Communicative language teaching and form-focused instruction

Nina SpadaUniversity of Toronto

Strong version: Exclusive focus on meaning; no attention to form

Weak version: Attention to form and meaning

Howatt, 1984

Different versions of CLT

CLT means an exclusive focus on meaning

CLT means no explicit feedback on error

CLT means learner-centred teaching

CLT means listening and speaking practice

CLT means avoidance of the learner’s L1

Strong version of CLT has led to many myths & misconceptions

Pedagogic concerns◦Grammar translation useful for the study of

grammar and vocabulary but not speaking and listening

◦Fatigue and frustration on the part of teachers and learners with the limitations of dialogue memorization and pattern practice drills of the audiolingual method.

Why such a strong reaction against traditional methods of L2 teaching?

develop grammatical knowledge not successful in “using” that knowledge develop reading comprehension ability struggle with listening comprehension not able to use language communicatively not able to use language accurately

Research on the effects of traditional approaches on L2 learning ….

Communicative competence (Hymes, 1972)

Comprehensible input hypothesis (Krashen, 1984)

Interaction hypothesis (Long, 1983, 1996)

Theoretical influences of CLT

Communicative competence

Knowledge of language consists of more than a knowledge of the rules of grammar but also knowledge of the rules of language use

Functional linguistics (Halliday,1973) Notional/functional syllabus design

Similarities between the process of learning a first and second language

Yet, major differences in outcomes particularly with L2 classroom learners

Create conditions for learning a second language that are similar to those of first language acquisition

Comprehensible Input Hypothesis

Expose learners to meaningful and motivating input that is ◦just slightly beyond their current level of

linguistic competence but …◦comprehensible enough for the learners

to understand L2 learners should be able to;

◦ integrate the new input into their developing language systems and create a grammar

Comprehensible Input Hypothesis

L2 learners do not need to learn grammar in order to participate in conversations.

RATHER L2 learners, like L1 learners, need to participate in conversations to learn grammar. (Hatch, 1978)

Interaction Hypothesis

Comprehensible Input Hypothesis

Interaction Hypothesis

Strong version of CLT

Contributors to the strong version of CLT

Content-based programs◦e.g. French immersion programs in Canada, bilingual programs in the US

CLT programs with children and adults Task-based language teaching Comprehension-based programs with children and adults

Research on CLT (Strong version)

Learners develop comprehension skills, vocabulary knowledge, communicative ability and communicative confidence

However… They continue to experience difficulties with grammatical accuracy in their oral and written production

13

Research findings: Strong version of CLT

Attention to form and communication

Theory of

communicative compet

ence

Form-focus

ed instruction

Weak version of CLT

Contributors to weak version of CLT

Any effort to draw learners’ attention to form within communicative and meaning-based contexts (Spada, 1997)

Explicit or implicitDirect instruction or corrective feedback

Form-focused instruction (FFI)

◦Many studies in CLT & content-based classrooms

◦Instruction that is meaning-based and includes attention to form is more effective than instruction which: focuses exclusively on meaningOR focuses exclusively on form (Spada, 2010;

Lightbown & Spada, 2013)

17

Results of FFI research

Focus on form and communication

Greater focus on one? Equal focus on both?

Are there better ways to draw learners attention to form?

Do learners develop different types of L2 ability depending on the way in which their attention is drawn to form?

Other questions of interest to teachers and researchers

TYPE of form-focused instruction◦Explicit versus Implicit

TIMING of form-focused instruction◦Integrated or Isolated

Are there better ways to draw learners attention to language form?

Explicit attention to form is more effective than implicit attention to form (Norris & Ortega, 2000; Spada & Tomita, 2010)

BUT… that depends on what type of L2 knowledge is measured in the studies.

Research findings: Explicit versus Implicit FFI

Are there better times in the instructional sequence to draw learners’ attention to form?

Before or after communicative practice?

During communicative practice?

Are there better times to provide FFI?

Integrated: Attention to form always embedded in communicative practice

Isolated: Attention to form always separate from communicative practice

Spada & Lightbown, 2008

Timing of FFI

Arguments for Isolated FFI?• Traditional presentation, practice, pedagogy• Traditional presentation, practice, pedagogy

• A natural way to teach

• Humans are limited capacity processors• You can’t pay attention to everything at once

• Motivation• No interruption of communicative interaction

Efficiency: Two for One Students have an opportunity to communicate and receive feedback at the same time

Motivation Immediate help is available precisely when it is needed

Arguments for Integrated FFI

When we learn something, our memories record not only the item learned but the cognitive and perceptual processes that were engaged while learning the item.

Subsequently, when we try to remember the item learned, we also recall aspects of the learning process

Blaxton, 1989; Morris et al, 1977

26

Transfer Appropriate Processing

Therefore…. the greater the similarity between how we learned something and our later efforts to retrieve that knowledge, the greater chances of success

27

Transfer Appropriate Processing

Isolated FFI

Integrated FFI

28

Type of instruction & L2 knowledge

109 adult ESL learners in four classes◦2 Isolated FFI; 2 integrated FFI

2 teachers◦1 taught Isolated FFI and 1 taught the

Integrated FFI classes Target feature: “be-passive”

Many cars were stolen last year.The file was deleted from the

computer.

The Study

InstructionIntegrated FFI Isolated FFI

12 hours Same amount of time

on form and meaning-based practice

Form activities:◦ Attention to form only

Meaning activities: ◦ Attention to meaning

only

12 hours Same amount of time

on form and meaning-based practice

All activities:◦ Attention to meaning first

then attention to form woven into the meaning-based activities

30

Error Correction Task

Laws are making by the government. made Laws are making by the government.

Oral Production Task

The package was sent to the wrong address.

It was returned to the post office.

Language Measures

Both groups significantly improved over time on the passive form:◦Error correction task◦Oral production task

Interpretation: As long as learners receive a combination of form and meaning-based practice, differences in the timing of attention to form may be less important

32

Results

Learners in the Isolated FFI classes performed better on the ECT

Learners in the Integrated FFI classes performed better on the OPT

Results

Criteria for selecting Isolated or Integrated FFI for L2 instructionLearners’ level of proficiency

e.g. difficult for low proficient learners to focus on form and meaning at the same time. Thus, Isolated FFI might be best for this group of learners.

Type of language featuree.g. some language forms are easier to elicit in communicative activities than others. This might be a good reason for selecting those features for Integrated FFI.

Criteria for selecting Isolated or Integrated FFI for L2 instructionL1 background of learners

e.g. L2 structures that learners experience difficulty with because of L1 influence may be more salient (i.e. noticeable) if they are provided via Isolated FFI.

Learner preferences for instruction e.g. Some learners may have a preference to focus their attention on form either separately from or embedded within communicative practice.

L2 instruction that focuses primarily on meaning but not to the exclusion of attention to form is most effective for L2 learning◦How attention to form is best provided?◦When attention to form is best provided?◦How do specific language features and

learner characteristics interact with how and when attention to form is best provided?

Conclusion

Spada, N. (2011). Beyond form-focused instruction: Reflections on past, present and future research. Language Teaching. 44, 225-236.

Spada, N. (2006). Communicative language teaching: Current status and future prospects. In J. Cummins & C. Davis (Eds.), Kluwer handbook of English language teaching. Amsterdam: Kluwer Publications.

Spada, N. (1997). Form-focussed instruction and second language acquisition: A review of classroom and laboratory research. [State of the Art Article] Language Teaching, 30(2) 73-87.

Spada, N., & Tomita, Y. (2010). Interactions between type of instruction and type of language feature: A meta-analysis. Language Learning, 60(2), 1-46.

Spada, N. & Lightbown, P.M. (2008). Form-focused instruction: Isolated or Integrated? TESOL Quarterly, 42, 181-207.

Spada, N., Jessop, L., Suzuki, W., Tomita, Y. & Valeo (in press). Isolated and integrated form-focused instruction: Effects on different types of L2 knowledge. To appear in Language Teaching Research.

References