Cover not available
Article published In:
Australian Review of Applied Linguistics
Vol. 19:2 (1996) ► pp.59–77

The debate on form-focused instruction

A teacher’s perspective

| University of Western Sydney, Macarthur

An interest in investigating the effect of instruction on interlanguage development prompted me to conduct a study on a small group of adult migrant learners of English. As a first step, the learners were assessed for their stage of syntactic development. This assessment showed that a structure-do-fronted questions – had not been acquired by some of the learners but was one for which they were syntactically ready. Because questioning is an important and complex speech act, the learners were then given instruction which focused their attention on do-fronting. The follow-up assessment indicated that instruction can be successful because the learners acquired do-fronting. The study supports the claim that form-focused instruction can make a difference. It also lends weight to Pienemann’s claim that the effectiveness of instruction depends on whether a structure is learnable for an individual learner. The study shows that form-focused instruction can provide an innovative linguistic focus to communicative language teaching and give important assistance with the second language acquisition of the learners.

Published online: 1 January 1996
DOI logo
https://doi.org/10.1075/aral.19.2.04dys
References
Clahsen, H., J. Meisel and M. Pienemann
(1983) Deutsch als zweitsprache: der Spracherwerb auslandischer Arbeiter. Gunter Narr, Tubingen.Google Scholar
Brown, R.
(1973) A first language. Harvard University Press, Cambridge, Mass. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Dulay, H. and M. Burt
(1973) Should we teach children syntax? Language Learning 231: 245–258. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
(1974) Natural sequences in child second language acquisition. Language Learning 241: 37–53. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
(1975) Creative construction in second language learning and teaching. In M. Burt and (eds.).H. Dulay On TESOL ‘75 Washington DC, TESOL.Google Scholar
Dulay, H., M. Burt and S.D. Krashen
(1982) Language Two. New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Doughty, C.
(1992) Second language instruction does make a difference. Studies in Second Language Acquisition 131:431–69. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Johnston, M.
(1985) Syntactic and Morphological Progressions in Learner English, Research Report. Canberra, Department of Immigration and Ethnic Affairs Commonwealth of Australia.Google Scholar
(1986) Second language acquisition research: a classroom perspective. NSW: Adult Migrant Education Service.Google Scholar
(1994) Second Language Acquisition : a classroom perspective. ASLA 1.Google Scholar
Krashen, S. D.
(1981) Second Language Acquisition and Second Language Learning. Oxford, Pergamon Press Ltd.Google Scholar
(1985) The Input Hypothesis: Issues and Implications. New York, Longman.Google Scholar
(1992) Teaching issues: formal grammar instruction, TESOL Quarterly 26,2:409–411. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Krashen, S.D. and T. Terrel
(1983) The Natural Approach. New York, Pergamon.Google Scholar
Larsen-Freeman, D. and M. Long
(1991) An Introduction to Second Language Acquisition Research. New York, Longman.Google Scholar
Lightbown, P. M.
(1983) Exploring relationships between developmental and instructional sequences in L2 acquisition. In H. Seliger and M. Long (eds) Classroom oriented research on second language acquisition. Rowley Mass., Newbury House.Google Scholar
Lightbown, P. M. and N. Spada
(1990) Focus on form and corrective feedback in communicative language teaching: effects on second language learning. Studies in Second Language Acquisition 121: 429–448. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Long, M. H.
(1983) Does second language instruction make a difference? A review of research. TESOL Quarterly 17,3: 359–82 DOI logoGoogle Scholar
(1991) Focus on Form: A Design Feature in Language Teaching Methodology. In K. de Bot, D. Coste, C. Kramsch and R. Ginsberg (eds.) Foreign Language Research in Cross-Cultural Perspective. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Pavesi, M.
(1984) The acquisition of relative clauses in a formal and in an informal setting: further evidence in support of the markedness hypothesis. In D. Singleton, and D. Little, (eds) Language learning in formal and informal contexts. Dublin, IRAAL.Google Scholar
Pica, T.
(1983) Adult acquisition of English as a second language under different conditions of exposure. Language Learning 33, 4: 465–497. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Pienemann, M.
(1984a) Psychological constraints on the teachability of languages. Studies in Second Language Acquisition 6, 2:186–214. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
(1984b) Learnability and syllabus construction. In K. Hyltenstam and M. Pienemann. (eds) Modelling and Assessing Second Language Acquisition. Clevedon, Multilingual Matters.Google Scholar
(1987) Determining the influence of instruction on L2 speech processing. Australian Review of Applied Linguistics 10,2: 83–113. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
(1989) Is Language Teachable? Psycholinguistic Experiments and Hypotheses. Applied Linguistic s 10,1:52–79. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
(1992) Assessing Second Language Acquisition Through Rapid Profile. LARC Occassional Papers 3.Google Scholar
Pienemann, M. and M. Johnston
(1987) Factors influencing the development of language proficiency. In D. Nunan (ed). Applying Second Language Acquisition Research. Adelaide, NCRC.Google Scholar
Pienemann, M., M. Johnston and G. Brindley
(1988) Constructing an acquisition-based procedure for second language assessment. Studies in Second Language Acquisition 10, 2:217–243. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Pienemann, M. and A. Mackey
(1992) An Empirical Study of Children’s ESL Development and Rapid Profile. In P. McKay ESL Development:: Language and Literacy in Schools. National Languages and Literacy Institute of Australia: Canberra.Google Scholar
Pienemann, M. A. Mackey and I. Thornton
(1991) Rapid Profile. LARC Occasional Papers 2.Google Scholar
Spada, N. and P. Lightbown
(1993) Instruction and the development of questions in L2 classrooms. Studies in Second Language Acquisition 151:205–221. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
White, L., N. Spada, P.M. Lightbown, and L. Ranta
(1991) Input enhancement and L2 question formation. Applied Linguistics 121:416–432. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Cited by

Cited by 7 other publications

Baten, Kristof
2019. Chapter 13. Teaching the German case system. In Widening Contexts for Processability Theory [Processability Approaches to Language Acquisition Research & Teaching, 7], ► pp. 301 ff. DOI logo
Baten, Kristof, Aafke Buyl, Katja Lochtman & Mieke Van Herreweghe
2015. Chapter 1. Processability theory. In Theoretical and Methodological Developments in Processability Theory [Processability Approaches to Language Acquisition Research & Teaching, 4], ► pp. 1 ff. DOI logo
Bonilla, Carrie L.
2015. Chapter 10. Instructing Stages of Processability Theory in L2 Spanish. In Theoretical and Methodological Developments in Processability Theory [Processability Approaches to Language Acquisition Research & Teaching, 4], ► pp. 205 ff. DOI logo
Dyson, Bronwyn
2002. Focus on learnable form in a communicative context. Australian Review of Applied Linguistics 25:1 ► pp. 53 ff. DOI logo
Mansouri, Fethi & Loretta Duffy
2005. The pedagogic effectiveness of developmental readiness in ESL grammar instruction. Australian Review of Applied Linguistics 28:1 ► pp. 81 ff. DOI logo
Roos, Jana
2019. Chapter 12. Exploiting the potential of tasks for targeted language learning in the EFL classroom. In Widening Contexts for Processability Theory [Processability Approaches to Language Acquisition Research & Teaching, 7], ► pp. 285 ff. DOI logo
[no author supplied]
2017. Understanding Second Language Processing [Bilingual Processing and Acquisition, 4], DOI logo

This list is based on CrossRef data as of 14 may 2023. Please note that it may not be complete. Sources presented here have been supplied by the respective publishers. Any errors therein should be reported to them.