Stam er 1% WT Vol 4 #Y Communicative Language Teaching: Research Findings _and the Classroom Teacher : Jessica Williams i Rosoarch and Practico TESOL Journal was crested in par ‘because other jourals inthe field seemed 10 Ihave gouen aay from whut, for most of ws, Is the cener of our professional lives: tac ing The distinction berween research and prac has been discussed endlessly in our Fetdmostrecenly and eloquently by Clarke ‘who notes that those who pursue ‘esearch are rarely found in hinguage lass- rooms and thatthe knowledge and expert 1 ence of classroom teachers are rarely “Incorporated into theory constuction. hope to fame one important area of research in ‘second language aequsiion so that the finds dings can be useful 0 teachers. fn addition, | “Would like to offer some ideas for how prac ttioners can asi in building theory of sec cond language acquisition by engaging in research in their own clastooms, CLi-and Focus on Form +» Communicative language teaching (CLI) is considered by many to be the eurrent mine ‘stream, particularly in ESL, By and large, CLT ‘ds met with great suocess, second language Jeamers (SLs) who stv, in CLT classrooms ‘re generally more successful communicators than thei predecessors who receive! nstrsc- tion focused soley on strvrive. Now many feseurchers and teachers have beyun to wot der ft is enough to provide students with fich, varied, and interesting input and oppor tunis to interact and practice. ‘There have been particular conceras regarding the grammatical Cand in soine cases, socilinguistie and oiseguse) competence of ese SLs; that in focusing sully on meaae ing, we have forsaken all concert for form. “These concems are the bass ofthe Profcieney Movement (Higgs & Cliford, 1982; (Omaggio, 1965) Yet, there are other voices of doubt, ‘among them staunch supponers of CLT: (Celce-Murcia (1991, Elis (1993), and Long and Crookes (1992) al sires the need to ‘eckamine the isue of fom-focuse insiuc- tion in classrooms where the primary focus is ‘on communication In paniculur, Celee-Murcia ‘and Lang and Crookes see 2 oe for drawing learners" tention fo for within conten, based and taskebased curriculs. Elis ses the ‘development of explicit rulebased knowl ‘edge a8 crucial ic helping lesners son Gut {input and facilitate output. 15 it possible, then, that some degree of focus on form could lead to improved, more accurate performance? (twill only uddress whether an tole ‘edge insofir as iis manifested in keamet Jbchavion) An ineneasing amount of ee suggests the answer Is yes. OF course, iis +. -Of language, topic, anid s9,¢n.. creased foeus on form is likly: toa change in gramnstical know fot a simple yes, snd that is the subjeet of this ancl, For the purposes ofthis aniele, 1 will assume the following features ate shared by most CLT ebssrooms, + emphasié 6n'usng authenic Inguage, {cluding ich, varied, and unpradicable * fnpat + emphasis on tasks that encourage the negotiation of mezning between students sid beiween students sad tescher, pre “sumably with the goal of making input comprehensible to pancipants *+ emphasis on succesfolcomatuniction, ‘specially that which involves cs taking + minimal foeus on form, incu GQ) lack of emphasis‘ emo comree tion if does oveu, tis likely to be > meaning focused; ind" +o). litle explicit insriction on lane, | sc: guage niles -emphasis on learner autonsi€ ofthe best sctings in which to serve the successes and pitfalls of CLT is he Canacian immersion programs, Akhough is clear that studens in these programs ‘ave made impressive stides in thir lan- tage developniens, 2 number of sties ave shown that leamers continue to make ‘umerous ero, primarily in second lan- luage morphology and syaiax, some of them ther basic (Harley & Swain, 1984; Swai 985). These leamers have had masses of .mprehensible input and ois of opportunity » communicate aboyt high interest material 4 comfonable enviroriment. They are given aple time and the opportunity to formulate sd test out hypotheses. So what could be “ong? Why do they fail 10 come even close native speaker standards of accuracy in so any areas, even after years in the cass one It is precisely those characteristics of Tilisted above that may, in pat, be cespon- le for these shortcomings. More specif fn focusing exclusively on meaning and ‘ov _ success of communication, we "6 overlooked the issue of accuracy, There are aumerous questions as to what ‘eans to focus on for. In addition, it 10 underscore that none of the studies tioned below points to a return to syllabi nethods that use isolated linguistic forms 'n organizing principle. All findings sup- ‘he basic principles of CLT. Indeed, Long ‘Crookes (1972) advocate the use of iash, {s, things people do, not what they say, 1e organizing principle of syllabus design. vever, evidence fiom CLT classrooms that Jot focus on format all points tothe fol- 8 problems: in insistence on absolute autbentcty 2 with the rich and varied use of authen- ‘guage and materials in the classroom, may be some functional restiction in’ anguaze 10 which students are exposed cor neatly, are likely to use and exclusive focus on communication, siphasis on fluency and commnicative 188 may not push leamers toward aecu- ‘They dont need to leam gender assign- in French or thi-person singular s in 2h, s0 they don't, Communication inthe ‘om proceeds quite successfully. In elassrooins, where the sess is on input ‘omprehension over outpu, this effect 2¢ even miore pronounced, Learners are ushed to produce at al, ‘ack of focus on form tw tnput and ‘ion. There may be some forms that, ‘ourse of normal communication, ‘simply do not notice, ether because * for salient, or because they ave sie ay 5o what could be wrong? Why do they fail 40 come even close to native Speaker standards of accuracy in so many areas, even after years in the classroom? - {ar, but not identical, to forms in the first lan _guige. Or, if they do notice them, they do ot notice the difference berween them and their own production. They may need to have these forms pointed out 10 them, A lack of emplasis on form-based feed. back Feedback is also meaning based, rather than form based, in most CLT classrooms. Error conection based on e6mmunicative and truth value. This ean translate into a focus on form, but generally only ifthe mes- sage form is extremely distoned and as a rebut, not understood. Ia ether words, form ‘only Becomes «focus when itis mediated by «focus on meaning. In some clasooms, there may be some correction of form, but genera, itis highly inconsistent, so learners ‘may be uncertain ofthe precise target of the correction, inthe same way, itis unclear if teacher response of “Good” or “OK,” Addresses form, meaning, of both, ors sim Ply positive affective feedback Historically, grammar-based teaching has been something less than an unqualified sue- ‘ess, So what cin we, as teachers, expect fiom form-vased knowledge? What sons of things can a learner do with such knowiedge {scents clear that the production of sponta ‘neous interactive discourse is not one of them. The following uses of form: based knowledge have been suggesied: 1. planning and monitoring ouput, espe- ally of more complex structures 2 noticing features inthe input 3. noticing the gap between ther owe production and the teget . 4, speeding passage through developmen- tal sequences 5. destabilising fossilized forms (Eli, 1993; Fotos, 1993; Fotos & Elis, 1991; Long & Crookes, 1992; Schmidt & Frota, 1986, White, . 199). Knowledge of forms and their use may be helpful as suggested above, but we fist need to know whether form-focused instrucion ‘Promotes such knowledge; indced,if fom ogused instruction is uilized by the leaner at all Is Form-Focused Instruction Effective in the CLT Classroom? i Recently, an increasing number ofstcics, ‘gain, most of them from Canadian immere sion and second language programs, have tsed 0 test the effectiveness ofan increased focus on form in conjunction with CLT. Mest have found a positive effec. would be cone ‘venient tésinply conclude that fomvfocused insteuction works, but iti not quite 50 sim ple because eae study had a somewhat dif {erent definition of form-focused instruction, So what conclusions can the classroom teacher draw from these findings? First, the elfect of form-focused insrucion must be ‘examined in more detail it acwally involves several sometimes rested issues: 1. What exactly does the forn-focused {astruction consist of Is tthe provision of Brammar rules, rules in context, explickFeede ~bact, implicit feedback, suble ways of mak- 1 forms 2 bit more saent than they would bein nawurally occuring discourse oF 3 con bination of some oe ofthe above? 2. Wht about the forms themselves? Does, it mater which forms are in focus? Would one use the sume typeof instruction forth person singular sand adwetb placement? 3, How about the ming of instruction? Should all earners get form-focused instac- tion? Does the proficiency level of the leamers ‘matte? Do more advanced leamets respond batter to form-focused instruction than begi ‘ ning learners? Is there aright and wrong time ‘© provide this typeof insiruction? 4. What do we sean by effective anyway? Do the leamers show the effects of instr tion for 2 days, oF 2 months, of 2 years? Or do they just lea faster? And do we mean that they stax using forms they have never sed before, oF that they stop using those ‘errored forms we've been tying to root out for month? i this difference itpportan? Some of these questions do have tentative answers, based on this new body of research, Others, however, remain open questions. Summer 1995 13In the same way, it is unclear if a teacher response of “Good” or “OK,” addresses * form, meaning, or both, or is simply Positive affective’ feedback. Lae wet us begin with the definition of insruc- Won, Several studies have atempied to alter {struction so that there would be increased focus on‘form and found that, in general this thas Jed to better performance, Trahey and ‘White (1993) tied one way of focusing stu- A on adverb placement, nor did they: ei any feedback on their use of the udture. Thus, they only received implicit, + indicect information (i.e, no rules) on hat one can say in English, but nothing 2out what one cannot say, that is, what they ight be doing wrong, Students were tested fore’ and after the teatment, The resuls -f€'compared 10 those of a previous study ‘ite, 1991) in which students did not s kind of supersaturated input, ‘The students who reccived the input flood ‘owed significant progress in their produc- 9n°of sentences such as 2; that is, they gan {0 use a word order they had not used fore, 1 seems likely that the input flood led 2fito notice that English allows this order dich isnot allowed in French. However, 2 Miade'no progres is giving up sentences © 1b, In other words, they did not notice { sentences such as Ib were not present in input flood and, infact, not permissible English, $0L fosirnat a ‘This sheds some light on one of the ques: tions asked above. It is possible that enhanc- , ing the input to include lois of examples of dificult or unwsual formsas enough to get teamers to sat using them, but it may be necessary to be more explicit in an effort to ‘et them to stop using forms that are Uungrammatica, There are several ways this ‘could be done. The students could be given {information about what ot to do, Corrective feedback may be required for earners to autain a high standane of accuracy in some forms; for other forms, ‘may simply enhance instruction. One study looked atthe effect of feedback on the per- formance of learners who had been taught English dative altenation sles (Caroll & Swaia, 1993), These are essentially the aules ‘that specify whether or not a verb will allow the word order in 3b: 3a. 1 sent a leter to the President .Lsent the President leur, 42.1 explained the problem to the President. “D. Lexplained the President the problem, ‘Subject groups were given different kinds of feedback when they produced ungram- ‘matical responses, ranging from direct to rules, for example: The following are ibe rues Highly indirect. The contol group received for adverb placement in English .. This ‘would still be information abou wht can say. Alurnatively, they could be given some sor of information about what one ‘cannot say, again, by providing rues or by giving feedback on what they are doing ‘wrong, ‘There appears to be growing suppor for doing just that: providing insiuction that Includes explicit instruction and the use of corrective feedback. White (1991) again looks 4 the isve of adverb placement. In this case, the instructed group received increased input containing correctly placed adverbs, but also explicit instruction and feedback on correct 4nd incorrect placement, as well as opportu- nities to use them in specially designed active ites. The results were clear, “Only the group, that was specifically instructed on adverb placement came to know that fhe order in 4) not possible.” (p. 151, emphasis mine). ‘Thus; we find a clear effect for explick form. focused insiructon that included information about constructions that are ungrammatica, Similar results have been found for this ki of instruction on other forms in a variety of » other studies (eg,, Fotos, 1993; Yip, 1994). Is Presentation of Rules Enough? ‘The studies Ged above use variety of insrvtionalchniques, so itis nt quite cleat from the findings what role each played, in particular, rule presentation versus the provision of corrective feedback. Several studies have shown that explicit instruction alone can improve perfomance, putsps ‘ren when i only addresses what ls posible in the target language, OF course we lo not no feedback at ll. The researchers found th: ‘0 matter how indirect the feedback, all eed: track groups eid significantly better th those who received none at al. Interesting! the group that did the best was the one that received the rule, thats, expicc information about what is correct, in ackliion to being, {ld that their own response was incosrect. ° Some have argued that this Feedback is ot just helpful tis crucial. tn a study of errors made by leamers of French, Tomasclo ‘and Herron (1989) compared the perfor- mance of leamers who were induced to make a mistake and were then corrected, 10 that of learners who were jus given rules. For instance, in French, one does net use an anicle before a profession, Sa, Jesus profess b. Tama professor. ‘When sudents were asked to transite sentences like Sb into French; they inevitably insened the ungratmatical indefinite ancl ‘They were then corected, These learners who wore corrected dl better on subsequent similar test tems than those who were simply told not to use an anicle before professions. Here we have a case where simply giving information about what is not possible was ‘not enough Leasners did betec'if they were shown the gap between their own ungram- ‘matical prodvction and the target language ‘onstruction, 1 have given examples ofthe acquistion of forms in English and French, implying that they ate all basically equivalent insofar as. instructional vestment is concemned. The cis caisson may also leave the impression that wwe should focus on al frins. This is most Aikely an oversimplification. So how tochoose? As noted earlier, there may be a vati- ety of reasons for why some forms ate not acquired and these reasons may, in tn, affect whether and what sor of forn-focused instruction is appropriate, For foams that are infrequent in the input, and therefore pet- haps, unlikely to be noticed, it may be enough simply to point out their existence and increase their presence in input and practice. This may be the case of forms such as conditionals in French and adverb place- ‘ment in English, Other forms may be panicu- arly dificult to lear because of inegulartes ar subtle diferences in usage, inspite oftheir ‘equency in the input, such as the distinction >etween past tenses in French. These may equire more eéplicit instruction and comee- ive feedback. There ae still others that are aig’ pperfuous for successful communi- “ation, These, such as third person singular s ‘n English, have proven most resistant 10 struction, regardless of method. Here, its ‘unfomtunately somewhat confusing. Some of the studies mentioned did include follow-up testing, conducted anywhere from 3 weeks to 3 months ater the posttest. Most found 2 continued positive effect for instruction, though some show thatthe elfecs do fade. A few studies (Por example, Harley, 1989) show that learner are'ight back to where they started before the instruction. Why should this be the case? Spada and Lightbown (1993) hhave suggested that this may be because the ocus on form, oat least on a particular orm, is “parachuted” in for these studies and then subsequently dropped. It may be that continved attention to form, consistent cor rective feedback, (if necessary, atficilly) increased infeequent forms in the input, and pushing learneis toward targeytke preduetion sue all important in maintzining the gains of this kind of instructional weatment. 1 cannot be overemphasized that focus on form should be pat ofa teaching approach What do we mean by effective anyway? Do the learners show the effects of instruction for 2 days, or 2 months, or 2 years? Or do they just learn faster? 2ossie that even form-focused instruction aay. _flitle help, Harley (1998) suggests the most likely candidates for form-focused * 1, differ in nonobvious ways fiom the scammers first language, for example, adverb »facement for French and English 2. are not salient because they are irregue 1rr infrequent in the input, for example, conditional in French * 3, are not important for successful com- sunication, for example, thitd person singu- ats in English and 4, are likely to be misinterpreted or misan- lyzed by learners, for example, dative alter- sation in English, Joes the Effect of nstrudtion Last? i Baier, I asked what was meant by flectiveness. in particular, does this instruc jon “stile? The evidence on this point is Aha, in general, is focused on rnezning. 1 addition, timing may be important. It may not be for everyone al the time. For instance, i has been suggested that any kind of focus on form is pariculaly problematic for beginning leamers (Celce-Murcia, 1991; VanPatten, 1990). For them, simply comprehending the meaning of what they hear and cad is diff cult enough. These leamers are generally unable to focus on form and meaning at once and therefore, ceatng materials that call attention 1 form i the input may be counter- productive, For this reason, Van Patten (1988) also claims that corective feedback i a best ineffective and perhaps even detrimental for them, Because these leamers can focus on forrn or meaning, but not both, feedback that ‘draws their atention to form will necessarily dave it away from meaning, Thus, the finds ings reported in this anicle ied to be applied with caution, especially for beginning learn- 1s In addition, 2 Celce-Murica (1991) points oot, there are many leamer variables (e.g, age, educational background, goals) and instructional variables (eq, skill area) that may preclude a focus on form, “The question of timing isnot limited to the issue of proficiency level. I is possible learners must individually notice the gap between target forms and their own produc- tion; that they must be, in some sense, ready for the focus on form. Lightbown (1992) su {esis that foim-focused instzscion is not likely to work or lst i tis separated from communicative contents. I is more likely to be effective atthe moment when leamers denow what they want to say, indeed are try. Jing to say something, and the means to say i snore corectly is offered to them,” (p. 192, emphasis in original). This underscores the anced 10 embed this kind of instruction within interaction, In summary, we have begun to find some answers to the questions posed earlier, but ‘many ae sll open, 1. There seems to be a postive effect (i.e, higher aeguracy) for an increased focus on form in tN communicative eassroom in gea- cal, but treatment that includes explicit rules and feedback seems to be the most effective, particulary in eliminating erored forms. 2. The list offered by Hatley (1989) reflects ihe state of current knowledge regarding the question “which form?" Further research is needed on this point 2. The timing of fom-focused insiuetion is sill an open question. So fe, all we ean say is tha it seems (o be more elfectve in Jnter stages of kinguage learning. 4. It seems that the effect ofthis king of instruction can be long lasting, but only if ‘some focus on form is maintained. Focus on Form and the Teacher/Researcher So wit isthe role. forthe classroom teacher? L see itas twofold: fst as teacher/materials developer and second), as teachea/iescarcher. Iris ll very well otal about focusing on form in 2 way that does ‘not mean 2 return tothe old way of making Binucture a central focus ofthe clas, with its attendant dlls and grammar practice, but Coming up with a strategy for doing so is bit harder, For instance, Long and Crookes (1992) suggest that a focus on form isa crucial ele ment in tsk-based teaching, but give litle guidance on how this isto be accomplished, other than to say that instruction should draw the leamers' attention to these forms. Some suggestions have been made hers, such 2 Creating materials that increase the frequency of inftequent forms inthe input and in prac tice. Other suggestions can be found in d Summer 1995. 15,1» Nunan (1991), who advises using authes #F teats as par of form-focuscd activites, and in "> Fotos (1893), who advocates actually using ‘grammar as content in communicative act Us, In her study, students were engaged in +m interactive problem-solving task about ar, They were given data and asked 10 infer the fue. tn subsequent tasks, these stue denis noticed instances ofthe stricture in question far more frequently than those in classes with no focus on form, interestingly, however, these who had bad a grammar les son with explicit rule presentation did even better. Loschky apa Bley-Vroman (1993) offer {uidelines for developing grasnmatical tasks that entaibthe need 10 use the form in focus 2s wel 2s communicaive feedback ‘Thest are just afew possibilities; there are really not many widely available examples of appropriate activites. It may be different "gers and individual fomns require varied ‘9165 of form focused activities, This is where teachers can be of immense help tothe esearch community. Chances are teachers are alzeady using such actives in thir clas- rooms, but haven't put a name to them and Perhaps do not realize thelr imporance to esearch. What are some of the ways in Which learners atiention can be drawn to ‘oublesome forms? These can and should be shared in forums such as this journal, Second, teachers can carry out their own esearch (see Nunan, 1990). This ance has posed as many questions 26 it hs trie to, answer, For instance, there is the issue of which forms to focus on. Harey (193) is just a beginning, She has suggesied that forms {that are relatively unimponant for communi- ‘ation, such as third-person singular 5, are among the likely candidates for form-focused in” “ction, Ihave suggested otherwise; that fox ing on such forms is less likely to result jin change in leamer performance than Focusing on fonts that lack salience for other Feasons, such as infrequency in the input, or closeness to the first language, or on con. structions and grammatical choices that ae inherendy complex. However, this is just my _BUESS, One that needs to be tested empisically. ‘Glassroom teachers probably have similar ‘hynches, Perhaps there are some forms or istbution of forms that ae too complex for ‘effective instruction. This has censinly been “suggested for the anicie in English (however, $£€ Master, 1994), It would be useful for teachers to know on which forms instruc- {Yonal time would most profiably be spent. ‘At what point isa focus on form beneficial, ad at what point is it ineffective or even | harmful Small-scale studies to investigate these questions can be carried by teachers, as ‘ell as, or in conjunction with, university’ researchers. This kind of initiative helps build the bridge back from the classtoontand begin to reduce some of the “dysfunctions of the theory/practce discourse” (Clarke, 1994) References Carroll, & Swain, M. (1993). xplict and Implicit negative feedback: An enyprcal sty ‘of tie leaming of linguistic generaliations. ‘Studies in Second Language acquisition, 15, 357-386, Cele-Muris,M. (1991). Grammar ped 08y in second and foreign language teac ing, TESOL Quarterly, 25, 458-480. ‘lark, M. (1999. The dysfunction ofthe thcory/prtice discourse, TESOL Quarter 28, 9.26, ‘ Bilis, R. 2995). The structural syllabus and second language acquiion, TESOL Quarterly, 27, 9-133. Fotos, $ (1983), Consciousness and notie- {ng through focus on form: Grammar tasks performance versus formal instruction, Applied Linguistics, 14, 385-407. Fotos, S, & Elis, R (1991). Communicating shout grammar A usk-ased appratch, TESOL ‘Quarterly, 25, 665-68, Harley, D. (1989), Functional grammar in French immersion: A classroom experiment Applied Linguistics, 10, 331-359. Hatley, B. 0993), Instructional statics and SLA in early French immersion, Studies ‘Second Language Acquisition, 15, 245-259. Harley B, & Swain, M, (1984). The inter language of immersion student and its impli- cations for second language teaching. In A Davies, C. Crip, & A. Howat (Eds), Anterlanguage (pp. 291-312). Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press, Higgs, , &Cliford, R. (1962). The push toward communication In T. Higgs (Ed), Gurriutum competence and the foreign ta ‘guage teacher (pp. 57-79). Skokie, 1: National Textbook Company. Lghtdown, P. (1992). Getting qual ‘input inthe secone/focig lnguage cass- zoom, In C. Kramsch & S. McConnell-Ginet (Gs), Text and context: Crussdiseipinary _Porpectves on language study (pp. 187-290). lexington, MA: D.C. Heath, long, M, & Crookes, G. (1992). Three approaches to task-based sylabus design, TESOL Quarery, 26, 2756, Loschiy,L, & Bley-Vioman,R. (1993), ~ Grammar and iask-based methodology. In G. Crookes & S. Gass (Eds), Task and Ianguage loaming (pp. 123-167). Clevedon, England: Mulilingual raters, Master, P. (9), The effet of systematic insieuction on leacning the English anicle system. In. Odlin Bd), Porpeeties on pr sagogical grammar (pp. 229-245), Cambrid CCamibricige University Press. ‘Nunan, D. (1990). Action research in the language classroam. tn J. Richards & D. . Nunan (Bes), Socond language teacher edie cation (pp. 6-81). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. ‘Nunan, D. (1991). Language reaching -metecologr. Neve York: Prentice Nal Omaguio, A. 1986), Teaching hanguage ‘m contest Boston: Heinle & Heinle, Schmidt, R, trots, . 1986). Developing basic conversation abiliy in a second lunguage: 4 ease study of an adult learner of Portuguese. in D. Day (Ed), Talking to learn (pp. 237-325). Rowley, MA: Newbury House. Spada, N, & Lightbown, P. (1993), Instruction and the development of question: jn 12 clasrooms Sudies in Second Language Acquisition, 15, 205-241. “Swain, M, (1985). Communicative compe. tence: Some roles for comprehensible input and comprehensible output in its develope ‘ment, In, Gass & C. Madklen (Eds), Iuput Ai second language acquisition (pp. 235-253) Rowley, MA: Newbury House. ‘Tonasello, M, & Herron, C. (1985), Feedback for language transfer errors: The ‘garden path technique. Stuies in Second Language Acquistion, 11, 385395. ‘Trahey, M,, & White, L983), Positive ‘evidence and preemption in the second lan- ‘guage classroom, Studies fn Second Language Acquisition, 15, 181-204, ‘VanPatten, B. (1988). How juries get ‘bung: Problems with the evidence of 2 focus (on fom in teaching, Language Learning, 38, 243,260, : VanPatten, B. (1990). Atending to form and content in the input: An experiment in consciousness, Suds in Second Language Acquisition, 12, 287-301. White, L (1991), Advert placement in see: ond language acquisition: Some effects of Positive and negative evidence in the lass- oom, Second Language Research, 7, 133-161 Yip, V. (1994), Grammatical consciousness ‘aising and learnability. in, Odin (Ed), Perspectives on peelagogical grammar (9p-123-138). Cambridge: Cambridge University ress. Author Jessica Williams teaches eoursesineppied Iinguistes at the Unicersity of tinois at Chicago. Her research interests clude tbe foc of instraction and second language i course