Focus on Form versus Focus on Forms - Coursework Example

FOCUS ON FORMS (F ON FS) VERSUS FOCUS ON FORM (F ON F) Name: Course: College: Tutor: Date: Form focused instruction paradigm makes up a significant part of literature in acquisition of second language. Modern approaches to second language instruction call for an integration of ‘form focused’ instruction in the L2 classroom (Laufer, 1998). The problems and benefits associated with the effects of form focused instructional paradigms in second language teaching have been widely debated. Grammar instruction falls into two categories: “focus on form (FonF)” or “focus on forms” (FonFs). Focus on form (FonF), refers to treatment of linguistic forms in the perspective of carrying out a talkative task (Ellis et al, 2001). Ellis et al. (2001) argued that the form consists of grammar, vocabulary, discourse and phonology. In FonF, the term ‘form’ refers to the act of drawing learners’ interest to linguistic aspects as they crop up in lessons. The attention of second language learners is drawn to the form of particular features of language in the context of communicative interaction. FonF is concerned with the way intentional resources are located and entails momentarily drawing learners’ attention to linguistic facets in circumstance as they crop up incidentally in lessons whose paramount focus is on communication or meaning (Long, 2000, p.185). On the other hand, Focus on forms (FonFs) in second language teaching refers to any type of instruction that isolates specific linguistic forms in order to teach them one at a time (Doughty & Williams, 1998). Focus on forms refers to synthetic approaches to language teaching where the L2 is analyzed in different parts such as vocabulary and grammar and these elements are taught in isolation from context. In FonFs, the term ‘forms’ is equal to the long established teaching method of presenting distinct points of grammar in different lessons. The strength of ‘focus on form’ (FonF) comprises the fact that attention to linguistic code features takes place when their function and meaning are more likely to be evident to the learners concerned. This occurs at a moment when they have a perceived need for the new item, when they are attending, as a result, and when they are psycho linguistically ready to start learning the items. The particular pedagogical procedure employed to attain focus on form may vary from more implicit to more explicit or of simple pedagogical grammar rules, with choices and exact timing of the intervention indicated and determined locally by such matters as the sophistication of the learner and the difficulty of the code feature concerned (Doughty & Williams, 1998). Doughty & Williams (1998:4), argued that FonF necessitates attention to formal components of a language. This approach allows both students and teachers to complete motivating and interesting courses dealing with content they recognize as important to their needs while still tackling language problems successfully (Norris & Ortega, 2000; Long & Robinson, 1998). Abundant focus on form research illustrate that attracting students’ focus to form within significant context helps the learning of a second language. Doughty & Williams (1998) proposed that the learners’ attention could be brought to the intended form by means of noticing methods such as input enhancement. On the other hand, the focus on forms strength is that it focuses on meaning or communication and it supports cognitive processes. This concept was motivated by lack of support for the effectiveness of FonFs. This approach offers a satisfactory reasoning for taking into account communicative use of language in the long established grammar based instructions. Focus on form activities that are reading based is particularly suitable for many EFL situations because of the long-established emphasis on translation and comprehension skills. This approach allows reading materials to be modified by highlighting so that the target structure becomes significant while the learners are reading to acquire a meaning. Long (1991) argued that on form task based language instruction is predominantly suitable for focus on form. The benefits of task performance in terms of offering chances for both production and comprehension of target language discussed in many surveys. This approach allows for formal instruction before and after performance of communicative activities. It allows for flexibility in activities and the kind of participation pattern during these activities. One of the weaknesses of focus on form is that the optimal degree of explicitness of attention to form has yet to be determined. FonF is termed as a pedagogical effort that draws the students focus to form explicitly or implicitly (Long & Robinson, 1998). This can take into account the teaching language directly through grammatical rules and/or responses to learners mistakes such as corrective feedback. All these educational methods are connected to long-established approaches to second language teaching, which offers distinct grammatical practice as well as presentation (Laufer, 1998). The second language learner also fails to take note of the input that occurs in the linguistic environment. The weakness of focus on forms (FonFs) is that it overlooks processes of learning languages or implicitly presumes a behaviorist model that has been discredited for a long time.Secondly it does not attract the students’ focus to particular forms of language within naturalistic communicative circumstances in the process of associating meaning and form. FonFs isolates and examines specific forms of the targeted language as the objects of language learning and teaching (Doughtry & Williams, 1998). It does not take into account the fact that a language learner needs to notice or attend to forms of target language as a pre condition of process and eventually acquire those form. There is a clear distinction between Focus on Form and Focus on Forms. While FonF refers to a traditional structural syllabus, FonFs refers to the instruction that attracts the attention of the learner to forms within the framework of meaningful communication. Long & Robinson (1998) offered empirical and theoretical rationales for focus on form by comparing it with focus on forms based on their synthesis of previous second language acquisition. Focus on forms collectively refers to any methods that teach vocabulary or grammar by L1 translation, rote memorization, metalinguistic explanation or mechanical drills without considering the appropriateness and authenticity of L2 forms. In contrast, Focus on forms was termed by Long & Robinson (1998) as an L2 instructional approach that lay emphasis on centrality of meaningfulness and rejects any form focused instruction dose. Secondly, focus on forms focuses on the formal properties with little or no attention to meaning. Instructors who drill learners repeatedly engage in focus on forms. Activities such as filling in the blank, in which the student does not have to pay attention to what the sentence means so as to complete the sentence, are focus on forms exercises. In focus on form, all interventions in which simultaneous attention of brought to both meaning and how that meaning is encoded. Generally, this occurs in a recast situation where a student produces something non-native like language during a conversation and the instructor responds by recasting what the learners says in a native like manner to indicate that he or she understood the learner (Long, 2000). Focus on form and Focus on forms differ in that in the former students pay attention to linguistic factors as they come up as a by the way in lessons whose prevailing attention is on communication or meaning (Long, 1991). In the latter, traditional teaching of discrete points of grammar are taught in separate lessons. Focus on form is derived from an assumed similarity degree between the acquisition of both first and second language acquisition. Both processes are based on contact with understandable input that crop up from natural communication. FonF goes against the principle that grammar teaching is tantamount to unambiguous techniques. Fotos (1998) argued that FonF is a presentation of grammatical forms that is based on contexts as opposed to obvious instructor led instructions. Doughty & Williams (1998) argued that the long established idea of FonFs entails isolating linguistic features from communicative or context activity while FonF incorporates attention to use, form and meaning. This gives FonF an advantage over FonFs as students negotiate the meaning in their L2 as form, use and meaning are integrated. FonF also sharply contrasts with FonFs, which refers to long established grammar instruction. In explaining the problems of FonFs, Long (1997) argued that there is no needs analysis to discover a specific learners or group of learners communicating needs and no means analysis to determine their discovering preferences and methods. Long (1997) termed FonFs as a one-size-fits approach. In FonFs, lexical and grammatical linguistic grading tends to give rise to educational resources of the basal reader diversity, classroom language use, textbook dialogs which are stilted and artificial (Long, 1997). The other distinction between FonF and FonFs is the meaning of ‘form. In FonF, the term 'form' refers to the act of drawing students' attention to linguistic elements as they arise in lessons; in FonFs, the term 'forms' is equated with the tradition teaching method of presenting discrete points of grammar in separate lessons. This different arises because FonF discuses on the form or specific linguistic features of a language, whereas FonF assumes a degree of similarity between first and second language. The other difference is FonFs instruction is usually embedded in the syllabus, whereas in FonF, instruction tends to be guided by a comprehension problem that is perceived and reported by the student. In FonFs, a synthetic approach is adopted in order to teach the forms in isolation; in FonF, an analytical approach is used in order to teach the linguistic features in context (Doughty & Williams, 1998). Long (1991) describes Focus on forms as a conventional telling approach wherein instructors offer the students sequenced and pre selected linguistic items. After demarcating the tremendous interventionist, FonFs approach and its internal ineffeciencies, Long (1991) proposes the FonF method, which incorporates both the Focus on Meaning and Focus on Forms. According to Long, it is concerned with, "how intentional resources are located and involves briefly drawing students' attention to linguistic elements in context as they arise incidentally in lessons whose overriding focus is on meaning or communication (p.185). Laufer(1998) argued that L2 learners normally prefer to use simple and recognized vocabulary as long as the intended meaning can be conveyed. However, grammatical structures are likely to appear in various communicating tasks, regardless of their content. Vocabulary is content bound and thus cannot be expected to naturally reappear in tasks that are thematically unrelated. As a result, to ensure multiple exposures to specific words and their use, careful planning is required on the part of the instructor. This may take the form of selecting the vocabulary to focus on and supplementing meaning, oriented tasks with non-communicative, focus on forms types of activities. Instructors should thus place value on focus on ‘form’ and focus on ‘forms’ in vocabulary teaching. Reference Doughty, C., & Williams, J. 1998. Focus on form in classroom second language acquisition. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press. Ellis, R., Basturkmen, H., & Loewen, L. 2001. Preemptive focus on form in the ESL classroom. TESOL Quarterly, 35(3), 407-432. Fotos, S. 1998. Shifting the Focus from Forms to form in the EFL Classroom. ELT Journal, 52(4), 301-307 Laufer, B. 1998. The Development of Passive and Active Vocabulary in a Second Language; Same or Different? Applied Linguistics 19:255-271 Long, M. 2000. Focus on form ill task-based language teaching. In R. Lambert & E. Shohamy (Eds.), Language policy and pedagogy: Essays in honor of A. Ronald Walton (179-192). Philadelphia: John Benjamins. Longman, M. 1997. Focus on Form in Task-based Language Teaching, Retrieved on August 29, 2011 from http://www.mhhe.com/socscience/foreignlang/ Long, M. & Robinson, P. 1998. Focus on Form: Theory research and practice. In C. Doughtry & J. Williams (Eds.) Focus on form in classroom second language acquisition, (pp 15-41). New York: Cambridge University Press. Long, M. 1991. Focus on form: A design feature in language teaching methodology. In K. de Bot, R. B. Ginsberg, & C. Kramsch(198 1.), Foreign Language Research 'in Cross- Cultural perspective (39-52). Amsterdam: John Benjamin’s. Norris, J., & Ortega., L. 2000. ‘Effectiveness of L2 instruction : A Research Synthesis and Quantitative meta-analysis’. Language Learning, 50/3: 417-528. Read More