SavedAdd your journal

Journals / Eurasian Journal of Applied Linguistics / 2015 / Cilt: 1 - Sayı: 2

The importance of focus on form in communicative language teaching

Rod ELLİS
Pages
1–12
Publication Date
2022-10-18
DOI
—
🏛️Bibliographic metadata and full text access for this article are provided via DergiPark.
DergiPark Record ↗
✨

AI Summary & Key Takeaways

AI Insight
⚡ TL;DR(Too Long; Didn't Read)

This is an open-access article distributed under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/).

📌 3 Key Takeaways

🎯
Objective & Hypothesis:Long (1991) distinguished two approaches to language teaching, which he called 'focus-on-forms' and 'focus-on-form'.
📊
Key Findings & Data:In this article I discuss 'focus-on-form' from both a theoretical perspective by outlining the psycholinguistic rationale for this type of instruction and from a practical perspective by identifying the strategies that students and teachers can use when doing focus-on-form.
💡
Conclusion & Impact:This is an open-access article distributed under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/).
🔬Design:Research Article
📍Scope:2015 Verileri
⚙️Variables:Domain Parameters

Abstract

Long (1991) distinguished two approaches to language teaching, which he called 'focus-on-forms' and 'focus-on-form'. In this article I discuss 'focus-on-form' from both a theoretical perspective by outlining the psycholinguistic rationale for this type of instruction and from a practical perspective by identifying the strategies that students and teachers can use when doing focus-on-form. I conclude by emphasizing the importance of including a focus-on-form in communicative language teaching in order to facilitate incidental language learning and thus reject the commonly held view that teachers should not 'interfere' when students are performing a communicative task. I also suggest that 'focus-on-forms' and 'focus-onform' should be seen as complementary rather than oppositional approaches to teaching. © 2015 EJAL & the Authors. Published by EJAL. This is an open-access article distributed under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/).

🔖

Cite This Article

ELLİS, R. (2022). The importance of focus on form in communicative language teaching. Eurasian Journal of Applied Linguistics, Cilt: 1 - Sayı: 2, 1–12. https://ajindex.com/articles/507093

📄 Full Text PDF Viewer

📄

PDF görüntüleyici hazırlanıyor...

References (13)

  1. Day, E., & Shapson, S. (1991). Integrating formal and functional approaches to language teaching in French immersion: An experimental study. Language Learning, 41, 25-58. http://doi.org/cs4b3n
  2. De la Fuente, M. J. (2006). Classroom L2 vocabulary acquisition: Investigating the role of pedagogical tasks and form-focused instruction. Language Teaching Research, 10(3), 263- 295. http://doi.org/ck93nk
  3. Ellis, R. (1989). Are classroom and naturalistic acquisition the same? A study of the classroom acquisition of German word order rules. Studies in Second Language Acquisition 11, 305- 328. http://doi.org/dnfm75
  4. Ellis, R. (2015). Understanding second language acquisition (2nd ed.). Oxford: Oxford University Press.
  5. Ellis, R., Basturkmen, H., & Loewen, S. (2002). Doing focus on form. System, 30, 419-432. http://doi.org/fmr2tm
  6. Doughty, C. (2001). Cognitive underpinnings of focus on form. In P. Robinson (Ed.), Cognition and second language instruction (pp. 206-257). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
  7. Genesee, F. (1987). Learning through two languages. Boston, MA: Heinle and Heinle. Harley, B. (1989). Functional grammar in French immersion: A classroom experiment. Applied Linguistics 10, 331-360. http://doi.org/cshqc3
  8. Hedge, T. (2000). Teaching and learning in the language classroom. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
  9. Higgs, T., & Clifford, R. (1982). The push toward communication. In T. Higgs (Ed.), Curriculum, competence and the foreign language teacher (pp. 57-79)ç
  10. Skikie, IL: National Textbook Company. Johnson, K. (1988). Mistake correction. English Language Teaching Journal, 42, 89-101.
  11. Johnson, K. (1996). Language teaching and skill learning. Oxford: Blackwell. Krashen, S. (1982). Principles and practice in second language acquisition. Oxford: Pergamon. Lightbown, P. (1992). Can they do it themselves? A comprehension-based ESL course for young children. In R. Courchene, J. Glidden, J. St. John, & C. Therien (Eds.), Comprehension-based second language teaching: Current trends (pp. 353-370). Ottowa: University of Ottawa Press.
  12. Long, M. (1988). Instructed interlanguage development. In L. Beebe (Ed.), Issues in second language acquisition: Multiple perspectives (pp. 115-141).
  13. Rowley, MA: Newbury House. Long, M. (1991). Focus on form: A design feature in language teaching methodology. In K. de Bot, R. Ginsberg, & C. Kramsch (Eds.), Foreign language research in cross-cultural perspective (pp. 39-52). Amsterdam: John Benjamin. Long, M. (1996). The role of the linguistic