Hiệu quả của phương pháp giảng dạy ngữ pháp độc lập và tích hợp trong việc học ngữ pháp của học sinh trung học cơ sở

VIETNAM NATIONAL UNIVERSITY, HANOI
UNIVERSITY OF LANGUAGES & INTERNATIONAL STUDIES
FACULTY OF POST-GRADUATE STUDIES

NGUYỄN VÂN ANH

THE EFFECTIVENESS OF ISOLATED VERSUS INTEGRATED
FORM-FOCUSED INSTRUCTION IN GRAMMAR LEARNING
AMONG SECONDARY SCHOOL STUDENTS
(Hiệu quả của phương pháp giảng dạy ngữ pháp độc lập và tích hợp trong việc
học ngữ pháp của học sinh trung học cơ sở)

M.A. MINOR PROGRAMME THESIS

Major: English Teaching Methodology
Code: 8140231.01

HANOI – 2021


VIETNAM NATIONAL UNIVERSITY, HANOI
UNIVERSITY OF LANGUAGES & INTERNATIONAL STUDIES
FACULTY OF POST-GRADUATE STUDIES

NGUYỄN VÂN ANH

THE EFFECTIVENESS OF ISOLATED VERSUS INTEGRATED
FORM-FOCUSED INSTRUCTION IN GRAMMAR LEARNING
AMONG SECONDARY SCHOOL STUDENTS
(Hiệu quả của phương pháp giảng dạy ngữ pháp độc lập và tích hợp trong việc
học ngữ pháp của học sinh trung học cơ sở)

M.A. MINOR PROGRAMME THESIS

Major: English Teaching Methodology
Code: 8140231.01
Supervisor: Huỳnh Anh Tuấn, PhD.

HANOI - 2021


DECLARATION
I hereby state that I: Nguyễn Vân Anh, QH2018.D2.E3, being a
candidate for the degree of Master of Arts in English Teaching Methodology,
accept the requirements of the university relating to the retention and use of
Master minor program thesis deposited in the library.
In terms of these conditions, I agree that the origin of my paper
deposited in the library should be accessible for the purposes of study and
research, in accordance with the normal conditions established by the
librarian for the care, loan or reproduction of the paper.
Signature

Date

i


ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
I would like to express my sincere gratitude to my supervisor – Mr.
Huynh Anh Tuan – for his constant support for my study. Without his
valuable advice and suggestions, together with his passionate encouragement,

I could not manage to complete this Master thesis.
I deeply appreciate my students at Vinschool Times City secondary and
high school, who have been the enthusiastic respondents in my research.
I would also like to send my thanks to my colleagues and my
classmates for the insightful comments and encouraging words they have
given me.
Last but not least, I owe my gratitude towards my beloved family
members – my parents, my husband and my unborn son, who have been
motivating me throughout the writing of this research.

ii


ABSTRACT
The present study, which adopts an experimental design, examines the
effectiveness of integrated form-focused instruction (FFI) versus isolated FFI
in grammar learning among secondary school students. The same target
structures were taught to two groups using integrated and isolated FFI
respectively. The students of these two groups had equal English proficiency
(A2 CEFR), according to their performance in a placement test administered
by the school. The treatment for integrated FFI group included the use of
games and free discussion, with teacher’s feedback available whenever
grammar mistakes occurred; while during isolated FFI lessons, grammar
instruction and teacher’s feedback stood as separate parts in the lesson. A
post-test was conducted afterwards to measure the students’ grammar
accuracy after receiving the treatment. Despite the insignificant difference in
the students’ overall performance, the students under integrated FFI did
remarkably better in production task, which raised the need for integrated FFI
to be applied more to help L2 learners achieve higher level of grammar
acquisition. The study also revealed a slight preference of the students

towards isolated FFI, implying that for young learners, grammar may still
need to be taught and explained explicitly.
Keywords: Form-focused instruction (FFI), integrated FFI, isolated FFI

iii


TABLE OF CONTENTS
DECLARATION .............................................................................................. i
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS............................................................................ ii
ABSTRACT .................................................................................................... iii
TABLE OF CONTENTS............................................................................... iv
LIST OF FIGURES, TABLES, AND ABBREVIATIONS ........................ vi
CHAPTER 1. INTRODUCTION .................................................................. 1
1. Rationale........................................................................................................ 1
2. Research aims ................................................................................................ 4
3. Research objectives and research questions ................................................. 4
4. Scope of the thesis ......................................................................................... 5
5. Significance of the thesis .............................................................................. 5
6. Structure of the thesis .................................................................................... 6
CHAPTER 2. LITERATURE REVIEW ...................................................... 7
1. Key concepts ................................................................................................. 7
1.1. Grammar..................................................................................................... 7
1.2. Grammar instruction .................................................................................. 8
1.2.1. The role of grammar instruction in foreign language teaching .............. 8
1.2.2. Dimensions for effective grammar instruction ..................................... 10
1.2.3. Principles of grammar instruction ......................................................... 11
1.2.4. Approaches of grammar instruction foreign language teaching ........... 12
1.2.5. Form-focused instruction (FFI) ............................................................. 14
2. Review on related studies............................................................................ 18

2.1. Studies on the effectiveness of FFI worldwide ........................................ 18
2.2. Studies on the effectiveness of FFI in Vietnam ....................................... 21
CHAPTER 3. METHODOLOGY ............................................................... 24
1. Research questions ...................................................................................... 24
2. Research approach ...................................................................................... 24
2.1. Experimental research .............................................................................. 24
iv


2.2. The t-test ................................................................................................... 25
3. Research participants .................................................................................. 26
4. Data collection............................................................................................. 27
4.1. Quantitative data collection instruments .................................................. 27
4.1.1. Pre-test and post-test ............................................................................. 27
4.1.2. Treatments ............................................................................................. 28
4.1.3. Questionnaire ........................................................................................ 30
4.2. Qualitative data collection instrument ..................................................... 31
4.3. Data collection procedure ........................................................................ 31
5. Data analysis ............................................................................................... 31
5.1. Quantitative data analysis ........................................................................ 31
5.2. Qualitative data analysis .......................................................................... 32
CHAPTER 4. FINDINGS AND DISCUSSION ......................................... 33
1. The difference between isolated FFI and integrated FFI in their effects on
secondary school learners’ grammar accuracy ............................................... 33
1.1. Comparison of students’ pre-test results .................................................. 33
1.2. Comparison of students’ post-test results ................................................ 34
1.2.1. Comparison of students’ score in the recognition questions ............... 35
1.2.2. Comparison of students’ score in the production question .................. 36
2. Students’ attitude and opinion towards the implementation of isolated FFI
and integrated FFI ........................................................................................... 38

CHAPTER 5. CONCLUSION ..................................................................... 42
1. Conclusion and implications ....................................................................... 42
2. Limitations of the study .............................................................................. 44
3. Suggestion for further research ................................................................... 45
REFERENCES .............................................................................................. 46
APPENDICES .................................................................................................. I

v


LIST OF FIGURES, TABLES, AND ABBREVIATIONS

LIST OF FIGURES
Figure 1. The relationship between focus on form, focus on forms
Figure 2. Students' opinion on how grammar instruction should be delivered
Figure 3. Students' opinion on their ability to use target structures
Figure 4. Students' opinion on the timing of corrective feedback

LIST OF TABLES
Table 1. The t-test on the performance of isolated FFI and integrated FFI in
the pre-test
Table 2. Mean scores of integrated and isolated FFI groups in the post-test
Table 3. The t-test on the total score of isolated FFI and integrated FFI in the
post-test
Table 4. Mean scores of integrated and isolated FFI groups in the post-test
(recognition tasks)
Table 5. The t-test on the scores of isolated FFI and integrated FFI in the posttest (recognition tasks)
Table 6. Mean scores of integrated and isolated FFI groups in the post-test
(production task)
Table 7. The t-test on the scores of isolated FFI and integrated FFI in the posttest (production task)

vi


LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS
FFI

Form-focused instruction

EFL

English as a Foreign Language

CEFR

Common European Framework of Reference for Languages

SPSS

Statistical Product and Service Solutions

vii


CHAPTER 1. INTRODUCTION
1. Rationale
Grammar is an undoubtedly important element of a language.
Worldwide research has already highlighted the crucial role of grammar in
EFL teaching and learning. The instruction of grammar, therefore, receives a
lot of attention from researchers around the globe. An issue that is igniting

ongoing debates is regarding to what extent and in what way should grammar
forms be focused in the English classroom. The term form-focused was firstly
employed by Long (1991) to draw a distinction between focus on forms and
focus on form. The former one – focus on forms – is built on a structural
syllabus (which based on grammar features) and utilizes traditional types of
exercises. This kind of instruction, according to Ellis (2002), entails the
“teaching of specific grammatical features in a structure-of-the-day approach.
Accordingly, in focus on forms, the learning of grammar is deliberate and the
language is treated as something to be mastered in order for communication to
occur. On the other hand, focus on form is more likely to be based on a taskbased syllabus and makes use of communicative exercises to draw learners’
attention towards linguistic structures when they are focusing on
communicative activities. In this way of instruction, learners are involved in
communicative activities and are only provided with formal introduction of
forms when necessary (Long, 1991). By this way, learners mainly focus on
understanding and conveying meaning, but if they want the message to be
transmitted as correctly as possible, they might need to pay attention to the
linguistic structures.
Advocates of the two aforementioned types of instruction have reasons
to support their argument, and this separation in opinions mostly stem from
whether they value accuracy over communication or vice versa. To be more
1


specific, supporters of focus on forms (Celce-Murcia, 1991; Grififths & Par,
2001; Millard, 2000) view language learning as the acquisition of rules,
concepts and structures of grammar rather than habit formation. They believe
that accurate knowledge and fluency of L2 will not be achieved without a
sufficient instruction of language forms and structures (Celce-Murcia, 1991).
They also claim that explicit grammar knowledge would later turn into
communicative competence (Millard, 2000).

Focus on form’s supporters, however, do not think so. They doubt
whether such grammar knowledge could really translate to communicative
acquisition and think that it is communication that encourages the acquisition
of rules. Hinkel and Fotos (2002) assert that focus on form integrates explicit
instruction and communicative language use in a way that enables learners to
detect the properties of L2. Ellis (2002) also sees this involvement of learners
in communicative tasks as an advantage of the approach, because it exposes
students to appropriate samples of language and give relevant and motivating
activities to help them learn.
Although each school of opinion has its own validity, focus on forms
and focus on form are both challenged by their undeniable weaknesses.
Neither communicative approaches nor grammar instruction alone can
contribute to the mastery of the second language in both accuracy and
fluency. The introduction of form-focused instruction (FFI) can be considered
to meet both needs. By incorporating linguistic structures in communicative
teaching, FFI is believed to combine both form and meaning (Ellis, 2012;
Spada et al, 2014; Barrot, 2014) and does not undermine either conventional
or communicative approaches. As a term, FFI was used firstly by Spada
(1997) as an alternative but not identical to focus on form. While in focus on
form, grammatical presentation only arises when necessary, FFI allows
2


grammar to be taught either spontaneously or intentionally. Ellis (2001)
construes FFI as “any planned instructional activity that is designed to induce
intentional language learning”. It can be said that form-focused instruction is
a way of teaching grammatical features directly (through explicit explanation
at times) or indirectly (through meaning-focused or communicative
activities).
FFI can be categorized in various ways, one of which is the

classification of FFI into integrated and isolated FFI. Isolated FFI is
employed only before or after the communicative task and is totally absent
during the task (Spada et al, 2009; Spada & Lightbown, 2008). In this kind of
FFI, a specific language feature is explicitly introduced and explained by
teacher. Learners attain the linguistic feature and apply it in the upcoming
communicative activity. Meanwhile, in integrated FFI, learners are provided
with little attention to language form - only when necessary or when teacher
explains or give feedback.
Studies on the effectiveness of FFI in general and of different types of
FFI on enhancing learners’ grammar competence are available both
worldwide and locally, but are rather limited in number. It is clear that FFI
and its types deserve more investigation considering the influence they have
on learner’s L2 acquisition.
Moreover, at the secondary school where the researcher is working as
an EFL teacher, FFI is the prevalent method when it comes to teaching
grammar. Both integrated and isolated FFI are employed by the teachers to
explain grammatical rules. Yet not all teachers – including the researcher –
seem to fully comprehend the nature of FFI as well as when and how to use
each type in teaching. Thus, it is still open to question whether this utilization
of FFI is only a random pick based upon personal teaching preferences or
3


there is actually a systematic and deliberate approach underpinning the
teachers’ choice of instruction. In addition, due to its widespread use at the
school, it is necessary for these teachers to investigate FFI’s impact from both
a statistical view and learners’ view in order to choose the suitable kind of FFI
for their grammar lessons.
In short, the shortage of FFI-related studies and the necessity of a
meaningful application of FFI in my current teaching context have motivated

the researcher to conduct a project investigating the effectiveness of isolated
and integrated FFI on secondary graders’ grammar learning.
2. Research aims
As more attention should be paid towards the impact of FFI in general
and isolated – integrated FFI in particular, the researcher aims to compare the
effectiveness of isolated FFI versus integrated FFI on a certain EFL setting
(secondary students of pre-intermediate level) using both quantitative and
qualitative approaches. To measure how different types of FFI affect these
learners’ acquisition of the target grammar feature, experimental research
methods are utilized and learners’ scores of pretest and posttest are collected
and analyzed numerically. Moreover, a qualitative approach is employed to
compare the effectiveness of isolated and integrated FFI from the perspective
of secondary schoolers – the active entity of the learning process.
3. Research objectives and research questions
The research objectives are investigating the impact of isolated and
integrated FFI in the grammar acquisition of secondary graders whose English
level is pre-intermediate from both a statistical view and learners’ view. To
achieve such objectives, the paper purports to address two following research
questions:
4


1. Is there any significant difference between isolated FFI and
integrated FFI in their effects in secondary graders’ grammar accuracy?
2. What are secondary graders’ attitudes towards the effectiveness of
isolated FFI and integrated FFI in their grammar learning?
4. Scope of the thesis
Despite the widespread influence of FFI in all domains of L2
competence, this study only looks into the effectiveness of isolated and
integrated FFI in enhancing students’ grammar competence. The reason for

such a focus might be due to the massive attention given to grammar and the
instruction of grammar in Vietnamese context. The selected target structures
were the future use of going to, present simple and present continuous.
Moreover, the effectiveness of isolated and integrated FFI, in this
research, is measured both quantitatively and qualitatively. The influence of
each type of FFI is determined by comparing secondary school learners’
results in the posttests, and then by taking into account the perspectives of
these learners towards each kind of FFI.
Last but not least, the study collects data to evaluate these learners’
grammar acquisition, which are represented by recognition accuracy (the
learners’ ability to recognize the target structure correctly) and production
accuracy (the learners’ ability to produce the target structure accurately).
5. Significance of the thesis
The research hopes to bridge the research gap in form-focused
instruction, by comparing the impact of two types of FFI – isolated and
integrated – on the acquisition of grammar among secondary school learners.
If conducted successfully, the study might provide both quantitative and
qualitative evidence of the effectiveness of each type on grammar learning.
5


The process of developing and amending the lesson plans might also suggest
teaching ideas for teachers who are planning to apply isolated or integrated
FFI in their teaching. Last but not least, the success of this study may invite
reduplication of it to learners of other age groups, or further research on the
similar matter.
6. Structure of the thesis
The thesis is divided into five chapters:
Chapter 1. Introduction
This chapter is the presentation of rationale, scope of the study, aims

and objectives, research questions as well as the organization of the study.
Chapter 2. Literature review
This chapter features the literature related to grammar instruction,
form-focused instruction and a brief review of related studies on the same
topic.
Chapter 3. Methodology
This chapter describes the methods of the study, the selection of
respondents, the materials and the methods of data collection and data
analysis.
Chapter 4. Findings and discussion
This chapter presents and discusses the results of the data collection
and data analysis process.
Chapter 5. Conclusion
This chapter summarizes the study, names some limitations and offers
recommendations for further study.

6


CHAPTER 2. LITERATURE REVIEW
This chapter attempts to provide a theoretical background for the
research. Key concepts of grammar instruction – including grammar, focuson-form, focus-on-forms and form-focused instruction – are provided. A brief
review on universal and domestic studies on the impacts of form-focused
instruction in teaching grammar is also included at the end of the chapter.
1. Key concepts
1.1. Grammar
Grammar has always been playing a central role in the world of
language teaching and learning. Familiar as it sounds, the definition of
grammar still varies from scholar to scholar.
Traditionally speaking, grammar – according to Kirkham (1829) – is

considered as “the science of language”. Along with this interpretation, two
aspects of grammar – namely universal grammar and particular grammar –
are pointed out. While universal grammar highlights the common rules,
structures and principles underlying every language, particular grammar
focuses more on adaptations made to suit particular features of a particular
tongue. Kirkham (1829) continues to construe English grammar as “the art of
speaking and writing the English language with propriety”, according to
which conventional English grammar is viewed as the art which aims at
producing correct English using appropriate rules.
The 20th century has witnessed a more specific view towards the
concept of grammar. According to Hammer (1987), grammar is the study and
practice of the rules by which words change their forms and combined to
sentences. Ur (1988) also concurs with this definition as he mentions in his
work that “grammar may be roughly defined as the way a language
7


manipulates and combines words (or bits of words) in order to form longer
units of meaning” (p.1).
This way of understanding grammar is again repeated by Nunan
(2003), who refers to grammar as a set of rules specifying the correct words at
sentence level. It could be seen that these scholars, despite the variation in
their wording, all see eye to eye with each other in considering grammar as
the rules that underpin a language for the achievement of meaning.
The concept of grammar has not changed much over the century,
despite an addition made by several authors (Widdowson, 1990; Thornburry,
1999) who think grammar is not only “a collection of sentence patterns” or
“something for the learners’ brain to puzzle over” (Widdowson, 1990), but
also the relationship between grammar, words and context. By taking context
into account, it is claimed that besides meaning, the intention and

effectiveness of communication is also the target of learning grammar. The
following definition by Cristal (2004) best describes how grammar is viewed
in this study:
“Grammar is the structural foundation of our ability to express
ourselves. The more we are aware of how it works, the more we can
monitor the meaning and effectiveness of the way we and others use
language.” (Cristal, 2004).
1.2. Grammar instruction
1.2.1. The role of grammar instruction in foreign language teaching
According

to

Nassaji

(2017), grammar instruction

refers to

“interventional efforts to direct learners’ attention to particular grammatical
forms” (p.208). Grammar instruction has always attracted attention from
those who are interested in language teaching and learning. Of all the issues
revolving grammar teaching, perhaps the most controversial one – according

8


to Celce-Murcia and Hilles (1991) – is whether it should be taught explicitly
or acquired naturally from meaningful input and classroom interaction.
Those who advocate the explicit instruction of grammar base their

arguments upon the crucial role grammatical competence is playing in the
acquisition of a language. Specifically, Canale and Swain (1980) highlight the
importance of grammar by viewing it as one of the four components of
communicative competence, without which learners could only communicate
effectively in a limited situation. In favor of this view, Brown (2007) also
emphasizes that “grammatical competence occupies a prominent position as a
major component of communicative competence”.
Rutherford and Smith (1988) continue to fortify the importance of
grammar by stating that grammar can be advantageous in raising learners’
awareness of the differences as well as similarities between L1 and L2. They
even employ an analogy of grammar as a “linguistic map” with road signs
that assist learners in exploring the “topography” of the new language.
As the role of grammar is indispensable, these supporters promote the
role of teaching grammar explicitly in the language classroom, as concluded
by Richards and Roger (2002): “Grammar is too important to be ignored” (p.
14). Smith (2001) is of the opinion that if inadequate attention is paid towards
grammar and the opportunities to enhance learners’ grammar, students are
likely to reach a state of fossilization. In other words, when learners could
meet the demand of communication using basic grammatical resources and
communication strategies, they may no longer find it necessary to improve
their linguistic abilities anymore. Only by learning grammar will students be
aware of the need to apply new grammar structures to elevate their language
use.

9


On the other hand, many other researchers do express their doubt on
whether teaching grammar is of great significance, especially when the goal
of language acquisition is to enable learners to communicate in that language.

Such an undermining attitude is attributed to a viewpoint that grammar does
not contribute that much to communication. Krashen and Terrell (1983) once
write that conscious knowledge of grammar is not responsible for actual L2
performance. According to this scholar, consciously-learnt grammar can only
function as monitoring, and if this function is overused, the flow of
production (for example, the fluency of speaking and writing) might even be
disturbed. Hinkel and Fotos (2001) also reject the formal and conscious study
of grammar by referring to cases when learners may know the rules very well
but still cannot communicate effectively.
To sum up, although the role of grammar has been well recognized,
whether it should be instructed formally in the language classroom is still
open to question.
1.2.2. Dimensions for effective grammar instruction
For a productive grammar lesson according to Nunan (2003), three
dimensions that should be focused are (1) form; (2) meaning and (3)
use/pragmatics. The first dimension takes into account how a particular
structure is formed. As for the second aspect, the concentration is around what
the structure can express. Last but not least, pragmatic dimension investigates
the situation and the reason why a certain structure – instead of any other
structures – is selected by the speaker (Nunan, 2003).
The aforementioned dimensions are all essential in grammar teaching and
learning, yet they are not always given equal amount of attention and teachers
do not necessarily follow a fix order of form – meaning – use in a grammar
lesson. In other words, different approaches of grammar instruction offer
10


different implementations of these dimensions and pay different level of
attention to each. How each dimension is taught in each approach of grammar
teaching is discussed later in the literature review.

1.2.3. Principles of grammar instruction
Albeit the different approach that each grammar teacher decides to
pursue, it is necessary that the following principles be not violated.
Integrate both inductive and deductive methods to the teaching
In a deductive approach, the teacher explains the structures to the
students and then provides drills to help learners understand and master the
newly-learnt grammar points. Meanwhile, a teacher following an inductive
approach would rather let his students discover the structures under his
guidance. He would display samples of the language and get students work
out the rules for themselves. Normally, inductive approach would require
greater level of mental effort, but result in long-term effective learning. On
the other hand, it takes learners more time to understand than deductive
method. It is important that teacher consider the kind of grammar point being
taught and learner’s style to determine a suitable method.
Use tasks that make clear the relationship between grammatical
form and communicative function
Grammar should be viewed as a tool – rather than an end – for more
effective communication. Mastering grammar, according to this perspective,
does not merely mean knowing the rules, but knowing how to recognize the
structures, how to understand in context and how to produce meaningful
sentences. Therefore, it is needed that grammar be presented in a context that
clarifies the relationship between the form and its function in communication.

11


Focus on the development of procedural knowledge rather than
declarative knowledge
Whereas declarative knowledge means knowing the rules, procedural
knowledge refers to the ability to use the language for communication. The

former does not always catalyze the latter – as claimed by many experienced
language learners – and vice versa. Yet as said earlier that grammar is not an
end but a tool for communication, the mastery of language use in
communication should be promoted.
1.2.4. Approaches of grammar instruction foreign language teaching
1.2.4.1. Focus on forms
Along with the development of EFL teaching, grammar instruction has
also experienced significant changes, which could be reflected by the
proportion dedicated to grammar knowledge in textbooks, language
classrooms and methodology. The early grammar age and grammar-based
approaches, according to Celce-Murcia (1991), viewed language learning as a
procedure of forming hypothesis and rules (the forms) rather than habit
formation. Following this, different methods were generated concentrating on
the teaching of discrete rules, concepts and structures that helped learners
understand the target language (Sogutlu, 2014). However, these methods
encountered certain criticism. One of the most notorious limitations of
grammar-based approach was the treatment of learners as a passive entity
waiting to be taught, while learners might actively contribute to the
construction of grammatical knowledge as well (Grifiths, C. & Par, J. M.,
2001). Furthermore, since there exists a favor towards accuracy in this way of
instruction, little attention is paid to communication aspect. This limitation is
echoed in the work of Doughty and William (1998), who insist that focus on
forms tends to make learners become “structurally competent but
12


communicatively incompetent” (p. 4).

Learners pursuing grammar-based

approach may achieve high level of accuracy in grammar use, but often find it
difficult to communicate with the learnt structures fluently.
To offer more opportunities to communicate in the target language,
communication-based approaches in grammar instruction emerged, with
explicit proportions of the grammar lesson dedicated to enhancing learner’s
communication competence. PPP (presentation – practice – production) is a
method known to follow this kind of approach. Nevertheless, despite the good
initial intention, some methods were still proven unsuccessful and
grammatical. As Thornbury (1997) pointed out, the freer activities – which
claimed to engage learners in communication tasks – were a pretentious
attempt as they tended to require learners to imitate pre-selected structures or
model texts, rather than making students produce their own speeches or
writing.
In conventional EFL books, grammar stood as an independent part
which provided explanations of language forms, then followed by grammar
drills to practice the learnt rules. The knowledge was expected to turn into
communicative competence after such practice (Millard, 2000), but this
assumption barely came true.
1.2.4.2. Focus on form
The limitation of such a preference towards accuracy over
communication, together with the introduction of communicative language
teaching pedagogy, has catalyzed the development of communication-based
and interaction-based tasks that pay little attention to language forms and
patterns (Howat, 1997). This approach, which looks at grammatical rules as a
whole (form) and only refer to these rules briefly, is named focus on form.

13


The neglect of accuracy could also be witnessed among other

communicative approaches such as task-based or content-based instruction.
This ignorance of linguistic rules, as Nassaji (2000) asserts, has led to the
downplaying of grammar teaching. Yet insufficient instruction of grammar
knowledge might bring about the failure in helping learners improve their L2
competence, be it accurate knowledge or fluency (Swan, 1985; Lyster,
2004b).

Specifically,

during

activities

that

concentrate

merely

on

communication without proper knowledge of grammar forms, students may
“know very well what they want to say but not how to say it” (Swan, 1985,
p.11).
1.2.5. Form-focused instruction (FFI)
1.2.5.1. Definition
As neither accuracy nor communication ability could stand alone in
achieving higher levels of second language competence, form-focused
instruction (FFI) has been introduced to help learners develop both
communicative and linguistic competence. Not only does this approach

combine form and meaning, it also highlights the significance of both
traditional and communicative methods (Spada et al, 2014; Ellis, 2012;
Barrot, 2014). The relationship between focus on form, focus on forms and
FFI is represented in the vent diagram below:

Figure 1. The relationship between focus on form, focus on forms

14


and form-focused instruction (Doughty & William, 2008)

Definitions and perceptions of FFI vary from research to research. The
term first appeared in Spada’s work (1997), in which it was interpreted as a
way of instruction that presents grammar in “either spontaneous or
predetermined way” (Spada, 1997, p.73). This is different from Long’s focus
on form (Long, 1991), for focus on form provides grammar knowledge only
when a need for it is perceived. Ellis (2001) concurs with Spada by defining
FFI as “any planned instructional activity that is designed to induce
intentional language learning” (Ellis, 2001, p.16). It can be said that FFI is a
way of teaching grammatical features either directly (through teacher’s
explicit explanation during the class) or indirectly (through communicative
activities to draw learner’s attention to the target structures).
Notwithstanding the primary focus on meaning in an FFI classroom,
learners are also encouraged to pay attention to and detect the grammatical
rules (Fayyaz & Omaz, 2014). Laufer & Ginai (2008) consider FFI a modified
version of communicative teaching, and believe comprehensible output and
meaning-oriented tasks are enough for language acquisition. Nassaji (2000),
on the other hand, justifies his position by combining insights from cognitive
and interactive learning theories. He believes focus on form and focus on

communication could be integrated to be most effective for learners.
As it is the umbrella term of focus on form and focus on forms, FFI
combines of the advantages that focus on form and focus on forms could offer
to learners. According to Ellis (2001), FFI helps firstly attract learners’
attention to grammatical structures while they are engaged in communicative
activities. This is not easy to achieve since learners tend to find it difficult to
focus on meaning and forms simultaneously (Ellis, 2001). Secondly, Ellis
(1994) argues that this approach increases both grammar accuracy and
15


fluency, and its effects are long-lasting. A balance between focus on forms
and focus on form – according to Long (1991) – also allows teacher and
learners to flexibly attend to linguistic forms when necessary. Thirdly, as
attention to formal grammar knowledge is embedded in communicative
activities, the effectiveness of communicative classroom practice could be
maximized. Instead of bettering only communicative competence, this
approach allows learners to achieve a good command of the second language
and makes their language learning experience more comprehensive and
efficient.
Nevertheless, the disadvantages of FFI have also been claimed in the
work of many researchers. Sheen (2003) indicates that FFI merely involves
the contributive use of focus-on-forms. Poole (2005) concurs with this view
by highlighting the fact that the effects of FFI has not been adequately and
empirically tested in a wide range of teaching contexts. In fact, experiments
on the positive impacts of FFI have only been conducted in well-equipped
classrooms without discipline problems. Meanwhile, such benefits have yet to
be proven in class settings that are less well-supplied and are under certain
governmental constraints regarding instructional decisions. Long (1991) adds
class size as one of the limitations of FFI, for the fact that when the class is

overcrowded, it is impossible for teacher to address the problems and provide
corrective feedback for every single student.
1.2.5.2. Types of FFI
Based on what, when and how to teach grammar, and on whether
grammar is taught independently or combined, FFI could be categorized as
follows:
Implicit and explicit FFI

16