CC BY
34
Dr. Holly Wilson
Alliant International University, San Diego, California
THE FUNDAMENTAL PRINCIPLES OF FOCUS ON FORM: A NEW APPROACH TO TEACHING NON-NATIVE LANGUAGES
Introduction. The Focus on Form approach to teaching non-native languages has developed from the realization that while traditional Grammar-Translation methods have produced accurate but not fluent learners,1 Communicative Language Teaching (CLT) has produced fluent but not accurate learners. This has sparked a re-evaluation of the roles of input and output, and explicit knowledge and implicit knowledge, in the L2 acquisition process. As a result, a new set of constructs has been proposed: the Noticing Hypothesis, the Output Hypothesis, the Interaction Hypothesis, and the Interface Position, which form the fundamental principles of Focus on Form. The purpose of this article is to introduce the Focus on Form approach, discuss how it differs from Grammar-Translation and CLT, and present an overview of its principles.
Input and Output. Input is the spoken and written language that a learner is exposed to. In the natural environment, it comes from the speech of other speakers, television, radio, lectures, public announcements, signs, newspapers, magazines, books, the internet and e-mail, among others. In the classroom, input is provided by teacher talk and lectures, classmates’ responses, audiotapes, videotapes, handouts, worksheets and texts. The processing of input by students develops their comprehension of a language and provides models for production.
Output refers to language that is produced in oral speech or writing. The output of one speaker is the input of another speaker. In the natural environment, output is any language produced in conversations and in the media. In the classroom, students produce output when they answer questions, participate in pair or group activities, and write assignments. Producing output gives students the opportunity to practice using the structures they have acquired as well as experiment with other structures they are trying to acquire.
Explicit and Implicit Knowledge. Cognition is the knowledge of how to perform an activity It is largely unconscious; that is, the learner is not aware of the process they went through to learn the skill, nor can they verbalize the procedures for performing the skill. Cognition is stored in the mind as implicit knowledge? which is also accessed unconsciously to perform a skill. A person demonstrates their cognition of a skill by performing it. For example, we know that a person has the implicit knowledge of riding a bicycle by observing them do it: they can get on the bicycle, balance it, steer it and stop it.
Metacognition, on the other hand, is the conscious awareness of an ability: the learner does not simply know how to perform a skill, but knows about the knowing. Metacognition is stored in the mind as explicit knowledge,3 Someone has the explicit knowledge of a skill
© Dr. Holly Wilson, 2006
when they can talk about how they perform it, and can describe the process they underwent to learn how to perform it. We know that someone has the metacognition of riding a bicycle if they can describe the types of movements, balance and coordination involved, and the process they went through to learn how to ride a bicycle.
In language learning, implicit knowledge and explicit knowledge refer to the difference between knowing how to unconsciously speak a language, and consciously knowing how to describe the linguistic system of a language, respectively When students have explicit knowledge of a language, they can describe its units (e.g., words and morphemes), and verbalize its rules (e.g., word formation, agreement, and word order rules). Students who have implicit knowledge can use the language fluently without thinking about it.
Native speakers have developed the implicit knowledge of their first language to a high degree. They can rapidly and unconsciously access their implicit knowledge, and apply it to their production. This ability is referred to as automaticity!' Automaticity is achieved when a person can perform a skill without conscious thought. In language use, automaticity is linked to fluency, the ability to rapidly access, assemble and produce the pieces of language needed to express ideas. Furthermore, native speakers have good accuracy because their implicit knowledge includes the correct rules of English grammar.
Children learning their first language do so by first developing their implicit knowledge of the language. They acquire it unconsciously from the input they receive in the natural environment and from noticing the reactions they receive from their output. Later, they develop their explicit knowledge when they study grammar in school. On the other hand, many learners of a foreign language typically begin by consciously learning the rules of the language in the classroom, or on their own by reading grammar books and dictionaries. If they study for many years, they can develop a good explicit knowledge of a foreign language from the input they receive from their studies, which they can access to make their production accurate. However, they will not become fluent speakers of the language until they develop their implicit knowledge of the language, as the native speaker has. This necessitates numerous opportunities to produce output in meaningful, communicative activities.
According to Focus on Form, students should be encouraged to develop their explicit knowledge through conscious study and reflection on their learning, while being encouraged to develop their implicit knowledge through meaningful practice. Thus, Focus on Form proposes a curriculum that promotes both accuracy and fluency by endorsing teaching techniques that maximize the effectiveness of input and output in the classroom that develop students’ explicit and implicit knowledge.
The Focus on Form Approach and the Theory that Supports It. In the Grammar-Translation Method, still commonly used in many EFL classrooms, the emphasis is on learning the grammar rules.5 The result is students who know a great deal about the structure of the target language, and may be able to read and write at a high level, but who cannot speak or understand the oral language well. Another factor that limits the Grammar-Translation method is that its exercises are decontextualized. This means that the practice activities are not associated with students’ experiences or the natural situations in which the grammar points would be used. Thus, in general, students coming out of these classrooms know more about the target language than they are able to use the target language because it promotes accuracy but not fluency, and develops students’ explicit knowledge but not their implicit knowledge. This method for teaching non-native languages also implies that the foreign language student is a distinct learner from the child learning their first language.
Following Krashen’s (1982) proposal of the Monitor Theory, the methodology for teaching non-native languages changed radically to embrace CLT.(i Referred to as the noninterventionist position1 or zero position,8 the “strong version” of CLT holds that grammar should not be directly addressed in the classroom,s but that students will unconsciously learn grammar through being exposed to sufficient amounts of comprehensible input in communicative activities, which contextualize the language. It claims that addressing grammar in the classroom interferes with the development of fluency because students will depend on their “Monitor” to produce sentences, so that they first have to consciously think about the rules before assembling and producing an utterance.10 Thus, CLT promotes the development of implicit knowledge of the second language and avoids the development of explicit knowledge. It emphasizes fluency in its activities, and claims that accuracy will develop naturally from exposure to comprehensible input. This approach assumes that the second language student is the same kind of learner as the child learning their first language.
English teachers who embraced the “strong version” of CLT, stopped directly addressing grammar in the classroom to encourage the development of fluency.11 However, it has since been shown that while students learning a second language in an immersion classroom with little explicit grammar instruction can achieve a high level offluency, they continue to produce many errors after many years of exposure to the second language.12 Thus, it appears that in reality, CLT promotes fluency to the detriment of accuracy, which may be the result of avoiding the development of explicit knowledge in students.
The Focus on Form approach has emerged out of a need to address the failure of CLT to develop a high level of accuracy in students while not abandoning the fluency benefits of communicative activities.13 Its key underlying principle is to simultaneously promote accuracy and fluency by developing both students’ explicit knowledge and implicit knowledge. It proposes to do this by engaging students in meaningful, communicative activities that also focus their attention on specific grammar structures. This provides the development of explicit knowledge, as in Grammar-Translation, but the contextualization of grammar points and development of implicit knowledge, as in CLT It views the second language learner as both similar to and different from the first language learner.
One theoretical construct that supports Focus on Form is the Noticing Hypothesis.u It claims that grammatical accuracy cannot develop from learners simply comprehending the meaning of input, but that learners must consciously notice the grammatical forms before knowledge of them can be converted from input to intake. Becoming intake means that the information is processed by the learner’s short-term memory and can later be stored in longterm memory. According to Focus on Form, this is the first step necessary for grammatical information to enter the memory system of learners so that it is available to restructure the L2 interlanguage system. It contradicts Krashen, who claims that input does not have to be consciously noticed to become intake.
Focus on Form has also adopted concepts from cognitive psychology. One of these is John Anderson’s Adaptive Control Theory,ir> according to which there are three stages involved in learning a skill: declarative knowledge, procedural knowledge and automaticity. Declarative knowledge is factual knowledge, similar to explicit knowledge, developed by consciously learning and storing information in long-term memory. In language learning, this involves learning the components of language (i.e., sounds, words and morphemes) and the rules that govern them (e.g., word order, agreement). Procedural knowledge applies declarative knowledge to behavior by developing routines. In language learning, the proceduralization of knowledge refers to the process of accessing the components of language
needed to express a thought and the rules for assembling them. The finai stage, automaticity, is the “fine-tuning” of procedural knowledge attained through practice. This process transforms controlled behaviors into automatic behaviors so they can be performed without conscious thought. In language learning, automaticity is achieved when the learner no longer has to think about how to construct sentences, but produces them unconsciously as native speakers do. At this point, the learner has achieved fluency in the language.
Anderson’s model implies that practice is vital for acquiring a second language. This is supported by the Output Hypothesis,"' which proposes that output is even more crucial to the second language acquisition process than input. For one, producing output gives students the opportunity to test their hypotheses about grammatical structures. In addition, it allows learners to notice the hole,'1 i.e., realize when they do not have the linguistic competence to express their ideas. When this happens, students may ask the teacher or another more fluent speaker how to say something, which aids their acquisition process when that knowledge is retained. Producing output also gives students opportunities to develop their procedural knowledge and increase automaticity. Thus, encouraging students to produce pushed output, output slightly beyond their current level, moves their L2 language development process forward.
However, the Output Hypothesis alone is not sufficient to account for how learners’ output encourages L2 development. It works in tandem with the Interaction Hypothesis,18 according to which the key to making output fully effective is that it is not produced in a vacuum, but directed towards other interlocutors for meaningful communication. This negotiation for meaning includes feedback from other speakers that may give clues to learners regarding the well-formedness of their output. Positivefeedback occurs when the interlocutor makes no indication of language errors and continues the conversation normally, responding to the message. This causes the learner to assume that their output is grammatically correct. Negative feedback, on the other hand, indicates that the interlocutor does not understand the message due to errors it contains. When the learner receives negative feedback, it causes them to re-evaluate their hypotheses about the L2 grammar, and make adjustments, so they can restructure L2 system, moving the L2 development process forward.
In natural speaking situations, learners receive negative feedback from native or more fluent speakers when they ask the learner to repeat what they have said because they did not understand it, or help the learner by providing the correct form. If the learner becomes consciously aware of the difference between their output and the input they receive from more proficient speakers, they notice the gap^ This realization initiates the re-evaluation of hypotheses and subsequent restructuring of the L2 system. In the classroom, students receive negative feedback (also called corrective feedback) from the teacher when they indicate that grammatical errors have been made and give students chances to correct them, or when they provide the correct forms by modeling them. In pair or group activities, students can receive negative feedback from classmates when they indicate they have not understood something a student has said.
A further fundamental principle of Focus on Form is a new model for the relationship between explicit and implicit knowledge. According to Krashen’s (1982) Acquisition-Learning Hypothesis, learning a language is the result of the conscious learning of a language taught in terms of it rules, and students spending more cognitive effort on memorizing rules than learning to communicate. Learning a language promotes accuracy in a language but cannot result in fluency. Acquiring a language, on the other hand, is the result of the unconscious exposure to language through comprehensible input, and practicing the language in natural
communicative situations. Thus, acquiring a language promotes fluency, accuracy, and automaticity. Using today’s terminology, Krashen’s language learning produces explicit knowledge, while language acquisition produces implicit knowledge.
Another component of Krashen’s (1982) Acquisition-Learning Hypothesis is that knowledge gained from acquiring a language cannot become implicit knowledge, while the implicit knowledge gained from learning a language cannot become explicit knowledge. This is referred to as the Noninterface Position?" which claims that explicit and implicit knowledge are two separate memory stores that do not interact with each other.
The Acquisition-Learning Hypothesis has been challenged by Focus on Form researchers who point to Anderson’s Adaptive Control Theory and other evidence.21 Instead, they support the Interface Position, which states that both explicit knowledge and implicit knowledge can be stored about the same linguistic information, that there are mental connections between them, and that explicit knowledge of a language can be transformed into implicit knowledge through practice. This implies a role for the explicit instruction of grammar points and the conscious awareness of them in the language classroom, contrary to the “strong version” of CLT. In fact, it is believed that first developing students’ explicit knowledge of a grammar point helps students to subsequently notice it in the input and corrective feedback they receive. That is, the development of explicit knowledge acts as an advanced organizer, which develops schema for recognizing grammar points when they are encountered.
Nevertheless, Focus on Form supporters also have to admit that ultimately is it not explicit knowledge that will produce fluent speakers of a language. Rather, learners need to develop their implicit knowledge if they hope to attain native-like fluency, in agreement with Krashen. But instead of following Krashen, who believes that comprehensible input is sufficient for implicit knowledge to develop, proponents of Focus on Form believe that comprehending input is but the first step. Instead, they believe that it is the production of output that allows learners to convert explicit knowledge into implicit knowledge, by first building up their procedural knowledge, which can eventually lead to a level of automaticity.
This is the result of the second language learner typically being a much older person than the first language learner, who cannot help but consciously analyze the L2 system and be aware of the process they undergo to acquire L2 because of their higher level cognitive abilities. Therefore, while the first language learner does not need explicit knowledge to acquire their language, the second language learner can use explicit knowledge to their advantage and cannot usually avoid developing explicit knowledge before implicit knowledge. However, similar to the first language learner, the second language learners only develops their implicit knowledge if the second language input is contextualized, and learners have sufficient opportunities to practice L2 in meaningful, communicative activities.
1 Larsen-Freeman D. Techniques and principles in language teaching. Oxford, 2000.
2 De KeyserR. Beyond focus on form // Focus on Form in Classroom Second Language Acquisition / Doughty C.
& Williams J. (eds.). Cambridge, England, 1998.
:i Ellis R. The place of grammar instruction in the second/foreign language curriculum // Hinkel E. & Fotos S. (eds.). New perspectives on grammar teaching in second language classrooms. Mahwah, NJ, 2001.
4 De Keyset■ R. Op. cit.
5 Larsen-Freeman D. Op. cit.; Richards J .C. & Rodgers T.S. Approaches and methods in language teaching. Cambridge, England, 2001.
8 Krashen S. Principles and practice in second language acquisition. Oxford, 2000.
7 Doughty C. &f WilliamsJ. Issues and terminology // Focus on Form in Classroom Second Language Acquisition; Long M. & Robinson P. Theory, research and practice // Ibid.
* Ellis R. Op. cit.
11 RichardsJ.C. & Rodgers T.S. Op. cit.
10 Krashen S. Op. cit.
" RichardJ.C. & Rodgers T.S. Op. cit.
12 Swain M. Communicative competencc: Some roles of comprehensible input and comprehensive output in its development // Gass S. & Madden C. (eds.). Input in second language acquisition: Research and the classroom. Rowley, MA 1985. P. 235-253.
,:i Long M.H. Focus on form: A design feature in language teaching methodology // Bo I. K„ de, Ginsberg R. & Krarnasch C. (eds.). Foreign language research in cross-cultural perspective. Amsterdam, 1991. P. 39-52.
14 Schmidt R. Awareness and second language acquisition // Annual Review of Applied Linguistics, 1993. P. 131, 206-226.
13 Umt. iio: KeyserR., de Op. cit.
I(i Swain MA) The output hypothesis: Just speaking and writing arc not enough // Canadian Modern Language Review, 1993. 50(1). P. 158-164.; 2) Focus on form through conscious reflection // Focus on Form in Classroom Second Language Acquisition.
17 Doughty C. & Williams J. Op. cit.
18 LongM.N. Op. cit.
I!) Schmidt R. &Frota S. Developing basic conversational ability in a second language // Day R. (ed.) Talking to learn. Rowley, 1986. P. 237-386.
20 Krashen S. Op. cit.
21 Ibid.
Cxai bM iiocTyniuia is pe;iai<umo 10 aupejisi 2006 r.
