Form focused methods

Form focused instruction, also known as focus on form (FonF) combines structure based grammar teaching with communication based methods by placing grammar teaching in a communicative context (Ellis, 2001). It utilises the advantages of both methods of language teaching described earlier, so that students can learn formal grammar structures while being able to assign meaning to the conversation (Long, 1998). One notable example was from a study conducted by Pica (Pica, 1997) where the researcher found that students who studied grammar using form focused instruction methods were able to use plurals more accurately than students who did not study grammar under formal instruction. This enabled the researcher to argue in favour of grammar teaching because it was found that when the structure of the sentences gets complex, having knowledge of grammar helps the student.

However, different researchers have introduced different types of form-focused instruction. Some preferred focusing on grammar through input based options while others preferred teaching grammar using output based or interaction based options. The following subsection discusses some of the notable methods suggested by researchers.

Input processing and processing instruction

One of the most notable input based options that focus on grammar is processing instruction, which is derived from input processing. The main philosophy of input processing is that it is common for a student to try to find meaning before looking for grammar in a sentence. If the student can be taught to identify the meaning, the student will have a better chance of identifying the grammar and then use that knowledge in future sentence creation (VanPatten, 2004).

VanPatten (2004) therefore introduced processing instruction, where the author suggested that if students in the classroom are also taught how to utilise input to identify the underlying grammar, they can understand and acquire both grammatical knowledge and meaning. Sheen (2007) used “have” as an example, where at first the teacher introduced “have” as a causative verb. Sheen suggested that this explanation of grammar should be followed by different types of input. One of the types of input

might be, “The boss has the employees complete the task”, which utilises exactly the same word that was explained. After that, the teacher should introduce more complex examples such as, “My mother had me cook my lunch”, where with this additional input, the student would be able to gain more exposure to different ways to use the same causative verb.

However, one of the limitations of processing instruction is that it cannot be used with all types of grammatical concepts. For example, input processing is not effective in explaining articles (VanPatten, 2002) as the meaning often changes according to context. Therefore, even though this is a useful form focused method, not every researcher suggests using it to teach grammar.

Textual and input enhancement

As the name suggests, textual enhancement uses enhancement techniques to highlight certain parts of input (Wong, 2003). It can be done by making a word bold, italicised, or underlined. If it is oral input, such as a teacher’s voice, enhancement can be in the form of repetition or emphasis (Simard, 2009). The central idea of this form of enhancement is that making specific items stand out makes them more noticeable to students and therefore more learnable (Jourdenais, Ota, Stauffer, Boyson, & Doughty, 1995).

Although this simplistic model has been criticised by researchers (Leow, 1998), many researchers argue that attention is indeed important in learning grammar, even if it is not in the same form (textual enhancement) as this method proposed (Han, Park, & Combs, 2008; Lyddon, 2011). Therefore, input enhancement remains an influential method in acquiring grammar (Smith, 1993). However, one common problem with input enhancement is that different students may require emphasis on different parts of grammar, and in a classroom setting, this is difficult to deliver.

Interactional feedback

Interactional feedback has similarities with input enhancement in the sense that it also focuses students’ attention on form (Mackey, Gass, & McDonough, 2000; Russell & Spada, 2006). The main difference is that this is not an input method, but rather an output method, where the teacher is meant to correct the mistakes made by

the student. In input based methods students are exposed to input, but with output based methods students participate in the conversation and the teacher actively provides them with feedback to correct them.

Interactional feedback is based on two parts - negative evidence and positive evidence (Lightbown & Spada, 1990). When a student utters a wrong sentence or wrong word, this is known as negative evidence, which means the act of the student will not lead to an understandable conversation in the target language and therefore the teacher gives feedback with positive evidence - the right way to say the sentence (Lyster, 2004). Negative evidence can consist of many things, but often includes incorrect grammatical usage, and positive evidence often uses correct grammatical examples.

Similar to other methods of grammar teaching, this method is not accepted by all researchers. Some researchers argue that it is extremely important to have this correction mechanism because students are bound to make mistakes (negative evidence) and correcting mistakes is essential to acquiring correct grammar (Farrar, 1992). Others, however, do not agree that negative evidence is such a crucial form of learning and suggest increasing input rather than less input and more correction (Demetras, Post, & Snow, 1986; Marcus, 1993; Truscott, 1996). However, rather than direct correction, strategies such as recasts (Ellis, Loewen, & Erlam, 2006), clarification requests (Purver, 2004), repetition, and metalinguistic feedback (Pratt, Tunmer, & Bowey, 1984) are increasingly gaining attention as they allow increased input via positive evidence rather than simply correcting mistakes.

Collaborative output activities

This method assumes that during collaborative activities, students get support from others and therefore gain both grammatical and linguistic knowledge (Fortune & Thorp, 2001). Although this appears counterintuitive at first, researchers have found that when students produce output, they learn what they can and cannot use to produce understandable language (Nassaji & Fotos, 2011; Swain & Lapkin, 1995). Empirical evidence suggests that using tasks such as dictogloss, jigsaw puzzles, and other similar activities that ask students to recreate texts produces improved grammar knowledge and understanding (Cowan, 2008; Nabei, 1996). However, one of the

main criticisms is that not all activities are suitable for collaborative tasks, and so this often relies on a limited array of tasks (Sullivan & Caplan, 2003). Therefore, instead of using the teacher’s knowledge of grammar, teaching style and charisma become the main factors (Park & Park, 1999).

Overall, from the review of the literature on grammar teaching methods, it can be seen that there are numerous ways grammar can be taught. Although each method has its own advantages and disadvantages, historically, adoption in the classroom has been based on many other circumstances. Methods that focus only on structure are suitable in the EFL classroom, since being grammatically correct is important for EFL students. On the other hand, communicative methods might be more suitable for ESL students, as they often focus on learning how to communicate. Form focused methods, on the other hand, can be appropriate in advanced EFL or ESL classes, as they combine both of these approaches and students can learn not only the structure of grammar, but also how to position this in a communicative context. As this research focuses on the EFL classroom, the next section discusses teaching in EFL classrooms.