Theory and Language Teaching

Each of the three interface positions has its own pedagogical approach to teaching grammar: the non-interface position favored the focus-on-meaning, the strong interface position favored the focus-on forms and the weak interface position favored the focus-on-form (Dalili, 2011). The difference between focus-on-meaning and focus- on-form(S) approaches to teaching grammar developed from the primary distinction between implicit and explicit knowledge. While the emphasis of focus-on-meaning approaches is on the development of implicit knowledge of grammatical features, the focus-on-form(S) approaches emphasize the development of explicit knowledge of grammatical features,

Ellis, Basturkmen, and Loewen (2002, cited in Dalili, 2011) introduced three main pedagogical approaches to focus on form and meaning as follows:

(a) Focus-on-meaning which ignores the role of grammatical features and highlights the function of meaning in communication. (b) Focus-on-formS which emphasizes teaching

pursues the combination of focus-on-meaning and focus-on-formS approaches. The pedagogical realizations of the three interface position are presented in the following:

2.2.2.1 The non-interface position and focus on meaning approach

Advocates of non-interface position believe that instruction should focus on promoting implicit or meaning based knowledge of language and assist learners to use language fluency, then explicit knowledge of language forms does not have any vital role in language learning. Thus, priority of instruction is on language fluency rather than language accuracy. In their view ―second language learning can be achieved in much the same ways as first language acquisition and student errors are thought of as an incidental result of the second language learning process and are therefore inevitable‖

(Spada & Lightbown, 1993, p. 205). While learners are not supposed to produce grammatically correct sentences, teachers should not correct student errors because corrective feedback is seen as having no role in second language acquisition. Teachers were encouraged to create an atmosphere in which the students felt comfortable to talk and the focus in the classroom should be on communicating meaning rather than on producing target-like grammar. Thus, the primary emphasis of the pedagogical approaches emerged on this position (i.e., The immersion program, the content-based instruction and natural approach) is on fluency rather than accuracy (Harley & Swain, 1984; Krashen & Terrell, 1993; Swain, 1985, cited in Dalili, 2011).

The non-interface position in cognitive psychology, regardless of Krashen‘s anti-grammar effort and its effect on the SLA approaches faced severe criticisms. The foremost criticism against it was aggravated by immersion programs in which students were exposed to plentiful comprehensible input to improve production skills in communicative occasions. It was argued that the input just developed learner fluency and ignores improving their accuracy. Moreover, the learners more than comprehensible

input need to produce comprehensible output (Swain, 1985, cited in Dalili, 2011). Farther along, some researchers emphasized the role of attention to form by declaring that ―SLA is largely driven by what learners pay attention to and what they understand of the significance of the noticed input to be‖ (Schmidt, 2001, pp. 3-4).

2.2.2.2 The strong interface position and focus on formS approach

Advocates of this position support the role of explicit focus-on-formS instructions in promoting L2 learning. They are followers of the generally held belief that ―practice makes perfect‖ characterized as a skill-learning theory (DeKeyser, 1998).

They argue that L2 forms are learned through PPP procedures. Dalili (2011) explained them as ―(a) Presenting the targeted structure through explicit instruction, (b) Practicing

the structure until it is followed by (c) Producing that structure‖ (p. 2119). So errors were to be avoided at all cost. It was believed that students should repeat practiced and prepared dialogues and that this would prevent them from making errors. Second language teachers were to provide instant and explicit corrective feedback when their students made errors, while students were never encouraged to find and correct their errors by themselves.

The PPP procedures and respectively its associated methodology in teaching grammar were widely similar to the traditional methods in Grammar Translation Method, the Audiolingual Method and subsequent versions of Oral Situation Approach. Thus, inspiring behaviorist theories in PPP procedure in L2 learning and concerning accuracy to the extent of ignoring fluency, the strong interface position and the focus-on-formS approach likewise encountered sharp criticisms.

2.2.2.3 The weak interface position and focus on form approach

Advocates of this position support focus on form instruction in teaching grammar (Long, 1991). The aim of this approach is drawing attention of learners throughout meaning based instruction or at the time of form based problems in lessons, which their main focus is on the meaning or communication (Rohollahzadeh Ebadi, 2013).

―Corrective feedback could provide such noticing and/or comprehensible output,

producing opportunities‖ (Lochtman, 2002, p. 274). According to this model, corrective feedback that provides a kind of attention and consciousness in learners not only facilitates explicit learning and explicit knowledge, but also implicit learning and implicit knowledge. Thus, it is believed that form in cooperation with meaning, implicit knowledge in the interface with explicit knowledge and accuracy together with fluency are all instantaneously taken into account and in this way criticisms against the former extreme positions of the interface are wiped out. The weak interface position and its pedagogical appearance, that is the focus-on-form instruction, are presently maintained as optimal integrative resolutions to the interface issue and form-meaning interaction.

In summary, the non-interface position underlined promoting implicit knowledge and suggested focus-on-meaning approach in teaching grammatical features. It cares for fluency, but ignores accuracy. The strong interface position highlighted the role of explicit knowledge and suggested focus-on-formS approach in teaching grammatical features. It cares about accuracy, but ignores fluency. Discarding the polarized outlooks of the non-interface and the strong interface positions, the weak interface position as has been advocated by this study pursued to establish a moderate position. This moderate position directed to the initiation of a newfangled integrative approach well-known as the focus-on-form instruction which focused on both form and meaning, implicit and explicit knowledge, and accuracy and fluency of grammar. This

advance has been roughly signified in outcomes of fresh SLA research. However, the research remains in its primary stage and further study of the efficacy of the presently practiced methods along with developing new pedagogical preferences seems to be crucial.