Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-t7fkt Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-25T20:45:21.276Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Beyond form-focused instruction: Reflections on past, present and future research

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  13 July 2010

Nina Spada
Nina Spada*
Affiliation:
Second Language Education Program, Department of Curriculum, Teaching and Learning, OISE University of Toronto, [email protected]
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

In 1997 I published a paper in Language Teaching entitled ‘Form-focused instruction and second language acquisition: A review of classroom and laboratory research’. The paper reviewed the results of studies investigating the effects of form-focused instruction (FFI) on second language (L2) learning. It was organized around seven questions, including: whether FFI is beneficial to L2 learning; whether particular types of FFI are more beneficial; whether there is an optimal time to provide FFI; and whether different language features benefit more from FFI. In this paper I revisit these questions and reflect on how research on FFI and L2 learning has evolved over the past twelve years.

Type
Plenary Speeches
Information
Language Teaching , Volume 44 , Issue 2 , April 2011 , pp. 225 - 236
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 2010

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Ammar, A. & Lightbown, P. M. (2005). Teaching marked linguistic structure more about the acquisition of relative clauses by Arab learners of English. In Housen, & Pierrard, (eds.), 167–198.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Blaxton, T. A. (1989). Investigating dissociations among memory measures: Support for a transfer-appropriate processing framework. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition 15, 657–668.Google Scholar
Day, E. & Shapson, S. (1991). Integrating formal and functional approaches to language teaching in French immersion: An experimental study. Language Learning 41, 25–58.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
de Graaff, R. (1997). The eXperanto experiment: Effects of explicit instruction on second language acquisition. Studies in Second Language Acquisition 19, 249–297.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
DeKeyser, R. M. (1995). Learning second language grammar rules: An experiment with a miniature linguistic system. Studies in Second Language Acquisition 17, 379–410.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
DeKeyser, R. M. (2005). What makes learning second-language grammar difficult? A review of issues. Language Learning 55 S1 [Special Issue], 1–25.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Doughty, C. & Williams, J. (eds.) (1998). Focus on form in classroom second language acquisition. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Eckman, F., Bell, L. & Nelson, D. (1988). On the generalization of relative clause construction in the acquisition of English as a second language. Applied Linguistics 9, 1–20.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ellis, R. (2001). Investigating form-focused instruction. Language Learning 51, 1–46.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ellis, R. (2005). Measuring implicit and explicit knowledge of a second language: A psychometric study. Studies in Second Language Acquisition 27, 141–172.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Erlam, R. (2005). Language aptitude and its relationship to instructional effectiveness in second language acquisition. Language Teaching Research 9.2, 147–171.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Erlam, R. (2006). Elicited imitation as a measure of L2 implicit knowledge: An empirical study. Applied Linguistics 27, 464–491.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gass, S. (1982). From theory to practice. In Hines, M. & Rutherford, W. (eds.), On TESOL '81. Washington, DC: TESOL, 129–139.Google Scholar
Gass, S. & Torres, M. J. Alvarez (2005). Attention when? An investigation of the ordering effect of input and interaction. Studies in Second Language Acquisition 27, 1–31.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hamilton, R. (1994). Is implicational generalization unidirectional and maximal? Evidence from relativization instruction in a second language. Language Learning 44, 123–157.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Harley, B. (1989). Functional grammar in French immersion: A classroom experiment. Applied Linguistics 10, 331–359.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Harley, B. & Hart, D. (1997). Language aptitude and second language proficiency in classroom learners of different starting ages. Studies in Second Language Acquisition 19.3, 379–400.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hondo, J. (2009). Constructing knowledge in SLA: The impact of timing in FF intervention. Ph.D. dissertation, Lancaster University, UK.Google Scholar
Housen, A. & Pierrard, M. (eds.) (2005). Investigation in instructed second language acquisition. Amsterdam: Mouton de Gruyter.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Housen, A., Pierrard, M. & Van Daele, S. (2005). Rule complexity and the efficacy of explicit grammar instruction. In Housen, & Pierrard, (eds.), 235–269.Google Scholar
Hulstijn, J. H. & de Graaff, R. (1994). Under what conditions does explicit knowledge of a second language facilitate the acquisition of implicit knowledge? A research proposal. AILA Review 11, 97–112.Google Scholar
Krashen, S. (1982). Principles and practice in second language acquisition. Oxford: Pergamon.Google Scholar
Krashen, S. (1994). The input hypothesis and its rivals. In Ellis, N. (ed.), Implicit and explicit learning of languages. London: Academic Press, 45–77.Google Scholar
Leow, R. P. (1997). Attention, awareness, and foreign language behavior. Language Learning 47, 467–506.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Leow, R. P. (1998). Toward operationalizing the process of attention in SLA: Evidence for Tomlin & Willa's (1994) fine-grained analysis of attention. Applied Psycholinguistics 19, 133–159.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lightbown, P. M. (1998). The importance of timing in focus on form. In Doughty, & Williams, , 177–196.Google Scholar
Long, M. (1991). Focus on form: A design feature in language teaching methodology. In de Bot, K., Coste, D., Ginsberg, R. & Kramsch, C. (eds.), Foreign language research in cross-cultural perspective. Amsterdam: John Benjamins, 39–52.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lyster, R. (1994). The effect of functional-analytic teaching on aspects of French immersion students’ sociolinguistic competence. Applied Linguistics 15, 263–287.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lyster, R. & Saito, K. (2010). Oral feedback in classroom SLA: A meta-analysis. Studies in Second Language Acquisition 32.2, 265–302.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Mackey, A. (2006). Feedback, noticing and instructed second language learning. Applied Linguistics 27, 405–430.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Mackey, A. & Philp, J. (1998). Conversational interaction and second language development: Recasts, responses, and red herrings? The Modern Language Journal 82, 338–356.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Meara, P. (2009). Connected words: Word associations and second language vocabulary acquisition. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Morris, D. D., Bransford, J. D. & Franks, J. J. (1977). Levels of processing versus transfer appropriate processing. Journal of Verbal Learning and Verbal Behavior 16, 519–533.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Nicholas, H., Lightbown, P. M. & Spada, N. (2001). Recasts as feedback to language learners. Language Learning 51, 719–758.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Norris, J. & Ortega, L. (2000). Effectiveness of L2 instruction: A research synthesis and quantitative meta-analysis. Language Learning 50, 417–528.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Norris, J. & Ortega, L. (2006a). The value and practice of research synthesis for language learning. In Norris, & Ortega, (eds.), 3–52.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Norris, J. & Ortega, L. (eds.) (2006b). Synthesizing research on language learning and teaching. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Pienemann, M. (1989). Is language teachable? Applied Linguistics 10, 52–79.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ranta, L. (2002). The role of learners’ language analytic ability in the communicative classroom. In Robinson, P. (ed.), Individual differences and instructed language learning. Amsterdam: John Benjamins, 159–180.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Raudenbush, S. W. & Bryk, A. S. (2002). Hierarchical linear models: Applications and data analysis methods (2nd edn.). Newbury Park, CA: Sage.Google Scholar
Reber, A. S. (1989). Implicit learning and tacit knowledge. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General 118, 219–235.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Robinson, P. (1995). Aptitude, awareness, and the fundamental similarity of implicit and explicit second language learning. In Schmidt, R. (ed.), Attention and awareness in foreign language learning. Honolulu, HI: University of Hawaii Second Language Teaching and Curriculum Center, 303–358.Google Scholar
Robinson, P. (1996). Learning simple and complex second language rules under implicit, incidental, rule-search and instructed conditions. Studies in Second Language Acquisition 18, 27–67.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Russell, J. & Spada, N. (2006). Corrective feedback makes a difference: A meta-analysis of the research. In Norris, & Ortega, (eds.), 133–164.Google Scholar
Schwartz, B. (1993). On explicit and negative data effecting and affecting competence and linguistic behavior. Studies in Second Language Acquisition 15, 147–162.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sheen, Y. (2007). The effects of focused written corrective feedback and language aptitude on ESL learners’ acquisition of articles. TESOL Quarterly 41, 255–283.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Spada, N. (1997). Form-focused instruction and second language acquisition: A review of classroom and laboratory research. Language Teaching 30, 73–87.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Spada, N. & Lightbown, P. M. (1993). Instruction and the development of questions in the L2 classroom. Studies in Second Language Acquisition 15, 205–221.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Spada, N. & Lightbown, P. M. (1999). Instruction, first language influence, and developmental readiness in second language acquisition. The Modern Language Journal 83, 1–22.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Spada, N. & Lightbown, P. M. (2008). Form-focused instruction: Isolated or integrated? TESOL Quarterly 42, 181–207.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Spada, N. & Tomita, Y. (2010). Interactions between type of instruction and type of language feature: A meta-analysis. Language Learning 60.2, 1–46.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Spada, N., Tomita, Y., Shiu, L. & Yalcin, S. (2010). The timing of form-focused instruction: Learner differences and learning outcomes. Presented at the Second Language Research Forum (SLRF), Michigan State University, East Lansing, MI, October 2010.Google Scholar
Trahey, M. (1996). Positive evidence in second language acquisition: Some long term effects. Second Language Research 12, 111–139.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Trahey, M. & White, L. (1993). Positive evidence and pre-emption in the second language classroom. Studies in Second Language Acquisition 15, 181–204.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wesche, M. (1981). Language aptitude measures in streaming, matching students with methods, and diagnosis of learning problems. In Diller, K. C. (ed.), Individual differences and universals in language learning aptitude. Rowley, MA: Newbury House, 119–154.Google Scholar
White, L. (1991). Adverb placement in second language acquisition: Some effects of positive and negative evidence in the classroom. Second Language Research 7, 133–161.Google Scholar
White, J. (1998). Getting the learners’ attention: A typographical input enhancement study. In Doughty, & Williams, (eds.), 85–113.Google Scholar
White, L., Spada, N., Lightbown, P. M. & Ranta, L. (1991). Input enhancement and L1 question formation. Applied Linguistics 12, 416–432.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Williams, J. & Evans, J. (1998). What kind of focus and on which forms? In Doughty, & Williams, (eds.), 139–155.Google Scholar