Form-Focused Instruction:

Isolated or Integrated?
NINA SPADA
University of Toronto
Toronto, Ontario, Canada

PATSY M. LIGHTBOWN
Concordia University (Emeritus)
Montreal, Quebec, Canada

There is increasing consensus that form-focused instruction helps

learners in communicative or content-based instruction to learn features of the target language that they may not acquire without guidance. The subject of this article is the role of instruction that is provided
in separate (isolated) activities or within the context of communicative
activities (integrated). Research suggests that both types of instruction
can be benecial, depending on the language feature to be learned, as
well as characteristics of the learner and the learning conditions. For
example, isolated lessons may be necessary to help learners who share
the same rst language (L1) overcome problems related to L1 inuence on their interlanguage; integrated instruction may be best for
helping learners develop the kind of uency and automaticity that are
needed for communication outside the classroom. The evidence suggests that teachers and students see the benets of both types of instruction. Explanations for the effectiveness of each type of instruction
are drawn from theoretical work in second language acquisition and
cognitive psychology as well as from empirical research.

n the 1970s, a new pedagogy of communicative language teaching

(CLT) and a new theoretical view of second language acquisition
(SLA) emphasized the importance of language development that takes
place while learners are engaged in meaning-focused activities. Teachers
and methodologists developed language classroom activities that featured interaction among learners, opportunities to use language in seeking and exchanging information, and less attention to learning metalinguistic rules or memorizing dialogues and practicing patterns (Brumt,
1984; Howatt, 1984). One type of CLT that has become especially widespread is content-based instruction (CBI) in which the new language is
a vehicle for learning subject matter that is of interest and value to the

TESOL QUARTERLY Vol. 42, No. 2, June 2008

181

learner. It has been hypothesized that in CBI language learning may

even become incidental to learning about the content (Snow, Met, &
Genesee, 1992, p. 28). However, some researchers have observed that
good content teaching may not always be good language teaching
(Swain, 1988), and since the introduction of CLT and CBI, debates have
continued about whether and, if so, how attention to language form
should be included in approaches to language instruction that are primarily meaning-focused.

THE ROLE OF FORM-FOCUSED INSTRUCTION

Some individuals, especially those who begin learning as young children,
acquire high levels of second language ability without form-focused instruction (FFI). This outcome supports the hypothesis that FFI is not
necessary for SLA. However, it is rare for students in second or foreign
language classes to reach such high levels. Some claim that this failure to
master a new language is due to physiological changes that occur with
age. Others point to the limitations inherent in classroom contexts.
Whatever the reason, learners who begin learning when they are beyond
early childhood, especially those whose exposure to the target language
occurs primarily or exclusively in classrooms where other students share
the same L1, appear to benet from FFI that helps them make more
efficient use of their limited exposure to the sounds, words, and sentences of the language they are learning (Lightbown & Spada, 2006).
One thing is certain: Language acquisition is not an event that occurs in
an instant or as a result of exposure to a language form, a language
lesson, or corrective feedback. It is an evolving and dynamic phenomenon that is perhaps better characterized by the word development (suggesting ongoing change) than by the word acquisition (if this is taken to
mean that the language user has complete and irrevocable possession of
some linguistic knowledge or behavior).1
Some SLA researchers have hypothesized that when instruction focuses on the language itself, it is benecial only in marginal ways and may
even have a negative impact on language acquisition (Krashen, 1982,
1994; Truscott, 1996, 1999). They argue that, at most, explicit FFI alters
language performance but does not change learners underlying grammar, which develops only through exposure to the language in natural
interaction. In their view, instruction may allow second language (L2)
users to acquire metalinguistic knowledge, but this kind of knowledge is
processed and stored separately from language that is acquired through
1

182

See Norris and Ortega (2003) for a review and discussion of denitions and measurements
of second language knowledge and skill.

TESOL QUARTERLY

interactive language use (Schwartz, 1993; Sharwood Smith, 2004; see

Ellis, 2005, for review).
Some of the empirical work investigating the kind of knowledge that
is acquired during form-focused instruction has shown that FFI can play
a role in helping classroom learners in CLT and CBI use their L2 with
greater uency and accuracy (e.g., Spada & Lightbown, 1993; Lyster,
2004) and to use language forms that represent more advanced developmental levels (e.g., Doughty & Varela, 1998). In these studies, efforts
were made to develop tasks that elicited samples of spontaneous oral
production. In a meta-analysis of the instructed SLA research, Norris and
Ortega (2000) also report benets for FFI, in particular the positive
effects of explicit instruction on L2 learning. However, the majority of
studies included in the meta-analysis used discrete-point, metalinguistic
tests as measures of instructional effectiveness. This bias has led to the
call for more studies to examine the benets of instruction on implicit
knowledge (Doughty, 2003; Ellis, 2002a; Norris & Ortega, 2000).
Improvements in language performance may reect learners ability
to make appropriate use of units of language that they have learned as
whole unanalyzed chunks during form-focused practice or to use metalinguistic knowledge they have acquired during grammar lessons to
monitor their output. When learners produce language under conditions of time pressure or competing demands on attention, they may
reveal that the underlying internal grammar of their interlanguage has
not been substantially affected. Even if this is the case, however, learners
ability to use language with greater accuracy and uencyat least in
some circumstancescan contribute to language acquisition in several
ways. For example, in producing monitored or unanalyzed chunks of
language, learners can create for themselves a sort of input and feedback
loop that provides them with samples of the language that may be incorporated into their underlying grammatical systems later, when they
are developmentally ready (Lightbown, 1998; Sharwood Smith, 2004).
Another possible advantage of this ability to produce more correct or
advanced language is that the contextually appropriate use of unanalyzed and/or monitored language allows learners to keep interactions
going, thereby increasing their access to language input (Krashen,
1982). Further, the ability to use unanalyzed chunks of language may
free cognitive resources for use in attending to external input (Ellis,
2005). Some language acquisition theories assume a more direct relationship between metalinguistic or formulaic knowledge and spontaneous language use. Skill acquisition theorists hypothesize that language
learned rst as metalinguistic knowledge can, through repeated meaningful practice, eventually become so well incorporated and automatized
that the language user forgets the metalinguistic information and may
forget having learned it in the rst place (DeKeyser, 2003).
FORM-FOCUSED INSTRUCTION: ISOLATED OR INTEGRATED?

183

The value of FFI within instruction that is primarily meaning-focused

has been demonstrated by research conducted in CLT and CBI programs over the past 20 years. In addition, teachers who have experience
with the strong version of CLTan exclusive focus on meaning with no
attention to language form (Howatt, 1984; Spada, 2006a)have observed that, without FFI, some language features never emerge in learners language, and some nontarget forms persist for years. Experience
with CLT and CBI shows that meaning-based exposure to the language
allows L2 learners to develop comprehension skills, oral uency, selfcondence, and communicative abilities, but that they continue to have
difficulties with pronunciation as well as with morphological, syntactic,
and pragmatic features of the L2 (see, e.g., Harley & Swain, 1984; Lyster,
1987). Research in CLT and CBI classrooms shows that the introduction
of FFI has contributed to changes in learners knowledge and use of
certain language features (e.g., Day & Shapson, 1991; Doughty & Varela,
1998; Harley, 1989; White, Spada, Lightbown, & Ranta, 1991; Lyster,
2004; Sheen, 2005).2 Advocates of CBI have increasingly emphasized the
importance of planning lessons that have both content objectives and linguistic objectives (Echevarria, Vogt, & Short, 2004; Pica, 2002; Schleppergrell, Achugar, & Oteza, 2004).
Thus, both research and teaching experience have led to a growing
consensus that instruction is most effective when it includes attention to
both form and meaning.3 As a result, the most engaging questions and
debates in L2 pedagogy are no longer about whether CLT should include FFI but rather how and when it is most effective. This article
compares the role of FFI in lessons that are isolated from communicative
or content-based interaction with that of FFI that is integrated within
activities where the primary emphasis remains on meaning (e.g., in tasks
or content-based lessons). Some teachers and students have strong opinions about this question (see Barkhuizen, 1998; Yorio, 1986), but researchers have not directly compared the effects of integrating or isolating form-focused and meaning-focused practice in CLT and CBI programs.
There are theoretical and pedagogical arguments for both isolation
and integration of form and meaning in L2 instruction. In our view,
2

These studies differ in several ways, including the degree of explicitness of instruction.
Nonetheless, they can all be categorized as studies of FFI using the broad denition of FFI
as proposed by Ellis (2001). This includes the primarily metalinguistic instruction associated with more traditional approaches to L2 teaching as evidenced in Sheen (2005) as well
as instruction that is more implicit in nature, drawing learners attention to form in
functional and meaning-based contexts as evidenced in Harley (1989).
3
We thank the anonymous TESOL Quarterly reviewer who reminded us that all grammatical
forms have meaning and that a simple binary distinction between form and meaning is
problematic. We agree and use this terminology as a kind of shorthand referring to an
emphasis on the structural or semantic properties of language.

184

TESOL QUARTERLY

making a choice between integrated and isolated FFI is not necessary (or
advisable). Rather, the challenge is to discover the conditions under
which isolated and integrated FFI respectively are most appropriate.
These conditions are likely to involve a number of factors, including the
nature of the language feature (e.g., its complexity, and its frequency
and salience in the input), learners developmental levels in the acquisition of the feature, and the relationship between comparable features
in the learners L1 and the L2. Other important factors include teachers
and learners preferences for how to teach/learn about form, learners
literacy and metalinguistic sophistication (especially in their L1), and
their age and overall L2 prociency.

ISOLATED AND INTEGRATED FFI

Johnson (1982) made a distinction between what he called the unicationist and separationist positions on the teaching of language use and
language structure. He described the separationist position as one with
structure being taught rst (through a structural syllabus) followed by a
second communicative stage at which use is taught and where structures
are activated or recycled (p. 129). According to Johnson, the separationist position implies a divorce between the teaching of forms and
uses, though other kinds of related separation are often also being impliedas between knowledge and its activitation, between correctness
and uency (p. 129). In contrast, from the unicationist perspective,
the divorce of form and use is seen as undesirable and probably also
untenable on linguistic and psycholinguistic grounds. The position argues for a communicative framework from the very beginning (p. 129).
Other writers have used different labels to distinguish different types
of FFI. Long (1991) has made a distinction between focus on forms and
focus on form. Focus on forms refers to lessons in which language features
are taught or practiced according to a structural syllabus that species
which features are to be taught and in which sequence. Focus on forms
might involve teaching approaches as varied as mimicry and memorization or grammar translation, but all are based on the assumption that
language features should be taught systematically, one at a time. In
contrast, Longs focus on form refers to instruction in which the main
emphasis remains on communicative activities or tasks but in which a
teacher intervenes to help students use language more accurately when
the need arises. Originally, Long (1991) dened focus on form as reactive and incidental. That is, it was limited to those classroom events in
which the teacher responded to a difficulty that arose as students engaged in communicative activities or tasks. The language feature that
FORM-FOCUSED INSTRUCTION: ISOLATED OR INTEGRATED?

185

required focus was not determined in advance. More recent interpretations of focus on form have expanded the denition to include instruction in which teachers anticipate that students will have difficulty with a
particular feature as they engage in a communicative task and plan in
advance to target that feature through feedback and other pedagogical
interventions, all the while maintaining a primary focus on meaning
(Doughty & Williams, 1998; Long & Robinson, 1998).
In this article, we have chosen to use the terms isolated and integrated
to describe two approaches to drawing learners attention to language
form in L2 instruction.4 Isolated FFI is provided in activities that are
separate from the communicative use of language, but it occurs as part
of a program that also includes CLT and/or CBI. Isolated FFI may be
taught in preparation for a communicative activity or after an activity in
which students have experienced difficulty with a particular language
feature. In isolated FFI, the focus on language form is separated from the
communicative or content-based activity. This approach differs from
Longs focus on forms, which refers to language instruction and practice
organized around predetermined points of grammar in a structural syllabus, that is, form-based instruction that is not directly tied to genuinely
communicative practice.
In integrated FFI, the learners attention is drawn to language form
during communicative or content-based instruction. This denition corresponds to focus on form (both planned and incidental) as dened by
Ellis (2002a) and by Doughty and Williams (1998). That is, although the
form focus occurs within a communicative activity, the language features
in focus may have been anticipated and planned for by the teacher or
they may occur incidentally in the course of ongoing interaction.
Before discussing the role we see for each approach, a few comments
are in order on how the distinction between isolated and integrated FFI
is related to other contrasts in L2 research and pedagogy, such as intentional versus incidental learning (Hulstijn, 2003) and explicit versus implicit
instruction (DeKeyser, 2003).
4

186

One reviewer suggested that the term isolated carries a clearly negative connotation. We
understand that interpretation and agree that the term certainly has had that connotation
in much writing about language teaching. Nevertheless, we have chosen to retain this term
because it allows us to emphasize the importance of instruction in which teachers and
students focus their attention on language features that are almost impossible to perceive
or acquire when they occur in ordinary communicative interaction, either because they are
acoustically imperceptible (e.g., most grammatical morphology in English) or redundant
and unlikely to affect comprehension (e.g., word order in English questions). We suggest
that it is sometimes necessary to isolate such formsmuch as one might place a specimen
under a microscopeso that learners have an opportunity to perceive these features and
understand their function in the language they encounter in communicative interaction.
As we have stated previously, learners cannot be expected to benet from brief, integrated
focus on form if they do not understand what the teacher is calling their attention to
(Lightbown, 1998, p. 194).

TESOL QUARTERLY

Isolated FFI is the provision of instruction in lessons whose primary

purpose is to teach students about a particular language feature because
the teacher believes that students are unlikely to acquire the feature
during communicative activities without an opportunity to learn about
the feature in a situation where its form and meaning can be made clear.
From the teachers perspective, isolated FFI always implies intentional
learning and explicit instruction. However, classroom observation research shows that even in traditional classrooms in which grammar lessons are based on a structural syllabus, students are not always sure of the
teachers intended focus (Slimani, 1992). That is, the explicitness and
intentionality that the teacher has in mind may not be recognized by the
students.
Integrated FFI occurs in classroom activities during which the primary
focus remains on meaning, but in which feedback or brief explanations
are offered to help students express meaning more effectively or more
accurately within the communicative interaction. Some writers seem to
assume that drawing learners attention to form during meaning-based
activities always involves implicit feedback and incidental learning, but
that is not necessarily the case. Again, the perceptions of teachers and
learners may be different. Adult learners sometimes show that they interpret the teachers implicit feedback (e.g., in the form of recasts) as
explicit guidance, creating an opportunity for intentional language
learning (e.g., Ohta, 2000; Ellis, Basturkmen, & Loewen 2001). However,
even when they recognize the teachers implicit feedback as relevant to
language form, learners may not correctly identify the object of the
teachers attention (see Mackey, Gass, & McDonough, 2000, for a related
study).
Both isolated and integrated FFI can include explicit feedback on
error, metalinguistic terminology, the statement of rules, and explanations. Consider the following example of explicit, integrated FFI. The
context is a communicative activity. Grade 6 students are playing a game
in which they have to correctly guess the location of different dolls in a
doll house to gain enough points to win the game. Note that, in preparation for the game, examples of appropriate questions had been written
on the board.
Student: Is George is in the living room?
Teacher: You said is two times, dear. Listen to youyou said, Is George
is in . . . Look on the board. Is George in the . . . and then you
say the name of the room.
Student: Is George in the living room?
Teacher: Yeah
Student: I win! (Lightbown & Spada, 2006, p. 167)
FORM-FOCUSED INSTRUCTION: ISOLATED OR INTEGRATED?

187

In this example, the teacher provided explicit corrective feedback to

a student when he made an error of form, even though the meaning he
conveyed was comprehensible. First, she drew attention to the error,
providing information as to what the error was. Although she explicitly
focused on form, and the student appeared to understand and use the
feedback, it seems that this did not interfere with his continuing interest
in the ongoing game. Such FFI is thus both integrated and explicit. From
the teachers perspective, the focus on question forms was also intentional: She had prepared for the activity with an isolated lesson on question forms, writing examples of appropriate questions on the board.
Another example of integrated FFI, one that includes the statement of
rules and metalinguistic explanations, is an activity in which pairs of
students respond to truefalse (T/F) statements about medical history
using a timeline showing names, dates, and descriptions of discoveries.
Some of the T/F statements are expressed in the active voice while
others are in the passive (e.g., Freud developed a method for examining mental
processes known as psychoanalysis; Penicillin was discovered by Alexander Fleming in 1928). The focus is on content and meaning. As students discuss
their responses to the questions, the instructor selects the two T/F statements above and asks the students to examine them with the following
questions in mind: What is given more emphasis in the rst sentence
Freud [the subject] or psychoanalysis [the object]? What is more
prominent in the second sentence? This leads into a brief explanation
(5 or 6 minutes) of active/passive sentences, how they are formed and
how they function, using one or two other examples. The teacher then
asks students to return to responding to the T/F questions using the
information on the timeline to assist them. (See Samuda, 2001, for an
example of integrated FFI targeting the use of modal auxiliaries.)
One nal note is essential before we discuss the different roles of
isolated and integrated FFI. For purposes of the discussion, we present
these approaches as if they were entirely distinct. It is clear, however, that
they are really the ends of a continuum, especially as we are examining
their role within CLT and CBI contexts for teaching and learning. That
is, we do not see isolated and integrated FFI as being in competition with
each other; rather, we see them as complementary parts of a complete
language learning environment. Although we are convinced that there is
a role for isolated FFI, we see it as occurring within instruction that is
primarily interactive and communicative. Ultimately, the ability to use
language automatically in communicative settings requires experience in
doing exactly that. Providing integrated FFI in CLT and CBI contexts is
the instructional model that has the greatest potential for facilitating the
development of uent and accurate language that is available for use
outside the classroom. We concur with DeKeyser (1998), who, in his
critique of rote drill in audiolingual language teaching, commented that
188

TESOL QUARTERLY

practice is valuable for language learning when it involves practice in

conveying personal meanings (pp. 5354).

The Role of Integrated FFI

In the pedagogical literature, there is considerable support for integrating form focus within communicative activities as well as considerable skepticism about the effectiveness of instruction that separates form
focus from meaningful interaction (see, e.g., Calv, 1994). Celce-Murcia
(1991) argues that grammar should never be taught as an end in itself
but always with reference to meaning, social factors or discourseor a
combination of these factors (pp. 466467). Brumt (1984) asserts that
teachers should not prevent learners . . . from combining a concern
with language use with worry about formal accuracy in terms of specic
language items (p. 53). Brumts assertion may be taken as evidence
that, for some learners at least, feedback that comes during communicative interaction may have a positive effect on motivation.5 Knowing
that help is available when it is needed may respond to the expectations
and preferences of studentsespecially adult studentsin language
classes (see Cathcart & Olsen, 1976; Schulz, 1996, 2001).
Theoretical support for integration comes from both SLA and cognitive psychology. Long (1991) has argued that focus on language form
should be fully integrated into ongoing communicative interaction. In
fact, as noted earlier, in some of his writing, Long (e.g., 1991) argued
that teachers should provide focus on form only on those language
features that occur naturally in the course of a task or activity in which
students are using the language in meaningful interaction. In his revised
interaction hypothesis, Long (1996) states that while comprehensible
input and meaningful interaction provide the raw material for language
acquisition, they also provide the ideal context for spontaneous (i.e.,
integrated) attention to language form. Other SLA concepts such as
negotiation of form (Lyster, 1994a, 1994b) and metatalk (Swain & Lapkin,
2002) also point to the benets of reecting on language form during
communicative language use. There are differences among these theoretical constructs, but all of them are compatible with the hypothesis that
while instruction may not directly alter learners underlying language
systems, it can help them notice features in the input, making it more
5

It is important to note that we do not equate integrated FFI with CLT. As evident in the
research literature and in classroom practice, CLT has many different meanings, some of
which include no attention to language form (i.e., the strong version of CLT) and others
that include attention to form, albeit in different ways (see Howatt, 1984 and Spada, 2006a
for discussions of the evolution and interpretations of CLT).

FORM-FOCUSED INSTRUCTION: ISOLATED OR INTEGRATED?

189

likely that they will acquire them (Gass, 1997; Lightbown, 1998; Schmidt,
1990).
One theoretical approach that has recently been used to explain the
possible benets of integrated FFI is transfer appropriate processing (TAP).
According to TAP, learners retrieve knowledge best if the processes for
retrieval are similar to those that were used in the learning condition
(Blaxton, 1989; Franks, Bilbrey, Lien, & McNamara, 2000; Morris, Bransford, & Franks, 1977). In addition, the situation, objects, and events that
are present at the time of learning are connected through a network of
associations. Therefore, retrieval is likely to be easier when learners nd
themselves using similar processes or in the presence of the same objects
or situations.
TAP has only recently begun to receive attention in the SLA literature,
but research on bilinguals memory for lexical items provides some indications of what SLA research may reveal. In these studies, bilingual
participants are consistently more successful in retrieving the words they
learned when the testing tasks are similar to the learning tasks (Basden,
Bonilla-Meeks, & Basden, 1994; Durgunoglu & Roediger, 1987). Research on the learning and retrieval of more complex units of language
remains to be done. However, it seems that TAP would predict that
language learned during communicative activities in which learners attention is briey drawn to form (i.e., integrated FFI) would be more
easily retrieved in communicative situations than, say, on decontextualized tests. In contrast, L2 knowledge learned outside communicative
activities in isolated FFI would be more difficult to retrieve in communicative situations outside the classroom (Doherty, Hilberg, Pinal, &
Tharp, 2003; Segalowitz & Gatbonton, 1995; Segalowitz & Lightbown,
1999). This hypothesis is consistent with the observation of many teachers and researchers: Students who perform well on tests are not necessarily uent users of the test items in spontaneous speech, just as many
uent speakers whose language acquisition has taken place primarily
outside the classroom perform poorly on tests requiring metalinguistic
knowledge or the retrieval of individual language features outside a
communicative context.
Although support for integrated FFI comes primarily from theoretical
extrapolations and pedagogical principles, there is also some evidence of
its effectiveness in classroom-based studies of CLT and CBI. In our research in intensive ESL classes that were almost exclusively meaningfocused, young students were successful in acquiring certain language
features when their teachers provided ongoing, integrated FFI on a limited number of these features (Lightbown, 1991; Lightbown & Spada,
1990). Those receiving integrated FFI were substantially more likely to
acquire these features than students in classes where there was never any
attention to form. Research in French immersion programs (Day &
190

TESOL QUARTERLY

Shapson, 1991; Harley, 1989, 1998; Lyster, 1994a, 1994b, 2004) and in
other content-based and communicative classrooms with child and adult
ESL learners (Doughty & Varela, 1998; R. Ellis, Basturkmen, & Loewen,
2001; Williams & Evans, 1998) also supports the hypothesis that attention
to language form within the context of communicative practice can lead
to progress in learners language development. Although this progress
has been observed in the short term for most studies, long-term improvement has also been reported (e.g., Spada & Lightbown, 1993). However,
the research in CLT and CBI classes was not designed to directly investigate the different roles of integrated and isolated FFI. That is, none of
the studies compared the outcomes of L2 learners receiving isolated FFI
with learners receiving integrated FFI.
Jeans (2005) study of French as a second language (nonimmersion)
in a Canadian secondary school provides some related evidence of the
effectiveness of integrated FFI. Jean designed an experimental study in
which learners either (a) practiced target forms in mechanical drills that
were separate from the communicative activities in which the forms were
expected to be used later or (b) received FFI during ongoing meaningbased activities. She found no difference in the two groups ability to use
the target forms on subsequent measures of accuracy. However, she
found that students whose FFI had been integrated with meaningful
communicative activities used the forms with a greater variety of vocabulary. Jean concludes that, at least for the verb morphology targeted in her
study, isolated mechanical drills were not a necessary step in L2 teaching
and that integrated FFI was an effective way of teaching certain verb
forms. She also found that the high school students in her study did not
express a clear preference for one type of instruction over the other.

The Role of Isolated FFI

Stern (1992) asserted that although communicative activities are an
essential component of a language curriculum, there is a still a place for
a separate analytic language syllabus (p. 180, emphasis added). More
recently, Ellis (2002b) has argued that we [should] teach grammar
separately, making no attempt to integrate it with the task-based component (except perhaps, methodologically through feedback) (p. 32).
One frequently heard argument in support of isolating FFI is related to
maintaining learners positive motivation. The concern is that learners
will become discouraged or disinterested if their attention is drawn to
form while they are trying to engage in communicative practice (see,
e.g., Raimes, 2002). Thus, it is sometimes suggested that teachers make
note of problems that arise during interaction activities and then bring
them up for instruction and explanation in separate isolated activities,
FORM-FOCUSED INSTRUCTION: ISOLATED OR INTEGRATED?

191

outside the communicative activity. As noted earlier, however, there is

relatively little evidence that language learners themselves object to FFI
that occurs during communicative activities.
Some pedagogical and theoretical arguments to support the separation of form and communicative practice include the assumption that
FFI should precede communicative use of a new language feature. There
is a long and strong tradition in the eld of L2 teaching that the rst
phase in a lesson is the presentation of a specic language form. This
presentation phase is followed by controlled practice (pattern practice,
structural drills, etc.), and only later by activities that permit more spontaneous use of language. In a controversial article, Higgs and Clifford (1982)
argued that the premature immersion of a student into an unstructured
or free conversational setting before certain fundamental linguistic structures are more or less in place is not done without cost (pp. 7374).
More recently, drawing on research in cognitive psychology, specically in the early work of Anderson (1982) on skill acquisition theory,
DeKeyser (1998) has argued that grammar should rst be taught explicitly to achieve a maximum of understanding and then should be
followed by some exercises to anchor it solidly in the students consciousness in declarative form so that it is easy to keep in mind during communicative exercises (p. 58). In the framework of this article, DeKeysers rst two phases (explicit instruction and anchoring exercises) represent isolated FFI, although our denition of isolated FFI includes the
possibility that such instruction may occur after students have discovered
the need for certain language features during communicative activity.6
Further support for isolated FFI comes from information processing
theory, which argues that because the human mind has limited processing capacity, it is difficult for learners to focus on form and meaning at
the same time (Ellis, 1997). VanPatten (1990) suggested that noticing
some aspects of language form (e.g., verb morphology) while trying to
grasp the meaning of a text may be particularly problematic for beginning learners. VanPatten and his colleagues have shown how isolating
specic features of the target language in the input can help learners
change the way they process certain formmeaning mappings (VanPatten, 1996, 2004; VanPatten & Cadierno, 1993).
Recent studies by Barcroft (2002) and Tromovich (2005) also illustrate situations in which isolated FFI may be benecial to students. In
these studies, students were exposed to the material to be learned either
in contexts where they needed to focus on form while also processing
semantic aspects of the language to be learned or where some formal
feature was itself the primary focus. Both Barcroft and Tromovich
6

192

Doughty and Williams (1998) refer to the work by DeKeyser and Lightbown regarding the
sequencing of FFI as sequential focus on form.

TESOL QUARTERLY

found that attention to meaning was associated with poorer recall of

formal features such as the spelling or pronunciation of words. They
interpreted their ndings in terms of the TAP hypothesis. As noted
earlier, according to TAP, the best predictor of success in retrieving
information is the degree of similarity between the conditions and processing demands present during learning and those present during retrieval. Thus, a learning task in which cognitive effort is devoted to
semantic features of a word is not a good preparation for a test in which
learners need to retrieve information about perceptual or formal features of the word. If the assessment task requires learners to recall or
recognize the correct spelling or pronunciation of a word, the learning
task should create conditions in which learners can devote more processing capacity to those features. To be sure, the goal of most language
learning is ultimately to be able to use language forms correctly in communicative contexts that include multiple demands on attention. However, what the research by VanPatten, Barcroft, and Tromovich shows is
that such contexts may not be conducive to the initial perception and
interpretation of certain language features.
To our knowledge, no empirical classroom-based research directly
compares the effects of isolated and integrated instruction.7 It is important to keep in mind that our denition of isolated FFI is attention to form
in separate lessons that occur within a program that is primarily communicative in orientation. In that sense, it is not the same as Longs
denition of focus on forms, which is associated with traditional discretepoint metalinguistic instruction provided in a context where little or no
meaning-based instruction or practice occurs. Similarly, our denition of
integrated FFI is not the same as Longs original denition of focus on form,
which includes only reactive FFI whereas integrated FFI includes both
reactive and proactive FFI. In this way, our denition of integrated FFI is
similar to Elliss (2001) denition of planned and incidental focus on form.
7

A reviewer argues that such studies do exist and points to Sheen (2005) as an example.
While Sheens study does show the benets of instruction in helping young francophone
students make more accurate use of questions and the placement of adverbs in English
sentences, it is not a comparison of integrated and isolated FFI as we dene them in this
paper. As we read the report of that research, it seems to show that the students in the
comparison group received almost no FFI at all. It is important to emphasize, again, that
integrated FFI is not simply a synonym for CLT with little or no attention to language form.
Integrated FFI includes brief explanations, corrective feedback, explicit elicitations of
correct forms, and input enhancement provided within the context of meaning-based
instruction. Sheens description of the comparison class in his study indicates that the
instructor did not make any special attempt to integrate FFI related to questions and
adverbs in his regular classroom activities. In the experimental class, students received
instruction that is best described as focus on forms not as isolated FFI. The distinction
between the two is that isolated FFI is provided in separate lessons that are directly related
to the activities within a communicative or content-based syllabus whereas focus on forms
lessons typically occur within a structural syllabus that is not closely linked to the ongoing
communicative activities.

FORM-FOCUSED INSTRUCTION: ISOLATED OR INTEGRATED?

193

This review of the theoretical, pedagogical, and empirical support for

integrated and isolated instruction indicates that there are arguments on
both sides and that the choice between the two is likely not an absolute
one, but rather a choice that is dependent on other factors. In the next
section, we outline some of those factors.

FACTORS THAT INFLUENCE THE CHOICE OF

ISOLATED OR INTEGRATED FFI
SLA research shows that some linguistic features are acquired incidentally, that is, without intentional effort or conscious awareness by learners
or guidance from teachers. However, it is also evident that some language features develop very slowly, or not at all, in the absence of guided
attention and that some types of FFI can increase the likelihood that
learners will make progress in learning these features (Norris & Ortega,
2000). Some language features develop according to a natural sequence
of stages that is not altered by instruction. (For overviews, see Ellis, 1994;
Gass & Selinker, 2001; Lightbown & Spada, 2006; Mitchell & Myles,
1998.) However, while instruction may have only a limited effect on the
path learners follow through developmental sequences, it may affect the
rate at which learners pass through a sequence (see, e.g., Ellis, 1989;
Larsen-Freeman & Long, 1991; Mackey & Philp, 1998; Pienemann, 1989;
Spada & Lightbown, 1993). Several factors may inuence the relationship between instruction and learning outcomes. These factors are dynamic, changing over the course of learners language acquisition and
within different teaching contexts.8

L1 Inuence
One hypothesis is that isolated FFI is particularly useful when the L1
has a strong inuence on L2 forms. Errors caused by L1 inuence can be
problematic in classrooms where learners share the same rst language
and reinforce each others L1-based errors (Lightbown, 1991; Lyster,
1987). In situations like these, isolated FFI may be needed to clarify
misleading similarities between the L1 and L2. Harley (1993) points to
the distinction between French avoir/tre and have/be in English as an
example. Isolated FFI may also help in those cases where learners have
developed, based on L1 inuence, an interlanguage rule that is more
8

194

We thank one of the anonymous reviewers for emphasizing the dynamic nature of the
factors that inuence instructional choices.

TESOL QUARTERLY

general than the related rule in the L2. White (1991) discusses this
problem with specic reference to differences between adverb placement in French and English subject-verb-object sentences and advocates
isolated FFI as a way of helping learners perceive those differences.

Salience in the Input

Isolated FFI may be benecial with features that are relatively simple
to explain or illustrate but are not particularly salient in oral language.
Drawing attention to them in isolation may help learners see/hear language features they have not been noticing in the input, the rst step on
the path to acquisition. Although some studies have reported benets of
input enhancement, that is, increasing frequency and/or salience of language features in the input (Alanen, 1995; Doughty, 1991), others have
reported partial or no benets (Spada & Lightbown, 1999; Trahey &
White, 1993; White, 1998). These conicting ndings appear to be related to differences in the kind of enhancement. More explicit enhancement appears to lead to more L2 progress than less explicit enhancement (Norris & Ortega, 2000).9 This nding suggests that isolated FFI
might be useful for creating the necessary salience to help learners notice language forms that occur frequently but are semantically redundant or phonologically reduced or imperceptible in the oral input. Such
forms could include, for example, third-person -s in English and adjective agreement morphology in French.

Input Frequency
Isolated FFI may also help ensure that students have opportunities to
learn forms that are rare or absent in the language they are exposed to
in the CLT or CBI classroom. Lyster (1994b) reports ndings to support
this idea in his investigation of the effects of FFI on the learning of the
sociolinguistic distinction between second-person pronouns tu and vous
in French immersion classrooms. Students were familiar with the singular/plural distinction between these two words, but the social dynamics
of the classroom in which they were learning French did not give them
opportunities to observe the politeness distinctions that are signaled by
the different pronoun forms. Lyster developed an instructional interven9

It may also be that explicit instruction seems to have some benets because the assessment
measures used favor explicit knowledge (see Doughty, 2003 for discussion). Norris and
Ortega (2000, p. 501) themselves acknowledge this possibility but argue that their ndings
cannot be explained by this single variable.

FORM-FOCUSED INSTRUCTION: ISOLATED OR INTEGRATED?

195

tion that included opportunities for isolated FFI. Drawing students attention to this distinction probably prepared them to notice the use of
the forms in the communicative and integrated FFI activities that followed, and their ability to use these forms improved signicantly.

Rule Complexity
It has been suggested that integrated FFI may be a more appropriate
approach to instruction for language features that are complex and have
rules that are difficult to describe. However, although there is some
intuitive agreement about a distinction between hard and easy rules, it is
not always clear what is meant by these terms (see Hulstijn, 1995; Hulstijn
& DeGraaff, 1994, for useful attempts to dene them). Furthermore, as
DeKeyser (2003) points out, in addition to the inherent difficulty of a
form or a rule, there is also subjective difficulty: Rule difficulty is an
individual issue that can be described as the ratio of the rules inherent
linguistic complexity to the students ability to handle such a rulea rule
of moderate difficulty for one student may be easy for a student with
more language learning aptitude or language learning experience (p.
331).
A fairly widespread assumption in the SLA literature is that that while
easy rules can be taught, hard rules are by their very nature too complex
to be successfully taught in isolated instruction and thus are difficult to
learn through traditional explanation and practice pedagogy that is isolated from communicative use of the language. Thus, integrated FFI may
be more suitable for complex/abstract features, such as the article system in English. In laboratory studies to investigate the learning of simple
and complex morphosyntactic rules, DeKeyser (1995) and Robinson
(1996) provide some support for this idea. Participants in those studies
learned simple morphosyntactic rules better under conditions of explicit-deductive learning and more complex rules better under implicitinductive conditions. Conclusions drawn from these studies remain controversial, however, and are perhaps best seen as hypotheses in need of
further study.

Communicative Value
Integrated FFI may also be particularly useful with features in which
errors are more likely to lead to communication breakdowns (e.g., English possessive pronouns his and her). Lightbown (1998) suggests that
L2 learners at various levels of prociency are more likely to be able to
focus on form and meaning at the same time when the form in focus (. . .)
196

TESOL QUARTERLY

is an important carrier of the meaning in focus (p. 192). However, when

errors do not interfere with meaning (e.g., the absence of inversion in
questions such as What she is reading?), isolation from communicative
interaction may be necessary if learners are to notice the difference
between what they say and the correct way to say what they mean (Spada,
Lightbown, & White, 2005). The relative importance of using the right
word as compared with using the right grammar is also reected in
Schwartzs (1993) observation that instruction and feedback are more
likely to lead to changes in learners knowledge and use of lexical items
than of morphology and syntax. Mackey, Gass, and McDonough (2000)
have observed that recasts, a typical characteristic of integrated FFI, are
more likely to be noticed when the element being recast is a lexical item
than when it is a morphosyntactic element (see also Lyster, 1998).

Learners Developmental Level

Once a language feature has emerged in learners interlanguage (see
Pienemann, 1998), more uent and accurate use of that feature may best
be encouraged through integrated FFI. Several studies on FFI have reported that L2 learners benet most from FFI when they are at a developmental level in their language acquisition that enables them to compare their use of particular forms with that of native and more procient
speakers (Mackey & Philp, 1998; Spada & Lightbown, 1999). Related to
this nding is the observation that learners receptive and productive
abilities do not develop in the same way or at the same rate. However,
recent research investigating the effects of both input- (i.e., comprehension) and output- (i.e., production) based practice on L2 development
indicates that both comprehension and production improve as long as
the practice is meaningful and learners are encouraged to make form
meaning connections (Morgan-Short & Wood Bowden, 2006; see also
DeKeyser, 1998).
As noted earlier, learners may need isolated FFI, such as VanPattens
processing instruction, to help them detect and understand form
meaning relationships for language features that have low salience, low
frequency, or low communicative value. Once the features have emerged
in the interlanguage or once the formmeaning connections have been
made, the development of greater uency is likely to be favored by
integrated FFI. Ammar and Spada (2006) found that French-speaking
children who were already more procient in using possessive determiners his and her were able to take advantage of integrated instruction,
whether in the form of recasts (where the teacher provides the correct
form) or prompts (where the teacher elicits a correction from the student). However, students who were less procient beneted more from
FORM-FOCUSED INSTRUCTION: ISOLATED OR INTEGRATED?

197

prompts than recasts, suggesting that they had greater difficulty recognizing the purpose of the feedback.

Learners Age
In general, older learners, especially those with experience in the
study of their own or other languages, are more receptive to isolated
grammatical instruction (see, e.g., Barkhuizen, 1998). Outside the classroom, in environments where they are completely immersed in the target language, very young learners often acquire L2 prociency with little
or no FFI. Older children, adolescents, and adults, however, appear to
benet from instruction and may even depend on it because of the ways
in which their language-learning abilities differ from those of young
children (Bley-Vroman, 1988; DeKeyser, 2000), especially if their contact
with the language is limited to the second or foreign language classroom.
Research in CLT and CBI contexts has shown that children do not
always recognize integrated FFI (including enhanced input and implicit
recasts) as responses to language form rather than meaning (e.g., Lyster
& Ranta, 1997). However, they do respond to integrated feedback which
is explicit (e.g., through the use of emphasis, prompting, and elicitation
as well as other nonverbal signals; see, e.g., Ammar & Spada, 2006;
Doughty & Varela, 1998; Lyster, 2004) or which is provided within the
context of language teaching where the overall orientation includes a
strong focus on language form (Lyster & Mori, 2006). Adult learners, in
a variety of language learning contexts, have been shown to be more
aware of integrated FFI as feedback on language form (see, e.g., Ellis,
Basturkmen, & Loewen, 2001; Ohta, 2000).

Language-Learning Aptitude
Learners who perform well on language aptitude tests or have more
metalinguistic knowledge and skill in their L1 may be better able to
notice and focus on language form within a communicative context than
those with poorer aptitude and metalinguistic ability. It has been hypothesized that learners with poor metalinguistic skills in their own language
may require more explicit (possibly isolated) instruction to help them
identify some formmeaning connections (Ranta, 2002). Mackey, Philp,
Egi, Fujii, and Tomoaki (2002) found that adult learners with higher
scores on tests of working memory were more likely to report that they
noticed interactional (integrated) feedback in the form of recasts (see
also Robinson, 2002).
198

TESOL QUARTERLY

Learner and Teacher Preferences for How to Teach or Learn

About Form
Research on students beliefs and opinions about FFI (i.e., instruction
and corrective feedback) has revealed that teachers and students views
often differ. In two large-scale studies, Schulz (1996, 2001) found that
virtually all students expressed a desire to have their errors corrected, but
very few teachers felt this was desirable. In addition, students were more
likely than teachers to say that formal study of the language is essential
to the eventual mastery of a [foreign language] (2001, p. 247). Mismatches like these have long been reported in the literature (Cathcart &
Olsen, 1976; Yorio, 1986). The effects of matches and mismatches on L2
learning have also been investigated (e.g., Spada, 1987; Wesche, 1981),
and there is some evidence that learners benet most from instruction
that suits their preferences (see Drnyei, 2005, for summary and discussion).
Other factors such as individual learning styles and previous experience learning languages can also lead to different preferences for learning. As indicated earlier, some L2 learners who have learned languages
via traditional structure-based approaches often have strong preferences
for continuing to learn via isolated grammar practice. Other L2 learners
who have learned languages informally may respond more positively to
FFI that is integrated with meaning. What is clear is that characteristics
such as these can interact with type of instruction in complex ways,
leading to more or less successful learning (Skehan, 1989).
It is not only learners who have different preferences for isolated
and/or integrated FFI. So do teachers. Research on teacher cognition
has revealed that L2 teachers often teach grammar in the way in which
they were taught it themselves (Borg, 2003; Farrell, 1999). There is also
evidence of a direct relationship between what teachers know about
grammar and how they teach it. That is, the extent to which grammar is
taught deductively depends on how much metalinguistic knowledge
teachers possess (Borg, 2001; Brumt, Mitchell, & Hooper, 1996). Of
course, there are L2 instructors who do not believe that grammar instruction is useful. In a study comparing second (English) and foreign
(French) language instruction, Mitchell and Hooper (1992) observed
that the English teachers rarely focused on language or explicit grammar
work but the foreign language teachers regularly did so. When interviewed about this nding, the English teachers expressed the opinion
that this type of activity was not of primary importance for developing
students linguistic abilitya response that is not atypical of L2 instructors who have adopted the strong version of CLT.
It is often observed that teachers who are teaching their own native
language may not have as good a grasp of the formal grammar of the
FORM-FOCUSED INSTRUCTION: ISOLATED OR INTEGRATED?

199

language as those whose learning has included form-focused L2 instruction. In a study of teachers practices, Borg (1998) observed that decisions to include explicit formal instruction are not always based on teachers belief that grammar instruction works but rather on their belief that
students expect it. He also observed that when teaching grammar, teachers do not necessarily adhere exclusively to one particular approach
(e.g., deductive or inductive) but will combine and alternate between
them. Similarly, in a study of 48 teachers attitudes to explicit or implicit
teaching of grammar in an English for academic purposes (EAP) program, Burgess and Etherington (2002) report that the majority of teachers believed that it is useful to integrate grammar within authentic texts
rather than teach it explicitly using a grammatical syllabus. At the same
time, however, they also expressed the belief that not all grammatical
knowledge can be learned implicitly and thus advocated explicit instruction as well. In our research investigating the preferences of teachers and
adult learners for integrated or isolated FFI, we have found that neither
group expresses a consistent preference for one over the other. They
value both (Spada, 2006b).

CONCLUSION
Research and theory suggest that there is a role in CLT and CBI for
both isolated and integrated FFI. Each type of instruction may play a
different role in promoting language acquisition. Research and experience in CLT and CBI affirm that not all language features need to be
taught in isolated lessons. Instead, the current research on classroom
learning shows that incidental learning allows students to acquire a great
deal of language while focused on meaning in CLT and CBI. The addition of integrated FFI can contribute to the automatization of language
features that have emerged in students language but that are not used
reliably when there are competing demands for attention.
Integrated FFI includes a wide range of approaches, including the
kind of implicit feedback that occurs as the need or opportunity arises,
as well as the kind of planned interaction that requires the repeated, but
natural, use of a particular language form. Nevertheless, isolated lessons
may be useful, or even essential, in promoting the acquisition of some
language features. These features include those that are hard to perceive
in the normal stream of communicative speech, those for which there is
a misleading similarity to the L1, and those that are unlikely to cause
communication breakdown. We are currently designing quasiexperimental studies to explore the contributions of both types of FFI.
The importance of isolated lessons will be determined by differences
200

TESOL QUARTERLY

in the specic language feature that is being taught as well as by differences in learners and teachers characteristics, abilities, and preferences. We nd no evidence to support a suggestion that isolated grammar lessons without opportunities for communicative language use
should again become the dominant approach to language instruction.
Isolated lessons are a starting point or a follow-up for communicative or
content-based activities. Above all, they should not be expected to result
in students immediate incorporation of the feature in focus into their
communicative language use. Nevertheless, such lessons can prepare
students to make the best use of opportunities for continuing their language acquisition in meaning-focused activities and integrated FFI when
it occurs.

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
The reviewers who provided feedback on earlier versions of the manuscript helped
us to make this a better article. We did not always agree with the reviewers (who,
indeed, strongly disagreed with each other), but their feedback helped us understand and present our own views better. We are also grateful to the graduate students
and research assistants in N. Spadas research group at OISE/UT for their insightful
comments on this manuscript and related literature.

THE AUTHORS
Nina Spada is a professor in the Second Language Education program at OISE/
University of Toronto, Ontario, Canada, where she teaches courses in L2 teaching
and learning. Her research focuses on the contributions of form-focused instruction
to the L2 development of children and adults in communicative programs.
Patsy M. Lightbown is Distinguished Professor Emeritus of Concordia University,
Montreal, Canada, and a former president of AAAL. Her research explores relationships between L2 teaching and learning, especially for children and adolescents.

REFERENCES
Alanen, R. (1995). Input enhancement and rule presentation in second language
acquisition. In R. Schmidt (Ed.), Attention and awareness in foreign language learning
and teaching (pp. 259302). Honolulu: University of Hawaii Press.
Ammar, A., & Spada, N. (2006). One size ts all? Recasts, prompts, and L2 learning.
Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 28, 543574.
Anderson, J. (1982). Acquisition of cognitive skill. Psychological Review, 89, 369406.
Barcroft, J. (2002). Semantic and structural elaboration in L2 lexical acquisition.
Language Learning, 52, 323363.
Barkhuizen, G. P. (1998). Discovering learners perceptions of ESL classroom teaching/learning activities in a South African context. TESOL Quarterly, 32, 85108.
FORM-FOCUSED INSTRUCTION: ISOLATED OR INTEGRATED?

201

Basden, B. H., Bonilla-Meeks, J. L., & Basden, D. R. (1994). Cross-language priming

in word-fragment completion. Journal of Memory and Language, 33, 6982.
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, 657668.
Bley-Vroman, R. (1988). The fundamental character of foreign language learning. In
W. Rutherford & M. Sharwood Smith (Eds.), Grammar and second language teaching
(pp. 1930). New York: Newbury House.
Borg, S. (1998). Talking about grammar in the foreign language classroom. Language
Awareness, 7, 159175.
Borg, S. (2001). Self-perception and practice in teaching grammar. ELT Journal, 55,
2129.
Borg, S. (2003). Teacher cognition in language teaching: A review of research on
what language teachers think, know, believe, and do. Language Teaching, 36, 81
109.
Brumt, C. J. (1984). Communicative methodology in language teaching: The roles of uency
and accuracy. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Brumt, C., Mitchell, R., & Hooper, J. (1996). Grammar, language, and classroom
practice. In M. Hughes (Ed.), Teaching and learning in changing times (pp. 7087).
Oxford: Blackwell.
Burgess, J., & Etherington, S. (2002). Explicit or implicit grammar? System, 30, 433
458.
Calv, P. (1994). Comment faire de la grammaire sans trahir le discours: Le cas des
exercices grammaticaux. Canadian Modern Language Review, 50, 636645.
Cathcart, R., & Olsen, J. W. B. (1976). Teachers and students preferences for
correction of classroom conversation errors. In J. Fanselow & R. Crymes (Eds.),
On TESOL 76: Selections Based on Teaching Done at the 10th annual TESOL Convention
(pp. 4153). Washington, DC: TESOL.
Celce-Murcia, M. (1991). Discourse analysis and grammar instruction. Annual Review
of Applied Linguistics, 11, 135151.
Day, E., & Shapson, S. (1991). Integrating formal and functional approaches in
language teaching in French immersion: An experimental study. Language Learning, 41, 2558.
DeKeyser, R. (1995). Learning second language grammar rules: An experiment with
a miniature linguistic system. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 19, 249297.
DeKeyser, R. (1998). Beyond focus on form: Cognitive perspectives on learning and
practising second language grammar. In C. Doughty & J. Williams (Eds.), Focus on
form in classroom second language acquisition (pp. 4263). New York: Cambridge
University Press.
DeKeyser, R. M. (2000). The robustness of critical period effects in second language
acquisition. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 22, 493533.
DeKeyser, R. (2003). Implicit and explicit learning. In C. J. Doughty & M. H. Long
(Eds.), The handbook of second language acquisition (pp. 313348). Malden, MA:
Blackwell.
Doherty, R. W., Hilberg, R. S., Pinal, A., & Tharp, R. G. (2003). Five standards and
student achievement. NABE Journal of Research and Practice, 1, 124.
Drnyei, Z. (2005). The psychology of the language learner. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence
Erlbaum.
Doughty, C. (1991). Second language instruction does make a difference: Evidence
from an empirical study of ESL relativization. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 13, 431469.
Doughty, C. (2003). Instructed SLA: Constraints, compensation, and enhancement.
202

TESOL QUARTERLY

In C. J. Doughty & M. H. Long (Eds.). The handbook of second language acquisition

(pp. 256310). Malden, MA: Blackwell.
Doughty, C., & Varela, E. (1998). Communicative focus on form. In C. Doughty & J.
Williams (Eds.), Focus on form in classroom second language acquisition (pp. 114138).
Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Doughty, C., & Williams, J. (1998). Pedagogical choices in focus on form. In C.
Doughty & J. Williams (Eds.), Focus on form in classroom second language acquisition
(pp. 197261). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Durgunoglu, A. Y., & Roediger, H. L., III. (1987). Test differences in assessing bilingual memory. Journal of Memory and Language, 26, 377391.
Echevarria, J., Vogt, M., & Short, D. J. (2004). Making content comprehensible for English
learners: The SIOP model. Boston: Pearson.
Ellis, N. C. (1997). Vocabulary acquisition, word structure, collocation, word-class,
and meaning. In N. Schmitt & M. McCarthy (Eds.), Vocabulary: Description, acquisition and pedagogy (pp. 122139). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Ellis, N. C. (2005). At the interface: Dynamic interactions of explicit and implicit
language knowledge. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 27, 305352.
Ellis, R. (1989). Are classroom and naturalistic language acquisition the same? A
study of the classroom acquisition of German word order rules. Studies in Second
Language Acquisition, 11, 305328.
Ellis, R. (1994). The study of second language acquisition. Oxford: Oxford University
Press.
Ellis, R. (2001). Introduction: Investigating form-focused instruction. Language
Learning, 51(Supplement 1), 146.
Ellis, R. (2002a). Does form-focused instruction affect the acquisition of implicit
knowledge? A review of the research. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 24,
223236.
Ellis, R. (2002b). The place of grammar instruction in the second/foreign language
curriculum. In E. Hinkel & S. Fotos (Eds.), New perspectives on grammar teaching in
second language classrooms (pp. 1734). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
Ellis, R., Basturkmen, H., & Loewen, S. (2001). Learner uptake in communicative
ESL lessons. Language Learning, 51, 281318.
Farrell, T. S. C. (1999). The reective assignment: Unlocking pre-service teachers
beliefs on grammar teaching. RELC Journal, 30, 117.
Franks, J. J., Bilbrey, C. W., Lien, K. G., & McNamara, T. P. (2000). Transferappropriate processing (TAP) and repetition priming. Memory & Cognition, 28,
11401151.
Gass, S. (1997). Input, interaction, and the second language learner. Mahwah, NJ:
Lawrence Erlbaum.
Gass, S., & Selinker, L. (2001). Second language acquisition: An introductory course (2nd
ed.). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
Harley, B. (1989). Functional grammar in French immersion: A classroom experiment. Applied Linguistics, 10, 331359.
Harley, B. (1993). Instructional strategies and SLA in early French immersion. Studies
in Second Language Acquisition, 15, 245259.
Harley, B. (1998). The role of focus-on-form tasks in promoting child L2 acquisition.
In C. Doughty & J. Williams, (Eds.), Focus on form in classroom second language
acquisition (pp. 156174). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Harley, B., & Swain, M. (1984). The interlanguage of immersion students and its
implications for second language teaching. In A. Davies, C. Criper, & A. Howatt
(Eds.), Interlanguage (pp. 291311). Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press.
Higgs, T. V., & Clifford, R. (1982). The push toward communication. In T. V. Higgs
FORM-FOCUSED INSTRUCTION: ISOLATED OR INTEGRATED?

203

(Ed.), Curriculum, competence, and the foreign language teacher (pp. 5779). Skokie,
IL: National Textbook Company.
Howatt, A. P. R. (1984). A history of English language teaching. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Hulstijn, J. (1995). Not all grammar rules are equal: Giving grammar instruction its
proper place in foreign language teaching. In R. Schmidt (Ed.), Attention and
awareness in foreign language learning (pp. 359386). Honolulu: University of
Hawaii.
Hulstijn, J. (2003). Incidental and intentional learning. In C. J. Doughty & M. H.
Long (Eds.), The handbook of second language acquisition (pp. 349382). Malden,
MA: Blackwell.
Hulstijn, J., & DeGraaff, R. (1994). Under what conditions does explicit knowledge
of a second language facilitate the acquisition of implicit knowledge? A research
proposal. AILA Review, 11, 97112.
Jean, G. (2005). Intgration de la grammaire dans lenseignement des langues secondes: Le cas des exercices grammaticaux. Canadian Modern Language Review, 61,
519542.
Johnson, K. (1982). Communicative syllabus design and methodology. Oxford: Pergamon
Press.
Krashen, S. D. (1982). Principles and practice in second language acquisition. Oxford:
Pergamon Press.
Krashen, S. D. (1994). The input hypothesis and its rivals. In N. Ellis (Ed.), Implicit
and explicit learning of language (pp. 4577). London: Academic Press.
Larsen-Freeman, D., & Long, M. H. (1991). An introduction to second language acquisition research. New York: Longman.
Lightbown, P. M. (1991). What have we here? Some observations on the role of
instruction in second language acquisition. In R. Phillipson, E. Kellerman, L.
Selinker, M. Sharwood Smith, & M. Swain (Eds.), Foreign/second language pedagogy
research: A commemorative volume for Claus Faerch (pp. 197212). Clevedon: Multilingual Matters.
Lightbown, P. M. (1998). The importance of timing in focus on form. In C. Doughty
& J. Williams (Eds.), Focus on form in classroom second language acquisition (pp.
177196). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Lightbown, P. M., & Spada, N. (1990). Focus-on-form and corrective feedback in
communicative language teaching: Effects on second language learning. Studies in
Second Language Acquisition, 12, 429448.
Lightbown, P. M., & Spada, N. (2006). How languages are learned (3rd ed.). Oxford:
Oxford University Press.
Long, M. H. (1991). Focus on form: A design feature in language teaching methodology. In K. de Bot, R. Ginsberg, & C. Kramsch (Eds.), Foreign language research
in cross-cultural perspective (pp. 3952). Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
Long, M. H. (1996). The role of the linguistic environment in second language
acquisition. In W. Ritchie & T. Bhatia (Eds.), Handbook of second language acquisition (pp. 413468). San Diego, CA: Academic Press.
Long, M., & Robinson, P. (1998). Focus on form: Theory, research, and practice. In
C. Doughty & J. Williams (Eds.), Focus on form in classroom second language acquisition (pp. 1541). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Lyster, R. (1987). Speaking immersion. Canadian Modern Language Review, 43, 701
717.
Lyster, R. (1994a). La ngotiation de la forme: Stratgie analytique en classe
dimmersion. Canadian Modern Language Review, 50, 446465.
204

TESOL QUARTERLY

Lyster, R. (1994b). The effect of functional-analytic teaching on aspects of French

immersion learners sociolinguistic competence. Applied Linguistics, 15, 263287.
Lyster, R. (1998). Negotiation of form, recasts, and explicit correction in relation to
error types and learner repair in immersion classrooms. Language Learning, 48,
183218.
Lyster, R. (2004). Differential effects of prompts and recasts in form-focused instruction. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 26, 399432.
Lyster, R., & Mori, H. (2006). Interactional feedback and instructional counterbalance. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 28, 269300.
Lyster, R., & Ranta, L. (1997). Corrective feedback and learner uptake: Negotiation
of form in communicative classrooms. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 19,
3766.
Mackey, A., Gass, S., & McDonough, K. (2000). How do learners perceive interactional feedback? Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 22, 471497.
Mackey, A., & Philp, J. (1998). Conversational interaction and second language
development: Recasts, responses, and red herrings. Modern Language Journal, 82,
338356.
Mackey, A., Philp, J., Egi, T., Fujii, A., & Tomoaki, T. (2002). Individual differences
in working memory, noticing of interactional feedback and L2 development. In P.
Robinson (Ed.), Individual differences and instructed language learning (pp. 181
209). Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
Mitchell, R., & Hooper, J. (1992). Teachers views of language knowledge. In C.
James & P. Garrett (Eds.), Language awareness in the classroom (pp. 4050). London:
Longman.
Mitchell, R., & Myles, F. (1998). Second language learning theories. London: Arnold.
Morgan-Short, K., & Wood Bowden, H. (2006). Processing instruction and meaningful output-based instruction: Effects on second language development. Studies
in Second Language Acquisition, 28, 3166.
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,
519533.
Norris, J. M., & Ortega, L. (2000). Effectiveness of L2 instruction: A research synthesis and quantitative meta-analysis. Language Learning, 50, 417528.
Norris, J., & Ortega, L. (2003). Dening and measuring SLA. In C. J. Doughty & M.
H. Long (Eds.). The handbook of second language acquisition (pp. 717761). Malden,
MA: Blackwell.
Ohta, A. (2000). Rethinking recasts: A learner-centered examination of corrective
feedback in the Japanese classroom. In J. K. Hall & L. Verplaetse (Eds.), Second
and foreign language learning through classroom interaction (pp. 4771). Mahwah, NJ:
Lawrence Erlbaum.
Pica, T. (2002). Subject-matter content: How does it assist the interactional and
linguistic needs of classroom language learners? The Modern Language Journal, 86,
119.
Pienemann, M. (1989). Is language teachable? Applied Linguistics, 10, 5279.
Pienemann, M. (1998). Language processing and second language development: Processability theory. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
Raimes, A. (2002). Errors: Windows into the mind. In G. DeLuca, L. Fox, M. Johnson,
& M. Kogen (Eds.). Dialogue on writing: Rethinking ESL, basic writing, and rst-year
composition (pp. 279287). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
Ranta, L. (2002). The role of learners language analytic ability in the communicative
classroom. In P. Robinson (Ed.), Individual differences and instructed language learning (pp. 159180). Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
FORM-FOCUSED INSTRUCTION: ISOLATED OR INTEGRATED?

205

Robinson, P. (1996). Learning simple and complex second language rules under
implicit, incidental, rule-search and instructed conditions. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 19, 233247.
Robinson, P. (2002). Effects of individual differences in intelligence, aptitude and
working memory on adult incidental SLA: A replication and extension of Reber,
Walkeneld and Hernstadt (1991). In P. Robinson (Ed.), Individual differences and
instructed language learning (pp. 211266). Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
Samuda, V. (2001). Guiding relationships between form and meaning during task
performance: The role of the teacher. In M. Bygate, P. Skehan, & M. Swain (Eds.),
Researching pedagogic tasks: Second language learning, teaching and testing (pp. 119
140). London: Longman.
Schleppergrell, M. J., Achugar, M., & Oteza, T. (2004). The grammar of history:
Enhancing content-based instruction through a functional focus on language.
TESOL Quarterly, 38, 6793.
Schmidt, R. (1990). The role of consciousness in second language learning. Applied
Linguistics, 11, 1746.
Schulz, R. A. (1996). Focus on form in the foreign language classroom: Students and
teachers views on error correction and the role of grammar. Foreign Language
Annals, 29, 343364.
Schulz, R. A. (2001). Cultural differences in student and teacher perceptions concerning the role of grammar teaching and corrective feedback: USA-Colombia.
Modern Language Journal, 85, 244258.
Schwartz, B. (1993). On explicit and negative data effecting and affecting competence and linguistic behavior. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 15, 147162.
Segalowitz, N., & Gatbonton, E. (1995). Automaticity and lexical skills in second
language uency: Implications for computer assisted language learning. Computer
Assisted Language Learning, 8, 129149.
Segalowitz, N., & Lightbown, P. M. (1999). Psycholinguistic approaches to SLA. The
Annual Review of Applied Linguistics, 19, 2343.
Sharwood Smith, M. (2004). In two minds about grammar: On the interaction of
linguistic and metalinguistic knowledge in performance. Transactions of the Philological Society, 102, 255280.
Sheen, R. (2005). Focus on formS as a means of improving accurate oral production.
In A. Housen & M. Pierrard (Eds.), Investigations in instructed second language
acquisition (pp. 271310). Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.
Skehan, P. (1989). Individual differences in second language learning. London: Arnold.
Slimani, A. (1992). Evaluation of classroom interaction. In C. Alderson & A. Beretta
(Eds.), Evaluation in second language education (pp. 197220). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Snow, M. A., Met, M., & Genesee, F. (1992). A conceptual framework for the integration of language and content instruction. In P. A. Richard-Amato & M. A. Snow
(Eds.), The multicultural classroom: Readings for content-area teachers (pp. 2738).
Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley.
Spada, N. (1987). Relationships between instructional differences and learning outcomes: A process-product study of communicative language teaching. Applied
Linguistics, 8, 137155.
Spada, N. (2006a). Communicative language teaching: Current status and future
prospects. In J. Cummins & C. Davis (Eds.), The international handbook of English
language teaching. Norwell, MA: Springer.
Spada, N. (2006b). Teacher and learner preferences for isolated and integrated instruction
[Research report prepared for the Continuing Education English Language Pro206

TESOL QUARTERLY

gram of the University of Toronto and the Toronto Catholic District School
Board]. Toronto: OISE/University of Toronto.
Spada, N., & Lightbown, P. M. (1993). Instruction and the development of questions
in L2 classrooms. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 15, 205224.
Spada, N., & Lightbown, P. M. (1999). Instruction, L1 inuence and developmental
readiness in second language acquisition. Modern Language Journal, 83, 122.
Spada, N., Lightbown, P. M., & White, J. L. (2005). The importance of form/
meaning mappings in explicit form-focussed instruction. In A. Housen & M.
Pierrard (Eds.), Current issues in instructed second language learning (pp. 199234).
Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.
Stern, H. H. (1992). Issues and options in language teaching. Oxford: Oxford University
Press.
Swain, M. (1988). Manipulating and complementing content teaching to maximize
second language learning. TESL Canada Journal, 6, 6883.
Swain, M., & Lapkin, S. (2002). Talking it through: Two French immersion learners
responses to reformulation. International Journal of Educational Research, 37, 285
304.
Trahey, M., & White, L. (1993). Positive evidence and preemption in the second
language classroom. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 15, 181204.
Tromovich, P. (2005). Spoken-word processing in a native and a second language:
An investigation of auditory word priming. Applied Psycholinguistics, 26, 479504.
Truscott, J. (1996). The case against grammar correction in L2 writing classes. Language Learning, 46, 327369.
Truscott, J. (1999). Whats wrong with oral grammar correction. Canadian Modern
Language Review, 55, 437456.
VanPatten, B. (1990). Attending to content and form in the input: An experiment in
consciousness. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 12, 287301.
VanPatten, B. (1996). Input processing and grammar instruction: Theory and research.
Norwood, NJ: Ablex.
VanPatten, B. (2004). Input processing in SLA. In B. VanPatten (Ed.), Processing
instruction: Theory, research, and commentary (pp. 531). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence
Erlbaum.
VanPatten, B., & Cadierno, T. (1993). Explicit instruction and input processing.
Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 15, 225243.
Wesche, M. (1981). Language aptitude measures in streaming, matching students
with methods, and diagnosis of learning problems. In K. C. Diller (Ed.), Individual
differences and universals in language learning aptitude (pp. 119154). Rowley, MA:
Newbury House.
White, J. (1998). Getting the learners attention: A typographical input enhancement study. In C. Doughty & J. Williams (Eds.), Focus on form in classroom second
language acquisition (pp. 85113). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
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.
White, L., Spada, N., Lightbown, P. M., & Ranta, L. (1991). Input enhancement and
L2 question formation. Applied Linguistics, 12, 416432.
Williams, J., & Evans, J. (1998). What kind of focus and on which forms? In C.
Doughty & J. Williams (Eds.), Focus on form in classroom second language acquisition
(pp. 139155). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Yorio, C. (1986). Consumerism in second language learning and teaching. Canadian
Modern Language Review, 42, 668687.

FORM-FOCUSED INSTRUCTION: ISOLATED OR INTEGRATED?

207