or implicitly (for example the large scale experimental research projects conducted in the 1960s and 1970s). However, these studies did not indicate that one method of teaching was superior to another. Subsequent research has become more theory-driven in focus and is now mainly conducted to test theoretical claims about second language (L2) acquisition processes (R. Ellis 2001a). These claims include those related to the role of attention and noticing in SLA (Schmidt 1993, 1995, 2001; Tomlin and Villa 1994; Leow 1998, 2001a), the relationship between instructed SLA and developmental sequences (Pienemann 1984, 1989), and the relationship between explicit and implicit knowledge and the effects of frequency on cognition and SLA (for example, Reber 1976, 1989, 1993; Bialystok 1990, 1994; N. Ellis 1993, 1994, 2002a, 2002b; DeKeyser 1995, 1997, 1998, 2005a; Robinson 1996; R. Ellis 2002a).

Although theory-based research has not been directly concerned with pedagogical issues, it has produced many new insights regarding effective L2 instruction. It has increased our understanding of the complexity of the processes underlying the learning of second languages and how they are affected by formal instruction. For example, research into the role of attention has shown that although noticing or attention to form is a crucial factor in learning an L2, it is not clear what constitutes attention and how attention functions in learning (Sharwood Smith 1981, 1993; Schmidt 1990, 1993, 1995, 2001; Tomlin and Villa 1994; Robinson 1995, 2001; Leow 1997, 2001a, 2001b, 2002; Wong 2001). Moreover, it has been shown that attention and noticing interact with the learning task and context, as well as with various cognitive processing variables (Robinson 1995, 2001, 2005; Skehan 1996b, 1998; N. Ellis 2002a, 2002b). Findings from studies on developmental sequences have indicated that, although instruction may have facilitative effects on SLA, its effectiveness may be constrained by the learner’s developmental readiness (Pienemann 1984, 1989, 1998; Williams and Evans 1998; Spada and Lightbown 1999), which may be further mediated by first language (L1) transfer or other Li-based factors (Spada and Lightbown 1999).

As for the relationship between explicit and implicit knowledge, one of the main debates concerns the extent to which explicit knowledge gained through formal instruction can lead to the development of implicit knowledge underlying spontaneous and naturalistic L2 use. Some researchers in the past have argued that there is no relationship between the two forms of knowledge (for example, Krashen 1981, 1985, 1993; Schwartz 1993). However, many SLA researchers now believe that a relationship exists, particularly through: (1) performance of activities that promote the learner’s attention to target forms while processing input (for example, R. Ellis 1982, 1990, 1994a, 1997c, 2003, 2005c; VanPatten 1990; Robinson 1995, 1996, 2001; Doughty and Williams 1998a; White 1998; Williams 2001), or (2) through repeated practice and increased exposure (for example, McLaughlin 1978, 1990; McLeod and McLaughlin 1986; N. Ellis 1994, 1995, 2002a, 2002b; DeKeyser 1998), although N. Ellis cautions (2002b) that rote practice alone does not necessarily facilitate spontaneous TL production, or (3) through making the learning process more efficient by helping learners attend to features in the input that they would not otherwise notice (R. Ellis 1997a, 2003; Doughty and Williams 1998a; Williams and Evans 1998).

Empirical studies on the relationship between explicit and implicit knowledge, however, indicate the existence of a complex relationship between the two types of knowledge suggesting that, while explicit rule learning may be advantageous over implicit rule learning, its advantages depend on a number of linguistic and psycholinguistic variables. For example, some studies have found that explicit instruction may be more effective than implicit instruction when learning involves simple rules (for example, DeKeyser 1995; Robinson 1996; de Graaff 1997). Other studies suggest that the relative benefits of explicit instruction may be more related to factors such as the extent of instruction, the kind of task involved, the amount, nature and timing of planning (see articles in R. Ellis 2005c), the learners’ differences in their cognitive abilities, their stages of L2 learning, frequency effects (see N. Ellis 2002a, 2002b; R. Ellis 2002a, 2002c), and even L2 learning aptitude (Robinson 2005).

FFI research in language pedagogy

One line of SLA research that has had substantial impact on our understanding of the role of FFI in promoting language acquisition is classroom-based research. Such research has brought teachers and researchers together and has led to findings that have more direct relevance for teachers and teacher educators than the theory-driven research described above. This research has addressed various issues related to the role of formal instruction including that of student-student or student-teacher interaction, error correction, comprehension and production practices, communicative and instructional activities, and input and output processes, including learner revision, and has led to important findings (for example, Lightbown and Spada 1990; VanPatten 1990; Fotos and Ellis 1991; Fotos 1993, 1994, 1998, 2002; VanPatten and Cadierno 1993; Williams 1995, 2005a; DeKeyser and Sokalski 1996; Lyster and Ranta 1997; Doughty and Varela 1998; Lyster 1998b; Swain 1998, 2000, 2005; White 1998; R. Ellis, Basturkmen, and Loewen 2001a; Swain and Lapkin 2001; Pennington 2003).

With respect to the role of FFI, this research has produced convincing evidence that instruction including some kind of FFI is more effective than instruction that focuses only on meaning. This evidence has been confirmed by the results of a meta-analysis of 49 FFI studies (Norris and Ortega 2000, 2001) from which the researchers concluded that: (1) in general, FFI produces substantial gain of the target structure over the course of the study, (2) the effects of FFI seem to be sustained over time, (3) instruction that contains explicit instructional techniques results in more positive effects than that involving implicit techniques, and (4) the effectiveness of the instructional treatments depends on the methodological approaches adopted, particularly the assessment procedures utilized to measure the effectiveness of FFI.

FFI taxonomies and definitions

The evidence reviewed above relates to the overall effectiveness of FFI. However, current FFI research is concerned with issues that go beyond the question of mere effectiveness. FFI refers to a wide range of activities that differ from one another in important ways and a number of elements must be considered such as: (a) the continuum of implicit versus explicit FFI, with formal, rule-based instruction at one end, and embedding of the target structure in authentic discourse at the other; (b) the timing of FFI during the lesson; (c) the teacher’s role and intention; (d) task-based FFI; (e) the existence of input enhancement during communicative lessons designed to draw learner attention to the form; and (f) output-based FFI. Thus, a crucial question for both research and pedagogy concerns the nature of these elements and the effects they have on language learning.

A number of SLA researchers have proposed various FFI taxonomies and classifications (for example, Williams 1995, 2005a; Doughty and Williams 1998b, 1998c; Lightbown 1998; Long and Robinson 1998; Nassaji 1999; Doughty 2001; Nassaji and Fotos 2004). One of the first classifications, which has been widely cited and has had a considerable impact on our understanding of the concept of FFI, is the distinction that Long (1991) made between focus on form (FoF) and focus on forms (FoFs). FoFs, according to Long (1991, 2000; Long and Robinson 1998), is based on traditional structural and synthetic approaches to language teaching (Wilkins 1976) in which language is segmented into discrete items and is then presented to the learners in an isolated and decontextualized manner. FoF, on the other hand, involves drawing the learner’s attention to linguistic forms ‘as they arise incidentally in lessons whose overriding focus is on meaning or communication’ (Long 1991: 46). Long (2000) believes that FoF instruction is advantageous over FoFs instruction because FoF is learner-centered, is tuned to the learner’s internal syllabus, and occurs when needed. However, FoFs does not match learning processes, is not needs-based, and often results in boring lessons.

Since its conception, the idea of FoF has been widely advocated in the SLA literature. However, the construct has been interpreted and used differently by different researchers. For example, while, as we have seen above, Long (1991) and Long and Robinson (1998) conceptualized FoF mainly as reactive responses to communication problems, occurring after the event, Doughty and Williams (1998c) have suggested that FoF can also be achieved proactively; that is, the teacher can also plan in advance to introduce FoF. Lightbown (1998) notes that FoF can be either integrated into a communicative context or delivered in the form of mini lessons. Within this FFI framework, advanced planning to teach a particular grammar point is considered to match the notion of FoF as long as the focus is ‘triggered by an analysis of learner need rather than being imposed externally by a linguistic syllabus’ (Doughty and Williams 1998b: 5).

According to Doughty and Williams (1998b), a central feature of FoF is that ‘meaning and use must already be evident to the learner at the time that attention is drawn to the linguistic apparatus needed to get the meaning across’ (p. 4). Some researchers have reacted to this assumption, arguing that focus of form should not be limited to situations in which form is focused on during communicative activities or only when learners are engaged with meaningful activities (Sheen 2002; Swain 2005). R. Ellis (2001a), for example, argued that, although the reactive/proactive distinction is useful as both constitute occasions where learners are invited to FoF while their primary attention is on meaning, the proactive perspective does not meet the incidental characteristic of FoF as posited in Long’s (1991) original definition. Thus, according to R. Ellis, proactive FoF can result in repeated opportunities for attention to a pre-selected language form or intensive instruction whereas incidental FoF (see below) results in extensive instruction in that a range of linguistic forms including grammatical, lexical, phonological, pragmatic forms may compete for learner attention. This then, ‘raises the question as to whether language learning benefits most from focusing on a few problematic linguistic forms intensively or from a scatter-gun approach where multitudinous problematic forms are treated randomly and cursorily and where the treatment may or may not be repeated’ (p. 16).