An overview of form-focused instruction as an option for second language grammar teaching. It combines theoretical concerns, classroom practices, and teacher education.
v1.0 – создание FB2 – Ostermann
Rob Batstone, Catherine Elder
Form-focused Instruction and Teacher Education
Published in this series
BACHMAN: Fundamental Considerations in Language Testing
BACHMAN and PALMER: Language Testing in Practice
BRUMFIT: Individual Freedom and Language Teaching
BRUMFIT and CARTER (eds.): Literature and Language Teaching
CANAGARAJAH: Resisting Linguistic Imperialism in Language Teaching
COOK: Discourse and Literature
COOK: Language Play, Language Learning
COOK and SEIDLHOFER (eds.): Principle and Practice in Applied Linguistics
DöRNYEI: Research Methods in Applied Linguistics
ELLIS: SLA Research and Language Teaching
ELLIS: Task-based Language Learning and Teaching
ELLIS: The Study of Second Language Acquisition
ELLIS: Understanding Second Language Acquisition
ELLIS and BARKHUIZEN: Analysing Learner Language
HOLLIDAY: The Struggle to Teach English as an International Language
HOWATT: A History of English Language Teaching
JENKINS: English as a Lingua Franca: Attitude and Identity
JENKINS: The Phonology of English as an International Language
KERN: Literacy and Language Teaching
KRAMSCH: Context and Culture in Language Teaching
LANTOLF (ed.): Sociocultural Theory and Second Language Learning
LANTOLF and THORNE: Sociocultural Theory and the Genesis of Second Language Development
LARSEN-FREEMAN AND CAMERON: Complex Systems and Applied Linguistics
MACKEY (ed.): Conversational Interaction and Second Language Acquisition
MEINHOF: Language Learning in the Age of Satellite Television
NATTINGER and DECARRICO: Lexical Phrases and Language Teaching
PHILLIPSON: Linguistic Imperialism
SEIDLHOFER (ed.): Controversies in Applied Linguistics
SELIGER and SHOHAMY: Second Language Research Methods
SKEHAN: A Cognitive Approach to Language Learning
STERN: Fundamental Concepts of Language Teaching
STERN (eds. P. Allen and B. Harley): Issues and Options in Language Teaching
TARONE and YULE: FOCUS on the Language Learner
WIDDOWSON: Aspects of Language Teaching
WIDDOWSON: Defining Issues in English Language Teaching
WIDDOWSON: Practical Stylistics
WIDDOWSON: Teaching Language as Communication
Great Clarendon Street, Oxford OX2 6DP
Oxford University Press is a department of the University of Oxford. It furthers the University’s objective of excellence in research, scholarship, and education by publishing worldwide in
Oxford New York
Auckland Cape Town Dar es Salaam Hong Kong Karachi Kuala Lumpur Madrid Melbourne Mexico City Nairobi New Delhi Shanghai Taipei Toronto
With offices in
Argentina Austria Brazil Chile Czech Republic France Greece Guatemala Hungary Italy Japan Poland Portugal Singapore South Korea Switzerland Thailand Turkey Ukraine Vietnam
OXFORD and OXFORD ENGLISH are registered trade marks of Oxford University Press in the UK and in certain other countries
© Oxford University Press 2007
The moral rights of the author have been asserted
Database right Oxford University Press (maker)
First published 2007
2011 2010 2009 2008
10 9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2
No unauthorized photocopying
All rights reserved. No part of this publication may be reproduced, stored in a retrieval system, or transmitted, in any form or by any means, without the prior permission in writing of Oxford University Press, or as expressly permitted by law, or under terms agreed with the appropriate reprographics rights organization. Enquiries concerning reproduction outside the scope of the above should be sent to the ELT Rights Department, Oxford University Press, at the address above
You must not circulate this book in any other binding or cover and you must impose the same condition on any acquirer
Any websites referred to in this publication are in the public domain and their addresses are provided by Oxford University Press for information only. Oxford University Press disclaims any responsibility for the content
ISBN-13: 978 0 19 442250 5
Typeset by Data Standards Ltd, Frome, Somerset, UK
Printed in China
THE EDITORS, AUTHORS, AND OXFORD UNIVERSITY PRESS are pleased to publish this book in honour of Rod Ellis for his outstanding contribution to the field of second language teaching and learning.
THE EDITORS AND THE PUBLISHER would like to thank the authors for their excellent chapters, and are grateful to Allster Cumming, Henry Widdowson, and David Nunan for their helpful comments and suggestions. The editors would like to thank Laura Hawkes for her assistance.
Introduction
THIS BOOK is edited in honor of Rod Ellis, whose contributions to the field of second language acquisition (SLA) and teacher education have been of tremendous significance over the past three decades. Rod’s work and ideas have advanced our understanding of many areas within SLA, including form-focused instruction (FFI), task-based teaching and learning, classroom research, and the role of input and interaction. Throughout his career, Rod’s commitment to teacher education through linking research with classroom pedagogy stands out as especially significant. Because he began his career as an English teacher, he has extensive experience with and knowledge of classroom teaching and the challenges facing teachers. This background, coupled with his expertise in SLA research and applied linguistics, has enabled him to connect theory and practice effectively and to make outstanding contributions to various areas of teacher education, including curriculum development, teaching methodology, and classroom research. Rod’s contributions in these areas have appeared in numerous journal articles, conference presentations, workshops, and teacher education textbooks and monographs. By editing this Festschrift, we wish to express our appreciation of what Rod has done over the course of his academic and teaching career for second and foreign language (FL) teachers, researchers, and teacher educators.
The book has been designed to focus on current areas of research, theory, and practice in FFI and teacher education. The contributors are Rod’s colleagues and friends and those who have worked with him over the years and have inspired or been inspired by his work. The range of topics covered reflects the breadth and depth of Rod’s expertise and interests.
In line with Rod’s work, the volume addresses FFI from the perspective of informing teachers of the role that formal instruction plays in communicative contexts. It considers both theoretical and empirical issues as well as classroom use of form-focused activities in communicative pedagogy. Since many SLA researchers and teacher educators now recognize the important role of FFI in language learning theory, teaching, and learning, a volume that combines theoretical concerns, classroom practices, and teacher education constitutes an important contribution to the field.
Overview of the volume
The book is organized into three parts: ‘Theoretical issues of focus on form’, ‘Focus on form and classroom practice’, and ‘Focus on form and teacher education’. All sections address FFI with particular reference to Rod’s work, and the last two discuss its classroom applications, again drawing upon Rod’s many contributions to the field. The first section contains four chapters addressing theoretical considerations including an overview of focus on form (FoF), consciousness, cognitive processing, explicit knowledge and sociocultural theory, the relationship between task research and language teaching pedagogy, and FoF as psycholinguistic and sociolinguistic phenomena.
Chapter 1, ‘Issues in form-focused instruction and teacher education’ by Hossein Nassaji and Sandra Fotos, introduces the volume by examining the theoretical aspects of FoF and reviewing the various types of FFI in classroom practice. This chapter also discusses current insights from FFI research and theory and their relevance for teachers and teacher education. Chapter 2, ‘The weak interface, consciousness, and form-focused instruction: mind the doors’ by Nick Ellis, examines the interface between implicit and explicit knowledge and compares the roles of consciousness in SLA and psychology. N. Ellis suggests that current theories of the role of consciousness correspond to the ‘weak interface’ theory proposed by Rod (R. Ellis 1994b) whereby explicit knowledge plays a facilitating role in SLA.
Chapter 3, ‘Conceptual knowledge and instructed second language learning: a sociocultural perspective’ by James Lantolf, considers the implications of sociocultural theory for second language (L2) instruction, arguing that conceptual knowledge is likely to have a more powerful impact on grammatical development than traditional approaches which focus less on meaning and more on formal grammatical features. Chapter 4, ‘Task research and language teaching: reciprocal relationships’ by Peter Skehan, begins with a comprehensive review of task research, particularly examining the sequence and implications of pre-task, task, and post-task activities and relating the research findings to current pedagogical practice. Skehan notes that a task-based approach has much to offer FFI.
The second section, ‘Focus on form and classroom practice’, examines research-based FFI activities in the (L2) classroom. Chapter 5, by Merrill Swain and Sharon Lapkin, is titled ‘The distributed nature of second language learning: Neil’s perspective’. The authors review research on the distributed nature of learning as a situated local phenomenon, then present an analysis of a French immersion student’s transcripts during performance of multi-task activities, suggesting that the participant’s L2 learning is mediated by his own languaging. Chapter 6, ‘Recontextualizing focus on form’ by Rob Batstone, examines the ongoing, discourse-based nature of FoF and the critical roles of framing and negotiation of form. The shift from meaning to form is reconsidered, with particular focus on the processes by which learners develop alertness and attentional capacity.
Chapter 7, ‘The prior and subsequent use of forms targeted in incidental focus on form’ by Shawn Loewen, investigates the effectiveness of incidental FoF in promoting L2 learning by examining the use of targeted linguistic items in classroom interaction both before and after FFI took place. The author emphasizes the need for various measures of learners’ L2 knowledge. Chapter 8, ‘Reactive focus on form through negotiation on learners’ written errors’ by Hossein Nassaji, examines the role of negotiation taking place during oral feedback on English as a second language (ESL) learners’ written errors. The results indicated that negotiated feedback occurred more frequently than non-negotiated feedback, and was more effective in helping students identify and correct their L2 writing errors than non-negotiated feedback. Chapter 9, ‘Form-focused instruction and output for second language writing gains’ by Sandra Fotos and Eli Hinkel, reviews research indicating that, without FFI, even advanced L2 learners write text with simple grammatical and lexical features. Classroom pedagogy consisting of FFI, output opportunities, feedback, and learner revision is recommended, and activities in an English as a foreign language (EFL) writing class are described.
The third section, ‘Focus on form and teacher education’, integrates FFI with teacher education and practice. Chapter 10, ‘Materials development and research: towards a form-focused perspective’ by Jack Richards, discusses research and theory in materials development, including the writer’s goals, the focus of the materials, and the syllabus. Richards suggests that development of successful teaching material is not dependent on research but rather on how the material is received by teachers and students, and whether it meets their needs.
Chapter 11, ‘Time, teachers, and tasks in focus on form instruction’ by Teresa Pica, addresses time as a factor in teachers’ selection of target forms, their decision when to focus attention on the forms, and their practices for form mastery. Recommendations are given for designing tasks which are consistent with FFI and curriculum requirements. Brian Tomlinson’s Chapter 12, ‘Using form-focused discovery approaches’, describes various types of discovery approaches and investigates teacher attitudes and adoption practices. The author’s experience of introducing discovery approaches to teachers around the world is presented, and suggestions are offered regarding the use of discovery approaches in the future.
Chapter 13, ‘Learning or measuring? Exploring teacher decision-making in planning for classroom-based language assessment’ by Pauline Rea-Dickins, recognizes the need to understand language assessment practices within the social and cultural context in which they take place. The chapter explores decisions that teachers make in relation to classroom-based assessment and to the different phases in the assessment cycle.
Chapter 14, ‘Learning through the looking glass: teacher response to form-focused feedback on writing’, by Tricia Hedge, examines teacher responses to their writing tutor’s taped FFI and commentary on their writing. The teachers responded positively to the taped feedback in comparison to face-to-face interaction or written commentary. Chapter 15, ‘Explicit language knowledge and focus on form: options and obstacles for TESOL teacher trainees’, by Catherine Elder, Rosemary Erlam, and Jenefer Philp, examines TESOL teacher trainees’ explicit knowledge and their ability to deliver FoF options. The authors also suggest that if FoF interventions are to be effective, teacher education programs must help teacher trainees develop strategies to tailor their instructional approaches to their level of metalinguistic knowledge.
The primary theme running through the chapters in this collection is that FFI is necessary in language classrooms. Written from the viewpoint of language teachers, the chapters attempt to demonstrate, either theoretically or empirically, options for integrating form and meaning in language classrooms. The theoretical concerns which should underlie an integrated curriculum are discussed, and specific techniques are examined, with suggestions for their application in language teaching and teacher education.
Sandra Fotos
Hossein Nassaji
Part One
Theoretical issues of focus on form
1
Issues in form-focused instruction and teacher education
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
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
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
Конец ознакомительного фрагмента.
Текст предоставлен ООО «ЛитРес».
Прочитайте эту книгу целиком, купив полную легальную версию на ЛитРес.
Безопасно оплатить книгу можно банковской картой Visa, MasterCard, Maestro, со счета мобильного телефона, с платежного терминала, в салоне МТС или Связной, через PayPal, WebMoney, Яндекс.Деньги, QIWI Кошелек, бонусными картами или другим удобным Вам способом.