Shifting the focus from forms

to form in the EFL classroom

Sandra Fotos

This article examines arguments for focus on form, a term referring to the
incorporation of implicit grammar instruction within communicative ESL
lessons, and suggests ways to adapt this approach to EFL settings where
grammar instruction has never left the classroom. In such contexts a
focus-on-form approach can provide an acceptable rationale for including
communicative language use within traditional grammar-based instruc-
tion. Several types of form-focused EFL activities are described, including
two task-based approaches designed for large classes.

Introduction The current movement in North America to focus on form, meaning to

provide some type of implicit focus on grammar during communicative
language teaching, is becoming an increasingly important factor in ESL
syllabus design. The inability of communicative ESL teaching alone to
promote high levels of accuracy in learners is now clear (Williams 1995),
but there is growing concern that a return to grammar instruction should
not lead to a revival of old ways of language teaching - traditional
grammar-based syllabuses, pattern drills, and the like. However, much
of the English language instruction in the world is not ESL-based, but
takes place in the EFL situation, often with teachers who themselves are
not native speakers of English. In many of these areas. the old ways are
still the dominant educational paradigm, and communicative language
teaching is just beginning to become an instructional option. Here,
grammar teaching has never left the classroom. In fact, many educators
might think that a focus on form is exactly what EFL learners do not
need, since their major problem is not the lack of instruction on
grammatical features, but the lack of opportunities for communicative
language use.
This article identifies a role for form-focused instruction in EFL
pedagogy. Here we will be concerned with the other side of the issue:
the potential for communicative language use which a focus-on-form
approach can bring to grammar instruction in the traditional language
learning setting.

Defining the Nine years ago, Michael Long (1988) gave a paper entitled Focus on
concept form: A design feature in language teaching methodology at a
conference in Italy. He suggested that the traditional pedagogy of
teaching and testing isolating linguistic items, a procedure based on
behaviourist psychology and structural linguistics, was outmoded and
ineffective. Arguing against focus-on-form syllabuses, where grammar
ELT Journal Volume 52/4 October 1998 Oxford University Press 1998 301
articles welcome
 points comprised the entire lesson content, Long suggested that the
emerging grammar systems of language learners were characterized by
complex, gradual and inter-related developmental paths (ibid.: 11).
Thus, he noted, it is not surprising that teaching grammatical forms in
isolation usually fails to develop the ability of learners to use forms
communicatively unless they are psycholinguistically ready to acquire
them anyway (Pienemann 1984).
Long also suggested that purely communicative syllabuses were equally
inadequate, because of their neglect of grammar instruction. A review of
the research comparing instructed with uninstructed language learning
identified clear advantages for instruction in terms of the learners rate
of learning and level of achievement. Long therefore recommended the
development of a third type of syllabus, one which he termed a focus on
form. Such a syllabus would combine communicative language use with
instruction on grammar forms in context, a format he suggested was
particularly characteristic of task-based language instruction.
Of course, the argument for combining structural and functional
instruction with communicative activities is not new. Nor is commu-
nicative language teaching a monolithic construct, being better
characterized as having a variety of perspectives. However, Longs
paper is particularly relevant because of its recommendations to use an
indirect, context-based presentation of grammar forms, rather than
overt, teacher-led instruction. The paper was published shortly there-
after (Long 1991), and has stimulated extensive research (see Williams
1995, Robinson 1996, and Doughty and Williams 1998) on methods for
integrating grammar instruction with communicative language learning
that would enable learners to recognize the properties of target
structures in context, and develop accuracy in their use.
Nearly all of this research has been conducted in the ESL situation, and
it tends to be of two general types. The first is based on the position that
learners should be able to notice, then process, linguistic structures
which have been introduced to them within purely communicative
contexts. The treatment here consists of enhancing communicative input
so that the learners attention is drawn to the target structure, for
example, by flooding input with numerous usages, or by making the
structures prominent through highlighting or some other physical
treatment (Robinson 1996). Such an approach constitutes implicit
grammatical instruction, because there is no overt mention of the target
grammatical point. However, some researchers have suggested (for
example, Cardieno 1995 and Skehan 1996) that learners benefit from
some type of explicit instruction prior to the activity to help them
activate their previous knowledge of the target structures or, if none
exists, to facilitate awareness of the forms they will encounter. Post-
activity feedback, pointing out how the target form is used in context,
has also been recommended.
Related to this suggestion, a second type of activity combines explicit
grammar instruction with communicative activities, by giving learners
302 Sandra S. Fotos
articles welcome
 short grammar lessons which are then followed by communicative input
containing many instances of the instructed form (Ellis 1995, Cadierno
1995). Again, the communicative activities are often followed by a
teacher-led review of the target grammatical form, and feedback on
errors. It should be noted that this format has been typical of many
communicative classrooms for years, so it is not particularly new.
However, both types of activity are based on a particular psycholinguis-
tic view of the relationship between formal instruction and language
acquisition (Schmidt 1990). According to this view, after awareness of
grammatical structures has been developed by formal instruction or
some type of implicit focus-on-form treatment, many learners tend to
notice the target structures in subsequent communicative input (Fotos
1993, Schmidt 1990). Such repeated acts of noticing are suggested to
promote the learners comparison of the correct forms with their own
interlanguage forms (Schmidt 1990), triggering the cognitive processes
involved in restructuring the learners internal linguistic system, and thus
facilitating acquisition.
This positive view of the role of instruction in the acquisition process
assumes that the learners will be able to encounter the target
grammatical forms frequently, not only in their language classrooms
but in their daily life as well. Such repeated encounters are necessary to
reinforce the focus-on-form treatment. However, whereas the assump-
tion that learners have access to communicative language is reasonable
for the ESL context, it is not valid for most EFL classrooms, which, at
best, can only operate as linguistic microclimates within the native
culture. The differences between EFL settings and the communicative
ESL classrooms which have been the sites of most of the focus-on-form
research are significant, and the next sections review some features of
EFL teaching in order to determine whether focus on form is
instructionally appropriate and, if so, to suggest likely intervention
points.

Some Many EFL environments share certain features. In some countries the
characteristics of educational system is under the control of a central agency which
EFL settings determines not only the general curriculum but often the contents of
courses, and even the textbooks which are used. In Japan, for example,
when EFL teaching commences in the first year of middle school, the
primary goal is to master specific vocabulary items, translation skills, and
grammar structures, which will be tested in the final year as part of an
examination system determining entry into high schools. At high school
as well, the teaching of EFL is test-driven, aimed at preparing learners
for university entrance examinations. Given these circumstances, it is
apparent why grammar instruction figures heavily in the ELT
curriculum.
The central educational agency and the schools are quite aware of the
drawbacks of this approach, since it produces learners who, despite
years of study, are still unable to use the English language commu-

Focus on forms in the EFL classroom 303

articles welcome
 nicatively. It is recognized that, across the world, most EFL systems lag
behind those of Western Europe (see Beardsmore 1993). To remedy
this, in countries such as Japan, secondary curricula have undergone
significant reform, and now contain an emphasis on oral communication.
New textbooks have been written at the middle school level allowing for
listening practice and mastery of spoken forms. At the high school level,
new courses focus on listening and speaking skills, and some schools
even have a course on English debate. Understandably, the change in
curriculum is producing test reform, with Korea already incorporating a
TOEFL-type listening section into its major national examination, and
Japan is looking to achieve a similar revision within several years.
One complicating factor of these reforms is the large class size at many
institutions, which mitigates against teacher supervision of pair or group
practice. Without such supervision, learner use of their shared L1 to
solve communicative activities meant to be done in the target language
remains a constant problem.

Adapting focus Considering the traditional pedagogy dominating many EFL classrooms,
on form for the it is clear that the strong version of form-focused instruction, where
EFL classroom learners are only exposed to a target grammatical form through
modified communicative input, is not, by itself, suitable for the EFL
situation. As noted, a totally implicit approach depends on the
availability of subsequent communicative input containing the form,
and such opportunities are lacking in the EFL situation. Indeed, not only
are there few opportunities for communicative use of the target
language outside the classroom, but even within many EFL classrooms,
target language use may be surprisingly low. However, if focus-on-form
approaches are modified to permit formal instruction before the
communicative activity and feedback afterwards, they offer considerable
promise. Whereas, in the ESL situation, a focus-on-form approach is
used to position grammar instruction within an existing communicative
framework, in the EFL context it provides a strong rationale for
introducing communicative language activities into the grammar class-
room. This is an important consideration in traditionally oriented
educational settings, which may regard such activities, with their
concomitant moving of desks and noisy chatting of learners, as
inappropriate educational content. It should be recalled that commu-
nicative language teaching is just beginning to be accepted in many EFL
situations, and that one drawback of many activities designed to
promote communicative language use is that they are perceived to be
frivolous.
From this perspective, reading-based focus-on-form activities are
especially suitable for many EFL situations because of the traditional
emphasis on comprehension and translation skills. Reading material can
be modified by highlighting, so that the target structure becomes salient
while the learners are reading for meaning. Listening activities also lend
themselves to the embedding of multiple instances of a target structure.
Prior to such activities, teachers could use an Advance Organizer
304 Sandra S. Fotos
articles welcome
 (Ausubel, Novak, and Hanesian 1978) a teaching technique which has
been popular in general education since the 1960s. This is an orientation
to the coming activity, explaining its purpose and procedures, perhaps
by showing a video of previous learners (see Hanley, Herron, and Cole
1995). An orientation to the coming activity which draws the learners
attention to the target structure, and instructs them to notice instances of
its use in the following comunicative activity, would activate their
previous formal knowledge, and assist them to form links between this
knowledge and the communicative use of the structure. Furthermore,
developing prior familiarity with the nature of the structures they are to
notice, and with the procedures they will be doing, can lessen the
diversion of attentional resources away from processing the enhanced
input (Skehan 1996) during the activity itself.
In one such activity, the prior grammar instruction has been aimed at
facilitating the learners understanding of the target form rather than at
the development of formal knowledge of grammar rules, and has not
required the production of output containing the grammar form.
Nonetheless, gains in accuracy have been reported (Ellis 1995, Cardieno
1995).
A second point to consider is sequencing. According to a teachability
hypothesis of second language acquisition (Pieneman 1984), certain
developmental stages are fixed, whereas others may be influenced by
instruction. If grammar teaching can be given when the learner is ready
to progress to the next stage, such instruction could speed up the
learners progress. Although the nature of these stages has not been
determined, there is no question of the importance of this hypothesis for
the ESL situation. However, because of the centrally determined nature
of many EFL curricula, it may not be possible to change the structures
which must be taught, so sequencing according to difficulty may be more
practical. Research on the use of form-focused tasks with Japanese EFL
learners (Fotos 1994) suggests that grammar points with a few easily
taught rules are more amenable to form-focused instruction than
structures which are governed by a great many rules depending on
their position within the sentence matrix. Some recent ESL research also
supports this (Robinson 1996). However, the reverse has also been
argued (Robinson 1996). Here, focus-on-form activities are particularly
useful for developing learner awareness of grammar structures which
are too complex to be understood through formal instruction alone.
The next section will consider what is perhaps the optimum focus-on-
form activity for EFL classrooms: the communicative language task.

Task-based focus At this point, we return to Longs original consideration (1991) that
on form task-based language instruction is particularly suitable for focus on form.
The advantages of task performance in terms of providing opportunities
for both target language comprehension and production have been
discussed in a number of surveys and reports (see reviews in Crookes
and Gass 1993), and will not be reviewed here. Our concern is more

Focus on forms in the EFL classroom 30.5

articles welcome
 specific: task use for providing a communicative focus on form within the
EFL context.
This paper has recommended an approach to focus on form which
allows for formal instruction before and after performance of commu-
nicative activities. Whereas teachers may not be flexible as to syllabus
content, there is usually flexibility regarding activities and the type of
participation pattern during these activities. Thus, a task-based approach
to focus on form is quite feasible for the EFL situation. Interactive
communicative tasks based on a pair/group participation pattern give
learners the opportunity to engage in meaning-focused interaction
where they must both comprehend and produce the target language.
Even within large classes, task-based activities offer EFL learners a way
to maximize their target language use, and have therefore been
recommended as the basis for syllabus organization (ibid.).
Using tasks for grammar practice is not new. However, the two task
types described here are different from activities designed to promote
accuracy. Although these tasks are aimed at making grammar forms
salient to learners, this is achieved through communicative activities.
The tasks are designed to increase learner awareness of how the target
structure is used in context, yet are communicative since the learners are
engaged in meaning-focused interaction.
The first type of task uses an implicit focus on form during interactive
task performance. Purely communicative tasks are designed so that
learners must use the target structure to complete the task. For example,
my colleagues and I developed a task on comparative forms of adjectives
and adverbs which required EFL learners to exchange information
about features of cities. The learners were requested to combine their
information by writing sentences comparing their two cities. Although
there was no mention of the target form, the learners had to understand
and produce various comparative forms in order to complete the task.
The requirement for the learners to produce sentences insured that most
of the interaction was conducted in the target language, despite the
homogenous L1 setting.
The second task type has an explicit focus on form since the target
grammar structure itself comprises the task content. Pairs or groups of
learners are asked to solve grammar problems such as the formation of
tag questions, or indirect object placement on the basis of positive and
negative information given on task cards. After listening to and writing
down correct sentences, the learners then develop rules for the use of
the target structure. Even though the task content is a grammar
problem, the learners must use the target language meaningfully to
complete the activity. Again, the necessity to write English sentences
and agree upon grammar rules promotes communicative use of the
target language, even though the learners speak the same L1.
These two task types have been used in the EFL setting in conjunction
with formal instruction before and evaluative activities after task

306 Sandra S. Fotos

articles welcome
 performance. Research on several explicit focus-on-form tasks (author
1994) suggests that task performance can significantly increase learner
awareness of the target structure and improve accuracy in its use, as well
as providing opportunities for meaning-focused comprehension and
production of the target language. Furthermore. such tasks release more
traditionally oriented non-native speaker teachers from the requirement
to lead communicative activities in the target language.
Through use of modified focus-on-form activities, traditional EFL
pedagogy aimed at developing formal knowledge of English structures
and rules can now include a strong communicative component which
provides examples of grammar used in meaningful context and
promotes the development of communicative ability.
Received January 1998

References European Cultural Foundation Conference on

Ausubel, D., J. Novak, and H. Hanesian. 1978.
Educational Psychology. (2nd edn.). Holt,
Rinehart, and Winston: New York.
Beardsmore, H. 1993. An overview of European
models of bilingual education. Language, Cul-
ture and Curriculum 6: 197-208.
Cadierno, T. 1995. Formal instruction from a
processing perspective: an investigation into the
Spanish past tense. Modern Language Journal
79: 179-93.
Crookes, G. and S. Gass (eds.). 1993. Tasks in a
Pedagogical Context: Integrating Theory and
Practice. Clevedon: Multilingual Matters.
Doughty, C. and J. Wiiams. 1998. Focus on Form
in Classroom Second Language Acquisition.
New York: Cambridge University Press.
Fotos, S. 1993. Consciousness raising and noticing
through focus on form: grammar task perfor-
mance versus formal instruction. Applied Lin-
guistics 14/4: 126-41.
Fotos, S. 1994. Integrating grammar instruction
and communicative language use through gram-
mar consciousness raising tasks. TESOL Quar-
terly 28: 323-51.
Ellis, R. 1995. Interpretation tasks for grammar
teaching, TESOL Quarterly 29: 87-106.
Hanley, J., C. Herron, and S. Cole. 1995. Using
video as an advance organizer to a written
passage in the FLES classroom. The Modern
Language Journal 79: 57-66.
Long, M. 1988. Focus on form: a design feature in
language teaching methodology. Presentation
given at the National Foreign Language Center
Empirical Research on Second Language
Learning in Institutional Settings. Bellagio,
Italy, June 20-24. Mimeo.
Long, M. 1991. Focus on form: A design feature
in language teaching methodology in K. de Bot,
D. Coste, R. Ginsberg, and C. Kramsch (eds.).
Foreign Language Research in Cross-Cultural
Perspective. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
Pienemann, M. 1984. Psychological constraints on
the teachability of languages. Studies in Second
Language Acquisition 6: 186-214.
Robinson, P. 1996. Learning simple and complex
second language rules under implicit, incidental,
rule-search and instructed conditions. Studies in
Second Language Acquisition 18: 27-68.
Schmidt, R. 1990. The role of consciousness in
second language learning. Applied Linguistics
11: 129-58.
Skehan, P. 1996. A framework for the imple-
mentation of task-based instruction. Applied
Linguistics 17: 38-62.
Williams, J. 1995. Focus on form in communica-
tive language teaching: research findings and
the classroom teacher. TESOL Journal 4:
12-16.
The author
Sandra Fotos is Associate Professor of English at
Senshu University, Tokyo. Her research interests
include the effects of formal instruction on second
language acquisition.
E-mail: sfotos@)gol.com

Focus on forms in the EFL classroom 307

articles welcome