Beruflich Dokumente
Kultur Dokumente
NINA SPADA
University of Toronto
Toronto, Ontario, Canada
TESOL QUARTERLY
ment of different types of L2 knowledge (Spada, Jessop, Tomita, Suzuki, & Valeo, 2014).
These theoretical and empirical insights from the instructed second
language acquisition (SLA) literature suggest that the two approaches
to the timing of grammatical instruction are not mutually exclusive,
but these views do not include those from classroom teachers whose
opinions may differ. We know from the teacher cognition literature
that teachers base their instructional practice on more than theory
and research in SLA. Their own practical theories about teaching are
motivated by a much wider range of social, pedagogical, contextual,
and pragmatic factors (Andrews, 2003; Borg, 2003b; Borg & Burns,
2008). One of the goals of the present research is to explore whether
teachers perspectives on isolated and integrated FFI are consistent
with current theoretical views about the timing of grammatical instruction as discussed in the instructed SLA literature. Whereas teachers
beliefs have been shown to strongly influence the development of
teachers practice and views about teacher preparation (e.g., Borg,
2003b; Fang, 1996; Kagan, 1992; Peacock, 2001), learners beliefs have
also been observed to play an important role in second language (L2)
learning. For example, there is evidence that what learners believe
guides them in adopting specific learning strategies (Yang, 1999)
which may impact on language learning success. Importantly, compatibility between teacher and learner beliefs has also long been highlighted as a factor for successful learning and teaching (Horwitz,
1988). Nonetheless, teachers and learners views can differ considerably and a mismatch between the two could negatively contribute to
learners motivation and satisfaction, as well as pedagogical effectiveness (Kern, 1995; Schulz, 2001). Thus a second goal of the present
research is to investigate whether learners views about isolated and
integrated FFI are compatible or incompatible with teachers views.
The impact of context is also critical in our understanding of how
teachers and learners engage with different methodologies and
instructional approaches. A significant contextual factor is the distinction between English as a foreign language (EFL) and English as a second language (ESL). Although not a monolithic distinction, it is
recognized that ESL and EFL contexts typically provide different linguistic environments to learners and teachers, and have an important
impact on pedagogy (Tomlinson, 2005). For example, the ESL context
provides rich input and exposure to a greater range of language outside the classroom than contexts in which the target language is not
used in the broader community. In EFL contexts, most if not all of
the oral input is provided by the teacher and opportunities for interaction are limited to the classroom. Successful program innovation
depends on an understanding of the context, a point that has been
IS THERE A BETTER TIME TO FOCUS ON FORM?
TESOL QUARTERLY
the students acknowledged value in both approaches, and the remaining 95 comments addressed a wide range of issues such as requests for
more practice, smaller classes, a focus on pronunciation, and expressions of frustration with grammatical accuracy in general. Thus, while
a distinct preference for integrated FFI was evident in the quantitative
and qualitative findings for the majority of the ESL learners, there was
also evidence to support a preference for isolated FFI for a small
group of them.
Fewer of the EFL learners, 51 of the 175 participants, wrote comments in the questionnaires. Twenty of the learners elaborated on a
preference for integrated FFI; for example, I try to learn grammar
through reading texts and books in English and paying attention to
how grammar is used in movies and TV cable programs; I think
grammar should be taught through communicative tasks; if they are
not it becomes something that is mechanical and hard to understand later; and Learning traditional grammar ends up being tiring if studied in the isolated way because it gives the impression
that the subject will not be used. Two elaborated on a preference
for isolated FFI; for example, I think grammar should be taught
before communicative activities because it facilitates understanding,
and I prefer to study it before communicative tasks so that I will
feel more secure when speaking. Five students highlighted the
need to consider individual learner differences in making a choice
between integrated and isolated FFI, including proficiency level, age,
and goals of the learner. For example, one student wrote, When
we achieve a certain level of English, the matter is not about knowing a grammar point. [Its] about how much you can use it. I find
that when we first start to learn a certain grammar point, it is helpful to learn it by itself but some practices in terms of communication have to be followed after that. Another student commented
on learner goals: I think it all depends on the students goal which
could be to enter the university, pass a proficiency test or acquire
oral and written fluency. For the first case, grammar could be
taught separately; for the second, grammar should be included in
communicative tasks. Twenty-four learners made general comments
supporting a role for grammar teaching in language classrooms.
Thus, similar to the ESL learners, most of the EFL learners who
provided qualitative comments on integrated or isolated FFI confirmed their preference for integrated FFI.
In summary, the quantitative and qualitative findings indicate a
clear preference for integrated FFI for the majority of both teachers
and learners in ESL and EFL contexts. This preference for integrated FFI did not prevent many of the teachers and learners from
acknowledging the benefits of isolated FFI. Nevertheless, when given
IS THERE A BETTER TIME TO FOCUS ON FORM?
15
METHOD
Research Context
This study involved participants in two different instructional contexts: ESL in Canada and EFL in Brazil. In Canada, all but four of the
1
Songhori (2012) used earlier versions of the learner and teacher questionnaires that are
reported in this study.
2
In this study the construct of isolated FFI appears to be associated with traditional discrete-point grammar instruction. The former occurs in classrooms that are
communicatively oriented, whereas the latter occurs in classrooms that are exclusively
focused on language forms.
TESOL QUARTERLY
teachers taught in publicly funded colleges or universities. These institutions offer credit and noncredit ESL classes to both newcomers and
international students. Noncredit courses may prepare students for
entry into a credit program. Courses are part time or full time and follow communicative, task-based curricula. The teachers in Brazil taught
in university credit programs in which English classes were provided in
lessons of 23 hours per week and were counted towards a degree, certificate, or diploma. The teaching in these programs was characterized
by a strongly communicatively oriented approach with an emphasis on
content and meaning-based input and interaction.
The learner participants who were studying in Brazil were enrolled
in the same type of program as those in which the teacher participants
were teaching. The learner participants in the ESL Canadian context
were enrolled in two types of programs: a community ESL program
for newcomers and a university EAP program for, primarily, international students. Both were communicatively oriented programs with an
emphasis on content and meaning-based input and interaction. The
community-based program had a settlement focus with a topic-based
syllabus and was publicly funded to serve adults immigrating to
Canada. The university program had an academic focus with a skillsbased syllabus and charged tuition, primarily serving international
students in Canada.
Participants
A total of 100 teachers participated in the study; 53 taught EFL in
Brazil and 47 taught ESL in Canada. Table 1 provides profiles of the
EFL and ESL teacher participants. The profiles were similar in a number of ways. In both groups, the majority of the teachers were female,
had received their teacher education with a focus on communicative
methodology, and had studied a second language. There were a number of marked differences as well. Overall, the ESL teachers were
older, had more teaching experience, and had completed a higher
level of education. In addition, when asked to describe the way in
which they had been taught (grammar translation, audiolingual, communicative, or other), the majority of the EFL teachers cited communicative methodology, whereas the most common response from the
ESL teachers was grammar translation. Additional data show that both
groups taught in a range of contexts, including universities, colleges,
and private language schools. The majority (70% of the EFL teachers
and 83% of the ESL teachers) reported teaching beginner and lowintermediate learners.
TABLE 1
Profile of Teacher Participants
Data
Gender
Age
Teaching experience
Education
Method of teacher education
Studied an L2
Method of L2 study
EFL (n = 53)
ESL (n = 47)
Female
83% (n = 44)
Under 29
59% (n = 31)
Less than 10 years
70% (n = 37)
Bachelors degree
72% (n = 36)
Communicative
74% (n = 39)
Yes
94% (n = 50)
Communicative
53% (n = 28)
Female
74% (n = 35)
Over 40
70% (n = 33)
Over 10 years
62% (n = 29)
Graduate degree
72% (n = 30)
Communicative
87% (n = 40)
Yes
98% (n = 46)
Grammar translation
39% (n = 18)
TESOL QUARTERLY
the isolated and integrated constructs. For the EFL learner questionnaire, 24 were found to be reliable and valid measures of isolated
and integrated FFI. For each of the teacher questionnaires, 13 items
were found to be reliable measures, 10 of which were common to
both questionnaires. Table 2 presents the results of the reliability
analysis.
RESULTS
The participants responses were calculated separately for the isolated items and the integrated items. These were calculated as mean
scores for each group: ESL learners, EFL learners, ESL teachers, and
EFL teachers.
TABLE 2
Questionnaire Reliability Analysis
Questionnaire
Item type
Reliability (a coefficient)
ESL learner
(N = 294)
EFL learner
(N = 175)
ESL teacher
(N = 47)
EFL teacher
(N = 53)
ISO
INT
ISO
INT
ISO
INT
ISO
INT
7
7
12
12
6
7
6
7
.671
.703
.821
.832
.792
.767
.639
.717
10
TESOL QUARTERLY
TABLE 3
Teacher Questionnaires Descriptive Statistics
Group
Item type
ESL (n = 47)
INT
ISO
INT
ISO
EFL (n = 53)
SD
4.12
2.41
3.89
2.19
0.42
0.70
0.59
0.53
11
also acknowledged a role for isolated FFI. Only two comments supported isolated FFI exclusively; for example, My personal belief is that
the grammar point should be taught and understood and then
applied during meaning-based activities to assess their understanding
of the grammar use. In addition, 7 of the 33 teachers replied that the
decision depended on different variables, including students proficiency level, previous academic experience, type of language feature,
student needs, and preferences for learning. The remaining comments
addressed issues related to teaching but not directly relevant to either
isolated or integrated FFI. Thus, although an overall preference for
integrated FFI was evident in the quantitative and qualitative results
for the ESL teachers, some of the teachers comments also indicated
that decisions to opt for isolated or integrated FFI were dependent on
a variety of factors.
The EFL teachers offered fewer comments on the questionnaire; 26
of the 53 participants responded to the open-ended questions. Nine of
the comments reinforced the respondents preference for integrated
FFI. Two examples of these are I think that grammar must be taught
through context and I think the best way to teach grammar is
through texts. . . . I think students really learn grammar when they face
a text and when they have to produce a real conversation. Four of
the nine comments indicating a preference for integrated FFI also
included statements that expressed an appreciation for isolated FFI.
For example, one teacher wrote, I believe that doing meaning-based
activities that include attention to grammar is the best way to learn to
use English more accurately. But, in case the learners have difficulty to
use correctly the grammar point, grammar should be taught separately
from the communicative activity. Four other comments acknowledged
that both approaches are beneficial and that the decision depends on
a number of factors. For example, one teacher wrote that differences
among students learning styles should be taken into account when
teaching grammar, suggesting that the teacher has, first and foremost, to know his/her students and try to work with activities that can
lead students both to accuracy and fluency. Not one of the EFL teachers provided comments indicating a preference for isolated FFI. The
remaining responses addressed issues not directly relevant to the timing of grammatical instruction. Overall, the qualitative responses from
the EFL teachers are similar to those of the ESL teachers indicating a
preference for integrated FFI and an acknowledgement of the benefits
of isolated FFI. A few of the EFL teachers also commented on how a
choice between the two is dependent on context and learner variables.
Interestingly, five of the teachers offered additional comments
related to their experience of completing the questionnaire. These
comments described how the questionnaire inspired them to reflect
12
TESOL QUARTERLY
Item type
ESL (n = 294)
INT
ISO
INT
ISO
EFL (n = 175)
SD
4.03
3.83
3.90
2.62
.60
.63
.64
.70
13
activities, the EFL learners mean was 2.84, whereas the ESL learners
mean was 3.71. A repeated measures ANOVA confirmed that this difference between the ESL and EFL learners was statistically significant,
F(1, 460) = 63.023, p = .000, partial g2 = .245.4
14
TESOL QUARTERLY
the students acknowledged value in both approaches, and the remaining 95 comments addressed a wide range of issues such as requests for
more practice, smaller classes, a focus on pronunciation, and expressions of frustration with grammatical accuracy in general. Thus, while
a distinct preference for integrated FFI was evident in the quantitative
and qualitative findings for the majority of the ESL learners, there was
also evidence to support a preference for isolated FFI for a small
group of them.
Fewer of the EFL learners, 51 of the 175 participants, wrote comments in the questionnaires. Twenty of the learners elaborated on a
preference for integrated FFI; for example, I try to learn grammar
through reading texts and books in English and paying attention to
how grammar is used in movies and TV cable programs; I think
grammar should be taught through communicative tasks; if they are
not it becomes something that is mechanical and hard to understand later; and Learning traditional grammar ends up being tiring if studied in the isolated way because it gives the impression
that the subject will not be used. Two elaborated on a preference
for isolated FFI; for example, I think grammar should be taught
before communicative activities because it facilitates understanding,
and I prefer to study it before communicative tasks so that I will
feel more secure when speaking. Five students highlighted the
need to consider individual learner differences in making a choice
between integrated and isolated FFI, including proficiency level, age,
and goals of the learner. For example, one student wrote, When
we achieve a certain level of English, the matter is not about knowing a grammar point. [Its] about how much you can use it. I find
that when we first start to learn a certain grammar point, it is helpful to learn it by itself but some practices in terms of communication have to be followed after that. Another student commented
on learner goals: I think it all depends on the students goal which
could be to enter the university, pass a proficiency test or acquire
oral and written fluency. For the first case, grammar could be
taught separately; for the second, grammar should be included in
communicative tasks. Twenty-four learners made general comments
supporting a role for grammar teaching in language classrooms.
Thus, similar to the ESL learners, most of the EFL learners who
provided qualitative comments on integrated or isolated FFI confirmed their preference for integrated FFI.
In summary, the quantitative and qualitative findings indicate a
clear preference for integrated FFI for the majority of both teachers
and learners in ESL and EFL contexts. This preference for integrated FFI did not prevent many of the teachers and learners from
acknowledging the benefits of isolated FFI. Nevertheless, when given
IS THERE A BETTER TIME TO FOCUS ON FORM?
15
a choice between the two, isolated FFI did not emerge as the
preferred choice for most of the teachers and learners in both
contexts.
DISCUSSION
The first question in this study explored whether ESL/EFL teachers
and learners have a preference for isolated or integrated FFI. Analysis
of the quantitative responses to the questionnaire items and the qualitative analysis of the teacher and learner comments indicate a distinct
preference for integrated over isolated FFI. This finding is consistent
with the other two studies that have investigated the same FFI constructs (Elg
un-G
und
uz et al., 2012; Songhori, 2012). They also echo
similar findings in studies that have reported teachers preferences for
instruction that treats grammar in an integrated manner by presenting
it within a text and addressing it during communicative activities
rather than in an isolated manner (Barnard & Scampton, 2008; Borg
& Burns, 2008; Burgess & Etherington, 2002). This preference for integrated FFI expressed by both teachers and learners is consistent with
theoretical assumptions about the role of grammar in communicative
classroomsthat embedding grammar within communicative activities
has the potential to enhance L2 learning by creating opportunities for
learners to focus on form and communication at the same time
(Doughty & Williams, 1998). It is also consistent with empirical findings in instructed SLA research indicating the benefits of a focus on
form within communicative practice (Spada, 2011).
Even though the majority of teachers and learners expressed a preference for integrated FFI, this did not mean that they discounted the
value of isolated FFI. This was evident in the quantitative data, particularly for the ESL learners who responded more positively to some of
the isolated items on the questionnaire and who reinforced this in
their comments in the qualitative data. Furthermore, several of the
ESL teachers described situations in which they felt that one approach
was sometimes necessary over the other. This recognition of
the value of both approaches is consistent with research and theory
claiming that each option may play a different role in L2 learning.
Indeed some of the respondents referred to specific circumstances in
which isolated and/or integrated FFI might be particularly useful, similar to those discussed in Spada and Lightbown (2008); for example,
isolated instruction may be particularly useful in promoting the acquisition of language features that are difficult to notice in the input
(e.g., third person singular s in English), whereas integrated FFI may
16
TESOL QUARTERLY
be of particular benefit in the development of fluency and the automatization of language features for effective communication.
The second research question examined whether there were differences between the beliefs and preferences of learners and those of
teachers. The fact that the teachers and learners in this study shared
similar views about integrated and isolated approaches to grammar
instruction suggests a compatible match of beliefs and preferences
and is consistent with the findings of Songhori (2012) in which
teachers cited learners preferences as a guide to their own choices
about timing in grammatical instruction. A number of teachers in this
study also referred to learner preferences as an important factor, similar to comments made by the teachers in Burgess and Etheringtons
(2002) study. This is consistent with the position that it is important
for learners and teachers to share (or at least understand) each
others preferences for learning and teaching (Horwitz, 1998; Schulz,
1996). As indicated above, previous research on learner and teacher
preferences about grammar instruction and error correction has often
revealed differences between teacher and learner views (Brown, 2009;
Park, 2010; Schulz, 1996). These studies have reported, for example,
that learners preferred to have more explicit grammar instruction and
error correction than teachers were willing to provide and thought was
necessary. Interestingly, these two instructional components (i.e., explicit grammar teaching and error correction) are included in both integrated and isolated FFI. They do not constitute distinctions between
the two types and thus would not have emerged as differences in the
present study with its focus on timing rather than type of grammatical
instruction.
The third research question explored whether there were differences between ESL and EFL teachers and learners preferences. The
results reveal that teachers and learners in both instructional contexts
expressed a preference for integrated FFI with no substantive difference between the contexts. This is in line with studies that have found
agreement between teachers and learners on the topic of grammatical
instruction across instructional contexts (e.g., Borg & Burns, 2008;
Schulz, 2001). Nonetheless, some statistically significant differences
were also evident between the ESL and EFL teachers and learners
in this study. For example, the ESL teachers indicated a stronger
preference for integrated FFI than the EFL teachers did (see Table 3
and Figure 1), and the ESL learners responded more positively to
some of the isolated items than the EFL learners did (see Table 4 and
Figure 2). In the case of the differences between ESL and EFL learners, the different linguistic environments in which they were situated
may have played a role. For example, it is possible that ESL learners
expressed stronger preferences for isolated FFI because they already
IS THERE A BETTER TIME TO FOCUS ON FORM?
17
TESOL QUARTERLY
19
THE AUTHORS
Antonella
University
ESL and
instructed
20
TESOL QUARTERLY
REFERENCES
Andrews, S. (2003). Just like instant noodles: L2 teachers and their beliefs about
grammar pedagogy. Teachers and Teaching: Theory and Practice, 9, 351375.
doi:10.1080/1354060032000097253
Barnard, R., & Scampton, D. (2008). Teaching grammar: A survey of EAP teachers
in New Zealand. New Zealand Studies in Applied Linguistics, 14(2), 5982.
Borg, S. (2003a). Teacher cognition in grammar teaching: A literature review. Language Awareness, 12(2), 96108. doi:10.1080/09658410308667069
Borg, S. (2003b). Teacher cognition in language teaching: A review of research on
what language teachers think, know, believe, and do. Language Teaching, 36,
81109. doi:10.1017/S0261444803001903
Borg, S. (2010). Language teacher research engagement. Language Teaching, 43,
391429. doi:10.1017/S0261444810000170
Borg, S., & Burns, A. (2008). Integrating grammar in adult TESOL classrooms.
Applied Linguistics, 29, 456482. doi:10.1093/applin/amn020
Brown, A. V. (2009). Students and teachers perceptions of effective foreign language teaching: A comparison of ideals. Modern Language Journal, 93, 4660.
doi:10.1111/j.1540-4781.2009.00827.x
Burgess, J., & Etherington, S. (2002). Focus on grammatical form: Explicit or
implicit? System, 30, 433458. doi:10.1016/S0346-251X(02)00048-9
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, England: Cambridge University Press.
Elg
un-G
und
uz, Z., Akcan, S., & Bayyurt, Y. (2012). Isolated form-focused instruction and grammatical form: Explicit school English classrooms in Turkey. Language, Culture and Curriculum, 25(2), 157171. doi:10.1080/07908318.2012.
683008
Ellis, R. (2006). Current issues in the teaching of grammar: An SLA perspective.
TESOL Quarterly, 40, 83107. doi:10.2307/40264512
Fang, Z. (1996). A review of research on teacher beliefs and practices. Educational
Research, 38(1), 4765. doi:10.1080/0013188960380104
Graham, M. G. (2011). Teachers and students beliefs about the role of grammar and
grammar instruction in the foreign language classroom (Unpublished doctoral dissertation). Capella University, Minneapolis, MN.
Horwitz, E. K. (1988). The beliefs about language learning of beginning university
foreign language students. Modern Language Journal, 72, 283294. doi:10.2307/
327506
Horwitz, E. K. (1999). Cultural and situational influences on foreign language
learners beliefs about language learning: A review of BALLI studies. System, 27,
557576. doi:10.1016/S0346-251X(99)00050-0
Howatt, A. P. R. (1984). A history of English language teaching. Oxford, England:
Oxford University Press.
Kagan, D. M. (1992). Implication of research on teacher belief. Educational Psychologist, 27(1), 6590. doi:10.1207/s15326985ep2701_6
Kartchava, E., & Ammar, A. (2014). Learners beliefs as mediators of what is
noticed and learned in the language classroom. TESOL Quarterly, 48, 86109.
doi:10.1002/tesq.101
Kern, R. G. (1995). Students and teachers beliefs about language learning. Foreign Language Annals, 28, 7192. doi:10.1111/j.1944-9720.1995.tb00770.x
Krashen, S. (1982). Principles and practices in second language acquisition. Oxford,
England: Pergamon Press.
21
22
TESOL QUARTERLY
Spada, N., & Lightbown, P. M. (2008). Form-focused instruction: Isolated or integrated? TESOL Quarterly, 42, 181207. doi:10.1002/j.1545-7249.2008.tb00115.x
Tomlinson, B. (2005). English as a foreign language: Matching procedures to the
context of learning. In E. Hinkel (Ed.), Handbook of research in second language
teaching and learning (pp. 137153). London, England: Lawrence Erlbaum.
Yang, N. (1999). The relationship between EFL learners beliefs and learning strategy use. System, 27, 515535. doi:10.1016/S0346-251X(99)00048-2
Yoshida, R. (2008). Teachers choice and learners preference of corrective feedback types. Language Awareness, 17(1), 7893. doi:10.2167/la429.0
APPENDIX
Questionnaires
EFL
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
9.
10.
11.
12.
13.
14.
15.
16.
23
24
TESOL QUARTERLY
25
Supporting Information
Additional Supporting Information may be found in the online
version of this article:
Table
Table
Table
Table
26
S1.
S2.
S3.
S4.
ESL
EFL
EFL
ESL
Student Questionnaire.
Student Questionnaire.
Teacher Questionnaire.
Teacher Questionnaire.
TESOL QUARTERLY