In this study we compared the effects of two types of form-focused instruction (FFI) on second language (L2) learning and their potential contributions to the development of different types of L2 knowledge. Both types of instruction were pre-emptive in nature, that is planned and teacher generated. In Integrated FFI attention to form was embedded within communicative practice; in Isolated FFI it was separated from communicative practice. Two groups of adult learners of English as a second language (ESL) received 12 hours of Integrated or Isolated FFI on the ‘passive’ construction. Learners’ progress on a written grammar test and an oral communication task indicated no significant differences between the instructional groups over time. However, some advantages were observed for Integrated FFI on the oral production task and for Isolated FFI on the written grammar test. The results are discussed in relation to instructed second language acquisition (SLA) research an transfer appropriate processing theory.
BarcroftJ. (2002). Semantic and structural elaboration in L2 lexical acquisition. Language Learning, 52, 323–363.
2.
BarkaouiK. (2010). Explaining ESL essay holistic scores: A multilevel modeling approach. Language Testing, 27, 515–535.
3.
BarkaouiK. (2013). Using multilevel modeling in language assessment research: A conceptual introduction. Language Assessment Quarterly, 10, 241–273.
4.
BlaxtonT.A. (1989). Investigating dissociations among memory measures: Support for a transfer-appropriate processing framework. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning. Memory & Cognition, 15, 657–668.
5.
DeKeyserR. (1997). Beyond explicit rule learning: Automatizing second language morphosyntax. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 19, 195–221.
6.
DeKeyserR. (1998). Beyond focus on form: Cognitive perspectives on learning and practicing second language grammar. In DoughtyC.WilliamsJ. (Eds.), Focus on form in classroom second language acquisition (pp. 42–63). New York: Cambridge University Press.
7.
DeKeyserR. (2003). Implicit and explicit learning. In DoughtyC.LongM. (Eds.), Handbook of second language acquisition (pp. 313–348). Oxford: Blackwell.
8.
DeKeyserR. (2007). Situating the concept of practice. In DeKeyserR. (Ed.), Practicing in a second language: Perspectives from applied linguistics and cognitive psychology (pp. 1–18). New York: Cambridge University Press.
9.
DoughtyC.VarelaE. (1998). Communicative focus on form. In DoughtyC.WilliamsJ. (Eds.), Focus on form in classroom second language acquisition (pp. 114–138). New York: Cambridge University Press.
10.
DoughtyC.WilliamsJ. (1998). Pedagogical choices in focus on form. In DoughtyC.WilliamsJ. (Eds.), Focus on form in classroom second language acquisition (pp. 197–261). New York: Cambridge University Press.
11.
Elgün-GündüzZ.AkcanS.BayyurtY. (2012). Isolated form-focused instruction and integrated form-focused instruction in primary school classrooms in Turkey. Language, Culture and Curriculum, 25, 157–171.
12.
EllisR. (2005). Measuring implicit and explicit knowledge of a second language: A psychometric study. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 27, 141–172.
13.
EllisR. (2009). Measuring implicit and explicit knolwedge of a second language. In EllisR.LoewenS.ElderC.ErlamR.PhilpJ.ReindersH. (Eds.), Implicit and explicit knowledge in second language learning, testing and teaching (pp. 31–64). Tonawanda, NY: Multilingual Matters.
FileK.A.AdamsR. (2010). Should vocabulary instruction be integrated or isolated?TESOL Quarterly, 44, 222–249.
16.
HinkelE. (2002).Teaching grammar in writing classes: Tenses and cohesion. In HinkelE.FotosS. (Eds.), New perspectives on grammar teaching in second language classrooms. (pp. 181–200). Mahwah, NJ.: Lawrence Erlbaum.
17.
HoxJ.J. (2002). Multilevel analysis: Techniques and applications. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
18.
JuM.K. (2000). Overpassivization errors by second language learners, Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 22, 85–111.
19.
KrashenS. (1982). Principles and practice in second language acquisition. Oxford: Pergamon Press.
20.
LachmanR.LachmanJ.ButterfieldE.C. (1979). Cognitive psychology and information processing: An introduction. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
21.
LeeS.-K. (2007). Effects of textual enhancement and topic familiarity on Korean EFL students’ reading comprehension and learning of passive form. Language Learning, 57, 87–118.
22.
LightbownP.M. (2008). Transfer appropriate processing as a model for classroom second language acquisition. In HanZ. (Ed.), Understanding second language process (pp. 27–44). Clevedon: Multilingual Matters.
LongM.H. (1991). Focus on form: A design feature in language teaching methodology. In de BotK.GinsbergR.B.KramschC. (Eds.), Foreign language research in cross-cultural perspective (pp. 39–52). Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
MorrisD.BransfordJ.D.FranksJ.J. (1977). Levels of processing versus transfer appropriate processing. Journal of Verbal Learning & Verbal Behavior, 16, 519–533.
27.
NorrisJ.OrtegaL. (2000). Effectiveness of L2 instruction: A research synthesis and quantitative meta-analysis. Language Learning, 50, 417–528.
28.
PicaT. (2002). Subject-matter content: How does it assist the interactional and linguistic needs of classroom language learners?The Modern Language Journal, 86, 1–19.
29.
PolioC.ZyzikE. (2009). Don Quixote meets ser and estar: Multiple perspectives on language learning in Spanish literature classes. The Modern Language Journal, 93, 505–569.
30.
RaudenbushS.W.BrykA.S. (2002). Hierarchical linear models: Applications and data analysis methods. 2nd edition.Newbury Park, CA: Sage.
31.
RaudenbushS.W.BrykA.S.CheongY.F.CongdonR.du ToitM. (2004). HLM 6: Hierarchical linear and nonlinear modeling. Lincolnwood, IL: Scientific Software International.
32.
SamudaV. (2001). Guiding relationships between form and meaning during task performance: The role of the teacher. In BygateM.SkehanP.SwainM. (Eds.), Researching pedagogic tasks: Second language learning, teaching, and testing (pp. 119–140). Harlow: Longman.
33.
SegalowitzN.GatbontonE.L. (1995) Automaticity and lexical skills in second language fluency: Implications for computer assisted language learning. Computer Assisted Language Learning, 8, 129–149.
34.
SegalowitzN.LightbownP. (1999). Psycholinguistic approaches to SLA. Annual Review of Applied Linguistics, 19, 43–63.
35.
SpadaN. (1997). Form-focused instruction and second language acquisition: A review of classroom and laboratory research. Language Teaching, 30, 73–87.
36.
SpadaN. (2011). Beyond form-focused instruction: Reflections on past, present, and future research. Language Teaching, 44, 225–236.
37.
SpadaN.LightbownP.M. (2008). Form-focused instruction: Isolated or integrated?TESOL Quarterly, 42, 181–207.
38.
SpadaN.TomitaY. (2010). Interactions between type of instruction and type of language feature: A meta-analysis. Language Learning, 60, 1–46.
39.
SpadaN.LightbownP.M.WhiteJ. (2005). The importance of form/meaning mappings in explicit form-focused instruction. In HousenA.PierrardM. (Eds.): Investigations in instructed second language acquisition (pp. 199–234). Amsterdam: Mouton de Gruyter.
40.
TabachnickB.G.FidellL.S. (2007). Using multivariate statistics. Boston, MA: Pearson Education.
41.
TrofimovichP. (2005). Spoken-word processing in native and second languages: An investigation of auditory word priming. Applied Psycholinguistics, 26, 479–504.
42.
VanPattenB. (1990). Attending to form and content in the input: An experiment in consciousness. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 12, 287–301.
43.
WilliamsJ. (2005). Form-focused instruction. In HinkelE. (Ed.), Handbook of research in second language teaching and learning (pp. 671–692). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
