Focus on Forms Education - Term Paper Example

Running Head: FOCUS ON FORMS Customer Inserts His/her Name Customer Inserts Grade Course Customer Inserts Tutor’s Name 21/07/ 2011 Focus on Forms education Over the past twenty years, there has been heated debate on the benefits and problems in terms of the effects of the form-focused and meaning-focused instruction paradigms in second language teaching. The meaning-focused approach to teaching, or focus on form (FonF), refers to the meaningful concepts in a language developed by students and language instructors or teachers to emphasize the formal aspects of a language that are integral to the intended meaning that is communicated (Long & Robinson, 1998). This paper considers second language acquisition (SLA) and analyses the concept of focus on forms (FOFS)—where the emphasis is placed on the formal aspects of a language—by examining the results of previous research on the subject. It also focuses on theories and empirical studies on teaching grammar and critiques form-focused and meaning-focused instruction. Grammar instruction may be of two types; “focus on form” and “focus on forms”. In FonF, the term ‘form’ refers to the drawing students attention to linguistic elements as they arise incidentally in lessons, while in FOFS, the term ‘forms’ is equated with the traditional teachings of discrete points of grammar in separate lessons. In other words, in FOFS, the key is the form of a language or specific linguistic features, while in FonF, it’s derived from an assumed degree of similarity between first and second language acquisition. FOFS instruction is usually embedded in the syllabus, whereas in FonF, instruction tends to be guided by a perceived or reported comprehension problem from the student. In FOFS, a synthetic approach is adopted to teach the forms in isolation, unlike in FonF, where an analytical approach is used to teach the linguistic features in context (Doughty & Williams, 1998). The following are activities in FonF, but they do not support FOFS: meta-talk; use of a word processor’s typographical enhancers such as italics, bold and text colour features; formulation and testing of hypotheses; and conscious reflections. FOFS is one of the most commonly used approach in any second language learning process and is, therefore, the method that is found in typical classrooms all over the world (Long & Robinson, 1998). It follows a synthetic approach to spread knowledge and usually consists of the teacher approach or model of presentation, or what can be called a syllabus. Moreover, it involves the teacher studying the target language and analysing it with respect to the learning requirements of the student. The teacher can also adopt an existing analysis of the language that can be retrieved from a textbook or a pedagogical grammar text. The teacher then breaks the target language into linguistic skills sub-categories, guided by his or her preferences. These subcategories can be terminology, grammar, stress patterns, notions, functions, sentence structure and other rules of the target language. He or she then schedules the subcategories in a certain methodology for timely delivery to his or her students. The students are then taught gradually, receiving parts or components that make up the language until the structure which composes the language is acquired. The student is charged with the role of synthesizing the language subcategories and often practicing them in communication. This approach has faced several criticisms. Some researchers like Rutherford in particular, have suggested that SLA is not a process of accumulating parts (Rutherford, 1984). He claimed that in this process, neither students nor native speakers of any language can exhibit what can be recognised as the second language structure. Instead, he observed that the students could not move from the stage of ‘no knowledge’ to that of ‘mastery’ of a rule. This is due to effects of interaction between the first and second languages which affect the student’s ability to move from the novice to mastery stages of the rule. The student’s learning process could be categorised as a non-targeted process and be characterised by the use of forms. In this case, the students take a longer time to learn than expected, especially with respect to dynamic subcategories such as plurals (Long & Robinson, 1998). This usually frustrates the simplistic notion that ‘what you teach is what is learnt’ (Long & Robinson, 1998). Due to the finding that the systematic, complete and categorical mastery of a language structure is an inappropriate goal, known as consciousness-rating, the approach to instruction has changed. The contents within the language subcategories are still produced and provided for the student. Teachers and language experts have shifted to informing the student of the second language targets that they expect him or her to achieve, which involves noting the use of the rules and regularities in the text provided and not bombarding the student with the rules and regularities later on, expecting him or her to reproduce these rules and regulations. Consciousness-raising allows a student to conceptualise the second language knowledge and, at the same time, have an opportunity to compare and contrast with the first language. However, in the author’s opinion, the most important thing in SLA is the allocation of sufficient time to each of the subcategories for the effective conceptualisation and subsequent mastery of the rules and regulations and their applications (Long & Robinson, 1998). Smith, (1985) gave some controversial recent works, some of this developments have been published, their work promotes the adoption and utilisation of pedagogical materials and textbooks as linguistic guides in the learning of a second language. This new approach is called input enhancement, and it utilises things like flagging items to underline, italicize and colour for students to take note of, unlike in consciousness-raising, where the student is expected to implement a mental change to learn effectively. Thus, input enhancement is touted to be more efficient as compared to consciousness-raising (Smith, 1985). A FonF entails a focus on formal elements of language, whereas FOFS is limited to such a focus, and focus on meaning excludes it, the fundamental assumption is that meaning and use must already be evident to the learner at the time that attention is drawn to the linguistic apparatus needed to get the meaning across (Doughty and Williams, 1998).FOFS usually has its strong points, and it is not exactly as illustrated by the researchers, as they usually depict it as an approach where only the rules and regulations of the second language are taught. The researchers often discredit even the teaching approach and usually refer to it as the bombardment of grammar rules and regulations against students in a short time with the expectation that they will be able to reproduce them. However, the correct approach is slightly different. It involves explaining the rules and regulation of the second language to the student and then following that up with examples that demonstrate the application of the rules. The student is then given time to comprehend and master the rules and their applications in the language. The teacher is also expected to widen the student’s language knowledge by assisting him or her in comparing the new language with the first language in terms of structure, rules and regulations, and the various elements of the language (Krashen, 2004). FOFS is accused of lacking efficacy, unlike FonF, where the student is expected to know the meaning and understand the linguistic features as prerequisites to acquiring knowledge of form. The assumptions made in FOFS have been disputed, with some researchers like Stephen Krashen arguing that the best way to teach a second or foreign language is by introducing students to massive, understandable materials on the target language, and the students will learn the language like the native speakers of that language. However, this school of thought has been faulted by (Michael, 1991) research on the French language immersion programme in Canada. Long managed to gather very interesting results; child starters had their productive skills remain far from the natives when compared with grammatical competence. The specific study involved exposing young learners to meaning-focused approaches and supplying massive content of comprehensible literature, as argued by Krashen (Krashen, 2004). The results showed that after years of using meaning-focused approach of learning, the students acquired native-like listening abilities and were able to speak fluently, as detailed by Krashen; however, the students had several grammatical errors in their language which were evident in their spoken contents. As some research suggests, FOFS still lacks a clear advantage or edge over FonF; most of the researchers in this field claim their studies to be empirical, yet the studies fail to exhibit the properties of empirical studies. Empirical studies were published in The Canadian Modern Language Review, and it was performed to compare the effectiveness of FOFS and FonF approaches in learning a second language. The study involved 158 high school students who were learning English as a second language (Laufer-Dvorkin, 2006). In phase one of the study, the FonF group studied texts containing the target terminology and discussed the answers to comprehension questions in groups. The FOFS group studied the terminology individually, in isolation, and were provided with definitions and examples to demonstrate the usage of the terminology. In phase two of the study, all of the participating students were provided the terminology and the definitions of the terms and were given fifteen minutes to study them before they were tested on them. The student was tested two weeks later, after when the results were analysed. The results showed that the FOFS students performed exceptionally well, beating the FonF students by a large margin. In phase two of the test, however, the margin disappeared, since it was difficult to study all of the terminology within a time frame of only fifteen minutes. Thus, the researchers confirmed that the form-focused approaches to instruction, especially FOFS, are indispensable in any second language vocabulary acquisition; however, in the author’s opinion, a hybrid of the two approaches would be more effective than any single approach (Laufer-Dvorkin, 2006). The present paper has crosscut the various studies and works by language experts, professors, PhDs and writers on the various approaches to SLA (Doughty, 2003). Some researchers have vindicated the FonF approach, while others have vindicated the FOFS approach, arguing that focus on forms should be replaced by an equally objective approach that focuses on meaning. FonF involves an occasional shift in attention to linguistic code features by the teacher and students. It is triggered by observed problems with comprehension or production (Long & Robinsin, 1998). Furthermore, pedagogical interventions embedded in communicative activities can be effective in overcoming classroom limitations on SLA. The focus on meaning calls for the adoption of a particular procedural chart called Prabhu’s syllabus and Terrell’s Natural Approach and ESL content for the SLA process. In the author’s opinion, this may be equally effective as a well-applied FOFS approach for students of any age to learn any language in the world as a second language. References Doughty, C. J. (2003). Instructed SLA: Constraints, compensation, and enhancement. In C. J. Doughty & M. H. Long (eds.), The handbook of second language acquisition (256–310). Oxford: Blackwell Publishing. Doughty, C. & Williams, J. (1998). Focus on form in classroom second language acquisition. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Eghtesadi, A. R. (n.d.). On the effectiveness of focus-on-form and meaning-focused instruction in Iranian high schools: Does cognitive style of field-dependence/independence play a role? Retrieved from http://www.keo.ir/Portals/7/Nazari/english/Eghtesadi-%20Gouchan1.pdf Krashen, S. (2004). The power of reading (2nd ed.). Littleton: Libraries Unlimited. Laufer-Dvorkin, B. (2006). Comparing focus on form and focus on formS in second-language vocabulary learning. The Canadian Modern Language Review, 63(1), 149–166. Long, M. & Robinson, P. (1998). Theory, research and practice. In C. J. Doughty and J. Williams (eds.), Focus on form in classroom second language acquisition (15–41). Cambridge: 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 (eds.), Foreign Language Research in Cross-Cultural perspective (39–52). Amsterdam: John Benjamin. Michael Sharwood Smith. (1997). Second language learning: theoretical foundations. London: Longman. William E. Rutherford. (1984).Language universals and second language acquisition. California: John Benjamins Publishing Company. Read More