TEACHING AND LEARNING ENGLISH GRAMMAR - Research Findings and Future Directions

TEACHING AND LEARNING
ENGLISH GRAMMAR
An important contribution to the emerging body of research-based knowledge about Eng-

lish grammar, this volume presents empirical studies along with syntheses and overviews of
previous and ongoing work on the teaching and learning of grammar for learners of English
as a second/foreign language. It explores a variety of approaches, including form-focused
instruction, content and language integration, corpus-based lexicogrammatical approaches,
and social perspectives on grammar instruction.
Nine chapter authors are Priority Research Grant or Doctoral Dissertation Grant award-
ees from The International Research Foundation for English Language Education (TIRF),
and four overview chapters are written by well-known experts in English language educa-
tion. Each research chapter addresses issues that motivated the research, the context of the
research, data collection and analysis, findings and discussion, and implications for practice,
policy, and future research. The TIRF-sponsored research was made possible by a generous
gift from Betty Azar. This book honors her contributions to the field and recognizes her
generosity in collaborating with TIRF to support research on English grammar.
Teaching and Learning English Grammar is the second volume in the Global Research on
Teaching and Learning English Series, co-published by Routledge and TIRF.
MaryAnn Christison is Professor in the Department of Linguistics and the Urban Institute
for Teacher Education at the University of Utah in Salt Lake City, Utah, where she teaches
courses at both the graduate and undergraduate levels. She is a co-author of three volumes in
the series What English Language Teachers Need to Know, and serves on the Board of
Trustees of TIRF.
Donna Christian is Senior Fellow with the Center for Applied Linguistics in Washington,
DC. Her interests focus on language diversity in education, particularly dual language educa-
tion, second language teaching, and policy. She is an Associate Editor of the journal Language
for Language and Public Policy articles and serves on the Board of Trustees of TIRF.
Patricia A. Duff is Professor of Language and Literacy Education at the University of British
Columbia, where she coordinates and teaches in the program in Teaching English as a Second
Language. Her scholarly interests include language socialization across bilingual and multilin-
gual settings and issues in the teaching and learning of languages. She is a past trustee of TIRF.
Nina Spada is Professor in the Language and Literacies Education program at OISE, Uni-
versity of Toronto, where she teaches courses in second language (L2) acquisition, research
methods, and the role of instruction in L2 learning. Her classroom research focuses on the
contributions of form-based and meaning-based instruction to L2 learning.
GLOBAL RESEARCH ON TEACHING
AND LEARNING ENGLISH
Co-published with The International Research Foundation for English
Language Education (TIRF)
Kathleen M. Bailey & Ryan M. Damerow, Series Editors
Bailey & Damerow, Eds.

Teaching and Learning English in the Arabic-Speaking World
Christison, Christian, Duff, & Spada, Eds.

Teaching and Learning English Grammar: Research Findings and Future
Directions
For additional information on titles in the Global Research on Teaching and

Learning English series visit www.routledge.com/books/series/TIRF
TEACHING AND
LEARNING ENGLISH
GRAMMAR
Research Findings and
Future Directions
Edited by
MaryAnn Christison, Donna Christian,
Patricia A. Duff, and Nina Spada
A co-publication with The International Research Foundation

for English Language Education (TIRF)
First published 2015
by Routledge
711 Third Avenue, New York, NY 10017
and by Routledge
2 Park Square, Milton Park, Abingdon, Oxon OX14 4RN
Routledge is an imprint of the Taylor & Francis Group, an informa business
© 2015 Taylor & Francis
The right of MaryAnn Christison, Donna Christian, Patricia A. Duff, and
Nina Spada to be identified as authors of the editorial material, and of the
authors for their individual chapters, has been asserted by them in accordance
with sections 77 and 78 of the Copyright, Designs and Patents Act 1988.
All rights reserved. No part of this book may be reprinted or reproduced or
utilised in any form or by any electronic, mechanical, or other means, now
known or hereafter invented, including photocopying and recording, or in any
information storage or retrieval system, without permission in writing from
the publishers.
Trademark notice: Product or corporate names may be trademarks or registered
trademarks, and are used only for identification and explanation without
intent to infringe.
Library of Congress Cataloging-in-Publication Data
Teaching and learning English grammar : research findings and future
directions / edited by MaryAnn Christison, Donna Christian, Patricia A.
Duff, Nina Spada.
pages cm
“The International Research Foundation for English Language Education
(TIRF).”
Includes bibliographical references and index.
1. English language—Study and teaching—Foreign speakers. 2. English
language—Grammar—Study and teaching. I. Christison, MaryAnn.
PE1128.A2T389 2015
428.0071—dc23
2014038209
ISBN: 978-1-138-85692-9 (hbk)
ISBN: 978-1-138-85693-6 (pbk)
ISBN: 978-1-315-71901-6 (ebk)
Typeset in Bembo
by Apex CoVantage, LLC
This book is dedicated to Betty Azar.
This page intentionally left blank
CONTENTS
Foreword xi
Joanne Dresner
Preface xv
MaryAnn Christison, Donna Christian,
Patricia A. Duff, and Nina Spada
Acknowledgments xxiii
PART I
Overview of English Grammar Instruction 1
1 An Overview of Teaching Grammar in ELT 3

Marianne Celce-Murcia
PART II
Focus on Form in Second Language Acquisition 19
2 Focus on Form: Addressing Grammatical Accuracy

in an Occupation-Specific Language Program 21
Antonella Valeo
3 Teaching English Grammar in Context:

The Timing of Form-Focused Intervention 34
Junko Hondo
viii Contents
4 Form-Focused Instruction and Learner Investment:

Case Study of a High School Student in Japan 50
Yasuyo Tomita
5 The Influence of Pretask Instructions and

Pretask Planning on Focus on Form During Korean
EFL Task-Based Interaction 67
Sujung Park
PART III
The Use of Technology in Teaching Grammar 85
6 The Role of Corpus Research in the Design

of Advanced-Level Grammar Instruction 87
Michael J. McCarthy
7 Corpus-Based Lexicogrammatical Approach to Grammar

Instruction: Its Use and Effects in EFL and ESL Contexts 103
Dilin Liu
Ping Jiang
8 Creating Corpus-Based Vocabulary Lists for Two Verb

Tenses: A Lexicogrammar Approach 119
Keith S. Folse
PART IV
Instructional Design and Grammar 137
9 Putting (Functional) Grammar to Work in Content-Based

English for Academic Purposes Instruction 139
Patricia A. Duff
Alfredo A. Ferreira
Sandra Zappa-Hollman
10 Integrating Grammar in Adult TESOL Classrooms 159

Anne Burns
Simon Borg
Contents ix
11 Teacher and Learner Preferences for Integrated and

Isolated Form-Focused Instruction 178
Nina Spada
Marília dos Santos Lima
12 Form-Focused Approaches to Learning, Teaching,

and Researching Grammar 194
Rod Ellis
Epilogue 215
Kathleen M. Bailey
About the Contributors 221
Author Index 225
Subject Index 230
FOREWORD
Joanne Dresner
This volume, Teaching and Learning English Grammar: Research Findings and Future
Directions, has been designed as a tribute to Betty Azar. I believe it is a fitting and
appropriate undertaking, and I am pleased to provide some brief comments to
introduce the volume and its honoree.
Since 1999 I have had the honor of working with the most esteemed and suc-
cessful author of grammar textbooks in the world, Betty Azar. Before meeting
Betty, I had always admired her material for its clarity and ease of use, the appropri-
ate and abundant support she provided for teachers and students, and the deep
understanding of learners’ challenges she consistently addressed. But it was only
after getting to know her as a person and witnessing her selfless commitment to
improving the teaching and learning of the English language that I could truly
appreciate her brilliance as an educator who deeply cared about the profession.
Thus, it is a great privilege to recognize her generosity in collaborating with The
International Research Foundation for English Language Education (TIRF) to
sponsor research on teaching and learning English grammar and to pay tribute to
her unique contributions to the field. The information in this foreword is based
on my personal experiences with Betty over the period of time when I was her
publisher at Pearson and is supplemented by more recent personal communication
via informal interviews, phone conversations, and email exchanges that were solic-
ited in preparation for this piece.
Betty’s entry into the English as a second language (ESL) world began when
she was asked to teach writing to non-native English-speaking graduate students
at Iowa State University. She humbly recounts that they asked her many penetrat-
ing questions about the English language, which she sought to answer. She explains
in an informal interview, “My students set me on the road to learning English
xii Foreword
grammar. I learned what they needed to know by answering their questions”

(Azar, 2014, para. 4). Responding to the challenge of explaining how English
works, she collected hundreds of examples of authentic usage, organized the exam-
ples into a meaningful syllabus, drew charts to illustrate the explanations, and cre-
ated practical activities to elicit communication among her students. Little did she
know that she had given birth to her first textbook, Understanding and Using English
Grammar, which was published in 1981 and is now in its 4th edition (see Azar &
Hagen, 2009).
Betty continued to respond to the language needs and goals of her students,
which led to further publications in 1984 (see Azar & Hagen, 2014) and 1985
(see Azar & Hagen, 2011). With the humility of a dedicated educator, she credits
her students with the success she has experienced in being able to reach millions
of English teachers and students throughout the world: “Without a doubt, I owe
my textbooks to my students. They were my teachers. They told me what they
needed from me by the questions they asked” (Azar, 2014, para. 4).
Of course, the impact of Betty’s writing goes far beyond her ability to answer
her students’ questions. She recognized the importance of using grammar as a
base for developing all skill areas: listening, speaking, reading, and writing. As
she has explained to me, “Grammar becomes a springboard to successful com-
munication experiences, the building blocks of second language acquisition”
(Azar, 2014, para 9). And well before “authenticity” became a buzz-word for
describing effective language teaching, she created innovative materials for
teaching English grammar by using natural language in contexts relevant to the
students, focusing on their specifi c needs, and eliciting communication
opportunities.
Betty’s books are still widely used today in thousands of English teaching class-
rooms worldwide because of her Grammar-Based Teaching (GBT) approach. Her
approach incorporates grammar into communicative language teaching method-
ology, and it has evolved over the decades to include practices that have proven to
be effective with English learners. As she defines the approach, “ . . . GBT materi-
als go beyond the goals of providing grammar information and raising awareness
levels by proactively seeking to develop communicative competence in all skill
areas through widely varied practice opportunities and the inclusion of commu-
nicative methods” (Azar, 2007, p. 6).
As access to electronic technologies afforded students the chance to learn and
practice communication skills through multimedia, Betty seized the opportunity
to provide meaningful grammar instruction electronically (Azar & Koch, 2009a,
2009b). Simulating an entertaining classroom experience, she created animated
cartoon characters to describe and illustrate grammar concepts and then to offer
appropriate practice. Always keeping both teachers and students at the heart of her
writing and remaining flexible in her approach, Betty has continued to embrace
the teaching and learning of English grammar.
Foreword xiii
Betty describes herself as a practitioner—a teacher and materials writer—as

opposed to an academic who focuses on research and theory. Her focus has
been on the classroom, “ . . . a complex arena where teachers tend towards
eclecticism and pragmatism in blending various practices and principles”
(Azar, 2014, para. 9).
Nevertheless, she has also embraced and supported research, as evidenced by this
impressive volume. Seven chapters in this volume are the direct result of the contri-
bution that Betty generously made to TIRF. When I explained TIRF’s mission to her,
which is to promote research and best practices to improve the use of English in a
global economy, Betty did not hesitate to support the foundation’s work. She not
only recognized an avenue to further the knowledge base concerning the instruction
of English grammar but also welcomed an opportunity to support doctoral students
and other researchers in their intellectual pursuits. I know of no other educator who
has been as forthcoming and generous in funding research in our field.
In addition to supporting TIRF research, her generosity and commitment to the
development of English language education in other areas have been exemplary as
well. She established an annual travel grant through the TESOL organization that
enables new teachers to attend an international TESOL convention for the first
time. In addition, she has mentored other writers, selflessly advising them in both
pedagogical and business issues. She has also been active and influential in the Text
and Academic Authors Association so that others can benefit from her knowledge
and experience in the publishing industry.
Throughout her stellar career, Betty has persevered to keep effective GBT as a
vibrant component of English language teaching and learning. Regardless of the
methodology in vogue over the past four or five decades, her extensive teaching
experience and knowledge of applied linguistics convinced her of the importance
of incorporating grammar awareness and practice into English language teaching
classrooms. Her tireless voice and persistent efforts advocating for the role of gram-
mar have been a gift to teachers and learners, as well as her legacy to the field of
English language education. Through her publications, her website, her professional
camaraderie, and her support of research, she has allowed millions of teachers and
students to benefit from her deep understanding of English language learning.
For her many contributions, then, a volume on Teaching and Learning English
Grammar is a well-deserved tribute to Betty Azar. By funding empirical research
in collaboration with TIRF, she helped to bridge the gap between researchers and
classroom teachers, and in doing so further clarified her position about teaching
grammar. Through her actions, she has fostered a mutually beneficial relationship
that should properly exist between academics and practitioners, all to the immense
benefit of teachers and learners of English worldwide.
Joanne Dresner
TIRF Board of Trustees, 1999–2012
xiv Foreword
References
Azar, B. S. (2007). Grammar-based teaching: A practitioner’s perspective. TESL-EJ, 11(2),
1–12.
Azar, B. S. (2014). A conversation with Betty Azar and her new co-author Stacey Hagan.
Retrieved from http://azargrammar.com/assets/authorsCorner/ConversationWith
BettyAzar.pdf
Azar, B. S., & Hagen, S. A. (2009). Understanding and using English grammar (4th ed.). White
Plains, NY: Pearson Longman.
Azar, B. S., & Hagen, S. A. (2011). Fundamentals of English grammar (4th ed.). White Plains,
NY: Pearson Longman.
Azar, B. S., & Hagen, S. A. (2014). Basic English grammar (4th ed.). White Plains, NY: Pearson
Longman.
Azar, B. S., & Koch, R. (2009a). Fundamentals of English grammar interactive. White Plains, NY:
Pearson Longman.
Azar, B. S., & Koch, R. (2009b). Understanding and using English grammar interactive. White
PREFACE
We are pleased to present the second volume in the Global Research on Teaching
and Learning English Series, an edited collection entitled Teaching and Learning
English Grammar: Research Findings and Future Directions. The volume is a
co-publishing venture by The International Research Foundation for English Lan-
guage Education (TIRF) and Routledge/Taylor & Francis.
There are a number of important reasons why we enthusiastically support this
project. First, as editors we have a history and a close association with TIRF. Mary-
Ann Christison and Donna Christian are current members of the TIRF Board of
Trustees, Patricia Duff is a past member of the Board, and Nina Spada conducted
research supported by a grant from TIRF. Second, we believe in and wish to sup-
port TIRF’s mission, which is (1) to implement a research and development pro-
gram that will generate new knowledge and inform and improve the quality of
English language teaching and learning; (2) to promote the application of research
on practical language problems; (3) to collect, organize, and disseminate informa-
tion and research on the teaching and learning of language; and (4) to influence
the formation and implementation of appropriate language education policies,
recognizing the importance of local/transnational languages and cultures world-
wide and of English as an international language. We are very pleased to note that
this volume covers all four of the points in TIRF’s mission statement. A fourth and
important reason is that we are happy to have an opportunity to honor Betty Azar.
Indeed, a primary purpose in putting together this volume has been to express our
gratitude to Betty for her outstanding contributions to the field of English lan-
guage teaching and learning, more specifically the teaching of English grammar,
and, in addition, to recognize her for the generous contribution she made to TIRF
to fund research on teaching English grammar. Much of the research that Betty
supported through her donations to TIRF from 2005 to 2008 appears in this
xvi Preface
volume. Joanne Dresner’s foreword to the book speaks to the impact that Betty
has had on the field. Finally, Routledge/Taylor & Francis is an excellent and well-
respected publishing house that is committed to working with TIRF to disseminate
and promote research on the teaching and learning of English worldwide, so it is
a pleasure to collaborate with them on this project.
Audience for the Book

The chapters in this volume have been chosen to appeal to a wide readership. To this
end, we have designed the contents of this book to include historical and overview
chapters as well as single-study reports presenting current research on the teaching
and learning of English grammar, including research funded by the Azar gift. We
have also included chapters that present new directions for teaching and learning
English grammar. Consequently, this volume is intended for emerging and estab-
lished scholars internationally in undergraduate and graduate programs in applied
linguistics, teaching English as a second/foreign language, and second language
acquisition, particularly those with an interest in the acquisition and learning of
English grammar. The topic of English grammar is of concern to vast numbers of
teachers and learners worldwide and to researchers interested in how grammar can
be effectively taught and learned across a variety of programs and contexts. Further-
more, because the volume reports on research in both English as a second language
(ESL) and English as a foreign language (EFL) settings and includes both empirical
studies and review pieces, it should be useful for diverse audiences.
Purpose of the Book

There is a robust literature on teaching and learning English grammar in a wide
variety of academic publications. However, there are few full-length volumes
devoted specifically to this topic and none that includes single-study descriptions
of empirical work along with syntheses of previous and ongoing work in a variety
of domains related to the teaching and learning of English grammar. We recognize
that individual readers are likely to bring different perspectives and interpretations
to the contents of the chapters based on their own personal experiences in teach-
ing or researching English grammar in varied contexts. Nonetheless, we believe
the volume will have universal appeal. It can serve as a core or supplemental text
for advanced undergraduate and graduate courses in programs in English applied
linguistics, teaching English as a second or foreign language, second language
teaching methodology, and second language acquisition. Because the volume pres-
ents different perspectives on and approaches to the teaching of grammar in Eng-
lish language education the individual chapters are useful as supplemental readings
for a course. As a reference volume, it is appropriate for individual scholars,
researchers, and teacher educators who have a longstanding concern for and inter-
est in the teaching and learning of English grammar.
Preface xvii
Organization of the Book

Before we introduce the organization of this edited volume and discuss the indi-
vidual chapters, it is important for us to explain how the chapters were selected. A
major vehicle for TIRF in carrying out its mission has been a set of grant-funding
initiatives on specific research priorities, including Priority Research Grants (PRGs)
and Doctoral Dissertation Grants (DDGs) (details are available on TIRF’s website,
www.tirfonline.org). Between the years 2005 and 2008, TIRF accepted PRG and
DDG applications for the TIRF Research Priority on the teaching and learning of
English grammar, and funding for these awards came from the Azar gift to TIRF.
Scholars who received awards under this priority were invited to contribute to this
volume, and a number of the chapters are based on research that was funded during
that time. Many of these chapters represent a cognitive and linguistic orientation
to the teaching of grammar (i.e., a view that treats language learning from a general
information processing perspective or that focuses mainly on grammatical struc-
ture). TIRF did not intentionally seek to fund primarily cognitively oriented
research on the teaching and learning of English grammar, but rather the best and
most competitive proposals submitted in response to TIRF’s call for proposals
between 2005 and 2008 happened to be written by graduate students and scholars
who were engaged in research from that perspective. In addition, the recipients of
PRG awards were the individuals who had excellent scholarly track records, and
the DDG awards that were funded were the most competitive applications that
were ranked the highest.
As editors, we wanted to craft a volume that was balanced and included differ-
ent views on teaching and learning English grammar. Therefore, in addition to the
chapters that report on empirical research that was funded by TIRF, we have
included several chapters from invited authors who provide broader historical and
overview chapters and who bring other perspectives, including the role of gram-
mar in content-based teaching and discursive and technology-related advances in
thinking about the teaching and learning of grammar.
Creating an edited volume that is unified and coherent is a challenge. In an effort
to create a unified volume, we asked authors of single-study research chapters to
follow a similar format in their organizational structure. Across these chapters, simi-
lar headings are used: (1) issues that motivated the research, (2) research question(s),
(3) data collection and procedures, (4) analysis and results, (5) discussion, and
(6) implications. The final section of these chapters is intended to be quite broad
and includes implications for policy, practice, and future research. In setting up the
structure for the empirical research chapters in this way, we hoped to promote con-
sistency and coherence across those seven chapters, while at the same time allowing
each author to report on the unique contents of his/her own study. In the invited
chapters, the authors had more flexibility in organizing their work, because they
addressed a broader range of themes rather than a single empirical study.
The book contains a foreword, this preface, 12 chapters on teaching and
researching English grammar, and a short epilogue. Seven chapters were written
xviii Preface
by TIRF PRG and DDG awardees. The volume editors invited other experts in the
field to contribute five additional chapters to complement the reports of research
studies. The invited authors all have a close association with TIRF. Some have served
as external reviewers for TIRF’s annual grant competitions; others are former mem-
bers of the TIRF Board, donors, doctoral supervisors of DDG awardees, or support-
ers of TIRF in other ways. In addition, all invited authors have recognized expertise
in the area of research on teaching and learning English grammar.
The volume begins with a foreword by Joanne Dresner, who served on the
TIRF Board of Trustees for more than a decade. The purpose of the foreword is
to provide a short tribute to the honoree for this volume, Betty Azar. The content
of the foreword is based on Dresner’s personal experiences in working with Azar
as a publisher during Dresner’s tenure at Pearson. These experiences were supple-
mented by recent telephone conversations and email exchanges that occurred in
preparation for writing the piece. The foreword summarizes Azar’s experiences as
a teacher and author, outlines the scope of her contributions to the field, and gives
us some personal insights into her views on teaching and learning English
grammar.
Following this preface, the chapters in the volume are divided into four parts.
Part I contains only one chapter, which provides a historical overview of English
grammar instruction to set the stage for the chapters to follow. Part II consists
of four chapters that address issues related to a focus on form in grammar teach-
ing and learning, exploring specific properties of this type of instructional
enhancement. The three chapters in Part III look at the uses of corpora in teaching
English grammar, an approach that has gained momentum in recent years because
of advances in technology. In Part IV, we consider issues related to selected aspects
of instructional design and grammar; there are four chapters in this section. Finally,
the book concludes with a short epilogue. With this volume, we hope to add to
the emerging body of research-based knowledge about English grammar
instruction.
In Part I, Chapter 1, “An Overview of Teaching Grammar in ELT,” Marianne
Celce-Murcia offers an overview of teaching English grammar, from the grammar-
translation method to communicative language teaching. She also considers the
role that grammar plays in pedagogical innovations and examines what effective
grammar instruction should entail at this point in our history.
Part II presents research on the use of a focus on form. It begins with Chapter
2 by Antonella Valeo, “Focus on Form: Addressing Grammatical Accuracy in an
Occupation-Specific Language Program.” In her chapter, Valeo looks at the degree
to which learners benefit from explicit attention to grammatical forms in a cur-
riculum that is primarily focused on subject matter teaching in the context of
adult language learners who are preparing for careers in professional childcare.
Chapter 3, written by Junko Hondo, is “Teaching English Grammar in Context:
The Timing of Form-Focused Intervention.” In this chapter, the researcher
explores whether the provision of form-focused instruction at different times
Preface xix
(e.g., prior to participation or during participation) affects task outcomes. Chap-

ter 4, a case study by Yasuyo Tomita entitled “Form-Focused Instruction and
Learner Investment: Case Study of a High School Student in Japan,” uses discur-
sive practices as an analytic framework to demonstrate how form-focused instruc-
tion led to greater learner investment during communicative activities with EFL
learners. Part II ends with Chapter 5, by Sujung Park: “The Influence of Pretask
Instructions and Pretask Planning on Focus on Form During Korean EFL Task-
Based Interaction.” In this chapter, Park explores whether allowing for planning
time during the pretask stage of a focus-on-form activity can result in improved
learner performance.
As technology innovations rapidly expand the universe of possibilities in many
areas, the use of online technologies is having an impact on the teaching and learn-
ing of English grammar. In Part III we turn our attention to the use of corpora in
teaching English grammar. Chapter 6, “The Role of Corpus Research in the
Design of Advanced-Level Grammar Instruction,” by Michael J. McCarthy, con-
siders how research using spoken and written corpora can assist language practi-
tioners in addressing the problems of what to include in an advanced syllabus,
including how to assess (i.e., grade) and organize grammatical items. In Chapter 7,
“Corpus-Based Lexicogrammatical Approach to Grammar Instruction: Its Use and
Effects in EFL and ESL Contexts,” Dilin Liu and Ping Jiang evaluate a variety of
data to discover some of the challenges that practitioners face in implementing a
lexicogrammatical approach and some of the variables that influence learners’
experiences in using the approach. Chapter 8, “Creating Corpus-Based Vocabu-
lary Lists for Two Verb Tenses: A Lexicogrammar Approach,” written by Keith S.
Folse, is the final chapter in this section. Folse reports on a study designed to deter-
mine what key lexical items are associated with two common grammar points for
beginning-level students and the implications these lexical items have for the
teaching of grammar.
The last section of the book, Part IV, considers the role that grammar plays in
instructional design. In Chapter 9, “Putting (Functional) Grammar to Work in
Content-Based English for Academic Purposes Instruction,” Patricia A. Duff,
Alfredo A. Ferreira, and Sandra Zappa-Hollman focus on systematic ways of
attending to grammar in advanced-level content-based academic English pro-
grams. In doing so, the authors point to the benefits of functional approaches to
grammar in content-based language teaching and discuss implications for teacher
education and for future research on grammar instruction. In Chapter 10, “Inte-
grating Grammar in Adult TESOL Classrooms,” Anne Burns and Simon Borg
examine the beliefs and practices of teachers about grammar teaching in general,
the integration of grammar and the development of skills, and the influence of
theory on the formation of beliefs and practices. Chapter 11, “Teacher and Learner
Preferences for Integrated and Isolated Form-Focused Instruction,” by Nina Spada
and Marília dos Santos Lima, examines teacher and learner preferences for two
different approaches to the timing of form-focused instruction (FFI): isolated FFI
xx Preface
separating grammatical instruction from communicative practice and integrated

FFI incorporating it within communicative practice. The final chapter in this sec-
tion is Chapter 12, “Form-Focused Approaches to Learning, Teaching, and
Researching Grammar,” by Rod Ellis. It provides an overview of different
approaches to FFI, centered on the distinction between explicit and implicit gram-
mar instruction, with an emphasis on how learning takes place both in and as a
result of instruction. The chapter provides accounts of the different approaches
through a review of studies that have investigated them.
The volume ends with a short epilogue by Kathleen M. Bailey, the current
president of TIRF and one of the editors for the series. In this epilogue, Bailey
summarizes and synthesizes the information provided in these chapters and com-
ments on what she sees as the major contributions of the volume.
Research Practices in the Book

As you read the chapters in this volume, you will notice that the researchers use
many different research designs, data collection techniques, and data analysis meth-
ods in exploring their research questions. Some researchers focus on collecting
qualitative data through interviews, observations, or field surveys, while others use
surveys, questionnaires, and specific tasks that contain features that can be manipu-
lated and result in quantitative data. The researchers in this volume differ in their
ontological views of research (i.e., their views about the nature of reality and what
can be known and how) and their epistemological views (i.e., their views about
who can be a knower) and place the researcher or the knower and what is know-
able on different planes within the research process. We see this diversity of research
practices as representative of “healthy research diversity” in how we are investigat-
ing the teaching and learning of English grammar.
Conclusion
As the editors, we are very grateful to the 19 authors who have contributed to
the chapters in this volume. Several of the chapter authors were DDG awardees,
so they undertook the arduous task of selecting specific data from their doctoral
dissertation research, reworking the data for a chapter-length contribution, and
then crafting it to fit a broad reading audience consisting of new and experienced
researchers. This task is difficult, and we want to acknowledge these authors for
their work. In addition to supporting TIRF through their outstanding contribu-
tions as chapter authors, we would also like to recognize all of the authors for
additional support they have all agreed to provide TIRF, including the donation
of any royalties received from the sale of this volume to TIRF to further its ongo-
ing work.
As editors, we are pleased to have participated in the creation of the volume on
teaching and learning English grammar. It has been enjoyable to work with the
Preface xxi
authors of the chapters and interesting for us, as editors, to work together for the
first time on a project. We are pleased to further the mission of TIRF and honor
our colleague, Betty Azar, for her outstanding contributions to the teaching and
learning of English grammar.
The Editors
MaryAnn Christison, University of Utah
Donna Christian, Center for Applied Linguistics
Patricia A. Duff, University of British Columbia
Nina Spada, University of Toronto
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
We would like to thank the individuals who have contributed to this volume and
have brought it to fruition. First and foremost, we extend our sincere appreciation
to all of the authors of the individual chapters (see About the Contributors) for
their interesting accounts of research on teaching and learning English grammar.
Our gratitude also goes to Naomi Silverman, acquisitions editor at Routledge/
Taylor & Francis, for her continued support of TIRF and its research dissemination
projects. We are grateful to her for her vision of a co-publishing endeavor between
TIRF and Routledge/Taylor & Francis. We also wish to express our gratitude to
the editing and production team at Routledge/Taylor & Francis for their helpful
feedback and suggestions. And, last but not least, a special thank you goes to the
series editors, Kathleen M. Bailey and Ryan Damerow, who have been involved
with this project from the beginning and have provided excellent advice and edi-
torial support.
PART I
Overview of English
Grammar Instruction
1
AN OVERVIEW OF TEACHING
GRAMMAR IN ELT
Marianne Celce-Murcia
Historical Background
Grammar has long been a crucial part of language teaching. It has been both the
organizing principle and the primary component in many methods, and it has
been a minor or negligible component in other methods. Major issues in teaching
grammar have been related to whether grammar should be taught explicitly (i.e.,
through rules) or implicitly (i.e., through meaningful input without recourse to
rules), or whether it should be taught deductively (i.e., through rules which can
be applied to produce language) or inductively (i.e., through examples of language
use from which rules can be generalized).
In his history of language teaching, Kelly (1969) observed, “where grammar
was approached through logic [i.e., deductively], the range of methods was
reduced to teaching rules; but where inductive approaches were used, the deduc-
tive did not necessarily disappear” (p. 59). For Kelly, the teaching of grammar
appears to be explicit. However, some current approaches and some second
language (L2) research behoove us to consider implicit as well as explicit
approaches. An initial taxonomy of approaches to teaching grammar can be
represented as in Figure 1.1.
When classical Greek and Latin were the most important second or foreign
languages, getting learners to use one or both of these languages fluently was the
primary objective. Well-to-do families had their children tutored by proficient
users of these languages, who probably used both implicit and explicit methods, all
without the aid of textbooks. The tutors undoubtedly had access to a number of
manuscripts to use for reading instruction and as models for writing. Kelly (1969)
notes that the learners were often speakers of either Greek or Latin and were learn-
ing the other major language as part of their education.
4 Marianne Celce-Murcia
Language Pedagogy
Explicit Implicit
Deductive Inductive
FIGURE 1.1 Taxonomy of approaches to teaching grammar
During the Middle Ages, the formal aspects of Latin were the focus of teaching
to speakers of various European vernaculars. Rote memorization of grammar rules
(i.e., morphology [inflectional affixes] and syntax [word order]) was the primary
teaching method.
The Renaissance saw the invention of the printing press by Gutenberg in 1440,
which permitted the subsequent mass production of books, including not only the
Bible and religious materials but also textbooks. According to Kelly (1969),
Renaissance-era teachers of Latin tried to supplement the formal rigidity of medi-
eval methods by introducing mnemonic devices (e.g., for declensions, the case-
based inflections on nouns and adjectives) and by encouraging learning via analogy
(i.e., applying previously learned rules and paradigms to new contexts). The
Renaissance culminated in an eventual refocusing of effort on the learner’s ability
to use the foreign language being studied.
One of the famous early post-Renaissance language methodologists was Jan
Amos Comenius, a Czech scholar and teacher, who published materials about his
language teaching techniques between 1631 and 1658 (Kelly, 1969). Some of the
implicit techniques that Comenius proposed were the following:
• use imitation instead of rules to teach a language;

• have your students repeat after you;
• help your students practice reading and writing; and
• teach language through pictures to make it meaningful.
In contrast, the followers of the French philosopher and mathematician René

Descartes (1596–1650), whose influence continued through the 18th century,
returned wholeheartedly to grammatical analysis and deductive learning in lan-
guage instruction. They began with the grammar of the learner’s first language (in
this case French) and then taught the grammar of Latin. Language instruction
consisted of the manipulation of units and rules, and the objective was to develop
the ability to parse words and sentences. The French Port Royal grammars, which
were heavily influenced by Descartes’s work, taught grammar rules through the
memorization of verse (Kelly, 1969).
Overview of Teaching Grammar in ELT 5
This return to the association of grammar with logic and mathematics paved
the way for the highly analytical and purely deductive grammar-translation
approach to language teaching. It later became codified in Europe, most especially
in the work of Karl Ploetz (1819–1881), a German scholar who had a great influ-
ence on the language teaching profession of his time and for years thereafter. Pra-
tor (1974) summarizes Ploetz’s grammar-translation method as follows:
• the medium of instruction is the students’ L1 (first language);

• there is little or no use of the L2 for communication;
• the focus is on grammatical parsing (forms and inflections of words);
• there is early reading of difficult texts;
• a typical exercise is to translate sentences from L2 to L1 (or vice versa); and
• the teacher does not have to speak the L2 fluently (but just needs to know the
grammar).
Not surprisingly, the result of this method was (and is) an inability to use the L2
for communication!
As a challenge to the grammar-translation method, the late 19th and early 20th
century saw the development of “natural” or direct approaches to language teach-
ing, which were implicit and inductive in nature. Both the Direct Method and the
Reform Movement contributed to this change in focus from language analysis to
language use. The Reform Movement pioneers were members of the International
Phonetics Association (IPA), founded in 1886, and they argued mainly for a scien-
tific approach to the teaching of oral skills and pronunciation. At about the same
time, Francois Gouin began to publish his work on the Direct Method in 1880. It
became popular in France (Gouin’s country) and Germany. Key features of the
Direct Method, according to Prator (1974), are the following:
• there is no use of the learners’ L1 (the teacher need not be fluent in the
learners’ L1);
• the teacher must have native or near-native proficiency in the target language
(the L2);
• lessons consist of dialogues and anecdotes in conversational style;
• actions and pictures make meanings clear;
• grammar is learned primarily implicitly (occasionally inductively);
• literary texts are read for pleasure (not grammatical analysis); and
• the target culture is also taught (via implicit and inductive techniques).
In the early 20th century Émile de Sauzé, a disciple of Gouin, brought the Direct
Method to Cleveland, Ohio, in the United States to introduce it in the public
schools. He had only partial success due to the lack of native or near-native speak-
ers of Spanish, French, and German to serve as teachers who could correctly model
and implement the Direct Method (Prator, 1974).
Grammar in 20th- and 21st-Century Approaches

Howatt (2004) contends that the Reform Movement of the late 19th century,
which was briefly mentioned above, played a role in the simultaneous development
of both the Audiolingual Approach in the United States and the Oral-Situational
Approach in the United Kingdom. Of these two, this chapter will focus mainly
on the Audiolingual Approach because of its dominance in the United States from
the mid-1940s through the early 1970s. The Audiolingual Approach is based on
the principles of structural linguistics (Bloomfield, 1933) and behavioral psychol-
ogy (Skinner, 1957). Audiolingualism’s most important characteristics include the
following (Prator, 1974):
• mimicry and memorization are used as techniques, based on the belief that
language learning is habit formation;
• grammatical structures are sequenced, and rules are taught inductively through
planned exposure;
• skills are sequenced (first listening and then speaking with reading and writing
postponed);
• efforts are made to ensure accuracy and prevent learner errors so that bad
habits are not formed;
• language is often manipulated without regard to meaning; and
• learning activities and materials are carefully controlled.
A growing dissatisfaction with the mechanical aspects of audiolingualism led to

several challenges. First, from the perspective of cognitive psychology (Neisser,
1967) and Chomsky’s (1959, 1965) model of grammar, language learning came to
be viewed not as habit formation but as the acquisition of recursive rules that can
be extended and applied to new circumstances as needed. This early cognitive
approach argued that language acquisition involves learning a system of infinitely
extendable rules based on meaningful exposure with hypothesis testing and rule
inferencing (inductive learning) driving the acquisition process. Errors are seen as
inevitable, something teachers can use for feedback and correction (deductive
strategies). It was concluded that grammar should be taught both inductively and
deductively because some students learn better one way than the other.
Another challenge to the Audiolingual Approach came from the Comprehen-
sion-based Approaches put forward by Postovsky (1974), Winitz (1981), Krashen
and Terrell (1983), and Asher (1996). The best known among these is the Natural
Approach by Krashen and Terrell; however, all of these authors propose that listen-
ing comprehension is the most important initial skill to master in a second lan-
guage. They also believe that there should be an initial silent period where learners
experience rich, meaningful input. During this initial period, learners can signal
their comprehension by using gestures or actions, choosing objects or pictures, or
uttering minimal verbal responses. Learners should not be forced to speak before
they feel ready to do so. Overt error correction is seen as unproductive and not
important as long as learners can understand and make themselves understood.
Rule learning is minimized and used only to help more advanced learners monitor
or become aware of their performance in speech or writing. Thus, the teaching of
grammar is largely implicit in these comprehension-based approaches.
The most radical challenge to audiolingualism, however, has come from the
Communicative Approach (Duff, 2014), which is an outgrowth of research in
linguistic anthropology in the United States (Hymes, 1971) and Firthian Linguis-
tics in the United Kingdom (Firth, 1975), with Halliday (1973, 1978) being the
most notable disciple of Firth. These scholars view language as a meaning-based
system of communication, not an abstract structural conceptualization. In fact, it
was Hymes (1971) who created the term communicative competence to complement
Chomsky’s (1959, 1965) linguistic competence. Language methodologists followed
suit. Communicative approaches reasoned that because most L2 students are learn-
ing a language for purposes of communication, the content of a communicative
language course should be organized around semantic notions and social functions
(Wilkins, 1976) and not around linguistic structures or grammar. In communica-
tive approaches, notions and functions are viewed as being as important as gram-
mar (if not more so). Beginning in the mid-1970s and up to the present day,
various incarnations of the Communicative Approach have appeared (e.g., immer-
sion education, content-based language teaching, English for specific purposes
[ESP], task-based language teaching, discourse-based language teaching, corpus-
based language teaching, and so on). What all of these incarnations share is a focus
on language use and the ability to deploy language resources and skills for purposes
of communication, along with other objectives such as learning subject matter,
acquiring academic language proficiency, or acquiring professional, vocational, or
sociocultural skills. While students learning a language through these approaches
generally acquire good comprehension skills and fluency in using the L2 for com-
munication, it was gradually noticed that many such learners did not acquire
accurate use of L2 morphology and syntax as an automatic by-product (Swain,
1985). Thus began a search regarding how best to integrate the teaching of gram-
matical accuracy into communicative language teaching (CLT).
The Role of Grammar in CLT

Some of the early work on the role of grammar in CLT was to describe the new
view of grammar entailed by adopting a communicative approach. Larsen-
Freeman (2014) has proposed for some time now that grammar has three
important dimensions, all of which need to be present in the teaching of any
grammar construction. These dimensions are (1) form—how the structure is
formed, (2) meaning—what it means, and (3) use—when and why it is used.
She illustrates this three-way distinction for the possessive inflection in English
(Larsen-Freeman, 2014, p. 259).
FORM: ’s or s’ and /s/ /z/ /əz/

MEANING: possession, description, amount, relationship, part/whole,
origin/agent
USE: ’s/s’ versus possessive determiner (Sara’s book vs. her book)
’s/s’ versus of the (the table’s leg vs. the leg of the table)
’s/s’ versus noun compound (car’s radio vs. car radio)
These descriptions are admittedly brief and would require a full description in
any pedagogical grammar. However, the task for teachers, according to Larsen-
Freeman, is to know how to present the three dimensions of grammar by
anticipating what the challenges will be for any specific group of learners
given their proficiency level and current needs: What is the form? What mean-
ing is most important for the learners? How will they use the form? Larsen-
Freeman’s framework shows us that teaching grammar involves far more than
teaching form.
Another helpful description of the role of grammar in CLT comes from Canale
and Swain (1980) and Canale (1983), who propose that communicative compe-
tence, which is the objective of CLT, consists of four components.
1. Grammatical/linguistic competence. The ability to use all the language resources

(e.g., grammar, phonology, lexicon) for communication.
2. Sociolinguistic/sociocultural competence. The knowledge needed to inter-
pret and use language appropriately in a variety of contexts.
3. Discourse competence. The ability to interpret and produce coherent multi-
clausal units of language (spoken or written) in monologues or in interactions.
4. Strategic competence. The ability to plan and monitor one’s L2 interpretation
and production and to deploy effective means for compensating for problems
in communication.
This framework shows us that grammar is only one piece of the larger puzzle when
it comes to CLT. It is generally recognized that all four components of communi-
cative competence need to be integrated in effective L2 instruction.
New Conceptualizations of Grammar

Some new conceptualizations have contributed to a better understanding of
the role of grammar in CLT. These include when and how to focus on forms
(if at all), Sociocultural Theory (SCT) and teaching grammar, the use of
authentic materials and language corpora in language teaching, an under-
standing of the linguistic and social dimensions of language variation, sys-
temic functional linguistics as a framework for incorporating grammar in
discipline-specific academic language contexts, and new approaches to cur-
riculum development.
Issues Concerning Focus on Form

As Ellis discusses in his chapter later in this volume (see Chapter 12), an important
issue in the CLT framework is whether or not to focus on form in language
instruction, and, if one chooses to do so, how it should be done. Krashen (1982)
has argued that focusing explicitly on grammatical form does not contribute to L2
acquisition (i.e., to the subconscious process of making gains in a second lan-
guage). His position is that explicit teaching of grammatical forms gives learners
only a limited knowledge that may be useful for monitoring their output or for
editing their written production. However, other researchers have pointed out that
neglecting grammar instruction in exclusively meaning-based approaches results
in fossilization (i.e., when progress in development of certain target language fea-
tures stops), classroom pidgins (i.e., a grammatically simplified form of a language
used by a group of individuals not sharing a common language), and overall lower
levels of accuracy among learners (Skehan, 1998). Likewise, Schmidt (1990) has
pointed out that learners need to notice L2 forms and to become aware of them,
in order to incorporate them over time (through continual noticing) into their
ongoing L2 language development. According to Schmidt, if the forms are not
noticed at some level, they will not be acquired.
Research on integrating grammar instruction into CLT has indicated that it is
possible, using a variety of activities, to help learners to attend to the form of target
structures in context and to develop accuracy in using them (Doughty & Williams,
1998; Fotos & Ellis, 1991). Part II of this volume contains chapters by Valeo,
Hondo, Tomita, and Park (Chapters 2–5) that shed further light on this important
issue in both second and foreign language teaching contexts.
Sociocultural Theory and Teaching Grammar

SCT (Vygotsky, 1978) plays an important role in helping us understand the place
of grammar in CLT. SCT argues that learning is a mediated process (Lantolf &
Thorne, 2006; Vygotsky, 1978) and that “language use, organization, and structure
are the primary means of mediation” (Lantolf & Thorne, 2006, p. 197). In SCT,
language is seen as dialogically based, and language acquisition occurs in rather
than as a result of interaction. In other words, interaction provides learners with
opportunities to produce collaboratively the new forms, and “learning occurs
when the form has become internalized” (Ellis, 2012, p. 105). When learners
encounter new forms, they may be able to produce them accurately only in con-
texts that provide them with instructional support or scaffolding from the teacher
or other peers. The process of an “expert” (e.g., a teacher or another peer who has
a higher level of language proficiency) collaborating with a “novice” (e.g., a lan-
guage learner) to help the novice perform a skill he or she cannot do alone is
consistent with the concept of scaffolding in SCT. Scaffolding is the interaction
and collaboration that learners use within their zone of proximal development
(ZPD) (Vygotsky, 1978)—a place of potential development where learners are

supported in the process of learning. English language teachers embrace SCT for
several reasons. First, the theory clearly explains the important role that teachers
can play in helping language learners achieve their goals. It also provides a theoreti-
cal basis for explaining the importance that most teachers place on social com-
munication and interaction as necessary components in the language acquisition
process.
The Use of Authentic Materials and Language Corpora

From the start CLT has espoused the use of authentic materials rather than materi-
als developed simply to teach language. Authentic materials are “oral and written
texts that occur naturally in the target language environment and that have not
been created or edited expressly for language learners” (Larimer & Schleicher,
1999, p. v). Such materials (recorded and written) expose learners to the ways in
which language is used for communication in the real world outside of the lan-
guage classroom. In recent years, there has also been a push toward employing
authentic tasks and activities for language practice (e.g., asking for information,
expressing opinions, solving problems, role-playing speech acts, conducting surveys
or interviews, playing games, etc.).
Relevant to concerns about the use of authentic language in CLT is the current
availability of English language corpora. One widely used and easily accessible
corpus is the Corpus of Contemporary American English (COCA) (Davies, 2008).
This corpus and others1 are available to language teachers, materials developers, and
even language learners and can be consulted to identify the grammatical patterns
in which words occur and the frequency with which the grammatical construc-
tions occur in various registers and genres. (See Chapters 6, 7, and 8 by McCarthy,
Liu and Jiang, and Folse in this volume for additional information about the use
of corpora in English language teaching and learning.)
For example, in a grammar based on a corpus analysis, Biber, Johansson, Leech,
Conrad, and Finegan (1999) showed that in academic writing adjective comple-
ments are more frequent than verb complements, a pattern that is not obvious or
generally acknowledged. A complement is a clause or a phrase that adds to the
meaning of a verb or adjective, as in the examples below.
Adjective Complements
It is obvious that the research design was problematic from the outset.
It was particularly difficult to resolve the problem.
Verb Complements
Previous research indicated that the first option was less expensive.
The results appear to be insignificant.
The lack of awareness of the fact that adjective complements are more frequent in
academic English has resulted in many textbooks and teachers focusing mainly on
verb complement patterns when it could be more useful to spend somewhat more
time and attention on adjective complement patterns, especially if the students are
studying English for academic purposes.
Language Variation and Varieties of English

Another issue in teaching grammar within a CLT framework is the fact that the
grammar of any language is not monolithic. There is variation in grammar according
to modality (i.e., spoken vs. written language) (McCarthy & O’Keeffe, 2014). Gram-
mar also varies according to genre or register (the preferred grammar patterns of
fiction are different from those found in news reportage or from those in academic
writing) (Biber et al., 1999), according to geography (e.g., differences between Brit-
ish, American, and Australian English), and according to social and occupational
contexts (the grammar of college professors differs from the grammar of teenagers,
which may differ from the grammar of a car mechanic or a short-order cook). Other
variations in grammar within a language relate to its use as an L1 or L2; in other
words, L1 norms may contrast with norms for English spoken in outer-circle coun-
tries (Kachru, 1985) in an L2 context, such as Indian English, Nigerian English, or
Singaporean English. This potentially wide-ranging variation in language means that
the variety of grammar selected as an instructional target needs to be appropriate to
the needs of the learners and should reflect the variety they are likely to use.
Systemic Functional Linguistics and Academic Language

With the number of English learners on the rise in many secondary and post-
secondary educational contexts, researchers and teachers have become concerned
about teaching language structure in discipline-specific academic contexts (Schleppe-
grell & O’Hallaron, 2011). Systemic functional linguistics (SFL) (Halliday & Mat-
thiessen, 2004, 2013) is a theoretical framework that is being used by teachers and
researchers for analyzing and describing discipline-specific features of academic text
in secondary contexts. For example, language arts and literature teachers might work
with a text to understand what specific structures are used to explain how events in
a particular text are described, how authors ascribe attributes to and evaluate char-
acters, and how cohesion is achieved. (See Christie & Derewianka, 2008, for a review
and Schleppegrell, 2011, as an example of how mainstream history teachers in the
U.S. state of California have used SFL in working with English language learners.)
All teachers need to develop a working knowledge of how academic language is
conceptualized in their content areas and of what structural components of language
should be targeted for instruction. They also need to know how to support English
learners in both language and content development.
Alternative Models of Curriculum Development

Until the mid-1970s it was always assumed that a language course would be orga-
nized around a structural syllabus, that is, around the forms of grammar, phonol-
ogy, and the lexicon that would be covered in the course. However, with the
beginnings of CLT and the early proposals for a syllabus organized around notions
and functions rather than structures (Wilkins, 1976), applied linguists began to
question the primacy of the structural syllabus. Simultaneously, the influence of
immersion education (Lambert & Tucker, 1972) made academic content the orga-
nizing principle in another approach, with language development emerging as a
by-product. As described above, Canale and Swain’s model of communicative
competence proposed four components, all of which would need attention in a
language curriculum: linguistic, sociocultural, discourse, and strategic components
(Canale 1983; Canale and Swain 1980). However, the Canale and Swain frame-
work is simply a listing and does not give centrality to any one of the components
with respect to curriculum design. Celce-Murcia and Olshtain (2000) proposed
that the core component in a language curriculum should be discourse compe-
tence and that the language resources (grammar, phonology, vocabulary) constitute
the bottom-up elements, whereas sociocultural competence includes the top-
down elements (e.g., content and formal schemata, rules of social interaction, etc.).
They recommend that everything should be taught from a discourse perspective.
Strategic competence is a very general, all-encompassing competence that should
be part of a language curriculum to enhance the learners’ interpretation and pro-
duction of L2 communication and the use of L2 skills (i.e., listening, speaking,
reading, and writing). There are different strategies for different tasks or skills and
for solving problems that arise in the course of ongoing communication. Thus,
teaching strategies and making learners aware of them is also an important part of
language teaching (Cohen, 2011).
Where do the alternative curriculum models leave grammar? Grammar still
plays a role in curriculum design, but there is growing agreement that grammar
should be taught in context and from a discourse perspective. For example, almost
40 years ago Halliday and Hasan’s (1976) Cohesion in English showed how forms
that signal reference, ellipsis, substitution, and conjunction function across sen-
tences in larger pieces of discourse to create texts that are cohesive. Two decades
later, Celce-Murcia and Larsen-Freeman (1999) showed how forms expressing
tense, aspect, and modality function to create coherent discourse in English. Most
recently, McCarthy and O’Keeffe (2014) demonstrated how grammatical forms
function in extended spoken English discourse and how these forms differ from
what occurs in written discourse. In other words, sentence patterns are not taught
as isolated structures for their own sake but as resources for creating and interpret-
ing spoken and written discourse.
There are many current curriculum models congruent with a discourse-based
approach to grammar instruction: content-based language teaching (Snow, 2014),
English for specific purposes (Johns & Price, 2014), task-based/project-based lan-
guage teaching (Nunan, 2014), literature-based approaches (McKay, 2014), and so
forth. None of these approaches uses grammar as the organizing principle. How-
ever, grammar emerges from the discourse and subject matter presented in the
teaching materials (as do vocabulary and pronunciation). Sociocultural awareness
can come both from the subject matter and from the manner in which the lan-
guage course is conducted (e.g., through group/pair work, teacher as facilitator,
peer interaction, sharing of life experience, etc.). One of the most radical proposals
in course design has been the student-generated syllabus, whereby students (with
guidance from the teacher) decide on a project. All activities and coursework are
then focused on finding, creating, and sharing materials relevant to the preparation
of the final project (a class newspaper/newsletter/yearbook, a guidebook of places
to visit in a given area, an online resource packet for students from abroad who
will be coming to the United States, etc.). Once again, the instructor must know
how to incorporate relevant practice of language forms, language skills, and learn-
ing strategies into the various activities involved in the project. This task for teach-
ers is admittedly not a simple matter, and such curricula require that teachers
develop requisite language and classroom management skills to ensure proper
implementation.
Another context where grammar is very important is the L2 writing course.
The syllabus for such a course is typically organized around the types of writing
the learners will be doing (narration, description, comparison/contrast, argumen-
tation, lab reports, etc.). There are generally related reading materials and class
discussions that prepare the learners to deal with topics and assignments. The
initial emphasis is on the development of ideas and the organization of the given
assignment. However, grammar also needs attention, especially when the students
are revising and editing their papers, which usually undergo several drafts. Frode-
sen (2014) and Holten and Marasco (1998) provide excellent suggestions on how
to incorporate attention to grammar into L2 writing courses.
In all these approaches and courses the focus is first on comprehension and
production of meaningful discourse, and attention is paid to forms that occur in
the discourse segments when necessary and appropriate. It may be helpful to think
of an expensive camera with a wide-angle lens and a zoom lens. First the learners
should get the big picture (i.e., the wide-angle lens). Later the learners (or the
teacher) can zoom in on grammatical details that are new or confusing or that
warrant attention through targeted instruction. Duff, Ferreira, and Zappa-Hollman
(see Chapter 9 in this volume) give us an illustration of how grammar can be suc-
cessfully integrated into content-based language teaching.
With courses that are organized around content, skills, or tasks, questions often
arise about how the teacher can ensure that the important points of grammar get
covered. Larsen-Freeman (2003), among others, has suggested that language courses
could have a grammar checklist rather than a grammar sequence. In this way, the
grammar naturally occurring in a reading passage or the grammar naturally elicited
by a task can be given special attention but also be noted on the checklist with the
expectation that it will be reviewed and revisited with new content on several occa-
sions. This also ensures that if there are useful and frequent grammar constructions
on the checklist that are not being covered in the content materials or the tasks used
in the course, the teacher can then seek out and present the learners with materials
that provide contextualized exposure to focus on form within a content-based lan-
guage teaching framework (see Schleppegrell, 2002, 2004, 2012, and also Chapter 9
in this volume).
Conclusion
Over the years, the honoree of this volume, Betty Azar, has produced many text-
books for teaching English grammar, most recently new editions with her co-
author, Stacy Hagen. These textbooks are excellent exemplars of structurally
organized grammar textbooks that reflect the best of the audiolingual and cogni-
tive approach traditions, including some influences from communicative language
teaching (see Azar & Hagen, 2006, 2009, 2011). In language curricula that are
discourse-based, teachers and learners can use chapters in these textbooks as
resources, especially when focus on a specific grammatical form is called for.
As the field of ELT has grown and changed, so have the publications that focus
on teaching English grammar. The presence of new books on English grammar
does not diminish the importance of Azar’s contributions but rather signals a
changing and growing field. There are now ELT grammars available that are
content-based. This means that each lesson or unit has a topic or theme that unifies
the discourse and the language practice (grammar, vocabulary, and skills) in the
lesson. The five-volume grammar series edited by Celce-Murcia and Sokolik
(2007–2009), Grammar Connection: Structure through Content, follows such an
approach for academically oriented learners from the beginning level through the
advanced level. An even more ambitious project was Insights: Book 1 and Insights:
Book 2 by Frodesen, Holten, Jensen, and Repath-Martos (1997). For this project,
university professors’ course lectures were videotaped, and related reading materials
and course assignments were obtained. The material was then used as the basis for
two academic ESL textbooks that focused on the content of these course materials
and prepared activities that developed the learners’ academic skills while not over-
looking the grammar and vocabulary that were critical to the materials. Current
research indicates that this blending of teaching grammatical forms in a discourse-
based approach for a specific context is the direction in which grammar instruc-
tion is heading. In this approach, the teaching of English grammar plays an
important but supporting role, especially in situations where fluency and accuracy
in writing or public speaking are highly desirable, if not necessary.
As this chapter has sought to demonstrate, the field of English language teach-
ing has changed greatly in recent years, and approaches to teaching grammar have
also undergone considerable change in response to contextual uses, as well as social
and political influences. For most teachers, the changes have been exciting, but
they are also reminders of the challenges that teachers face in responding to change.
In order to know what to change and how to make responsible changes in one’s
teaching practice as it relates to grammar, a teacher must know English grammar
and know how to answer the endless questions that students ask about English and
its structure. The answers that teachers provide should be clear, precise, and appro-
priate for the students’ levels of language proficiency, and demonstrate an under-
standing of the goals and needs of their English learners. Resources such as those
published by Azar and her colleagues and others mentioned here can support
teachers with clear explanations about how English works and students with useful
materials that give them practice in both form and function.
Note
1 Other useful corpora include The American National Corpus (ANC), http://
americannationalcorpus.org/; The British National Corpus (BNC), http://www.natcorp.
ox.ac.uk/; and The Michigan Corpus of Academic Spoken English (MICASE), http://
quod.lib.umich.edu/m/micase/
References
Asher, J. (1996). Learning another language through actions: The complete teacher’s guidebook
(5th ed.). Los Gatos, CA: Sky Oaks.
Azar, B. S., & Hagen, S. A. (2006). Basic English grammar (3rd ed.). White Plains, NY: Pearson
Longman.
Azar, B. S., & Hagen, S. A. (2011). Fundamentals of English grammar (4th ed.). White Plains,
NY: Pearson Longman.
Biber, D., Johansson, S., Leech, G., Conrad, S., & Finegan, E. (1999). Longman grammar of
spoken and written English. Harlow, UK: Pearson Education.
Bloomfield, L. (1933). Language. New York, NY: Holt, Rinehart, and Winston.
Canale, M. (1983). From communicative competence to communicative language pedagogy.
In J. Richards & R. Schmidt (Eds.), Language and communication (pp. 2–27). London, UK:
Longman.
Canale, M., & Swain, M. (1980). Theoretical bases of communicative approaches to lan-
guage teaching and language testing. Applied Linguistics, 1(1), 1–47.
Celce-Murcia, M., & Larsen-Freeman, D. (1999). The grammar book: An ESL/EFL teacher’s
course (2nd ed.). Boston, MA: Heinle and Heinle.
Celce-Murcia, M., & Olshtain, E. (2000). Discourse and context in language teaching. New
York, NY: Cambridge University Press.
Celce-Murcia, M., & Sokolik, M. (Eds.). (2007–2009). Grammar connection: Structure through
content. Boston, MA: Heinle Cengage Learning.
Chomsky, N. (1959). Review of the book Verbal Behavior, by B. F. Skinner. Language, 35,
26–58.
Chomsky, N. (1965). Aspects of the theory of syntax. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
Christie, F., & Derewianka, B. (2008). School discourse: Learning to write across the years of school-
ing. London, UK: Continuum.
Cohen, A. D. (2011). Strategies in learning and using a second language (2nd ed.). New York,
NY: Longman.
Davies, M. (2008). The Corpus of Contemporary American English: 450 million words,
1990–present. Retrieved from http://corpus.byu.edu/coca/
Doughty, C., & Williams, J. (Eds.). (1998). Focus on form in classroom second language acquisi-
tion. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
Duff, P. A. (2014). Communicative language teaching. In M. Celce-Murcia, D. M. Brinton, &
M. A. Snow (Eds.), Teaching English as a second or foreign language (4th ed.) (pp. 15–30).
Boston, MA: National Geographic Learning/Cengage Learning.
Ellis, R. (2012). Language teaching research and language pedagogy. West Sussex, UK:
Wiley-Blackwell.
Firth, J. R. (1975). Papers in linguistics: 1934–1951. Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.
Fotos, S., & Ellis, R. (1991). Communicating about grammar: A task-based approach.
TESOL Quarterly, 25(4), 605–628.
Frodesen, J. (2014). Grammar in second language writing. In M. Celce-Murcia, D. Brinton, &
Frodesen, J. M., Holten, C., Jensen, L., & Repath-Martos, L. (1997). Insights: A content-based ESL
text for academic preparation. Books 1 and 2. New York, NY: Addison-Wesley Longman.
Halliday, M. A. K. (1973). Explorations in the functions of language. London, UK: Edward
Arnold.
Halliday, M. A. K. (1978). Language as a social semiotic: The social interpretation of language and
meaning. London, UK: Edward Arnold.
Halliday, M. A. K., & Hasan, R. (1976). Cohesion in English. London, UK: Longman.
Halliday, M. A. K., & Matthiessen, C. M. I. M. (2004). An introduction to functional grammar
(2nd ed.). New York, NY: Routledge/Taylor & Francis.
(3rd ed.). New York, NY: Routledge/Taylor & Francis.
Holten, C., & Marasco, J. (1998). Looking ahead. Book 4: Mastering academic writing. Boston,
MA: Heinle and Heinle.
Howatt, A. P. R., with H. G. Widdowson. (2004). A history of English language teaching
(2nd ed.). Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.
Hymes, D. (1971). On communicative competence. Philadelphia, PA: University of Pennsylvania
Press.
Johns, A. M., & Price, D. (2014). English for specific purposes: International in scope, spe-
cific in purpose. In M. Celce-Murcia, D. Brinton, & M. A. Snow (Eds.), Teaching English
as a second or foreign language (4th ed.) (pp. 471–487). Boston, MA: National Geographic
Learning/Cengage Learning.
Kachru, B. B. (l985). Standards, codification, and sociolinguistic realism: The English lan-
guage in the outer circle. In R. Quirk & H. G. Widdowson (Eds.), English in the world:
Teaching and learning the language and literatures (pp. 11–30). Cambridge, UK: Cambridge
University Press.
Kelly, L. G. (1969). Twenty-five centuries of language teaching. Rowley, MA: Newbury House.
Krashen, S. D. (1982). Principles and practice in second language acquisition. Oxford, UK:
Pergamon.
Krashen, S. D., & Terrell, T. D. (1983). The natural approach: Language acquisition in the class-
room. New York, NY: Pergamon.
Lambert, W. E., & Tucker, G. R. (1972). The bilingual education of children: The St. Lambert
experiment. Rowley, MA: Newbury House.
Lantolf, J. P., & Thorne, S. L. (2006). Sociocultural theory and the genesis of second language
development. Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.
Larimer, R., & Schleicher, L. (1999). New ways in using authentic materials in the classroom.
Alexandria, VA: Teachers of English to Speakers of Other Languages.
Larsen-Freeman, D. (2003). Teaching language: From grammar to grammaring. Boston, MA:
Thomson Heinle.
Larsen-Freeman, D. (2014). Teaching grammar. In M. Celce-Murcia, D. Brinton, & M. A.
Snow (Eds.), Teaching English as a second or foreign language (4th ed.) (pp. 256–270). Bos-
ton, MA: National Geographic Learning/Cengage Learning.
McCarthy, M., & O’Keeffe, A. (2014). Spoken grammar. In M. Celce-Murcia, D. M. Brinton, &
McKay, S. L. (2014). Literature as content for language teaching. In M. Celce-Murcia, D. M.
Brinton, & M. A. Snow (Eds.), Teaching English as a second or foreign language (4th ed.)
(pp. 488–500). Boston, MA: National Geographic Learning/Cengage Learning.
Neisser, U. (1967). Cognitive psychology. New York, NY: Appleton-Century-Crofts.
Nunan, D. (2014). Task-based teaching and learning. In M. Celce-Murcia, D. M. Brinton, &
Postovsky, V. A. (1974). Effects of delay in oral practice at the beginning of second language
learning. Modern Language Journal, 58(5/6), 229–239.
Prator, C. H. (1974). Invited lecture on the history of language teaching, delivered in English
370K, Fall Quarter, University of California, Los Angeles.
Schleppegrell, M. J. (2002). Challenges of science register for ESL students: Errors and
meaning-making. In M. J. Schleppegrell & M. C. Colombi (Eds.), Developing advanced
literacy in first and second languages: Meaning with power (pp. 119–142). Mahwah, NJ: Law-
rence Erlbaum.
Schleppegrell, M. J. (2004). The language of schooling. New York, NY: Routledge.
Schleppegrell, M. J. (2011). Supporting disciplinary learning through language analysis:
Developing historical literacy. In F. Christie & K. Maton (Eds.), Disciplinarity: Functional,
linguistic, and sociological perspectives (pp. 197–216). London, UK: Continuum.
Schleppegrell, M. (2012). Academic language in teaching and learning. The Elementary
School Journal, 112(3), 409–418.
Schleppegrell, M., & O’Hallaron, C. (2011). Teaching academic language in L2 secondary
settings. Annual Review of Applied Linguistics, 31, 3–18.
Schmidt, R. (1990). The role of consciousness in second language learning. Applied Linguis-
tics, 11(2), 129–158.
Skehan, P. (l998). A cognitive approach to language learning. Oxford, UK: Oxford University
Press.
Skinner, B. F. (1957). Verbal behavior. New York, NY: Appleton-Century-Crofts.
Snow, M. A. (2014). Content-based and immersion models of second/foreign language
teaching. In M. Celce-Murcia, D. M. Brinton, & M. A. Snow (Eds.), Teaching English as
a second or foreign language (4th ed.) (pp. 438–454). Boston, MA: National Geographic
Learning/Cengage Learning.
Swain, M. (1985). Communicative competence: Some roles of comprehensible input and
comprehensible output in its development. In S. M. Gass & C. Madden (Eds.), Input and
second language acquisition (pp. 235–256). Rowley, MA: Newbury House.
Vygotsky, L. (1978). Mind in society: The development of higher psychological processes. M. Cole,
V. John-Steiner, S. Scribner, & E. Souberman (Eds.). Cambridge, MA: Harvard Univer-
sity Press.
Wilkins, D. A. (1976). Notional syllabuses. Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.
Winitz, H. (1981). The comprehension approach to foreign language instruction. Rowley, MA:
Newbury House.
PART II
Focus on Form in Second

Language Acquisition
2
FOCUS ON FORM
Addressing Grammatical Accuracy in an
Occupation-Specific Language Program
Antonella Valeo
Motivation for the Research

Occupation-specific language programs have become increasingly prevalent in
Canada, where changing demographics and shifts in government policy have
encouraged the development of language training that focuses on economic inte-
gration for newcomers. These programs are designed to help adults develop the
language skills they need to prepare for or resume employment in specific sectors.
They address a range of occupations, including engineering, accounting, educa-
tion, and a variety of skilled trades. Language teaching and learning in this context
share an important feature with discipline-specific language programs and other
content-based programs in schools and universities; to varying degrees, learners
and teachers in these programs all navigate a complex relationship between lan-
guage and content knowledge.
The inclusion of content in language programs is widely accepted in both the
professional and research literature as good pedagogy (Brinton, Snow, & Wesche,
2003; Crandall & Kaufman, 2005; Krueger & Ryan, 1993; Stoller, 2004; Stryker &
Leaver, 1997; Wesche & Skehan, 2002). Content motivates learners by making
learning meaningful and building on relevant experience (Genesee, 1994; Snow &
Brinton, 1997). It also supports the development of academic language proficiency
(Cummins, 1984, 2000) and enhances content knowledge (e.g., Kasper, 1995;
Krueger & Ryan, 1993; Leaver, 1997; Stryker & Leaver, 1997).
There are divergent views, however, on the role of language instruction in
these contexts, specifically the degree to which learners’ attention should be
drawn to grammatical form. Drawing on research findings and theorizing related
to attention and awareness that suggest that attention to form is necessary for the
development of grammatical accuracy (Schmidt, 1990), form-focused instruction
22 Antonella Valeo
(FFI) has emerged as an approach that brings together a focus on language form
and meaningful content (Ellis, 2001; Spada, 2011; Williams, 2005). It provides
alternatives to a grammar-driven syllabus and, in this way, is well aligned with the
meaning-focused orientation of content-based classrooms. FFI strategies vary in
terms of how explicitly learners’ attention is drawn to form, from highly implicit
strategies, in which teachers or materials provide models of correct grammar
without drawing learners’ attention directly to the grammar, to highly explicit
strategies that include explanations of how grammar works and demand con-
scious attention from the learner (see R. Ellis, Chapter 12, this volume). This
distinction can also describe how teachers provide feedback, either implicitly by
rephrasing an incorrect phrase from the learner or explicitly by pointing out that
the learner has made a mistake and explaining why. These strategies may also be
implemented differently, either planned or incidental, as they arise during class
(Ellis, 2001). Research investigating the effect of drawing learners’ attention to
form through a range of FFI strategies has shown positive results for the develop-
ment of grammatical accuracy in a range of highly content-focused classrooms
(Doughty & Williams, 1998; Ellis, 2001; Grim, 2008; Leeman, Arteagoitia, Frid-
man, & Doughty, 1995; Lyster, 2007; Norris & Ortega, 2000; Spada, 1997, 2011;
Swain, 2000).
There is debate, however, regarding the degree to which FFI needs to be explicit
and planned, and some researchers suggest that language learning, including the
development of grammatical accuracy, is possible in contexts with an overriding
focus on content and incidental attention to form, with that attention being
unplanned and not explicit (Burger & Chretien, 2001; Courchêne, 1992; Pari-
bakht & Raymond, 1992; Snow, Met, & Genesee, 1989). Furthermore, in some
content-based classrooms, research has also shown that a focus on grammar is not
as widely implemented as may be expected, given the support from research
(Musumeci, 1996; Pica, 2002). There has been concern about the impact of explicit
attention to grammar on attention to content in strongly content-focused class-
rooms (Klee & Tedick, 1997; Toth, 2004; Zyzik & Polio, 2008).
In addition, questions concerning attention and awareness in instructed second
language acquisition take on a particular focus when situated in classrooms in
which the goals are both content and language learning. In classrooms in which
the goal is exclusively language acquisition, the de facto content is language. As
such, attention to language is a clear expectation of both students and teachers, and
a focus on language learning is not an issue. However, in content-based classrooms,
attention to language is seen in the context of attention to content, and some
models of second language acquisition suggest these two foci are competing
dimensions of learning (Robinson, 2003; Skehan, 1998; Skehan & Foster, 2001;
VanPatten, 1990). Other research has shown that learners respond differently to
grammatical instruction, specifically corrective feedback, when the focus of the
classroom is strongly centered on content (Lyster & Ranta, 1997; Nicholas, Light-
bown, & Spada, 2001).
Focus on Form 23
The nature of the content may also play a role in how learners engage with
language and attention to form. Discipline-specific language varies widely in
terms of how it intersects with discipline-specific content (Ready & Wesche,
1992), and the complexity of content may have an impact on how learners respond
to attention to form (Han, 2008). In addition, it is increasingly being recognized
that researchers have not given consideration to the sociolinguistic context of
language learning and teaching and the impact this situation has on key variables,
such as learner goals and the ways learners engage with instruction and linguistic
input (Batstone, 2002; Collentine & Freed, 2004; R. Ellis & Sheen, 2006; Firth &
Wagner, 1997).
Research Questions
An examination of the literature suggests that there are unexamined issues in the
teaching of grammar in language programs with a strong focus on content, such
as occupation-specific language programs. Learning and teaching in these pro-
grams take on particular complexities. Learners are motivated by the prospect of
employment; teachers are accountable for both measurable language gains and
employment outcomes. These programs are often defined by interesting and
personally relevant content, with language teaching assigned an incidental role.
How then can grammatical accuracy, an aspect of language that requires con-
scious attention, be developed without a cost to content learning? Should learn-
ers be encouraged and directed to attend to language explicitly, or should this
attention be incidental? This study explored these issues by asking the following
questions:
1. What is the effect of FFI that includes explicit grammatical instruction on

language learning in an occupation-specific language program for adults?
2. What is the effect of FFI that includes explicit grammatical instruction on
content learning in an occupation-specific language program for adults?
These questions were investigated as part of a broader study. For this chapter, a
subset of data will be analyzed and the findings discussed.
Data Collection Procedures
Research Context
This study was carried out in a non-credit, government-funded program designed
to prepare adults immigrating to Canada with the English language skills to pur-
sue further education/training or take on employment as professional childcare
providers, working in daycare centers, school centers, and privately operated busi-
nesses. Before enrolling in the program, learners’ language proficiency was
24 Antonella Valeo
assessed for placement, and they were interviewed to ensure that their career goals
were aligned with the program mandate. Courses consisted of 200 hours of
instruction over 40 weeks, with each course meeting two evenings per week or
once a week on Saturdays, for a total of five hours per week. The syllabus for the
program was designed by an accredited childcare provider who was also a lan-
guage specialist. It followed a competency- and task-based framework and was
organized according to units of occupation-specific content knowledge. Lan-
guage, including grammar, was addressed in an incidental manner as it related to
the content and arose in tasks.
Participants
A total of 36 adults, 35 women and 1 man, participated in this study and enrolled
in one of two courses. Most of the participants had post-secondary education
(64%) and experience in the field (55%) but no professional training or education
(67%). They spoke 18 different languages, with the most common being Manda-
rin, Cantonese, Bangla, and Tamil. The teacher participating in the study was an
accredited professional childcare provider, with several years of professional experi-
ence in daycare centers. She was also educated and accredited as a teacher of
English as a second language (ESL) and had taught ESL in the program, as well as
other programs for several years.
Instructional Design
The 36 learners were enrolled in two groups, both taught by the same teacher;
one group of 16 learners had class on Saturday, and another group of 20 learners
met in the evening class twice a week. Learners were able to self-select their
schedules, and both groups of learners received the same content-driven syllabus.
One of the classes, identified here as the form-focused (FF) group, was selected
to receive differentiated instruction that included planned FFI to explicitly draw
the learners’ attention to form within the content focus of the course. The other
group, the meaning-focused (MF) group, received no FFI. With the FF group,
the teacher drew attention to grammar in tasks, explained grammar at pre-
planned points in the lessons, and pointed out learners’ errors explicitly. Both the
FF group and the MF group used the same material and content and received
implicit FFI. In other words, the material contained models of grammatical
forms, and tasks required that the learners use the forms to communicate. How-
ever, in the MF group, learners completed tasks focused on content only, received
corrective feedback only through implicit models, and did not receive metalin-
guistic explanations of the grammar. In addition, learners were not asked at any
point to consciously attend to grammar outside of the content. The differenti-
ated treatment took place for 10 weeks, and then the explicit FFI treatment for
the FF group was stopped; both groups resumed the same instruction for another
Focus on Form 25
12 weeks in the study. The teacher was oriented to the study and was provided
with material and scripted lessons to help her differentiate teaching in the two
classes.
Data Collection Measures

Specific grammar and content topics were selected in order to measure learning.
Although the broader study in which the research in this chapter is situated (see
Valeo, 2010) included more than one grammatical feature, this chapter will report
on the findings for the tests measuring learning of one grammatical feature, the
present conditional. This grammatical feature was chosen because it was appropri-
ate to the learners’ developmental level of proficiency; it was also familiar to the
learners but had not yet been mastered. In addition, it was frequently used in the
discourse of the materials and the class activities for specific professional commu-
nicative tasks. For example, caregivers routinely use the present conditional to give
warnings and explain consequences of behavior, such as “If you stand on that chair,
you’ll fall down” or “If you don’t put on your coat, we can’t go outside.” Choosing
this form allowed grammatical instruction to be included in ways that intersected
form and content meaningfully. The grammatical instruction was concentrated in
specific units of the syllabus, such as Behavior Management, Child Abuse, and
Health and Safety, so that content learning in these areas could be assessed.
Tests were designed to capture change in the learner’s ability to use the target
grammar feature as well as learning of the content. A baseline was established by
asking learners to complete a test at the beginning of the study (i.e., a pretest), and
change over time was measured with tests at two different points—one immedi-
ately after the differentiated instruction ended (i.e., a posttest) and another one
12 weeks later (i.e., a delayed posttest). The results of two different tests will be
reported here, a speaking test and a written test. The speaking test consisted of an
oral production task (OPT) in which learners were asked to look at a picture of a
kitchen and suggest potential dangers using the conditional form, for example, “If
the child takes the knife on the counter, he could cut himself.” The written test
data were collected in an error correction task (ECT) that asked learners to read a
set of sentences and identify whether each sentence was grammatically correct or
not, for example, “Children might start a fire if they playing with matches.”
Professional content learning was assessed with a content pretest and with three
additional tests given at three different points during the study—at the end of each
unit of content. The pretest was designed to determine whether there was any
difference between the two groups in terms of knowledge of content that the
learners had before the study. The tests consisted of multiple-choice, true-false, and
short-answer questions.
The participants were also asked to provide background information in a sur-
vey, and class sessions during the study were audiotaped in order to verify how the
instruction had been carried out during the study.
26 Antonella Valeo
Analysis of Results
Effect on Language Learning

The first research question asked about the effect of grammatical instruction on
the learners’ language, operationalized here as knowledge of and ability to use the
present conditional form. In the first stage of analysis, the mean scores for each of
the tests were compared between groups (FF and MF) at three points in the study:
the pretest, the posttest, and the delayed posttest. A total of 7 items were on the
oral test, and 15 items were on the written test. Table 2.1 contains the calculations
for the means (M) and standard deviation (SD) for these tests for each group.
The mean scores show an increase for both groups from pretest to posttest; that
is, both groups appear to have improved in their ability to use the present condi-
tional, as measured on the speaking test, and in their knowledge of the grammatical
form, as measured on the written error correction task. The table also shows that
most of this increase was maintained in the delayed posttest, after the differentiated
instruction ended, and that the group that received the explicit grammatical
instruction, the FF group, appears to have gained more than the MF group, which
did not get the explicit grammar instruction. However, the FF group also appears
to have had more knowledge of and ability to use the present conditional form at
the start of the study, according to the means on the pretest. Therefore, at this
point, we did not know whether the differences in performance between the two
groups are statistically significant.
The next step in the analysis, then, was to determine the degree to which the
results were statistically significant. A repeated measures analysis of variance
(ANOVA) was carried out using the mean scores. The results of this analysis
indicate the statistical significance of the differences in the mean scores. The
results of ANOVA showed that although the group mean scores on the two tests
were different at the start of the study, they were not different in a way that was
significant (ECT, t(30) = 1.74, p = .092, d = .647; OPT, t(34) = 1.55, p = .131,
d = .526.). In other words, it is reasonable to believe that the higher mean score
on the pretest for the FF group was not a factor in determining the increase in
TABLE 2.1 Comparison of Means for Performance on Oral and Written Tests for Two
Groups
Test Group Pretest Posttest Delayed Posttest
M SD M SD M SD
Oral production task FF (n = 16) .54 .20 .74 .16 .75 .15
MF (n = 20) .42 .23 .56 .25 .57 .21
Error correction task FF (n = 12) .67 .27 .84 .11 .82 .16
(written) MF (n = 20) .49 .30 .52 .30 .54 .28
Focus on Form 27
performance that the FF group showed after instruction. However, when

ANOVA was carried out using the mean scores after the treatment (posttest), the
results showed that despite the appearance of a greater gain for the FF group, the
difference in gains between the FF group and the MF group was not statistically
significant (ECT, F(2, 29) = 1.15, p = .233, 2 = .096; OPT, F(2, 33) = .66, p =
.511, 2 = .040). However, the gain for both groups between the pre- and post-
test was statistically significant (ECT, F(2, 29) = 4.18, p = .025, 2 = .224; OPT,
F(2, 33) = 17.45, p = .000, 2 = .514). In other words, analysis of the results
suggests that the FF grammatical instruction provided to the FF group did not
provide an advantage for language learning outcomes as measured in this study.
Both groups benefited in terms of increased grammatical knowledge of the pres-
ent conditional during the course.
Effect on Content Learning

The second research question asked about the effect of the instruction on content
learning. Like in the analysis of the language tests, the mean scores were compared
across groups in the first stage of analysis. This step was followed by ANOVA to
determine the degree of significance in any differences shown by the mean scores.
The pretest provided information about the differences in the content knowledge
of the groups before starting the course and participating in the study. The sub-
sequent tests were given at the end of each content unit and included only the
content in the unit just completed. The results of these tests were compared
between the two groups at each point in time, not over time. Table 2.2 shows
these results.
The mean scores for the pretest show that the FF group had slightly greater
knowledge of the content at the start of the study. However, a subsequent analysis
using independent t-tests showed this difference was not significant. More
TABLE 2.2 Mean Scores for Performance on Content

Tests by Two Groups
Test Group M SD
Pretest FF (n = 18) .44 .12

MF (n = 22) .42 .15
Unit 1 FF (n = 12) .58 .18
MF (n = 17) .39 .14
Unit 2 FF (n = 15) .83 .10
MF (n = 20) .62 .16
Unit 3 FF (n = 14) .84 .11
MF (n = 18) .72 .12
28 Antonella Valeo
TABLE 2.3 Content Tests Group Comparison
Test T df Sig. (2-tailed) d
Pretest 0.42 38.00 .679 0.14

Unit 1 3.18 27.00 .004 1.18
Unit 2 4.66 32.45 .000 1.51
Unit 3 2.81 30.00 .009 1.00
interesting, however, is the difference between the two groups on each of the three
unit-specific tests. The FF group shows a higher score on each of the tests, a dif-
ference that was found to be statistically significant in further analysis. Table 2.3
shows the results of this analysis.
Discussion
This study was concerned with the effect of explicit grammatical instruction
(through FFI) on both language learning (specifically grammatical accuracy for the
present conditional) and content learning related to occupation-specific knowl-
edge. In terms of the first research question (i.e., What is the effect of FFI that
includes explicit grammatical instruction on language learning in an occupation-
specific language program for adults?), the results of the language tests showed that,
overall, there was no advantage for grammatical accuracy for learners receiving
explicit grammatical instruction, at least for the present conditional tense. This
finding would support longstanding claims that a focus on content only with no
explicit grammatical instruction can lead to incidental learning (Dalton-Puffer,
2007; Grabe & Stoller, 1997; Krashen, 1982). The specific context of this classroom,
where learners were strongly oriented toward the occupation-specific content,
may have supported form-meaning connections in a personally meaningful way,
consistent with the premise for content-based teaching; the content, according to
Krashen, should be “so interesting and relevant that the acquirer may even ‘forget’
that the message is encoded in a foreign language” (1982, p. 66).
However, a closer examination of the classroom instruction suggests alternate
interpretations as well. The audio recordings of the classroom instruction show
that the FF group did receive explicit grammatical instruction, in the form of
metalinguistic explanations and form-focused tasks, as planned, and the other
group, the MF group, did not. However, the provision of explicit corrective feed-
back was limited outside of these instructional instances for the FF group. This
point raises questions about the role of corrective feedback in developing gram-
matical accuracy. Researchers have suggested that corrective feedback may play a
critical role by drawing learners’ attention to form-meaning connections at a time
when they are engaged in communicating content (Doughty, 2001; Ellis, 2004,
2005; Lyster, 2004). In this way, the learners may be primed to attend in more
Focus on Form 29
depth to the grammatical information provided. The FF group did not have exten-
sive opportunities to engage in this priming.
The findings for the second research question (i.e., What is the effect of FFI that
includes explicit grammatical instruction on content learning in an occupation-
specific language program for adults?) proved more surprising. The motivation for
that question was to respond to concerns that content learning might be compro-
mised if learners’ attention was directed to grammar in an explicit manner. The
results, however, showed that the group that had received the explicit FFI outper-
formed the other group on each of the content tests. It appears that a focus on
form enhanced content learning for that group. Although this result is unexpected,
it is consistent with comprehension-based models of content-based language
teaching and learning in which attention to language enhances the learners’ ability
to understand and engage with the content (Burger & Doherty, 1992; Courchêne,
1992; Paribakht & Raymond, 1992; Snow, Met, & Genesee, 1989).
However, the question remains as to why the tests in this study did not capture
any advantage in terms of language gains for the FF group. This finding may reflect
a limitation of this study in that the language tests measured knowledge of the
form on a written error correction task and in oral production of the form but
not comprehension of the form. Tests that measured receptive abilities might have
captured an advantage in terms of the ability to understand the meaning and use
of the form when embedded in content.
Implications
The findings of this study hold implications for multiple dimensions of practice
and further research. One of the goals of the study was to provide guidance to
teachers on the question of whether or not to include explicit grammatical instruc-
tion in content-based classroom contexts, such as in an occupation-specific lan-
guage program. While the findings, on the surface, do not show that an explicit
focus on form in these contexts results in a language learning advantage, they
suggest that a focus on form would not have a negative impact. This result provides
some support for teachers who may want to include a range of FFI strategies in
teaching content. At the same time, the findings point to a complex relationship
between the language and content learning that suggests a reconsideration of how
language learning is viewed and assessed in these contexts. There is a need to see
the development of grammatical accuracy as an iterative process that includes
comprehension and production, and to consider a model of dynamic assessment
that is multidimensional rather than linear (Lantolf & Poehner, 2004).
The findings may also have implications for program funding and development.
While this study did not set out to evaluate the effectiveness of the program overall,
it supports combining language and content in these specialized programs, an alterna-
tive to models that provide general language instruction without the occupation-
specific focus. Once again, however, given the accountability expected in these
30 Antonella Valeo
programs, it may be of benefit to implement assessment that reflects a trajectory of

learning for these participants rather than performance-based absolute points of learn-
ing so that these programs continue to be funded and contribute to the economic
integration of newcomers (i.e., adult English learners who are new immigrants).
These questions may inform future research in multiple ways. Studies investi-
gating the impact of differentiated instruction in contexts such as these may con-
tribute to our understanding of learning by including assessments that engage with
language learning as both comprehension and production. There is much profes-
sional content embedded in written material, and dialogical communication is
common discourse across a range of professions. The ability, therefore, to under-
stand the meaning of grammatical forms as embedded in professional discourse is
essential. In addition, there is a need for more extensive research examining how
different strategies within FFI contribute differently to both language and content
learning. In this study, corrective feedback was limited, and questions remained as
to the impact that this specific strategy might have had on the overall findings.
The question of context, a key interest motivating this study, also continues to
be important. Research in FFI and other processes and approaches in second lan-
guage acquisition must be carried out in a range of contexts, such as the occupation-
specific training program for adults in this study, in order to be useful to researchers
and teachers. Evidence increasingly suggests that contextual factors are not limited
to the extent to which the language is available to learners in the environment but
extend to learner orientation and engagement with content.
References
Batstone, R. (2002). Contexts of engagement: A discourse perspective on “intake” and
“pushed output.” System, 30, 1–14.
Brinton, D. M., Snow, M. A., & Wesche, M. (2003). Content-based second language instruction.
Ann Arbor, MI: University of Michigan.
Burger, S., & Chretien, M. (2001). The development of oral production in content-based
second language courses at the University of Ottawa. Canadian Modern Language Review,
58(1), 84–102.
Burger, S., & Doherty, J. (1992). Testing receptive skills within a comprehension-based
approach. In R. J. Courchêne, J. I. Glidden, J. St. John, & C. Therien (Eds.), Compre-
hension-based second language teaching (pp. 299–318). Ottawa, Canada: University of
Ottawa Press.
Collentine, J., & Freed, B. F. (2004). Learning context and its effects on second language
acquisition. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 26, 153–171.
Courchêne, R. (1992). A comprehension-based approach to curriculum design. In R. J.
Courchêne, J. I. Glidden, J. St. John, & C. Therien (Eds.), Comprehension-based second
language teaching (pp. 95–118). Ottawa, Canada: University of Ottawa Press.
Crandall, J., & Kaufman, D. (2005). Content-based instruction in primary and secondary school
settings. Alexandria, VA: TESOL.
Cummins, J. (1984). Bilingualism and special education: Issues in assessment and pedagogy. Avon,
UK: Multilingual Matters.
Focus on Form 31
Cummins, J. (2000). Language, power and pedagogy: Bilingual children in the crossfire. Buffalo,
NY: Multilingual Matters.
Dalton-Puffer, C. (2007). Discourse in content and language integrated learning (CLIL) classrooms.
Philadelphia, PA: John Benjamins.
Doughty, C. (2001). Cognitive underpinnings of focus on form. In P. Robinson (Ed.),
Cognition and second language instruction (pp. 206–257). New York, NY: Cambridge Uni-
versity Press.
Doughty, C., & Williams, J. (1998). Focus on form in classroom second language acquisition. New
York, NY: Cambridge University Press.
Ellis, N. C. (2004). The processes of second language acquisition. In B. VanPatten, J. Williams,
S. Rott, & M. Overstreet (Eds.), Form-meaning connections in second language acquisition
(pp. 50–76). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
Ellis, N. C. (2005). At the interface: Dynamic interactions of explicit and implicit language
knowledge. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 27, 305–352.
Ellis, R. (2001). Investigating form-focused instruction. Language Learning, 51(1), 1–46.
Ellis, R., & Sheen,Y. (2006). Reexamining the role of recasts in second language acquisition.
Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 28, 575–600.
Firth, A., & Wagner, J. (1997). On discourse, communication, and (some) fundamental
concepts in SLA research. Modern Language Journal, 81(3), 285–300.
Genesee, F. (1994). Integrating language and content: Lessons from immersion. Santa Cruz, CA:
National Center for Research on Cultural Diversity and Second Language Learning.
Grabe, W., & Stoller, F. L. (1997). Content-based instruction: Research foundations. In M. A.
Snow & D. M. Brinton (Eds.), The content-based classroom: Perspectives on integrating lan-
guage and content (pp. 5–21). White Plains, NY: Addison Wesley Longman.
Grim, F. (2008). Integrating focus on form in L2 content-enriched instruction lessons.
Foreign Language Annals, 41(2), 321–346.
Han, Z. (2008). On the role of meaning in focus on form. In Z. Han (Ed.), Understanding
second language process (pp. 45–79). New York, NY: Multilingual Matters.
Kasper, L. F. (1995). Theory and practice in content-based ESL reading instruction. English
for Special Purposes, 14(3), 223–230.
Klee, C. A., & Tedick, D. J. (1997). The undergraduate foreign language immersion pro-
gram in Spanish at the University of Minnesota. In S. B. Stryker & B. L. Leaver (Eds.),
Content-based instruction in foreign language education: Models and methods (pp. 173–218).
Washington, DC: Georgetown University Press.
Krashen, S. (1982). Principles and practice in second language acquisition . Oxford, UK:
Pergamon.
Krueger, M., & Ryan, F. (1993). Language and content: Discipline- and content-based approaches
to language study. Lexington, MA: D.C. Heath.
Lantolf, J. P., & Poehner, M. E. (2004). Dynamic assessment of L2 development: Bring the
past into the future. Journal of Applied Linguistics, 1(1), 49–72.
Leaver, B. L. (1997). Content-based instruction in a basic Russian program. In S. Stryker &
B. L. Leaver (Eds.), Content-based instruction in foreign language education: Models and meth-
ods (pp. 30–54). Washington, DC: Georgetown University Press.
Leeman, J., Arteagoitia, I., Fridman, B., & Doughty, C. (1995). Integrating attention to form
within meaning: Focus on form in content-based Spanish instruction. In R. Schmidt
(Ed.), Attention and awareness in foreign language learning and teaching (pp. 215–258).
Honolulu, HI: University of Hawai’i, Second Language Teaching and Curriculum
Center.
32 Antonella Valeo
Lyster, R. (2004). Differential effects of prompts and recasts in form-focused instruction.

Lyster, R. (2007). Learning and teaching languages through content: A counter-balanced approach.
Amsterdam, the Netherlands: John Benjamins.
Lyster, R., & Ranta, L. (1997). Corrective feedback and learner uptake: Negotiation of form
in communicative classrooms. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 20, 37–66.
Musumeci, D. (1996). Teacher-learner negotiation in content-based instruction: Commu-
nication at cross-purposes? Applied Linguistics, 17, 286–325.
Nicholas, H., Lightbown, P. M., & Spada, N. (2001). Recasts as feedback to language learners.
Language Learning, 51(4), 719–758.
Norris, J. M., & Ortega, L. (2000). Effectiveness of L2 instruction: A research synthesis and
quantitative meta-analysis. Language Learning, 50, 417–528.
Paribakht, T., & Raymond, P. (1992). The implementation of the comprehension-based
approach: The University of Ottawa experience. In R. J. Courchêne, J. I. Glidden, J. St.
John, & C. Therien (Eds.), Comprehension-based second language teaching (pp. 281–298).
Ottawa, Canada: University of Ottawa Press.
Pica, T. (2002). Subject-matter content: How does it assist the interactional and linguistic
needs of classroom language learners? Modern Language Journal, 86(1), 1–19.
Ready, D., & Wesche, M. (1992). An evaluation of the University of Ottawa’s sheltered pro-
gram: Language teaching strategies that work. In R. J. Courchêne, J. I. Glidden, J. St.
John, & C. Therien (Eds.), Comprehension-based second language teaching (pp. 389–404).
Ottawa: University of Ottawa Press.
Robinson, P. (2003). The cognition hypothesis, task design, and adult task-based language
learning. Second Language Studies, 21(2), 45–105.
Schmidt, R. W. (1990). The role of consciousness in second language learning. Applied
Linguistics, 11(2), 129–158.
Skehan, P. (1998). A cognitive approach to language learning. Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.
Skehan, P., & Foster, P. (2001). Cognition and tasks. In P. Robinson (Ed.), Cognition and
second language instruction (pp. 183–205). Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
Snow, M. A., & Brinton, D. M. (1997). The content-based classroom: Perspectives on integrating
language and content. White Plains, NY: Addison Wesley Longman.
Snow, M. A., Met, M., & Genesee, F. (1989). A conceptual framework for the integration of
language and content-based language instruction. TESOL Quarterly, 23(2), 201–217.
Spada, N. (1997). Form-focused instruction and second language acquisition: A review of
classroom and laboratory research. Language Teaching, 29, 73–87.
Spada, N. (2011). Beyond form-focused instruction: Reflections on past, present and future
research. Language Teaching Research, 44(2), 225–236.
Stoller, F. L. (2004). Content-based instruction: Perspectives on curriculum planning.
Annual Review of Applied Linguistics, 24, 261–283.
Stryker, S. B., & Leaver, B. L. (Eds.). (1997). Content-based instruction in foreign language educa-
tion: Models and methods. Washington, DC: Georgetown University Press.
Swain, M. (2000). French immersion research in Canada: Recent contributions to SLA and
applied linguistics. Annual Review of Applied Linguistics, 20, 199–212.
Toth, P. D. (2004). When grammar instruction undermines cohesion in L2 Spanish class-
room discourse. Modern Language Journal, 88(1), 14–30.
Valeo, A. (2010). The integration of language and content: Form-focused instruction in a content-
based language program (Doctoral dissertation). University of Toronto, Toronto, Canada.
Retrieved from https://tspace.library.utoronto.ca/bitstream/1807/26387/5/Valeo_
Antonella_201011_PhD_thesis.pdf
Focus on Form 33
VanPatten, B. (1990). Attending to form and content in the input. Studies in Second Language
Acquisition, 12, 287–301.
Wesche, M. B., & Skehan, P. (2002). Communicative, task-based, and content-based language
instruction. In R. B. Kaplan (Ed.), The Oxford handbook of applied linguistics (pp. 207–228).
New York, NY: Oxford University Press.
Williams, J. (2005). Form-focused instruction. In E. Hinkel (Ed.), Handbook of research in
second language teaching and learning (pp. 671–692). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
Zyzik, E., & Polio, C. (2008). Incidental focus on form in university Spanish literature
courses. Modern Language Journal, 92(1), 53–70.
3
TEACHING ENGLISH GRAMMAR
IN CONTEXT
The Timing of Form-Focused Intervention
Junko Hondo

It has been over three decades since scholars in second language acquisition (SLA)
began a conversation about the importance of supporting language learners in
making form-meaning connections within the context of language use (see
Celce-Murcia, Chapter 1, this volume). At an earlier point in instructed SLA
development, this concept had emerged as a reaction to the common practice of
teaching language with an overt concentration on decontextualized formal gram-
mar lessons presented prior to language use “in a vacuum, as a set of skills which
have no immediate utility” (Widdowson, 1979, p. 47). Within what came to be
known as the Communicative Language Teaching (CLT) movement (Allwright,
1979; Breen & Candlin, 1980; Brumfit, 1984b; Candlin, 1979; Johnson &
Morrow, 1981; Johnson & Porter, 1983), many argued that teaching linguistic
structure decontextualized from actual language use and without regard to an
individual’s internal syllabus is not likely to assist learners in reaching their lan-
guage learning goals (Wilkins, 1979). As the CLT movement developed, Brumfit
(1979) suggested an emphasis on communicative activity starting with produc-
tion, followed by presentation and practice. In vigorous debate among CLT schol-
ars, some with an opposing view argued that excessive emphasis on communication
produces “fluent” but “inaccurate” language learners (James, 1983). At first
glance, these positions appeared to be irreconcilable.
During this same period, the first task-based language teaching (TBLT) initia-
tive was under way in India, in the Bangalore project, Teaching English as Com-
munication Project/Communicational Teaching Project (reported in Beretta &
Davies, 1985; Brumfit, 1984a; Johnson, 1982; Prabhu, 1980, 1982, 1987). The
director of the project, N. S. Prabhu, extending Harold Palmer’s ideas in The
Teaching English Grammar in Context 35
Principle of Language Study (1921), proposed that “successful language acquisition

was the outcome of cognitive processes engendered by the effort to communicate”
(quoted in Howatt, 2004, p. 347). The focus of the project was not, as stated by
Prabhu (1987), on communicative competence. Contrary to a widespread misin-
terpretation of Prabhu’s original task-based instruction as a meaning-only oriented
approach, the focus was rather on “grammatical competence [italics added] itself,
which was hypothesized to develop in the course of meaning-focused activities”
(Prabhu, 1987, p. 1). Central to Prabhu’s approach was the idea that “when learn-
ers’ minds are engaged in solving problems, the resources that are needed for that
purpose (both conceptual and linguistic) are best perceived and internalized”
(Prabhu, 1980, p. 13). This fundamental concept informed subsequent movements
in contemporary CLT, in which the TBLT approach is frequently employed. The
language learning experience is promoted within meaningful communication and
“through linking grammatical development to the ability to communicate”
(Richards, 2006, p. 23). According to Celce-Murcia (2002), “to fully understand
any form or construction, we must . . . understand how it functions at the dis-
course level” (p. 132), that is, in a communicative context. Continuing to the
present, the importance of contextualized language learning processes has been
addressed consistently in the field of SLA, from contemporary Complexity Theory
(Larsen-Freeman & Cameron, 2008) to Sociocultural Approaches to SLA
(Atkinson, 2002; Lantolf, 2011).
However, after more than three decades discussing these topics in the field, evi-
dence suggests that not much has changed in language teaching practice. The tra-
ditional 3Ps-based approach (present-practice-produce) is “probably still the most
common teaching approach when judged on a world-wide basis” (Skehan, 1998,
p. 94). It is often the case that grammar presentation (i.e., instruction) takes place as
a precursor to practice sessions. As many language teachers know, commonly avail-
able textbooks used worldwide also endorse the presentation of grammatical items,
and then practice sessions, with grammar exercises or drills. This approach appears
to be the case even in some TBLT instruction in today’s classrooms. Tasks, and in
particular orally conducted tasks, have been introduced initially for communication
practice, to the point that “task-based language teaching has become synonymous
(albeit misguidedly) with unscripted oral activity,” according to Samuda (2001,
p. 120). These tasks or practice sessions frequently follow formal form-focused
instruction or presentation (see Norris & Ortega, 2000).
Research on the cognitive dimensions of language learning has sought ways to
assist language learners in overcoming the confusion, information overload, and
cognitive dissonance associated with the classroom language learning experience.
According to Gopher, a cognitive psychologist, individuals can voluntarily control
their attention and can engage and disengage in order to pursue their intentions
(Gopher, 1992; Nobre, 2001). This flexibility could allow language learners to
overcome constraints related to processing information. To create the intention
to know something one could construct an environment in which the individual
36 Junko Hondo
becomes curious about certain information because it is needed to solve an

immediate task. To acknowledge this need, one might have to experience a lack
of information for some duration of time. Drawing implications from visual and
auditory attentional studies, LaBerge (2000) indicates that “the sustaining of
information over a delayed period would seem to be required in order to generate
preparatory attention prior to the appearance of a target” (p. 718). Delay in the
delivery of information essential to the pursuit of the current task might serve as
flux in the neural system (Egeth & Yantis, 1997), that is to say, a shift in a biologi-
cal network of the nervous system in the brain. The flux may stimulate the execu-
tive control features to express top-down attention (i.e., preparatory attention)
(Egeth & Yantis, 1997). This preparatory attention could serve to benefit “accu-
racy in perceptual judgment and categorization, as well as accuracy and speed in
performance in action” (Schmidt, 2001, p. 13). Preparatory attention might opti-
mize perception and create sound cognitive states for appropriating new informa-
tion because encoding is enhanced by preparatory attention and voluntary
attentional orientation (N. Ellis, 2005).
The key theoretical question on which research must focus in making form-
meaning connections is whether there is any reason to think there are cognitive or
linguistic advantages to pre-emptive/preparatory over delayed/reactive approaches.
In the field of cognitive neuroscience, some reports have been illustrative of the
possibility of linking preparatory attention to the improvement of performance
(Stern & Mangels, 2006) and more rapid response time (LaBerge, 1995) in the face
of cognitive conflict. However, the concept of “preparatory attention has not been
discussed directly within the field of SLA” (Schmidt, 2001, pp. 13–14). A broad
application of this concept to instructed SLA suggests boosting preparatory atten-
tion as a way to assist learners in strengthening their cognitive state for the purpose
of efficient information encoding.
Some empirical studies do provide evidence supporting explicit grammar
explanation before practice (e.g., Farley, 2004). Meanwhile, some feedback and
interaction studies as well as work on attentional control show positive outcomes
recommending a reactive mode of intervention, after or during communicative
language use (e.g., Gass & Alvarez Torres, 2005; Leow, 1998), consistent with the
theoretical perspectives addressed above. With positive results from empirical stud-
ies of grammar instruction before, during, or after practice, it might be the case
that any instructional treatment itself is helpful in language learning. A key ques-
tion that emerges then regards the optimal timing of teacher guidance. For the
purpose of achieving grammatical competence, should guidance on form be pre-
sented before, after, or during student communicative use of language? Evidence
regarding the most beneficial timing for supplying guidance in creating form-
meaning connections is not conclusive at this point. Exploring an optimal timing
for introducing grammar in a form-focused intervention is the specific research
objective for the present study.
The Research Question

Accordingly, the research question for the present study is the following: Does the
timing of intervention have an impact on the learning of form over the short term?
The timing of form-focused intervention is investigated in three groups: one
group receiving explicit form-focused intervention before beginning work on a
pedagogical task, another receiving the identical intervention in the middle of the
task, and a control group receiving no intervention.
The Research Site

The research site was at a university in Japan. The site was selected for several rea-
sons. The first was to control variables in participants’ linguistic demographics. Most
Japanese university students share the same first language (L1), develop their lan-
guage skills in a monolingual setting, and are in a similar age group due to the
inability of students to skip grades and the rarity of falling behind in grade levels.
Further, participants have nearly identical educational experiences due to the nation-
ally standardized school curricula. As a result, the problems associated with using a
convenience sample might be offset somewhat by the participants’ homogeneity in
linguistic and educational backgrounds. The second reason for the selection of a
Japanese university is the complexity of target forms. The learners’ relatively longer
experience with English language education allows for the selection of more com-
plex target forms, which the learners may not have acquired. If the experiment
involved only basic grammatical structures or forms with which learners were
already familiar, the outcome of the study could be limited in terms of providing
information about form-meaning associations created through instruction, and
thereby would be limited in generating practical implications for SLA.
Participants
The total number of participants for the study was 58. Students in three intact
classes in a management department participated (two classes with 19 students, and
one with 20). The participants’ ages ranged from 19 to 23, with a mean age of 21.
The male/female ratio was approximately 50% male and 50% female. The profi-
ciency levels of all three classes corresponded to intermediate high and advanced
low, based on the American Council on the Teaching of Foreign Languages
(ACTFL) proficiency guidelines, with reading and writing skills slightly surpassing
speaking and listening skills. Prior experience with English education ranged from
7 to 11 years. With regard to the comprehension of the specific target forms
employed in the study, scores among the three classes were not significantly differ-
ent in pretests (details are included in the results section). The participants were
38 Junko Hondo
compensated with pens prepared for the session, with logos printed with the name
of the university, the class title, the year, and the name of the professor. All partici-
pants signed consent forms.
Research Methods
This quasi-experimental study employed a between-subjects design: the values of
the dependent variable for one group of participants were compared with the
values for other groups. The dependent variables in the study were the test scores
on a pretest and posttest conducted immediately before and after the task in one
class session. Participants in the study engaged in the experiment only once. The
advantage of conducting the experiment only once is that the source of the effect
of the treatment could be clearly tracked. I ran all experiments in the three classes
in a single day. In order to determine the target form for the present study and the
final research methodology that would be employed, seven prior studies
(N = approximately 540) were conducted. These prior studies included three stud-
ies that employed a similar research methodology: two preliminary studies
(N = 118, N = 116) and a pilot study (N = 52).
Target Forms
I selected the English modal must as the target form for the present study in order
to create strong form-meaning connections in the task used for the study.
Among a number of target forms tried, such as lexical items, verbs, articles, and
so on, the modal verb presented more complex interactions between syntax
(form), semantics (meaning), and pragmatics (use) (Celce-Murcia & Larsen-
Freeman, 1999). After seven modal verbs had been tested among the target learn-
ers in one of the baseline studies (might, will, can, could, would, should, may), I
selected the epistemic meaning of the English must. These forms were (1) the
epistemic meaning of must based on assumption, followed by the simple form of
a verb (e.g., Snow Buntings . . . must look pretty when it snows . . .); and (2) the
epistemic meaning of must based on evidence in the form of the modal perfect
(e.g., These unusual birds must have been well protected for many years in
Scotland. You can see them everywhere . . .).
Task
Employing these target forms, a type of reading task was created with consider-
ation of the need to control the number of forms, the frequency of each category
of the targeted forms, and the need to isolate variables. The task material did not
include commercial material. Rather, after examining the target learners’ current
understanding of the target forms in three prior studies, a task was designed to
address the current needs of the target learners. The task design criteria included
the elimination of the deontic meaning of must (e.g., equivalent to should or have to)
as well as the adverbs and lexis of time (e.g., last year). These forms were eliminated
from the experimental materials in an effort to avoid overshadowing and blocking
effects (i.e., cognitive processes that occur when two linguistic cues needed to real-
ize a meaning occur at the same time with the more salient one overshadowing
the other) (N. Ellis, 2005). The target forms were closely interwoven with the
semantic meanings in the task material, so that the task demands could direct
learners’ attention to the form-meaning connection.
The task procedure involved three steps: (1) exchanging meaning in an infor-
mation gap activity (i.e., through scripts that differed only in their use of the
targeted forms), (2) finding unmatched forms, and (3) discussing and identifying
the form-meaning relationship. The task material consisted of two sets of narra-
tive scripts—one for each participant in the dyad—in which 12 items differed
from one script to the other. The forms of verbs differed between the two scripts
and were combined with the epistemic meaning of the modal verb must. For
example, in the sample, “She said that we must be (must have been) able to find
information . . .,” Student A had the sentence “we must be able to find . . .” and
Student B had the sentence “we must have been able to find . . .”. Both forms could
be grammatically correct if they were isolated from the context. However, in the
context of the script, one form was correct while the other was incorrect. After
participants formed a rough story line together with their partner in Step 1, the
task demands directed participants’ attention to the targeted forms. Participants
conversed and exchanged their opinions about the correctness of the forms in
dyads in an attempt to secure their noticing of the forms (Step 2). After determin-
ing which targeted form they believed to be correct, participants reflected on
form-meaning connections in the context of the task material by producing the
correct targeted language form (Step 3). It is important to note that the task
demands guided learners’ attention to the meanings of the task scripts at the
beginning of the procedure.
Experimental Procedure
For an overview of the experimental procedure, please see Table 3.1. The group
that received form-focused intervention prior to the task is termed the pre-emptive
group. In this mode of treatment, the instructor provides the intervention prior to
participants being exposed to learning materials. Information in the treatment is
disassociated from any current ongoing work, in a condition that is context-free.
Participants’ attention is not expected to have been directed toward the targeted
form prior to the instructor providing treatment. Subsequently, the participants in
this group completed the same task as those in the other groups.
In the delayed group, the instructor provides intervention after participants are
exposed to the task material and after they converse with their partners to
exchange information. In other words, the information is context-bound and
40 Junko Hondo
TABLE 3.1 Overview of Experimental Procedure
Stage Pre-emptive Group Delayed Group Control Group Duration

(G1) (n = 19) (G2) (n = 20) (n = 19)
Pretask Introduction and Introduction and Introduction and 7 min

Consent signing Consent signing Consent signing
Pretest Pretest Pretest 15 min
Intervention — — 5 min G1
Task Task Step 1 Task Step 1 Task Step 1 8 min
Task Steps 2 Task Steps 2 Task Step 2 40+ min
and 3 and 3 and 3
— Intervention — 5 min G2
Posttask Posttest Posttest Posttest 15 min
associated with current work. Thus, this guidance takes place after learners have
noticed what is essential for completing the immediate activity. Initial attention
is paid to meaning, then to form and the form-meaning relationship by partici-
pants themselves, guided by the task demands, prior to any teacher-initiated inter-
vention. In this reactive mode of treatment, form-meaning guidance is not offered
right at the moment participants notice what they know and what they do not
know. Nor does it take place immediately following participants’ errors or inqui-
ries. Rather, there is a short period of time scheduled for independent work
before the provision of guidance. The exact duration of this delay was determined
based on the outcomes in baseline observations and preliminary studies (2002–2005)
and was approximately 10 minutes into the task. The outcomes of these two
groups are compared with the outcome of a control group in which subjects
received no treatment.
The exact timing of provision of form-focused intervention for the pre-emptive
group was immediately prior to the task, and, for the delayed group, intervention
was provided 10 minutes into the task. No treatment was provided for the control
group.
In order to secure an identical duration for each step in the procedure, including
the duration of form-focused intervention, two site assistants measured the dura-
tion of time and signaled cues to the researcher. To ensure consistency in the provi-
sion of information, the content of the intervention was exactly the same for the
pre-emptive and delayed groups, and it was provided only once. There was no
other form of intervention offered, such as feedback or time for questions and
answers. This constraint was imposed in order to identify the effect of the inter-
vention and to isolate variables. Provision of various types of feedback throughout
the experiment would confound any study of the effect of the intervention. Dur-
ing the task, I encouraged the participants to ask questions, and I provided answers
if the questions related to the task procedures or referred to any lexical meanings
other than the target forms. However, answers were not provided if questions were
related to the target forms. I explained that participants would receive a journal
with answers after completion of the task.
In the form-focused intervention, I walked through the form-meaning associa-
tion in model sentences. A sample of that explanation is as follows:
The Asahi newspaper is wet. It must ( ) early in the morning when

it was raining.
1) be delivered 2) have been delivered
Meaning of must: ( )
In this sentence, there is a fact noted that the newspaper is already wet. And it was
raining early in the morning. Thus, the newspaper must have been delivered already,
and not “be delivered,” right now. With the obvious evidence of the paper being
“wet,” the meaning of “must” is . . . conviction based on prerequisite evidence.
The duration of this explanation was 5 minutes, for both the pre-emptive and
delayed groups.
Pretest and Posttest

To restate, the dependent variables in the study were the test scores. The develop-
ment of the testing materials began by administering 60 trial items to a similar
population of subjects. After analyzing the trial items, I selected 40 items in order
to create parallel forms for the pretest and posttest consisting of 20 items each.
These 20 items were paired in the pretest and posttest with items of an identical
or similar difficulty index in the same semantic category (e.g., a state verb such as
feel or an activity verb such as fly). The matched sentences and items used in the
pretest and posttest employed different verbs, although the semantic category of
the verb and the meaning of must were the same.
The statistical analyses were run using the Statistical Package for the Social Sci-
ences (SPSS). Prior to running the statistical tests, I examined the data distributions
in order to determine whether parametric or non-parametric tests should be used
in the study. Although a review of the probability plots and consolidated data
indicated largely normal distributions, 3 of the 12 outcomes of the Shapiro-Wilk
test provided evidence of minor degrees of non-normality ( p = .027–.038). Given
this outcome as well as the small sample sizes in the main study (n < 30 for each
group), I decided to take a conservative approach and to employ non-parametric
tests of significance for between- and within-group variances.
42 Junko Hondo
Analysis of Findings
Reliability of Testing Items

The Cronbach’s alpha for three out of four test sets was over .70 (.726 –.795), and
these testing materials were accepted as reliable. The Cronbach’s alpha for the
pretest for the meaning of must based on this assumption was only moderately
high, .664. However, this outcome was expected due to the low understanding of
this form’s meaning prior to the experiment.
Within-Group Analysis
The summary of within-group analyses is presented in Table 3.2. The outcomes
for the pre-emptive group indicate that the outcome for the meaning of must based
on assumption is significant ( p = .01). This is an indication that scores on the
pretest and posttest obtained from the same subjects are significantly different from
each other. Meanwhile, the outcome for the other form, must based on evidence,
is also significant ( p = .05). The outcomes for the delayed group are significant for
both forms. Z values are slightly higher with the epistemic meaning of must based
on assumption. Meanwhile, the differences between the pretest and posttest for the
control groups are not significant.
Overall, these outcomes indicate that the intervention had a stronger impact on
the meaning of must based on assumption and a slightly weaker effect on the
meaning of must based on evidence. Further, the outcomes are significant for both
groups. As noted above, no significant outcome was evident for the control group.
Between-Groups Analysis
The results for the between-groups analyses for two epistemic meanings of must are
summarized in Table 3.3. The outcomes indicate that the between-groups differ-
ence is highly significant for the epistemic meaning of must based on assumption.
The group difference is also highly significant ( p = .003) for the meaning based on
evidence. Given the values in Table 3.3, we can see that the group difference is
TABLE 3.2 Summary of Within-Group Analyses Comparing Pretest and Posttest Scores
Must Based on Assumption Must Based on Evidence
z z
Pre-emptive group 3.42** 2.25*

Delayed group 3.63*** 3.49***
Control group –1.74 (ns) 1.50 (ns)
*p < .05, **p < .01, ***p < .001, ns = not significant.
TABLE 3.3 Summary of Between-Groups Analyses
Form 2
Must based on assumption followed 25.71***

by the simple form of a verb
Must based on evidence in the 11.68**
form of the modal perfect
**p < .01, ***p < .001.
TABLE 3.4 Summary of Pairwise Comparisons
Control Group vs. Control Group vs. Pre-emptive Group vs.

Pre-emptive Group Delayed Group Delayed Group
Z Z Z
Must based on 3.540*** 4.410*** 2.750**

assumption
Must based on 0.029 (ns) 2.750** 3.120**
evidence
**p < .01, ***p < .001, ns = not significant.
stronger for the meaning based on assumption than for the meaning based on evi-
dence. The results of these Kruskal-Wallis tests indicate that the difference is signifi-
cant between at least two groups among the three. The outcomes of post hoc
non-parametric tests for pairwise comparisons are included in Table 3.4.
According to the tests of between-subjects effects, a non-parametric Kruskal-Wallis
test, the overall value between groups is highly significant for must based on assumption
followed by a simple form of verb; 2 = 25.71 ( p < .001). Pairwise comparisons show
that all three groups are significantly different from one another, leading to the order
control < pre-emptive < delayed. The differences between the treatment groups and
the control group are highly significant ( p < .001). The difference between the two
treated groups, the pre-emptive and the delayed group, is significant ( p = .005). This
result indicates that the group receiving treatment in a delayed fashion performed
higher than the group receiving treatment prior to the task.
As for the second form, must based on evidence in the form of the modal perfect,
a significant difference is found between groups, 2 = 11.68 ( p = .003), although
the difference is not as highly significant. The outcomes of post hoc pairwise com-
parisons confirm that the difference between the pre-emptive and delayed groups
is significant ( p = .001), in the order pre-emptive < delayed. The difference between
the delayed group and the control group is also significant ( p = .005), in the order
control < delayed. The difference between the pre-emptive group and the control
group is not significant, indicating that the effect of treatment provided prior to the
44 Junko Hondo
task is not significant for the meaning of must based on evidence. Again, all the
results point in the direction that delayed intervention had a stronger impact than
the intervention provided prior to the task.
In addition to assessing the differences for statistical significance, effect sizes
were calculated to measure the scale of the treatment effect. Hedges’s g computed
from Cohen’s d indicated that the effect sizes are large (> 0.8) for both forms in
the delayed group (2.00 for must based on assumption and 1.36 for must based on
evidence). The result is large only for one form for the pre-emptive group (0.98
for must based on assumption and –0.01 for must based on evidence). These out-
comes also indicate that the treatment had a strong impact on both forms when it
was provided with a delayed timing.
Discussion
The Timing of Form-Focused Intervention

The results of the present study provide evidence that intervention offered in a
reactive mode in a delayed fashion had a stronger impact on comprehension than
pre-emptive intervention provided prior to language use. In this regard, theoretical
perspectives that endorse initial form introduction (the traditional 3Ps-based
approach, for example) are contra-indicated. The results in this study indicate that
the timing that produced the best outcome in comprehension over a short period
of time was treatment provided in a delayed fashion after learners were engaged in
language use.
In everyday pedagogy for error treatment, teachers often draw learners’ atten-
tion to form-meaning relationships and provide intervention immediately after or
precisely at the moment learner error or questioning occurs. The current study
took this reactive timing a step further. It employed an approach in which learners
are exposed to the task material without any feedback or treatment for a certain
duration of time. Learners received the intervention after their attention had been
directed to the target forms, guided only by the task material. In addition, there
was a brief wait time provided prior to intervention and after learners had started
using the target language on their own. This delay in intervention allowed learners
to think about the forms by themselves for a time. Based on the outcomes of the
current study, form-focused intervention appears to be more effective when
offered in a delayed format.
Implications
Attentional Processing
The results of this study suggest that the delayed form-oriented treatment had a
greater impact on learning than the pre-emptive treatment. However, the study
also provides support for the role of a pre-emptive treatment. While the delayed
form-oriented treatment used in this study is essentially a treatment that is reactive

in nature, it is important to keep in mind that the treatment was not specifically
directed to learners based on their queries. These findings suggest that an addi-
tional component to delayed form-oriented treatment in everyday pedagogy be
considered, in which instruction about form is offered to learners in response to
evidence of their heightened curiosity about form in the meaning-based input.
This approach could offer guidance to learners in a form that has the advantages
of an explicit treatment that is planned and that could potentially avoid overtly
calling attention to learner errors.
L2 Pedagogy
Approximately three decades ago, Prabhu (1987) developed an approach to lan-
guage teaching in which learners could develop grammatical competence while
focusing on meaning. As early as 1979, Prabhu began integrating sophisticated
tasks into classrooms as teaching tools, as well as instruments for pedagogical inves-
tigation (Prabhu, 1980). Following this initiative the field of instructed SLA wit-
nessed a steady advance in the work of those involved with TBLT, focus on form,
and feedback studies. However, over the course of time, it appears that we have
forgotten the caution put forward earlier: language should not be taught in a
context-free condition separate from doing things with language. (See Chapters 2,
4, 5, and 10 in this volume for further discussion about appropriate ways of focus-
ing on form.) As long ago as the early 1980s scholars in L2 research issued warn-
ings regarding the presentation of form prior to the main-task phase (Brumfit,
1984b; Johnson, 1982), and numerous similar voices have been heard (Celce-
Murcia, 2002; Duff, 1993; R. Ellis, 2003; Larsen-Freeman, 2003; Long, 1991;
Mochizuki & Ortega, 2008; Nassaji & Fotos, 2004; among others). Nevertheless,
practitioners often present forms formally prior to learners’ participation in the
task or practice forms using the 3 Ps-based approach. The present study explored
a different kind of potential intervention based on a theoretical principle that has
been advocated for many decades, that is, the value of introducing form contex-
tualized in current ongoing work. This intervention was delivered explicitly and
uniformly during the main-task phase in the lesson. Such an approach might
provide practitioners with an additional means of offering form-focused interven-
tion. Although the study is situated around a specific task, the results might be
applicable to other task types or other instructional situations.
Limitations of the Current Study

The number of subjects included in this study was small. In order to mitigate
concerns regarding the small number of participants, I employed non-parametric
tests. The outcomes were also supplemented and confirmed by the results of
selected parametric tests. However, I acknowledge the need for a larger number of
participants in a future study.
46 Junko Hondo
In addition, the duration of the intervention was short (five minutes); admit-
tedly, it was rather difficult to fit in all the information within the time allowed,
and thus the guidance was provided in a somewhat hasty fashion. This time con-
straint was set due to the need to collect consent forms during the class period. It
would have been more desirable to lengthen the duration of the intervention
treatment.
Conclusion
Since the beginning of the development of the field of SLA, scholars have often
reminded practitioners and researchers about the importance of teaching and
learning of grammar in the context of language use, while doing things with lan-
guage, drawing learners’ attention to meaning (Brumfit & Johnson, 1979; Candlin,
1979; Celce-Murcia, 2002; DeKeyser, 2005, 2007; Halliday, 1985; Larsen-Freeman,
2003; Lightbown & Spada, 1990; Widdowson, 1978; among others). It has been
widely advocated that instructional treatment be context-bound, associated with
current work, and provided in a reactive mode to learners’ raised attention (e.g.,
Doughty, 2001; Doughty & Williams, 1998; Gass & Alvarez Torres, 2005; Long,
1991; Loschky & Bley-Vroman, 1993; Robinson & N. Ellis, 2008). This chapter
presents additional empirical data supporting theoretical perspectives that posit
that learners’ needs determine the use of language (Brumfit, 1979), and learners
determine how and when learning occurs (Larsen-Freeman, 2004). As defined by
Pienemann (1989) and others, readiness governs learnability, and learnability deter-
mines teachability. Exploring new ways to promote this state of readiness (i.e., the
intention to learn) might be an important emerging task for language educators today.
References
Allwright, R. (1979). Language learning through communication practice. In C. Brumfit &
K. Johnson (Eds.), The communicative approach to language teaching (pp. 167–182). Oxford,
UK: Oxford University Press.
Atkinson, D. (2002). Toward a sociocognitive approach to second language acquisition.
Modern Language Journal, 86, 525–545.
Beretta, A., & Davies, A. (1985). Evaluation of the Bangalore Project. ELT Journal, 39,
121–127.
Breen, M. P., & Candlin, C. N. (1980). The essentials of a communicative curriculum in
language teaching. Applied Linguistics, 1(2), 89–112.
Brumfit, C. J. (1979). “Communicative” language teaching: An educational perspective.
In C. Brumfit & K. Johnson (Eds.), The communicative approach to language teaching
(pp. 183–191). Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.
Brumfit, C. J. (1984a). The Bangalore procedural syllabus. ELT Journal, 38(4), 233–241.
Brumfit, C. J. (1984b). Communicative methodology in language teaching. Cambridge, UK:
Cambridge University Press.
Brumfit, C. J., & Johnson, K. (Eds.). (1979). The communicative approach to language teaching.
Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.
Candlin, C. N. (1979). The status of pedagogical grammars. In C. Brumfit & K. Johnson

(Eds.), The communicative approach to language teaching (pp. 72–90). Oxford, UK: Oxford
University Press.
Celce-Murcia, M. (2002). Why it makes sense to teach grammar in context and through
discourse. In E. Hinkel & S. Fotos (Eds.), New perspectives on grammar teaching in second
language classrooms (pp. 119–133). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
course. Boston, MA: Heinle and Heinle.
DeKeyser, R. M. (2005). What makes second-language grammar difficult? A review of
issues. Language Learning, 55(1), 1–25.
DeKeyser, R. M. (Ed.). (2007). Practicing in a second language: Perspectives from applied linguistics
and cognitive psychology. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
Doughty, C. (2001). Cognitive underpinnings of focus on form. In P. Robinson (Ed.),
Cognition and second language instruction (pp. 206–257). Cambridge, UK: Cambridge
University Press.
Doughty, C., & Williams, J. (1998). Pedagogical choices in focus on form. In C. Doughty &
J. Williams (Eds.), Focus on form in classroom second language acquisition (pp. 197–261).
Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
Duff, P. (1993). Tasks and interlanguage performance: An SLA perspective. In G. Crookes &
S. Gass (Ed.), Tasks and language learning: Integrating theory and practice (pp. 57–95). Cleve-
don, UK: Multilingual Matters.
Egeth, H. E., & Yantis, S. (1997). Visual attention: Control, representation, and time course.
Annual Review of Psychology, 48, 269–297.
Ellis, N. C. (2005). At the interface: Dynamic interactions of explicit and implicit language
knowledge. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 27, 305–352.
Ellis, R. (2003). Task-based language learning and teaching. Oxford, UK: Oxford University
Press.
Farley, A. P. (2004). Processing instruction and the Spanish subjunctive: Is explicit informa-
tion needed? In B. VanPatten (Ed.), Processing instruction: Theory, research, and commentary
(pp. 207–225). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
Gass, S., & Alvarez Torres, M. J. (2005). Attention when? An investigation of the ordering
effect of input and interaction. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 27, 1–31.
Gopher, D. (1992). Analysis and measurement of mental workload. In G. d’Ydewalle,
P. Eelen, & P. Bertelson (Eds.), International perspectives on psychological science: Vol. 2. The
state of the art (pp. 265–291). Hove, UK: Lawrence Erlbaum.
Halliday, M. A. K. (1985). An introduction to functional grammar. London, UK: Arnold.
Howatt, A. P. R., with H. G. Widdowson. (2004). A history of English language teaching.
Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.
James, C. (1983). Prepared comments for Arthur Hughes. In K. Johnson & D. Porter (Eds.),
Perspectives in communicative language teaching (p. 1). London, UK: Academic Press.
Johnson, K. (1982). Communicative syllabus design and methodology. Oxford, UK: Pergamon.
Johnson, K., & Morrow, K. (Eds.). (1981). Communication in the classroom. London, UK:
Longman.
Johnson, K., & Porter, D. (Eds.). (1983). Perspectives in communicative language teaching.
London, UK: Academic Press.
LaBerge, D. (1995). Attentional processing: The brain’s art of mindfulness. Cambridge, MA: MIT
Press.
LaBerge, D. (2000). Networks of attention. In M. Gazzaniga (Ed.), The new cognitive neurosci-
ences (pp. 711–726). Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
48 Junko Hondo
Lantolf, J. P. (2011). The sociocultural approach to second language acquisition: Sociocul-

tural theory, second language acquisition and artificial L2 development. In D. Atkinson
(Ed.), Alternative approaches to second language acquisition (pp. 24–47). London, UK:
Routledge.
Heinle.
Larsen-Freeman, D. (2004). Reflections on form-meaning connection research in second
language acquisition. In B. VanPatten, J. Williams, S. Rott, & M. Overstreet (Eds.), Form-
meaning connections in second language acquisition (pp. 237–244). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence
Erlbaum.
Larsen-Freeman, D., & Cameron, L. (2008). Complex systems and applied linguistics. Oxford,
Leow, R. P. (1998). The effect of amount and type of exposure on adult learners’ L2 develop-
ment in SLA. The Modern Language Journal, 82, 49–68.
Lightbown, P. M., & Spada, N. (1990). Focus on form and corrective feedback in commu-
nicative language teaching: Effects on second language learning. Studies in Second Lan-
guage Acquisition, 12, 429–448.
Long, M. H. (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). Philadelphia, PA: John Benjamins.
Loschky, L., & Bley-Vroman, R. (1993). Grammar and task-based methodology. In
G. Crookes & S. Gass (Eds.), Tasks and language learning: Integrating theory and practice
(pp. 123–167). Clevedon, UK: Multilingual Matters.
Mochizuki, N., & Ortega, L. (2008). Balancing communication and grammar in begin-
ning-level foreign language classrooms: A study of guided planning and relativization.
Language Teaching Research, 12(1), 11–37.
Nassaji, H., & Fotos, S. (2004). Current developments in research on the teaching of gram-
mar. Annual Review of Applied Linguistics, 24, 126–145.
Nobre, A. C. (2001). Orienting attention to instants in time. Neuropsychologia, 39,
1317–1328.
Norris, J., & Ortega, L. (2000). Effectiveness of L2 instruction: A research synthesis and
Palmer, H. E. (1921). The principle of language study. Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.
Pienemann, M. (1989). Is language teachable? Psycholinguistic experiments and hypothe-
ses. Applied Linguistics, 10, 52–79.
Prabhu, N. S. (1980). Teaching English as communicative proposal for syllabus design meth-
odology evaluation. Newsletter, special series, Vol. 1(4). Regional Institute of English South
India, Bangalore-52. The Dicken’s Collection, University of Warwick, Warwick, UK.
Prabhu, N. S. (1982). The communicational teaching project, South India. Madras, India: The
British Council (mimeo).
Prabhu, N. S. (1987). Second language pedagogy. London, UK: Oxford University Press.
Richards, J. C. (2006). Communicative language teaching today. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge
University Press.
Robinson, P., & Ellis, N. C. (Eds.). (2008). Handbook of cognitive linguistics and second language
acquisition. New York: Routledge.
Samuda, V. (2001). Guiding relationships between form and meaning during task perfor-
mance: The role of the teacher. In M. Bygate, P. Skehan, & M. Swain (Eds.), Researching
pedagogic tasks: Second language learning, teaching and testing (pp. 119–140). Harlow, UK:
Pearson Education.
Schmidt, R. (2001). Attention. In P. Robinson (Ed.), Cognition and second language instruction
(pp. 3–32). Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
Skehan, P. (1998). A cognitive approach to language learning. London, UK: Oxford University
Press.
Stern, E., & Mangels, J. A. (2006). Neural correlates of top-down attentional biasing during
the spatial stroop task: An event-related potential (ERP) study. Journal of Cognitive
Neuroscience, 18(6), 1004–1017.
Widdowson, H. G. (1978). Teaching language as communication. Oxford, UK: Oxford Univer-
sity Press.
Widdowson, H. G. (1979). Direction in the teaching of discourse. In C. Brumfit &
Wilkins, D. A. (1979). Grammatical, situational and notional syllabuses. In C. Brumfit &
4
FORM-FOCUSED INSTRUCTION
AND LEARNER INVESTMENT
Case Study of a High School Student
in Japan
Yasuyo Tomita

Working as an English teacher at senior high schools in Japan, I often observed
contradictory but interesting phenomena in my students’ classroom communica-
tion behavior. Being a newly appointed teacher who had just finished a graduate
program in TESOL, I was excited about communicative language teaching and
used a variety of communicative activities with materials from real-world con-
texts. However, despite my encouragement, most of my students were reluctant
to communicate in English with their peers during these interactive activities.
While struggling over how to get my students to communicate in English, I
sometimes asked them to focus on a target language grammar form during the
communicative activity. To my surprise, the students who resisted communicat-
ing in English in non-grammar-focused activities were now actively engaged in
communication with their peers in English. This recurring perplexing phenom-
enon made me wonder what led them to communicate in English more during
form-focused (FF) activities than during exclusively meaning-focused (MF)
activities.
Although extensive research has shown positive effects of form-focused instruc-
tion (FFI) on second language (L2) development (e.g., Norris & Ortega, 2000;
Spada, 2011), there is little research on how FFI affects social factors, including
learner investment—complex, ambiguous, and contradictory attitudes toward L2
learning (Norton Peirce, 1995). The above experience motivated me to empiri-
cally investigate the role of FFI in relation to learner investment in L2 communica-
tion by carrying out a case study with a Japanese senior high school student in
Japan, whom I will refer to as Mika.
Form-Focused Instruction 51
Reluctance to Communicate in English in Japanese Classrooms

for English as a Foreign Language
In 1989 the notion of communicative competence was introduced in the Course
of Study by the Ministry of Education, Culture, Sports, Science, and Technology
(MEXT)—a guideline provided by the Japanese government—and since that time
the development of oral language communication skills has been the main empha-
sis in English education in Japan. The increased focus on communication skills
includes the introduction of oral communication classes to senior high schools in
1994 (Takahashi, 2000) and the establishment of an action plan to cultivate “Japa-
nese with English abilities” in 2003 (MEXT, 2003). In spite of a government
emphasis on the development of oral language communication skills, English stu-
dents are still reluctant to communicate in English. For instance, Kusano Hubbell
(2002) describes her students’ negative attitudes toward her use of English during
class at a university in Japan. Some students even made sarcastic comments, such
as, “What is this? A Japanese speaking in English?” (p. 83). Some of the students
refused to listen to her lectures, and some even went to the administrative office to
complain about her use of English when teaching in class.
Another study reports Japanese students’ reluctance to listen to their Japanese
peers speaking English. Kanno (2003) carried out a longitudinal study focusing on
a specific group of students called kikokushijo, which means returnees from abroad.
One of her kikokushijo participants, a fluent speaker of English, was accused of
using English in some parts of her conversation by her friends, who said, “What
are you using English for? Say it in Japanese. Show-off!” (p. 41). Although this
excerpt is not from a classroom-based study, it clearly points to the negative and
complex feelings that some Japanese students of English as a foreign language
(EFL) have toward their peers’ use of English.
Japanese students’ reluctance to speak English has also been reported in Greer
(2000) from his own observations. He illustrated one of his students intentionally
speaking English with a strong Japanese accent and with grammatical errors; she
was worried what others would think of her if she spoke English as well as she
could. According to Greer, she pretended to be an English speaker with non-
native-like fluency and accuracy in order to satisfy her peers’ desire that she sound
like a non-native speaker.
These studies illustrate that many Japanese EFL learners tend to be reluctant
to communicate in English with their peers who share the same native language,
Japanese. Since the Ministry’s Course of Study placed an emphasis on the devel-
opment of communication skills, there has been a decrease in English profi-
ciency levels (e.g., Matsumura, 2009). This decrease may be due to the reluctance
of students to engage in communicative activities. Because oral communication
practice is an important condition for L2 learning (Norton, 2000; Spolsky,
1989), an investigation into Japanese EFL learners’ reluctance to engage in L2
52 Yasuyo Tomita
communication is essential. Before describing this case study, I will review some
of the literature on FFI and learner investment.
FFI
There are many definitions and terms used in the literature to describe approaches
to L2 instruction that differ in terms of whether the learners’ attention is drawn to
form, meaning, or both. This includes FFI (Ellis, 2001; Spada, 1997, 2011), focus-
on-form (Long, 1991), and isolated and integrated FFI (Spada & Lightbown,
2008). In this chapter, I use the term FFI to refer to a type of instruction that
draws learners’ attention to linguistic forms during communicative activities
(Spada, 1997, 2011).
It is claimed that focusing learners’ attention on form during communicative
activities allows them to notice the gap between their interlanguage forms and the
target language forms, which then encourages them to produce more accurate
language. This notion has been supported by many empirical studies on the effect
of FFI (e.g., Doughty & Varela, 1998; Mackey, 2006; Spada, Lightbown, & White,
2005). For example, Doughty and Varela (1998) found that FFI through corrective
feedback had a significant positive impact on learning the English past tense in
both oral and written performance.
Most instructed second language acquisition (SLA) research that has examined
the effects of FFI on L2 learning has been carried out with a cognitive-interactionist
perspective. One of the implicit, unquestioned assumptions of this work is that
learners are willing to engage in conversational interaction in the L2, which will
then allow teachers to create opportunities for learners to notice the gap between
their forms and the target language forms. However, this practice is not always the
case. As discussed above, in Japan, students tend to be reluctant to engage in com-
municative activities. Such reluctance to communicate in English seems to be
related to the concept of learner investment (Norton Peirce, 1995).
Learner Investment
Learner investment is a learner’s “ambivalent desire to learn” the target language in
view of a “socially and historically constructed relationship” between the learner
and the target language (Norton Peirce, 1995, p. 17). Norton Peirce claims that
affective factors are always changing, depending on where the learners are placed
in social power relations. Drawing on Bourdieu’s (1977) economic metaphors, she
argues that learners invest in language learning in order to gain symbolic resources
(e.g., language) and material resources (e.g., money) that are distributed in society
where power relations exist. Such resources have the potential to increase symbolic
capital, such as prestige, and cultural capital, such as knowledge and the thoughts
that are valued in a certain social class and therefore represent that class. Referring
to Bourdieu’s (1977) notion of the right to speak, Norton (2000) argues that
learners’ reluctance to communicate indicates their lack of access to that right.

Furthermore, Pavlenko and Norton (2007) point out that most SLA research
examines learners’ “direct engagement in face-to-face communities” (p. 670) and
that little research has been done to examine learners’ world that is beyond the
immediate social community surrounding them.
Using the notion of investment, it might be possible to understand why
some learners tend to be reluctant to communicate in English. With regard to
power relationships, Japanese EFL learners are likely to view English as socially
prestigious and associated with Western culture (Blair, 1997). This association
with prestigious Western culture may cause negative feelings among many
Japanese EFL learners. Kanno (2003) analyzes these types of negative feelings
as a reflection of the Japanese EFL learners’ irritation with and intolerance
toward the power imposed on them by their peer (e.g., a returnee) who speaks
a valued language because it allows only her to belong to the imagined presti-
gious English-speaking community, to which they desire to belong but
cannot.
Research Questions
The current study is intended to examine why learners participate differently
in MF and FF activities. The research questions that motivate this case study
of a Japanese EFL high school student, who is referred to as Mika, are the
following:
1. Do FF and MF activities differ in terms of providing access to linguistic

resources for L2 learners? How?
2. Do FF and MF activities differ in terms of providing access to interactional
resources for L2 learners? How?
3. Do FF and MF activities contribute differently to the development of a learn-
er’s identity? How?
4. Does form-focused instruction play a crucial role in learner investment in L2
communication?
Participants
This study uses data that were collected for a larger study (see Tomita & Spada, 2013,
for details) and examines data for one of the participants from that study. The par-
ticipant in this case study is known as Mika. She was one of 24 female high school
students from one class who participated in the larger study. Two Japanese teachers
of English also participated in this study and team-taught the materials together.
The names of teachers, students, school, cities, and towns are all pseudonyms.
54 Yasuyo Tomita
Instructional Treatment
The materials for the instructional treatment in the original study were developed
based on the textbook the participants used in their regular English classes. Four
grammatical forms were selected from the regular course textbook to serve as
target language features for the instructional treatment: passives, comparatives, for-
mal object it, and conditionals. The instructional treatment was provided over four
50-minute sessions that took place during the participants’ regular English classes.
Each lesson started with a grammar explanation and moved on to two 15-minute
communicative group activities: FF and MF activities. During FF activities that
included attention to both form and meaning, learners were required to use the
target grammar structure during their interactions and pay attention to it. During
the MF activities, learners were not asked to use the target grammar structure; they
were asked to perform communicative activities. Each activity was completed by
groups of five students.
Data Collection Instruments/Tools

Keeping diaries in English had been part of the regular English classroom activ-
ities. Mika was asked to share her diary entries for 13 months during this study,
as well as the diaries she had kept for half a year before this study started. In
addition, I asked her to share the diary entries she made during a school trip to
Australia.
I audio- and videotaped Mika and her group members during the FF and
MF group activities over the four instructional treatment lessons. After each
instructional treatment lesson, Mika watched approximately three videotaped
interactional segments from the FF activities and three segments from the MF
activities and completed written stimulated recalls in Japanese. These selected
segments illustrated Mika and her group members’ active participation in L2
communication as well as their apparent reluctance to communicate in L2.
After watching each selected segment, Mika wrote down what she had been
thinking at the time of the event. The main purpose of employing stimulated
recalls was to investigate her thoughts during FF and MF activities. Ten-minute
follow-up interviews in Japanese on the written stimulated recalls were also
conducted.
A semi-structured interview was conducted in Japanese with Mika three times:
at the beginning of the study, after the instructional treatment, and at the end of
the study. Throughout the interview sessions, several questions were asked to elicit
information about Mika’s English learning experiences, detailed thoughts and feel-
ings that she provided during the stimulated recalls, and her ambivalent behaviors
toward communication in English. All of the interviews and stimulated recalls
were conducted in Japanese, and Mika’s responses were translated into English as
represented in italics in the results section.
The case-study approach taken in the analysis permits a close and in-depth exami-
nation of one participant (Mika) and her relationship to her learning contexts from
multiple perspectives (Duff, 2008). In analyzing Mika’s interactional behaviors in
relation to her self-reported data (i.e., diaries, written stimulated recalls, and inter-
views), I used Young’s (2008, 2009) discursive practice as an analytical framework.
Although Mika is the focus of this study, I also examined her group members’
utterances and behaviors during MF and FF activities when necessary because
discursive practices are not created by a single person. Rather, they are mutually
created through the use of identity, linguistic, and interactional resources, according
to Young (2008, 2009).
Although Young describes detailed characteristics of each resource, only those
characteristics that appeared frequently in the data are discussed. Identity resources
are recognized by four different roles that the speaker assumes, such as an animator
(i.e., the current speaker), author (i.e., the person who provided the original idea),
official hearer (i.e., the person the animator is speaking directly to), and ratified par-
ticipant (i.e., the person the animator is not directly speaking to). In this study, I
extend Young’s (2008, 2009) definition of author to include a person whose utter-
ances are repeated in other participants’ utterances. For linguistic resources, I focus
on vocabulary, grammar, overlapping turns, and speed of utterances. For interac-
tional resources, I examine repair and non-linguistic characteristics, such as ges-
tures, eye contact, body movement, and facial expressions.
The goals of analyzing discursive practices in this study are (a) to examine
Mika’s access to identity, linguistic, and interactional resources during FF and MF
activities and (b) to determine the relationship between Mika’s access to these
resources and her investment in L2 communication during FF and MF activities.
Mika
Mika was one of the students who entered this high school from a town outside
Takano City, where this school is located. She commuted between her house and
the high school using trains and buses, which took at least 1.5 hours each way.
Thus, every morning she left home at 5:00 a.m. in order to attend morning classes
at 7:30 a.m. She usually arrived at home around 9:00 p.m. after attending an after-
school cram school. Then she spent another two hours finishing her homework at
home. Both in her interviews and in her diaries, she stated that she had wanted to
major in English at this high school because of its good reputation.
According to her interviews and diaries, she wanted to be an English teacher in
the future because she liked English and children. She became interested in English
when she was a junior high school student because her English teacher’s pronuncia-
tion sounded very “cool” to her. During the interviews, she often used the expression
“kakkoii (cool)” when she discussed English-related topics, such as her classmates who
56 Yasuyo Tomita
spoke English well, English teachers, and people living in English-speaking countries.
Although she often expressed her desire to become a fluent English speaker, she con-
stantly expressed her difficulty speaking English. When I asked her why she had such
a strong desire to speak English fluently, she responded that she could be a different
person with a more positive outlook and attitude by speaking English.
Discursive Practices of FF Activities

Mika was assigned to a group with four other students: Nao, Sato, Tami, and Waka.
In presenting learners’ interaction data, I used Ten Have’s (2007) conversation
analysis transcription conventions. For example, utterances in italics represent
speech originally produced in Japanese and translated into English, double paren-
theses represent descriptions of nonverbal behavior, and words in single parentheses
are dubious hearings (see Appendix A).
Example 1 is from an FF activity on Day 2 in which students were asked to
provide advice to a Japanese high school student who was staying with a host
family in Australia. They were required to draw on linguistic resources to do this
activity and to use as many conditional sentences as possible. At Turn 34, the
original Japanese utterance is presented to show the overlapping of Turns 33 and
34. Regarding the linguistic resources in Example 1, if and its translation into Japa-
nese were most frequently uttered. If is part of the conditional structure, which was
the target grammar form of Day 2. There were also some overlapping turns.
EXAMPLE 1 FF Activity on Day 2
32 Waka If you have (( Waka writes.))

33 Sato [Answer]
34 Waka [Moshi] Do you mean “If you have a problem”? ((Nao looks at Waka’s
paper, glances at Mika, and looks at Waka’s paper again.))
35 Sato Do you mean “If you have a question”? ((Nao leans back and disappears
from the camera.))
36 Mika How about “If you have something that you want to talk about”? ((Mika
crosses her arms. Waka looks at Sato.))
37 Sato Sounds good. “If you want to talk,” right? ((Waka looks at Sato and looks
at her own paper. Sato moves her arms forward and opens her palms with
the rhythm of her speech.))
38 Mika Something (.) [if you::]
39 Sato [If you want] to
40 Mika From you. ((Mika moves her arms forward and flips her hand.))
41 Sato Right. ((Waka writes.))
42 Waka Like, “You should.” ((Sato points at Waka with her pen.))
43 Sato Speak. ((Mika stretches her left arm, grabs her electronic dictionary, and
opens it. Tami glances at Mika and stands up to see Waka’s paper.))
In Example 1, the different roles that Mika used served as resources in the
development of her identity as a user of English. She was an animator (at Turns 36,
38, and 40), an official hearer (at Turns 37, 39, and 41), and a ratified participant at
the other turns. She also became an author at Turn 37, where Sato adapted what
Mika had said at Turn 36, as well as at Turn 38, where Mika animated her own
utterance at Turn 36 by translating it to English. Thus, Mika used different roles
as resources during the discursive practices in this example.
With regard to interactional resources, there were two repairs in Example 1.
The first was about Sato’s use of “answer” at Turn 33. At Turn 34, Waka initiated
a repair, and Mika repaired it by proposing an alternative idea. The second repair
was about Mika’s alternative idea. Sato initiated a repair at Turn 37, followed by
Mika’s self-repair by translating what Sato proposed in Japanese into English.
Although Waka looked at Sato at Turn 37, it was difficult to examine eye contact
in Example 1 owing to the angle of the camera. However, I saw frequent body
movements and gestures in Example 1. For example, Mika crossed her arms at
Turn 36, Sato moved her arms and opened her palms with the rhythm of her
speech at Turn 37, and Mika moved her arms forward and flipped her hand. At
the end of the interactions in Example 1, there were larger body movements; Tami
stood up to see Waka’s paper, following Mika’s stretching her arm to grab her
electronic dictionary. During the stimulated recall session, Mika commented on
the interactions in Example 1 as follows:
Excerpt 1
I could think about stories easily when I heard that we had to use conditionals.
(Mika, Stimulated Recalls, FF Activity on Day 2)
She further explained this comment in the follow-up interview:
Excerpt 2
If I am told to use conditionals and make sentences, I can make many sentences. I can
think of many stories when I am told to use a certain grammar form, especially when
the given grammar and stories match well.
(Mika, Follow-Up, FF Activity on Day 2)
The discursive practices during the FF activity in Example 1 and Mika’s self-report
data may suggest that grammar instruction during a communicative activity might
have stimulated Mika to communicate in English.
Example 2 shows how most of Mika’s utterances in English received responses
or feedback in English from her interlocutors. This example is from a FF activity
on Day 4 in which students discussed future jobs. They were supposed to use the
target form, formal object it/that.
58 Yasuyo Tomita
EXAMPLE 2 FF Activity on Day 4
60 Mika That? Is this fine? That I need to.

61 Waka That
62 Nao I need to. ((Nao looks at Waka’s paper. Then Nao glances at Mika and looks
at Nao’s card.))
63 Mika Take (.) several English tests. ((Mika shows her card to Waka and points at
the sentences with her left hand. Nao looks at her own card. Sato puts her
hand on Waka’s paper.))
64 Waka Several. ((Nao looks at her own card.))
65 Mika Do you have to pass the tests? ((Nao glances at Waka, and Mika and scratches
her face.))
66 Waka I guess so. Done? ((Sato moves her hand from Waka’s paper.))
Mika was an animator at Turns 60, 63, and 65. Following Mika’s first turn,
Waka and Nao repeated what Mika had said at Turn 60. Therefore, Mika was an
author for Waka and Nao when they repeated Mika’s words at Turns 61 and 62.
Mika was an official hearer when Waka repeated Mika’s words at Turns 61 and 64
and when Waka directly asked Mika a question at Turn 66. In other words, Mika
always became an official hearer after she completed her turn as an animator. Simi-
lar to the previous FF example (i.e., Example 1), Mika experienced a variety of
identity roles during this FF activity.
Further explanation regarding the linguistic resources in Example 2 may be
helpful. Mika and her interlocutors frequently used the word that because the form
that was part of the target structure for the activity (i.e., the formal object it/that
structure as in the sentences I think it necessary to wait an hour or I find that she went
home). Although the students used the word that in Example 2, it was not used as
a formal object.
With regard to interactional resources, there were Mika’s body movements, such
as showing her card to Waka and pointing at the card with her left hand, as well
as one repair at Turn 60, where Mika self-initiated a repair. One of the noticeable
features in this example is that Mika’s utterances in English received feedback or
responses also in English from her interlocutors (e.g., Turns 61, 62, and 64).
Regarding her general impression about FF activities, she said:
Excerpt 3
I felt my opinions were accepted more when we were told to use certain grammar than
when we were not told to do so.
(Mika, Interview, June 2008)
The results of discursive practices during FF activities showed that grammar

stimulated Mika to communicate in the L2 and provided her with opportunities
to receive feedback from others verbally (e.g., repair) and nonverbally (e.g.,
nodding).
Discursive Practices During MF Activities

Example 3 is from a MF activity on Day 1 in which Mika and her group members
were asked to compare Tokyo and their hometown, Takano City.
In Example 3, Mika was an animator at Turns 127 and 129. However, both of
her turns were repetitions of what Waka had said at Turns 119 (“high”) and 126
(“building”). Mika became an official hearer only one time, when Waka seemed
to directly ask Mika, “High?” at Turn 128. In the other turns, Mika tended to
remain silent and played a role as a ratified participant without speaking or being
talked to.
EXAMPLE 3 MF Activity on Day 1
117 Nao The rent is high. ((Nao looks at Waka. Tami looks up words
in her electronic dictionary.))
118 Sato Many (.) many bill. ((Sato smiles, looks at Waka, and leans
forward over the desk. Tami looks up words in her electronic
dictionary.))
119 Waka Many bill. Many [high-] ((Waka looks at Sato. Tami looks
up words in her electronic dictionary. Mika starts looking
up words in her electronic dictionary. Sato glances at
Mika.))
120 Sato [Many high] (.) high ((Sato smiles and looks at Waka. Tami
looks at Waka’s paper and looks up words in her dictionary.
Mika also looks up words in her dictionary.))
121 Waka How about tall? [Tall-] ((Mika and Tami look up words in
their electronic dictionaries.))
122 Nao [Many tall]. ((Nao looks at Waka’s paper. Mika and Tami
look up words in their electronic dictionaries.))
123 Sato Tall bill. ((Sato looks at Waka’s paper. Mika and Tami look
up words in their electronic dictionaries.))
124 Waka <Tall, right?> ((Sato nods.))
125 Sato Bill? Is bill okay? ((Sato looks at Waka. Tami puts her arms
on her lap and looks at her dictionary.))
126 Waka <Building.> ((Sato and Nao look at Waka’s paper.))
127 Mika <High building> ((Sato looks at Waka’s paper.))
128 Waka <High?>
129 Mika <High (.) high building> ((Tami looks up words in her
dictionary. Mika shows her electronic dictionary to Waka.))
130 Sato But, you know, we also have to write about Takano City,
right? ((Sato looks at Waka’s paper and points it at with
her pen.))
60 Yasuyo Tomita
Regarding linguistic resources, vocabulary words such as many , high/tall ,

and bill/building were frequently used during this MF activity. The frequent
use of the same words and repetition indicates that the participants were
focused on meaning and tried to select appropriate words to express mean-
ing. There were two overlapped turns; the first was at Turns 119 and 120,
and the second was at Turns 121 and 122. Also, after Waka’s rapid utterance,
indicated by < >, the participants speeded up their utterances from Turn 126
to Turn 129.
In terms of interactional resources, there were two repair episodes, at Turn 121
and Turn 125, but Mika did not contribute to these repair activities. Regarding
non-linguistic interactional resources, Mika did not receive any eye contact from
anyone, except for Sato’s glance at her in Turn 119. Even after Mika’s turn at 127,
nobody looked at her, which might have motivated her to be physically noticeable
by showing her dictionary to Waka at Turn 129. However, it seems that she failed
to be an official hearer because Sato changed the topic at the next turn (i.e., Turn
130). Interestingly, the use of dictionaries frequently happened during this MF
activity. Both Tami and Mika devoted most of their time to looking up words in
their electronic dictionaries during this activity—another indicator of the partici-
pants’ focus on meaning.
In this example, Mika was likely to remain silent or only repeat what others had
said. In other words, different from in the FF discursive practices, where Mika had
many new ideas about story lines based on the target grammar form, she did not
express new ideas in this MF activity in Example 3. During one of the interviews,
she commented on this aspect of her behavior in MF activities:
Excerpt 4
When I was not provided with any particular grammar form, my mind went blank.
I could not say anything.
In addition, different from during the FF activities, Mika rarely received responses
during MF activities either in English or in Japanese. In fact, as her interview
comment below indicates, Mika did not seem to expect any response or feedback
from others when she said something in English for communication purposes
because she knew that English was not the main language for communication
among her peers:
Excerpt 5
We can understand each other in Japanese. So I do not feel like trying hard to com-
municate in English with my Japanese classmates. I usually give up communicating
in English when I cannot make myself understood.
EXAMPLE 4 MF Activity on Day 1
24 Sato Than in Takano. Life style? ((Sato looks at Waka’s paper with a
smile. Waka writes. Mika, Nao, and Tami look at Waka’s paper.
Everybody leans forward over the desk toward Waka’s paper.))
25 Nao Douka[na].
I am not sure. ((Mika, Nao, Sato, and Tami look at Waka’s
paper.))
26 Waka <[Anmari] [kawaranainjanai]>.
I don’t think there is any difference in life style. ((Sato glances at Waka.))
27 Tami [Chigaunokana].
I wonder if there is any difference.
28 Nao [Life style.] ((Tami looks at Nao. Sato looks at Waka’s paper.))
29 Waka <[Onaji.]>
It should be the same.
30 Tami <[Anmari] kawanai kanji.>
I guess there is no difference in life style. ((Sato glances at Mika and
looks at Waka’s paper.))
Example 4 is another example of discursive practices during a MF activity on

Day 1. In this example, both Japanese and English translations are presented to show
the overlap. The utterances that were said in Japanese are written in italics.
As shown in Example 4, Mika remained a ratified participant in the interactions
without becoming an animator or official hearer. In fact, Mika did not speak at all
in this MF activity until Turn 49, when she said “ah” in Japanese.
The linguistic resources in Example 4 include the use of a phrase, “life style,” and
many overlapped turns, which were uttered quickly, as shown with the symbol < >
(Ten Have, 2007). Regarding the interactional resources in Example 4, the partici-
pants mainly looked at Waka’s paper and rarely made eye contact, used gestures,
changed their body positions, or smiled at each other. There was also no repair in
Example 4. Mika did not seem to find a way to invest in communication during this
MF activity. This fact was described during the follow-up interview.
Excerpt 6
I could not tell my opinion. I could not even say a word. Everybody was exchanging
their opinions so quickly that I could not interrupt them. It was very frustrating that
I could not join the conversation. I think it takes longer for me to make a sentence in
English than others. I am not good at making sentences in English.
(Mika, Follow-Up Interview, May 2008)
Although she explained her silence in Excerpt 6 in terms of her lack of English
proficiency, this seems to be only one of the reasons for not speaking in English
with her Japanese peers. She also repeatedly expressed in the interview that she
was always worried what others would think of her if she spoke in English, and
62 Yasuyo Tomita
that she was afraid of getting a puzzled look and reactions from others such as
“What is she talking about?”
Excerpt 7
I am always worried what people would think of me. If I say something in English as if I
am a cool English speaker and if this actually sounds funny, it will be very embarrassing.
(Mika, Interview, December 2007)
Excerpt 8
I want to speak in English, but I cannot. I am worried that my friends might wonder,
“What is she talking about?” Then I cannot speak. [. . .] Anyway, I do not lead or
initiate conversation. I will first make sure that I am in the right direction. Otherwise,
I am afraid that I may talk about things that are totally irrelevant.
Interestingly, she had these worries only when she had to speak English with her
Japanese peers. When she lived with her home stay family during her school trip
to Australia, she talked a lot in English with them, and she did not feel frustrated
even when she could not join the conversation with her host family members.
During the interview, she said:
Excerpt 9
When I am with Japanese classmates and cannot join their conversation in English,
I feel very frustrated because we should be at the same [English proficiency] level.
[. . .] But in Australia, they are native speakers, and it is obvious that I am inferior
to them [in terms of the English proficiency level]. I do not feel frustrated because I
am not even at the level that I can compare myself to them.
Thus, she was often less willing to speak in English when she was with Japanese
peers, especially in MF activities, as illustrated in Example 4. However, she was more
willing to invest in L2 communication by utilizing identity, linguistic, and interac-
tional resources provided in the discursive practices during FF activities. Thus,
although Mika thought it was “cool” to speak in English, she did not want to speak
English in front of her peers. This might be because she was afraid they might think
she spoke English in order to project herself as a cool fluent speaker.
Discussion
As the results show, Mika made use of different identity, linguistic, and interactional
resources in the discursive practices of FF activities and MF activities, but the pat-
terns of use differed between the two types of activities (Research Questions 1, 2,
and 3). During FF activities, grammar was an important linguistic resource, and it
seemed to stimulate Mika’s thinking about ideas related to the relevant topics
(Research Question 1). She then shared these ideas with her peers in English as an
animator. Her role as an animator allowed Mika to make use of both linguistic and
non-linguistic interactional resources from others, such as repair and eye contact
(Research Question 2). Receiving such linguistic and non-linguistic feedback,
Mika had opportunities to make use of identity resources by becoming an official
hearer and sometimes even an author (Research Question 3). Furthermore, she
drew on interactional resources through repairs, which were mostly on topic-
related content and often expressed with the target grammar forms. The use of
gesture during FF activities might be an indicator of her and her peers’ engagement
with the interactions, where these three resources seem to be interrelated. There-
fore, Mika’s use of linguistic, identity, and interactional resources encouraged her
to invest in L2 communication (Research Question 4).
In the discursive practices of MF activities, vocabulary items were the main linguis-
tic resources (Research Question 1). However, they did not seem to stimulate Mika’s
thinking about ideas relevant to the topic, as grammar had done in the FF activities.
Instead, the focus on vocabulary was likely to result in the frequent use of dictionaries
to search for words and word meanings. The use of dictionaries was not likely to
encourage Mika and her peers to make eye contact with one another, to use gestures,
or to provide feedback to one another. Therefore, Mika tended to remain silent,
accepting the role of ratified participant. This role as a ratified participant seemed to
be related to the other linguistic resources of MF activities: overlapping of speech and
speed. Commenting on the difficulty of interrupting rapid and overlapping speech,
Mika participated less and remained as a ratified participant during MF activities. This
combination of linguistic, identity, and interactional resources used during MF activi-
ties did not seem to help Mika to invest in L2 communication.
A comparison of the discursive practices in the FF and MF activities highlights
the role of grammar. In other words, grammar in FF activities seemed to encourage
the use of linguistic, identity, and interactional resources so that Mika might invest in
L2 communication by using these three resources. Without grammar or focus on
form, on the other hand, these three resources were likely to be less connected, leav-
ing Mika to remain as a ratified participant. Her reluctance to communicate in
English with her peers, especially during MF activities, might be related to the pres-
tigious Westernized status associated with English in Japan (Ryan, 2009). This asso-
ciation with status may cause negative feelings among Japanese EFL learners during
MF activities. Because MF activities usually require learners to express their opinions,
only students who have already gained fluency may be able to complete the task.
Being fluent in English may represent the student’s membership in the imaginary
prestigious English-speaking community, which may provide only those fluent
speakers with symbolic and material resources and increase their cultural capital.
In contrast, in FF activities when learners are focused on form within com-
municative practice (i.e., FFI), learners seem to communicate for the purpose of
learning the target form, rather than for the purpose of becoming a fluent speaker
64 Yasuyo Tomita
of a “prestigious” language, English. Thus, it appears that they communicate as

language learners during FF activities without risking that they may be considered
as fluent English speakers who want to “show off ” their prestigious status. In addi-
tion, receiving corrective feedback from teachers or peers may give learners the
feeling that their “voices will be heard and respected” (Cummins, 2000, p. 44), and
this may also enhance learners’ investment in L2 learning.
Conclusion
For the L2 learner in this case study, Mika, a focus on grammar served as a bridge to
linguistic, identity, and interactional resources available in the discursive practices of FF
activities and encouraged her to further invest in L2 communication (compared with
MF activities). In terms of pedagogical implications, this study showed that FF activities
can provide learners with more opportunities to practice English in EFL classrooms,
where students may otherwise feel uncomfortable about speaking English in front of
their friends. Considering the very limited opportunities to use English in EFL con-
texts, the use of FF activities may be one way of helping learners to invest in L2 com-
munication and promote their L2 learning. Further research is needed to examine how
these results apply to other contexts, languages, and learner populations, in order to
refine our understanding of the role of FFI in encouraging L2 learner investment.
APPENDIX A
Transcription Conventions
[ The onset of overlapping

] The end of overlapping
= Latching or no gap between two turns
(.) A tiny time interval within a turn or between turns
word A stressed part
:: Prolongation
- A cut-off
? Rising intonation
. A falling tone
, A low-rising intonation
<> Speeding up
() Inability to hear what was said
(word) Dubious hearings
((smiles)) Description of nonverbal action
Italics Utterances originally uttered in Japanese and translated into English by
the author
Note: Based on Ten Have (2007, pp. 215–216) and Young (2008).
References
Blair, R. J. (1997). The role of English and other foreign language in Japanese society. The
Internet TESL Journal, 3(7), 74–86. Retrieved from http://iteslj.org/Articles/Blair-
EngJpn.html
Bourdieu, P. (1977). The economics of linguistic exchange. Social Science Information, 16(6),
645–668.
Cummins, J. (2000). Language, power, and pedagogy: Bilingual children in the crossfire. Clevedon,
UK: Multilingual Matters.
Doughty, C., & Varela, E. (1998). Communicative focus on form. In C. Doughty &
J. Williams (Eds.), Focus on form in classroom second language acquisition (pp. 114–138).
New York, NY: Cambridge University Press.
Duff, P. (2008). Case study research in applied linguistics. New York, NY: Lawrence Erlbaum.
Ellis, R. (2001). Investigating form-focused instruction. Language Learning, 51, 1–46.
Greer, D. L. (2000). “The eyes of Hito”: A Japanese cultural monitor of behavior in the
communicative language classroom. JALT Journal, 22(1), 183–195.
Kanno, Y. (2003). Negotiating bilingual and bicultural identities: Japanese returnees betwixt two
worlds. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
Kusano Hubbell, K. (2002). Zen and the art of English language teaching. In S. Savignon
(Ed.), Interpreting communicative language teaching: Contexts and concerns in teacher education
(pp. 82–87). New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.
66 Yasuyo Tomita
Long, M. H. (1991). Focus on form: A design feature in language teaching methodology. In

K. de Bot, R. B. Ginsberg, & C. Kramsch (Eds.), Foreign language research in cross-cultural
perspective (pp. 40–52). Amsterdam, the Netherlands: John Benjamins.
Mackey, A. (2006). Feedback, noticing and instructed second language learning. Applied
Linguistics, 27(3), 405–430.
Matsumura, M. (2009). Eigo kyouikuwo shiru 58 no kagi [58 key points to understand English
education]. Tokyo, Japan: Taishukan.
Ministry of Education, Culture, Sports, Science and Technology (MEXT). (2003). Regarding
the establishment of an action plan to cultivate “Japanese with English Abilities.” Retrieved
from http://www.gifu-net.ed.jp/kyoka/eigo/CommunicativeEnglish/Regarding%20
the%20Establishment%20of%20an%20Action%20Plan%20to%20Cultivate%20
%A1%C8Japanese%20with%20English%20Abilities%A1%C9.htm
Norton, B. (2000). Identity and language learning: Gender, ethnicity and educational change. Harlow,
UK: Pearson Education.
Norton Peirce, B. (1995). Social identity, investment, and language learning. TESOL Quar-
terly, 29(1), 9–31.
Pavlenko, A., & Norton, B. (2007). Imagined communities, identity, and English language
learning. In J. Cummins & C. Davison (Eds.), International handbook of English language
teaching (pp. 669–680). New York, NY: Springer.
Ryan, S. (2009). Ambivalence and commitment, liberation and challenge: Investigating the
attitudes of young Japanese people towards the learning of English. Journal of Multilin-
gual and Multicultural Development, 30(5), 405–420.
Spada, N. (1997). Form-focused instruction and second language acquisition: A review of
classroom and laboratory research. Language Teaching, 30, 73–87.
research. Language Teaching, 44, 225–236.
Spada, N., & Lightbown, P. M. (2008). Form-focused instruction: Isolated or integrated?
TESOL Quarterly, 42, 181–207.
Spada, N., Lightbown, P. M., & White, J. (2005). The importance of form/meaning mappings
in explicit form-focused instruction. In A. Housen & M. Pierrard (Eds.), Current issues in
instructed second language learning (pp. 199–234). Brussels, Germany: Mouton de Gruyter.
Spolsky, B. (1989). Conditions for second language learning. Oxford, UK: Oxford University
Press.
Takahashi, T. (2000). Eigo kyouikugaku gairon [English education]. Tokyo, Japan: Kinseido.
Ten Have, P. (2007). Doing conversation analysis: A practical guide (2nd ed.). Los Angeles, CA: Sage.
Tomita, Y., & Spada, N. (2013). Form-focused instruction and learner investment in L2
communication. Modern Language Journal, 97(3), 591–610.
Young, R. F. (2008). Language and interaction: An advanced resource book. Abingdon, UK:
Routledge.
Young, R. F. (2009). Discursive practice in language learning and teaching. Malden, MA:
Wiley-Blackwell.
5
THE INFLUENCE OF PRETASK
INSTRUCTIONS AND PRETASK
PLANNING ON FOCUS ON FORM
DURING KOREAN EFL TASK-BASED
INTERACTION
Sujung Park
Motivations for the Study

The theoretical rationale for pretask planning as a task implementation condition
lies in information-processing models, originally established in cognitive psy-
chology but applied to language learning by Skehan (1996, 1998). According to
these models, humans have a limited attentional capacity to process information;
thus, paying attention to one area of performance may reduce the attention
elsewhere. It follows then that planning before a second language (L2) task may
ease the communicative and cognitive pressure on the learner’s limited working
memory, resulting in improved task performance. A number of empirical studies,
based on this theoretical framework, have reported that although planning
improves fluency and complexity, it has mixed effects on accuracy (e.g., Crookes,
1989; Foster & Skehan, 1996, 1999; Mehnert, 1998; Ortega, 1999; Sangarun,
2005; Wendel, 1997; Williams, 1992).
The construct of pretask planning as an independent variable affecting linguis-
tic performance has also been linked to learning processes. For example, Hulstijn
and Hulstijn (1984) stated, “Planning involves the activation and retrieval of
knowledge about linguistic forms and their meanings, stored in the speaker’s mem-
ory” (p. 24), which indicates planning processes may promote a focus on form.
This form-meaning connection may then elicit noticing a hole in knowledge,
hypothesis-testing, and/or meta-linguistic analysis, which are crucial for L2 devel-
opment (Swain, 1998).
Despite this theoretical argument for planning in focus on form and L2 devel-
opment, previous planning studies have mainly focused on performance measures.
In particular, the weak effect on accuracy indicates that one needs to look at pro-
cess rather than product as the effect of short-term planning time (Ortega, 1999).
68 Sujung Park
That is, it may be too ambitious to expect targetlike performance after 5 to

15 minutes of planning time, given that inter-language (IL) development requires
long-term, internal restructuring (Kellerman, 1985; Lightbown, 1985; McLaugh-
lin, 1990). Similarly, Ortega argued that learners with incorrect IL representations
may not be able to benefit from extra time alone without appropriate L2 assis-
tance. Thus, it seems worthwhile to explore focus on form to provide insight into
the learning process, rather than performance measures for planning effects.
Another motivation for the present study is to address the confounding vari-
ables between pretask instructions and planning. In previous research in pretask
planning, researchers administered different pretask instructions prior to the plan-
ning time, which means that it is not clear whether it was pretask instructions,
planning availability, or both that influenced the planned performance (e.g.,
Crookes, 1988, 1989; Foster & Skehan, 1996; Mehnert, 1998; Ortega, 1999; Tajima,
2003; Wendel, 1997). Furthermore, previous focus-on-form studies have shown
that due to the meaning-oriented nature of a task, learners predominantly focus
on lexis over grammar (Basturkmen, Loewen, & Ellis, 2002; Ellis, Basturkmen, &
Loewen, 2001; Loewen, 2003; Williams, 1999). Investigating different pretask
instructions that attempt to balance attention to both types of form may therefore
shed further light on the potential role of instructions in focus on form. Thus, the
present study investigated the individual and combined effects of pretask instruc-
tions and planning opportunity on focus on form during task-based performance.
Before describing the method of this study, I provide a more detailed review of the
research in planning and focus on form regarding the gaps addressed above.
Previous Research in Pretask Planning and Focus on Form

Ortega (1999) investigated advanced English learners of Spanish, asking them to
simply plan what to say in their oral picture-based narrative task. She found that
while fluency and complexity significantly improved, accuracy improved only in
some measures. Tajima (2003) also examined post-beginning Korean learners of
Japanese, asking them to plan for leaving two phone messages without any specific
planning instructions. The results indicated that planning significantly improved
fluency in all measures as in Ortega but only partially affected complexity and
accuracy. Foster and Skehan (1996) similarly employed the same general instruc-
tions with pre-intermediate learners, using personal information exchange, narra-
tive, and decision-making tasks. They reported that planning under the general
instructions increased both complexity and fluency significantly but only in some
measures and improved accuracy in only two of the tasks.1 The inconsistent results
among these studies may be partially due to the different performance mea-
sures employed by the researchers, but even so, it is apparent that general instructions
without concrete planning guidelines produced a strong effect on fluency. This
fact is not surprising considering that planners have time to think about and pos-
sibly rehearse what to say in advance. As for the weaker effect for complexity, it is
Pretask Instructions and Planning 69
suspected that the different task types used in different studies may produce vary-
ing degrees of linguistic complexity. For example, a task requiring the expression
of personal information may generate fewer complex utterances than one eliciting
unfamiliar information because the former produced few subordinate utterances
that may result from well-organized knowledge, as revealed in Foster and Skehan’s
study. The low accuracy may be explained by L2 learners’ limited representations
(Ortega, 1999; Tajima, 2003).
Other planning researchers employed more specific, divided instructions for
what to plan for, producing both improved complexity and fluency. For example,
Mehnert (1998) specifically asked intermediate learners of German, under differ-
ent planning periods, to plan both what to say and how to say it before leaving
phone messages. She found that while accuracy improved most significantly with
1 minute of planning time, complexity and fluency improved more with 10 min-
utes. The accuracy result is interesting because it indicates that more planning time
alone may not generate higher accuracy (Ortega, 1999; Tajima, 2003; Wendel,
1997). Similarly, Crookes (1988, 1989) instructed intermediate/advanced Japanese
ESL learners to plan for content, organization, and language before performing
oral, monologic tasks (e.g., how to explain building Lego blocks and the location
of buildings on a map). He found a significant increase in complexity but not in
accuracy, offering a trade-off effect between complexity and accuracy as a possible
explanation (Foster & Skehan, 1996; Skehan, 1998). In Wendel’s study, he asked
intermediate Japanese EFL learners to think about vocabulary and organization
for their oral film-based narrative tasks, reporting significantly improved complex-
ity and fluency only. To improve accuracy, he suggested on-line planning (i.e.,
monitoring during task), rather than off-line planning (i.e., pretask planning), with
form-focused instructions given immediately before L2 production. In order to
test this hypothesis, Yuan and Ellis (2003) provided a similar level of specific
instructions (i.e., plan for content, language, and organization) and an oral picture-
based narrative task and examined the effects of off-line vs. on-line planning. They
found that the Chinese EFL learners significantly improved complexity and accu-
racy under both pretask and on-line planning conditions compared to the no-
planning condition. However, the on-line planners were better—although not
significantly better—accuracy producers than the off-line planners, thereby sup-
porting Wendel’s claim.
Foster and Skehan (1996), reviewed earlier in terms of their general instructions,
also provided specific instructions (i.e., plan for content, vocabulary, grammar, and
organization), comparing them with general instructions. They reported that for
all task types, the specific instruction group produced significantly greater com-
plexity than the general instruction group. The explanation may be that, as sug-
gested by the researchers, there is a role for planning instructions (or focus of
attention) in task performance. That is, instructions asking for planning for com-
plex ideas and organization may increase linguistic complexity, sacrificing accuracy,
while instructions without such focus may lead learners to simply rehearse
70 Sujung Park
without taking risks, such as the general planners in Foster and Skehan’s study, who
produced the greatest accuracy. This hypothesis, however, was not supported in
their later study (1999), where meaning-focus instructions and form-focus instruc-
tions did not produce significantly different results with respect to complexity and
accuracy of language. Further research is required, but given L2 learners’ limited
competence, merely asking learners to prepare the language may not bring about
greater accuracy over a 10-minute period (Ortega, 1999; Tajima, 2003; Wiggles-
worth, 1997). Indeed, in the same study, teacher-led planning through explicit
teaching or instructions produced significantly more accurate language than did
solitary or group-based planning. Therefore, the studies reviewed show that when
instructions included specific instructions regarding what to plan, both complexity
and fluency tended to improve (Crookes, 1988, 1989; Mehnert, 1998; Wendel,
1997). In contrast, when planning occurred without specific instructions, there
was a strong effect on fluency only (Foster & Skehan, 1996; Ortega, 1999; Tajima,
2003). This may indicate a role for pretask instructions in task performance, sepa-
rate from planning opportunity, which suggests a need to investigate these two
constructs separately.
This review also shows that despite the theoretical role of planning in focus on
form, previous research has mainly investigated performance measures with plan-
ning having the least effect on accuracy. Little is known about the direct effect of
planning on focus on form during a task. However, there have been some studies
on what learners do while planning. For example, Ortega (1999), based on her
posttask interviews, reported that despite general pretask instructions, the learners
attended to both content and form including morphosyntax. On the other hand,
Wendel (1997) showed, using the same means as Ortega’s, that only 3 out of
20 participants attended to grammar, while all, as instructed, focused on lexis and
the sequence of events. Finally, Sangarun (2005), employing think-aloud protocols,
reported that regardless of instructions (i.e., focus on content, form, and content/
form) her learners did predominantly more meaning planning (e.g., generating/
revising/rehearsing/organizing ideas) than form planning. However, some pre-
dicted differences among the instruction types were still obvious. The form-
focused instructions (i.e., focus on vocabulary, transitional words or phrases, and
grammar) led to significantly more lexical form planning than the other types,
while the meaning/form-focused instructions led to significantly more grammati-
cal corrections. Thus, it seems that while planners focus on form to some extent
(as influenced by different pretask instructions), they are more concerned with
meaning than form planning.
The planners’ greater orientation to meaning than form may indicate that plan-
ning may help achieve a focus on form during the task rather than during planning.
In other words, since planners complete most of the content planning at the
planning stage, during the main task they may have enough working memory
available to attend to form (Ellis, 2005; Skehan, 1998). Skehan (1996) also stated
that pretask activities including planning can be effective for achieving a focus on
form during a task because they reduce the cognitive demand of a task, enabling
the learners to concentrate on the language in the task. Therefore, it seems worth-
while to conduct a study on whether planning leads to increased focus on form
during a task. This investigation is particularly significant considering the impor-
tance of focus on form in L2 acquisition (Long, 1996; Schmidt, 2001; Schmidt &
Frota, 1986; Swain, 1995, 1998; VanPatten, 1990, 1999).
In addition, investigating the effect of different types of pretask instructions on
focus on form may shed further light on the focus-on-form literature. A majority
of studies in this area have shown that learners predominantly focus on lexis over
grammar due to the communicative nature of their tasks. Williams (1999) reported
that although learners sometimes focused on grammar due to perceived teacher
requirements, they primarily focused on words in communicative activities because
of the necessity of words in continuing interaction. Ellis and his colleagues (Bas-
turkmen et al., 2002; Ellis et al., 2001) observed that both teachers and learners
were mostly interested in lexis during their meaning-oriented activities. Finally,
Loewen (2003) confirmed the previous finding obtained with limited samples by
showing that the 12 meaning-oriented classes he observed all focused more on
lexis than on grammar.
However, there are a few focus-on-form studies showing that what is done
during the pretask phase may influence learners’ attention to form during the main
task. For example, in the study by Leeser (2004), prior to a written text-reconstruction
task, L2 Spanish learners in content-based classrooms reviewed the content of the
text as well as target grammatical forms (i.e., preterite and imperfect), followed
by watching a video of a model task. The results were that—regardless of
proficiency—they produced more grammatical (60%) than lexical (40%) language-
related episodes (LREs), which are parts of the conversation where learners talk
about, question, or correct their language use (Swain & Lapkin, 1998). In other
words, it seems that the text review may have lessened the learners’ pressure to
attend to both meaning and form during the task because they were likely to be
familiar with the text by the time they began reconstructing it. Also, the grammar-
based review may have helped direct learner attention more to grammatical than
lexical forms. Pretask instructions can be another way of manipulating learners’
focus on form during task performance. Yoshimura (2006) asked Japanese EFL
learners to read a text in order to reproduce the exact text, retelling its content, or
drawing a picture based on the text. The task outcomes were that although all
groups understood the text equally well—as shown in a comprehension test—the
first instruction group repeated significantly more of the same verbs of the text
than did the second group, who in turn performed significantly better than the last
group in a fill-in-the-blank test. Although the study investigated vocabulary only,
it supports the potential impact of pretask instructions in focus on form during
the main task. In fact, Schmidt (2001) argued that task instructions along with
other task variables may promote learners’ attention to and noticing of a form.
Therefore, the present study explores whether manipulating pretask instruction
72 Sujung Park
types may affect learners’ orientation of form (lexical vs. grammatical) during a
meaning-oriented task.
The present study also has pedagogical implications in addition to the theoreti-
cal and empirical motivations described above. From teachers’ point of view, pro-
viding planning time and instructions is ecologically valid and easy to implement
in an L2 classroom (Ellis, 2005). However, use of task-based monologues after
planning, as frequently employed in most previous planning studies, is not a com-
mon practice in a large classroom. Thus, this study investigates task-based dyadic
interaction instead. In short, based on theoretical, empirical, and pedagogical moti-
vations, this study investigated how pretask instructions and planning affect learn-
ers’ focus on form during task-based interaction.
Method
Participants
The participants were 110 Korean EFL learners, 80 women and 30 men, enrolled
in eight sections of an English conversation course at a university in South Korea.
Their instructors were five native English speakers and one non-native speaker.
They had been admitted to the following undergraduate programs based on their
national university entrance examination scores: American Studies, English Litera-
ture and Language, and European Studies. Their mean age was 24 years (range:
20–37, SD: 3.14), and their mean length of previous study of English was 11 years
(range: 7–22, SD: 2.38). In terms of the students’ proficiency, a majority of them
were perceived to be intermediate by their instructors. However, measuring pro-
ficiency was not important in this study because it aimed to portray L2 classrooms
where proficiency levels were not often controlled.2
Tasks
The tasks were two oral narrative tasks comprising a practice task and a target task.
The former was administered to familiarize the learners with the latter. Each task
was based on six picture strips from Heaton (1975). Two learners in a dyad told a
story out loud together without writing it down as if to someone who had not
seen the pictures. The picture-based narrative task was chosen for two reasons.
First, this task has frequently been used both in planning and in focus-on-form
studies (e.g., Ellis, 1987; Foster & Skehan, 1996; Swain & Lapkin, 1998). Second,
this task is thought to draw more attention to meaning than to form, fulfilling the
major requirement of focus on form. In other words, a narrative task, as opposed
to other discourse types, requires relating a series of events over time, using cause-
effect relationships, and including human interest/values (Ricoeur, 1984, as cited
in Wendel, 1997). Also, a picture-based narrative task may require some imagina-
tion on the part of the speaker to make smooth connections between pictures.
Thus, completing a picture-based narrative may be a cognitively demanding task,

allowing less attention to language (Ellis, 2001; Foster & Skehan, 1996; Long, 1991;
Williams, 2005).
Design
A 2 × 2 × 2 repeated measures ANOVA was used with type of pretask instructions
(general, specific), planning (nonplanning, planning), and language focus (lexical,
morphosyntactic) as the three independent variables, with repeated measures on
the last variable. The dependent variable was the occurrence of LREs, a focus-on-
form measure frequently used in task-based interaction research (e.g., Swain,
1998). In terms of instruction types, the general instructions had only task descrip-
tions as to how to complete the narrative task in dyads, while the specific instruc-
tions included specific foci to the general instructions (i.e., asking learners to
attend to content, organization, vocabulary, and grammar) following Foster and
Skehan’s (1996) study (see Appendix A, an English translation of the Korean
instructions3). The planners, as in previous studies, had 10 minutes, while the non-
planners had no planning time before the task-based interaction. The lexical lan-
guage focus was defined as learners’ talk about lexis, while the morphosyntactic
language focus was defined as learners’ discussions about syntax or morphology
during the main task (Williams, 1999). Thus, as shown in Table 5.1, the various
combinations of between-group factors resulted in four conditions: general non-
planners, general planners, specific nonplanners, and specific planners, with
repeated measures on language focus for each condition.
Procedure
Each of the six classes was visited twice for two consecutive weeks and on each
occasion was recorded doing one of the two communicative tasks during their
normally scheduled hours, which took approximately one month. Students within
each class were first divided into two groups, and then each assigned to one of the
four conditions randomly. One group stayed in the classroom, while the other
moved to a nearby classroom, except for one class, which could not find an empty
TABLE 5.1 Experimental Design
Variable General Instructions Specific Instructions
Nonplanning GNPL Lexis SNPL Lexis

(n = 14 dyads) Morphosyntax (n = 15 dyads) Morphosyntax
Planning GPL Lexis SPL Lexis
(n = 11 dyads) Morphosyntax (n = 15 dyads) Morphosyntax
Notes: N = 110 individuals; GNPL = general nonplanning; GPL = general planning; SNPL = specific
nonplanning; SPL = specific planning.
74 Sujung Park
room, so the students in this class received the same treatment. Once the class was
divided, a trained research assistant took charge of the other classroom. To check
the fidelity of the research procedure implemented by different researchers, two
observers were placed in each classroom to record the procedure for later compari-
son. During the practice session, all learners received the general instructions for
about four to five minutes in Korean (hereafter, all instructions were provided in
Korean). The reason for using only the general instructions was to ensure that
treatment effects resulted from different instruction types, not from task repetition.
All participants first paired themselves up and were given an audio-recorder with
the record button on and a clip-on microphone. Then, the nonplanners were
provided with the general instructions, followed by a 15-minute task-based inter-
action. For five minutes, the planners observed the researcher’s or her assistants’
think-aloud demonstration using a math problem. They were then provided with
the general instructions and 10 minutes to think aloud and plan for the practice
task. In terms of language, they were free to choose either English or Korean. To
help them to plan better as well as to ensure that they engaged in the planning
process as directed, they were also given a piece of paper on which they could jot
notes, but were told that it would be taken away once the planning session was
completed. In addition, they were told to try not to write full English sentences in
order to prevent confounding modality and planning. As soon as the planning
session was completed, they began working with their partners for 15 minutes.
Finally, after the practice task was completed, all participants were asked to com-
plete a brief demographic survey for five minutes. In total, the practice session took
from about 25 to 40 minutes.
During the target session, the same procedure as in the practice session was
implemented except that:
1. the specific instruction groups received the specific instructions for about
four to five minutes;
2. there was no think-aloud demonstration;
3. a different set of pictures from the practice task was used;
4. for task-based interaction, 20 minutes were provided; and
5. following the target task, all learners were asked to complete a posttask ques-
tionnaire for about 15 minutes.4
They were not informed of the content of the questionnaire until they completed
the target task to prevent any possibility that it would interfere with their planning
process and the task itself. The target session took from about 40 to 50 minutes.
Everyone in each classroom was audiotaped doing the tasks and completed the
questionnaires to keep experimental conditions constant for all participants. How-
ever, the data gathered from those who came late or did not have a partner were
eliminated from the analysis of the study. Finally, the same dyads worked together
for the two weeks of the study as much as possible.
Analysis
The dyads’ interaction while performing the story-retelling task was transcribed
by the researcher and the two paid research assistants. All of the transcripts were
checked by the researcher. The data were then examined for focus on form, which
was operationalized as LREs. Following Swain and Lapkin (1998), an LRE was
defined as any part of a conversation where learners talk about, question, or correct
their language use, excluding self-correction. However, when students initiated
LREs directly to the researcher, which were infrequent, those LREs were included
as part of the dataset. Furthermore, Fortune and Thorp’s (2001) “one feature one
language-related principle” in which “any talk on the same linguistic feature was
counted as one episode” was followed (p. 153). Consequently, if multiple LREs
targeting the same linguistic feature occurred, they were counted only once. In
contrast, if an LRE targeted more than one linguistic feature, each one was counted
separately.
After the LREs were identified, they were classified based on the targeted lin-
guistic form as either lexis or morphosyntax, following Williams (1999). Lexical
LREs consisted of learners’ talk about definition, word form, (oral) spelling, pro-
nunciation, preposition choice, idiomatic/formulaic expressions, or how to express
meaning (e.g., “how do you say this?”). Example 1 displays a lexical LRE where
the learners are trying to describe a scene where four boys cut in line and take the
bus ahead of three other boys. Learner M first comes up with the word “ahead,”
but soon F suggests a different phrase, “in front of,” though she quickly backs off
it. Finally, they choose the word “quickly,” which is close, but incorrect, to mean
“ahead of.”
Example 1
M: 앞서서
aph sese
ahead
F: in front of? 아닌데
anin-tey
in front of? no, that’s not right
M: 그들보다 빨리 quickly 음 quickly take the bus quickly
kutul-pota ppali eum
before the three boys quickly mm quickly take the bus quickly
F: yeah
yeah
Morphosyntactic LREs are episodes in which learners focus on aspects of gram-

mar, either morphology or syntax. Examples include word order, agreement, arti-
cle, tense choice, or omission of verbs. Example 2 illustrates such an episode in
76 Sujung Park
which learner M2 is trying to elicit from learner M1 more content connecting

what he has just said. Learner M1 instead points out, with stress, learner M2’s
incorrect tense use by providing a recast.
Example 2
M2: uuuh many people is angry
M1: 어
e
ya
M2: many people is angry . . . and?
M1: many people was angry
M2: was angry
M1: 응
ung
ya
An independent coder coded a subset of the data (25%) to identify the occurrence
of LREs and to classify the LREs as either lexical or morphosyntactic. The few
LREs that were missed by the coder or the researcher were not counted as disagree-
ments and were added to the dataset. Using simple percentage agreement, the
agreement between the researcher’s coding and the independent rater’s coding was
96% for the identification of LREs and 93% for the classification of LREs.
Finally, the assumptions of repeated measures ANOVA were checked. To deter-
mine whether the data were normally distributed, the Kolmogorov–Smirnov test
(i.e., a test for normality) was performed on the residuals based on the repeated
measures ANOVA ( p > .15), indicating that the data meets the normality assump-
tion. Then, Levene’s test of homogeneity of variances was performed on the resid-
uals of lexical ( p = .63) and morphosyntactic LREs ( p = .05) between the different
types of pretask instructions and planning. Since the latter p-value is borderline, it
was determined that it does not seriously violate the assumption, and it was decided
to use the inferential ANOVA test. In addition, considering that the current study
has an unbalanced design (i.e., different sample sizes per group) and more than one
effect, the least squared means (LSM) and standard errors (SE) were used as the unit
of analysis rather than arithmetic means.
Results
The research question asked whether pretask instructions and planning affected
learners’ focus on form during task-based interaction. As shown in Table 5.2,
regardless of instruction types and planning availability, the participants produced
broadly the same number and kind of LREs no matter how or if they planned. In
terms of the main effects of the instructions, the general instruction group
TABLE 5.2 LREs by Instruction Types and Planning Opportunity
Variable Lexical Morphosyntactic
LSM SE LSM SE
GI (n = 25) 8.24 .81 1.57 .46

SI (n = 30) 7.23 .74 2.93 .42
NPL (n = 29) 8.01 .75 2.45 .42
PL (n = 26) 7.46 .80 2.05 .45
GNPL (n = 14) 8.26 .98 1.52 .61
GPL (n = 11) 8.21 1.0 1.61 .69
SNPL (n = 15) 7.75 .96 3.38 .59
SPL (n = 15) 6.71 .96 2.49 .59
Notes: n = number of dyads; GI = general instructions; SI = specific instructions; NPL =

nonplanning; PL = planning; GNPL = general nonplanning; GPL = general planning; SNPL =
specific nonplanning; SPL = specific planning.
TABLE 5.3 Findings From Repeated Measures ANOVA
Effect Numerator df Denominator df F
Intercept 1 51 158.606
PL 1 51 0.326
INS 1 51 0.045
LF 1 51 178.320**
PL × INS 1 51 0.807
PL × LF 1 51 0.018
INS × LF 1 51 8.460**
PL × INS × LF 1 51 0.188
Notes: PL = planning; INS = instruction; LF = language focus; ** p < .01.
produced an LSM of 8.24 lexical LREs and 1.57 morphosyntactic LREs. Similarly,
the specific instruction group produced an LSM of 7.23 lexical and 2.93 morpho-
syntactic LREs. For the main effects of planning, the nonplanners produced an
LSM of 8.01 lexical LREs and 2.45 morphosyntactic LREs. Similarly, the planners
produced an LSM of 7.46 lexical LREs and 2.05 morphosyntactic LREs.
Among the main effects, only the effect of language focus ( p = .000) was sig-
nificant, indicating that the learners produced significantly more lexical than mor-
phosyntactic LREs regardless of instruction types (effect size = 2.02 for general
instructions, effect size = 1.32 for specific instructions) or planning availability
(effect size = 1.70 for nonplanning, effect size = 1.64 for planning) as shown in
Table 5.3.
78 Sujung Park
9
8
7
6
5
Lexical LREs
4
Morphological LREs
3
2
1
0
GNPL GPL SNPL SPL
FIGURE 5.1 Interaction between pretask instructions and planning
In terms of the interaction between pretask instructions and planning, Table 5.2
shows that the general nonplanners produced the highest LSM of 8.26 lexical
LREs; the general planners, the next highest LSM of 8.21; the specific nonplanners,
the next highest LSM of 7.75; and the specific planners, the lowest LSM of 6.71.
In terms of morphosyntactic LREs, somewhat the opposite pattern was observed.
The highest LSM of morphosyntactic LREs, 3.38, was achieved by the specific
nonplanners; the next highest, 2.49, the specific planners; the third highest, 1.61,
the general planners; and the lowest, 1.52, the general nonplanners. This informa-
tion is more clearly illustrated in Figure 5.1.
As shown in Table 5.3, only the interaction effect between instruction type and
language focus was significant ( p = .005). To further examine the source of the
interaction, post-hoc tests were performed. The results indicated that, as can be
predicted from previous analyses, learners produced significantly more lexical
LREs than morphosyntactic LREs under both general ( p < .0001, effect size =
2.02) and specific ( p < .0001, effect size = 1.32) instruction conditions. In addi-
tion, when instruction groups were compared, the LSM of morphosyntactic LREs
was significantly greater in the specific instruction group than in the general
instruction group ( p = .0319, effect size = .59).
To summarize, although the learners produced significantly more lexical than
morphosyntactic LREs regardless of pretask instruction types or planning avail-
ability, those who received the specific instructions produced significantly more
morphosyntactic LREs than their counterparts.
Discussion and Conclusions

This study set out to explore whether pretask instructions and planning have
individual and combined effects on focus on form in task-based interaction.
One of the possible reasons for the learners’ greater attention to lexis than to
morphosyntax regardless of instruction type and planning availability may be
task type. The current study purposefully employed a picture-based story-
retelling task, one of the reasons being its meaning-oriented nature. In other
words, the learners were given six ordered pictures and asked to tell as detailed
a story as possible, as if they were going to tell it to somebody who had never
seen the pictures before. Thus, setting aside different pretask instructions and
planning availability, the basic task instructions that were given to all learners
were meaning oriented, requiring them to describe the pictures as precisely as
possible with details. Then, as VanPatten (1999) argued, the linguistic form that
has the most meaning is vocabulary, so the task requirements in the study may
have led all the learners to search for the appropriate vocabulary. This corrobo-
rates the results of previous focus-on-form studies that employed meaning-
oriented tasks (e.g., Basturkmen et al., 2002; Ellis et al., 2001; Loewen, 2003;
Williams, 1999).
However, the present study also revealed that despite learners’ predominant
focus on lexis, those under the specific instructions paid greater attention to
morphosyntax and less to lexis than did those under the general instructions.
This can be explained in relation to the findings of previous studies. For example,
in Leeser’s (2004) study, the target grammar of the text-reconstruction task was
reviewed before the learners engaged in the main task, resulting in the produc-
tion of more grammatical than lexical LREs. Similarly, in the present study atten-
tion was attracted to grammar via specific instructions concerning focus on
grammar along with lexis, content, and organization as opposed to those under
the general instructions who did not receive such specific instructions. Thus, it
seems that when teachers specifically pinpoint certain aspects of language that
they wish their students to focus on, the students are more likely to follow those
directions during the main task. This is further corroborated by the results of the
studies by Williams (1999) and Yoshimura (2006). Williams reported that learn-
ers attended more to grammatical form than meaning when they perceived that
grammatical form was what their teachers wanted. Yoshimura also found that
while learners under different pretask instructions showed the same level of
comprehension of a text, those who were explicitly directed to reproduce the
text were able to use more verb forms than those who were not. This study is
only limited to lexical form, but it adds support for the role of pretask instruc-
tions given that students under different instructions performed differently.
Thus, the findings of previous studies suggest a need for some kind of teacher
intervention during a communicative task which may help attract learner atten-
tion to morphosyntactic or less salient forms (Leeser, 2004; Williams, 1999). This
is supported by Pica (1997), who stated that the reason learners mainly converse
over lexical forms during communicative tasks is not because they cannot focus
on morphosyntactic forms but because the nature of their meaning-oriented
tasks does not require them to do so. The present study then shows that
80 Sujung Park
manipulating instruction types can be one of the pedagogical means to attract

attention to grammatical form during a task-based interaction.
In addition to giving specific instructions, another suggestion to attract attention
to grammar during a communicative task is to provide learners with a list of words
needed for task completion prior to the task. The theoretical rationale originates in
the information-processing hypothesis that claims that due to learners’ limited pro-
cessing ability, paying attention to one area of language may reduce the attention
available elsewhere (Skehan, 1998; VanPatten, 1990). In other words, if learners do
not have to focus on lexical form, they may have processing space available to attend
to less salient and meaningful forms of language (Ellis, 2005). Thus, given that focus
on form occurs when learners notice a gap between their IL and the target language
(TL) and/or a hole in their IL (Swain, 1998), it is plausible that with help on
vocabulary, they would not encounter difficulty in lexical searches. This means that
they may devote their attention to less salient grammatical forms. In short, provid-
ing help with vocabulary before a task may be as effective as providing specific
pretask instructions in attracting attention to grammatical form during a commu-
nicative task. This hypothesis is worth exploring in future research.
In terms of pretask planning, the study found neither main effects from plan-
ning nor interaction effects between planning and the other variables. These
results run counter to the theoretical argument for planning, which is that giv-
ing planning time before an L2 task may lessen learners’ general cognitive pres-
sure, leaving them with attentional resources available to attend to language
during a task (e.g., Ellis, 2003; Ortega, 1999; Skehan, 1996, 1998; Skehan &
Foster, 2001). A possible explanation for the lack of effect in planning is the
discrepancy between the discourse mode (i.e., monologic vs. dialogic) used for
planning and the main task. The reason for using the dialogic mode for the
main task was to offer a communicative context for focus on form and the
limited class time in a large EFL class. However, as one of the anonymous
reviewers pointed out, the use of such a mode may have been problematic for
several reasons in investigating the pure effects of planning on learners’ atten-
tional orientation.5 First, as indicated in some of the transcripts, the planners’
individual ideas were sacrificed when a dyad disagreed with each other’s story-
line. Batstone (2005) indeed argued that planning researchers need to consider
not only the cognitive effect of planning but also its discourse sensitivity. Sec-
ond, learners’ metatalk occurring during the collaborative dialogues may also
have served as a consciousness-raising device (Basturkmen et al., 2002; Swain,
1998), benefiting both planners and nonplanners. Third, learner variables such
as proficiency, personality, and learning style might have also made it difficult
to measure planning effects (Leeser, 2004; Ortega, 1999). For example, if a
member of a dyad is form oriented while the other is meaning oriented, and
the former dominates the latter, the meaning-oriented learner might produce
more LREs than he or she normally would. Thus, future researchers need to
consider these confounding variables in designing a planning study. For that
matter, a replication study is called for to confirm or disconfirm the results of
pretask instructions on focus on form in this study.
The other anonymous reviewer pointed out another task feature of the study
which might be the reason for no planning effects.6 Unlike other planning studies
(e.g., Foster & Skehan, 1999; Ortega, 1999)—where the tasks required real-time and
genuine communication—the task in the present study required no real-time pres-
sure and no two-way exchange of information. Both partners saw the pictures and
knew what content was to be coded into language. In other words, since the
subsequent task after planning was not cognitively demanding in terms of that
particular task feature, the learners may not have really needed additional planning
time. Theoretically, planning effects would be maximized when a task requires the
highest cognitive capacity. This point is well taken.
One of the agendas in task planning research is to examine whether plan-
ning leads to L2 acquisition (Ellis, 2005). Even though the present study did
not examine the direct link between the two constructs, it directly investigated
whether planning promotes a focus on form during a task, which is asserted
to be a prerequisite for L2 development to occur (e.g., Long, 1996; Long &
Robinson, 1998; Schmidt, 2001; Schmidt & Frota, 1986; Swain, 1995, 1998).
Planning did not have any effect, probably due to the possible methodological
discrepancy as well as to the less cognitively demanding task feature of the
current study. However, the positive effect of pretask instructions suggests its
potential role in manipulating learners’ orientation of form during a task.
Future research needs to re-examine the role of planning in focus on form
with a more refined design and to continue exploring how effectively other
types of pretask activities, including instruction types, allocate attention to
form in a meaning-embedded task. Finally, given that the present study only
examined the amount of focus on form during a collaborative dialogue, it
would be worthwhile to explore the outcome of LREs produced by learners;
for example, how many of the LREs offered errors to an interlocutor, rather
than help.7
Acknowledgments
I am grateful to the instructors and learners who participated in this study, to Gary
Cziko, Fred Davidson, Hugh Bishop, Rod Ellis, and two anonymous reviewers for
Language Teaching Research, where this article was first published, who offered
insightful comments, and to The International Research Foundation for English
Language Education (TIRF), who awarded me a Doctoral Dissertation Grant in
2005. Any errors are, of course, my own.
82 Sujung Park
APPENDIX A
Pretask Instructions—Specific Planners
Student A and student B will each receive a paper that contains six pictures. If you
describe the pictures in the given order, it will make a story. Now I would like you to
retell the story in English. When you do so, please make it as detailed as possible as if
you were going to tell it to somebody who has never seen them before. If you think that
some of the pictures do not go together, you may add new content in order to make
them work. So, what A and B should do is to work together to make one English story.
In discussing it, you may choose to speak English, Korean, or both, but do not write.
However, when you actually retell the story from picture 1 to picture 6, you should only
speak English as much as possible. You have 20 minutes and your story should start with
the following: One day, three boys . . . Before you work with your partner, in order to
assist you to prepare, you are given a sheet of paper to take notes on. But please do not
write a complete sentence either in Korean or English. Also, to assist you to prepare, you
will be given 10 minutes of planning time. Please don’t forget to think aloud loudly and
clearly. When thinking aloud, you can choose either Korean or English, whichever
language you feel comfortable in. In 10 minutes, your notes will be taken away and you
will begin to retell the story in English with your partner. Now you will be given the
paper containing the six pictures. (Students received the papers.) While you plan, please
pay attention to detailed content, smooth organization, grammatical utterances, and
appropriate vocabulary. If you have no questions, please start thinking aloud now. (10
minutes have passed.) It’s time for you and your partner to begin. Please begin now.
Notes
Reproduced by permission of SAGE Publications Ltd., London, Los Angeles, New Delhi,
Singapore and Washington DC, from Sujung Park, The Influence of Pretask Instructions
and Pretask Planning on Focus on Form during Korean EFL Task-Based Interaction,
Language Teaching Research, © Sage Publications, 2010.
1 Foster and Skehan (1996) also employed specific instructions (or “detailed instructions”
in their terminology). The results of these instructions are discussed later in the article.
2 However, as pointed out by the two anonymous reviewers, the range in proficiency of
the learners may have influenced the results of the study. Leeser (2004), for example,
showed that the different proficiency levels of his dyad members affected the amount
and types of focus on form.
3 Due to space limitations, only the instructions for specific planners are presented.
4 The questionnaire asked questions including what they focused on while planning and
interacting, what they realized they did not know during planning, whether planning
time was helpful for task preparation, and whether talking with other learners during the
task was helpful for improving English.
5 I am grateful to an anonymous reviewer for raising these possibilities.
6 I am grateful to an anonymous reviewer for pointing out this difference between the other
planning studies and the present study.
7 I am grateful to an anonymous reviewer for this suggestion.
References
Basturkmen, H., Loewen, S., & Ellis, R. (2002). Metalanguage in focus on form in the com-
municative classroom. Language Awareness, 11(1), 1–13.
Batstone, R. (2005). Planning as discourse activity: A sociocognitive view. In R. Ellis (Ed.),
Planning and task performance in a second language (pp. 277–295). Philadelphia, PA: John
Benjamins.
Crookes, G. (1988). Planning, monitoring, and second language development: A review (Technical
Report No. 6). Honolulu, HI: University of Hawai’i, Center for Second Language Class-
room Research.
Crookes, G. (1989). Planning and interlanguage variation. Studies in Second Language Acquisi-
tion, 11(4), 367–383.
Ellis, R. (1987). Interlanguage variability in narrative discourse: Style shifting in the use of
the past tense. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 9(1), 1–20.
Ellis, R. (2001). Introduction: Investigation of form-focused instruction. Language Learning,
51(Suppl. 1), 1–46.
Ellis, R. (2003). Task-based language learning and teaching. Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.
Ellis, R. (2005). Planning and task-based performance: Theory and research. In R. Ellis
(Ed.), Planning and task performance in a second language (pp. 4–34). Philadelphia, PA: John
Benjamins.
Ellis, R., Basturkmen, H., & Loewen, S. (2001). Preemptive focus on form in the ESL classroom.
Fortune, A., & Thorp, D. (2001). Knotted and entangled: New light on the identification,
classification, and value of language related episodes in collaborative output tasks. Lan-
guage Awareness, 10, 143–160.
Foster, P., & Skehan, P. (1996). The influence of planning and task type on second language
performance. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 18(3), 299–323.
Foster, P., & Skehan, P. (1999). The influence of source of planning and focus of planning
on task-based performance. Language Teaching Research, 3(3), 215–247.
Heaton, J. (1975). Beginning composition through pictures. Harlow, UK: Longman.
Hulstijn, J., & Hulstijn, W. (1984). Grammatical errors as a function of processing con-
straints and explicit knowledge. Language Learning, 34(1), 23–43.
Kellerman, E. (1985). If at first you do succeed . . . In S. Gass & C. Madden (Eds.), Input in
second language acquisition (pp. 345–353). Rowley, MA: Newbury House.
Leeser, M. (2004). Learner proficiency and focus on form during collaborative dialogue.
Language Teaching Research, 8(1), 55–81.
Lightbown, P. (1985). Great expectations: Second language acquisition research and class-
room teaching. Applied Linguistics, 6(2), 173–189.
Loewen, S. (2003). Variation in the frequency and characteristics of incidental focus on
form. Language Teaching Research, 7(3), 315–345.
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). Philadelphia, PA: John Benjamins.
Long, M. (1996). The role of the linguistic environment in second language acquisition. In
W. Ritchie & T. Bhatia (Eds.), Handbook of second language acquisition (pp. 413–468).
London, UK: Academic Press.
Long, M., & Robinson, P. (1998). Focus on form: Theory, research, and practice. In
C. Doughty & J. Williams (Eds.), Focus on form in classroom second language acquisition
McLaughlin, B. (1990). Restructuring. Applied Linguistics, 11(2), 113–128.
84 Sujung Park
Mehnert, U. (1998). The effects of different lengths of time for planning on second lan-
guage performance. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 20(1), 83–108.
Ortega, L. (1999). Planning and focus on form in L2 oral performance. Studies in Second
Language Acquisition, 21(1), 108–148.
Pica, T. (1997). Second language teaching and research relationships: A North American
view. Language Teaching Research, 1, 48–72.
Ricoeur, P. (1984). Time and narrative (Vol.1). Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
Sangarun, J. (2005). The effects of focusing on meaning and form in strategic planning. In
R. Ellis (Ed.), Planning and task performance in a second language (pp. 111–142). Philadel-
phia, PA: John Benjamins.
Schmidt, R., & Frota, S. (1986) Developing basic conversational ability in a second language.
In R. Day (Ed.), Talking to learn (pp. 237–326). Rowley, MA: Newbury House.
Skehan, P. (1996). A framework for the implementation of task-based instruction. Applied
Linguistics, 17(1), 38–62.
Skehan, P. (1998). A cognitive approach to language learning. Oxford, UK: Oxford University
Press.
Skehan, P., & Foster, P. (2001). Cognition and tasks. In P. Robinson (Ed.), Cognition and
second language instruction (pp. 183–205). Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
Swain, M. (1995). Three functions of output in second language learning. In G. Cook &
B. Seidlhofer (Eds.), Principle and practice in applied linguistics (pp. 125–144). Oxford, UK:
Oxford University Press.
Swain, M. (1998). Focus on form through conscious reflection. In C. Doughty & J. Wil-
liams (Eds.), Focus on form in classroom second language acquisition (pp. 64–81). Cambridge,
UK: Cambridge University Press.
Swain, M., & Lapkin, S. (1998). Interaction and second language learning: Two adolescent
French immersion students working together. Modern Language Journal, 82(3), 320–337.
Tajima, M. (2003). The effects of planning on oral performance of Japanese as a foreign language
(Unpublished doctoral dissertation). Purdue University, Lafayette, IN.
VanPatten, B. (1990). Attending to form and content in the input: An experiment in con-
sciousness. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 12(3), 287–299.
VanPatten, B. (1999). Processing instruction as form–meaning connections: Issues in theory
and research. In J. Lee & A. Valdman (Eds.), Form and meaning: Multiple perspectives
(pp. 43–68). Boston, MA: Heinle and Heinle.
Wendel, J. (1997). Planning and second language narrative production (Unpublished doctoral
dissertation). Temple University, Tokyo, Japan.
Wigglesworth, G. (1997). An investigation of planning time and proficiency level on oral
test discourse. Language Testing, 14(1), 85–106.
Williams, J. (1992). Planning, discourse marking, and the comprehensibility of international
teaching assistants. TESOL Quarterly, 26, 693–711.
Williams, J. (1999). Learner-generated attention to form. Language Learning, 51(Suppl. 1),
303–346.
Williams, J. (2005). Form-focused instruction. In E. Hinkel (Ed.), Handbook of research in
second language teaching and learning (pp. 671–691). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
Yoshimura, F. (2006). Does manipulating foreknowledge of output tasks lead to differences
in reading behavior, text comprehension, and noticing of language form? Language Teach-
ing Research, 10(4), 419–434.
Yuan, F., & Ellis, R. (2003). The effects of pretask planning and on-line planning on fluency,
complexity and accuracy in L2 monologic oral production. Applied Linguistics, 24(1), 1–27.
PART III
The Use of Technology

in Teaching Grammar
6
THE ROLE OF CORPUS RESEARCH
IN THE DESIGN OF ADVANCED-
LEVEL GRAMMAR INSTRUCTION
Michael J. McCarthy
Motivation for Corpus Research

Issues concerning language teaching materials at the advanced levels are clearly
quite distinct from those that concern the beginner levels. In some senses, espe-
cially in terms of the grammatical syllabus, the beginner and elementary levels are
relatively straightforward to address. There is widespread agreement, for example,
that beginners should learn and practice the most basic grammatical concepts
along with the most common vocabulary. At this level, the grammar typically
includes those items and structures thought to be first among a hierarchy of the
most common and useful pieces of grammar, as well as those amenable to a notion
of natural ordering in terms of acquisition, however disputed and unproven (and
incomplete) a “natural order” for the acquisition of grammatical morphemes may
be. (For an overview and critique of the natural order hypothesis, see Kwon, 2005.)
On the whole, basic tense-aspect forms, such as the present progressive/continuous
and simple past; core structures such as affirmative, negative, and interrogative
clauses; and items such as personal pronouns, auxiliary verbs, and common deter-
miners are all deemed to be essential to a syllabus for beginning English learners.
Azar and Hagen’s (2006) grammar syllabus for beginning-level learners of English
is a testimony to the careful and common-sense consideration given to the choice
of items and features (including simple and progressive present, the past, modals,
possessives, etc.). Azar’s syllabuses at this level and others have served as models that
continue to have a widespread following, and they have exercised a well-merited
and profound influence on generations of teachers of English to speakers of other
languages (ESOL).
It is also broadly agreed that core vocabulary should be taught as early in the
language learning experience as possible (Meara, 1995; Waring, 2002). This core,
88 Michael J. McCarthy
which can be drawn from corpus evidence for English and which consists of 2,000
to 3,000 words, depending on whether spoken or written language is the target
(O’Keeffe, McCarthy, & Carter, 2007, pp. 31–47), includes words without which
it is virtually impossible to communicate meaningfully on an everyday basis. Mil-
ton (2010) pointed out that there was some vagueness in the specification of
vocabulary for the lower levels of the Common European Framework of Refer-
ence (CEFR), which, on the positive side, offered flexibility to the system. How-
ever, additional, more robust evidence for the grading of vocabulary by CEFR
levels has come more recently from the online resource of the English Vocabulary
Profile, which offers a corpus-informed description of the typical lexicon of inter-
national learners at each CEFR level (see http://www.englishprofile.org/index.
php/wordlists), right up to the advanced C-levels. Capel (2010, 2013) provides
detailed accounts of the development of the Vocabulary Profile. In sum, there is a
relatively high degree of consensus regarding the linguistic content of courses for
beginning-level students, although there may be great variation in the range of
topics and the manner of presentation and practice through which the linguistic
content is mediated.
When faced with decisions about what grammar or vocabulary we should
be teaching at the upper-intermediate and advanced levels, there seems to be
increasingly less consensus on the subject. At what point, for instance, does one
introduce complex relationships among tense, aspect, and voice, such as past-
perfect-passive voice forms ( She had been arrest ed ) or reduced conditional
clauses (If requested, please show your identity card)? And how does one address
vocabulary at the upper-intermediate and advanced levels? Given the vast size
of the English lexicon, how do we select what to give our attention to over
and above the set of items seen as typical in the English Vocabulary Profile cited
above (considering students’ purposes for learning, for example)? There are,
additionally, other issues that must be resolved at the advanced level beyond
those of grammar and vocabulary choice, issues concerning the selection of
communicative functions and strategies, phonology, reading and writing skills,
language variation and register, and the character of textual genres; however,
for the purposes of the present chapter, we shall focus on grammar. Or, to put
it more precisely: I shall repeatedly refer to lexicogrammar, because, as I hope
will become clear, the sharp borderline between grammar and lexis, so beloved
of curriculum designers and the compilers of class timetables (often a case of
“grammar for the grammar class, vocabulary for the reading class”), becomes
more difficult to sustain as learners progress to more complex types of expres-
sion. Furthermore, corpus evidence suggests that there are reliable and peda-
gogically useful correlates between grammatical patterns and lexical realizations,
such that a grammatical feature or item need not be thought of only in the
abstract but as being associated, in terms of frequency, with particular lexical
contexts (Sinclair, 2004).
Role of Corpus Research 89
The Grammatical Syllabus

There is noticeable variation and evidence of selectivity in the grammatical sylla-
buses in popular major language courses, as reflected in textbook series at the
upper-intermediate and advanced levels. For example, the grammatical syllabuses
for two globally popular courses by Saslow and Ascher (2006) and Richards and
Sandy (2008) have features in common and not in common, as well as features that
might have been included but are absent. For example, the subjunctive form that
follows some verbs (e.g., insist, suggest) and adjectives (e.g., essential, important) is
included in both course books, but neither course seems to deal with the subjunc-
tive following nouns (e.g., Her father’s insistence that she speak English). The absence
of certain features may be because of intuition or corpus evidence that the sub-
junctive after nouns is a rara avis and not worth the time and effort demanded,
though the reason is not always clear. Features occur in one course but not in the
other: cleft sentences with what are foregrounded in Richards and Sandy but not
in Saslow and Ascher, while, conversely, the latter course, but not the former, fore-
grounds clauses introduced by no matter wh-. Such lack of consensus between syl-
labuses is understandable because course book writers and their editors always
struggle to fit large amounts of content within a limited space, and ad hoc deci-
sions are made to prioritize certain features over others. However, the motivation
for such choices is not always apparent.
In the present chapter, I hope to show how prioritization of grammatical fea-
tures in advanced-level syllabuses can be assisted by careful consideration of corpus
evidence. In making this claim, I am also aware that blended and online learning
may change the nature of what constitutes “space” within a syllabus, as access to
online technology may make the effective presentation and practice of more gram-
matical features a viable option.
Another tricky issue that arises in determining which grammatical features
to include in an advanced-level syllabus is that assessment targets become more
difficult to delineate and distinguish (Milton, 2009). At the lower proficiency
levels, what we should assess, like what we should teach, is generally uncontro-
versial, is necessarily limited, and is easier to target. Buttery and Caines (2012)
refer to this difference between beginning- and advanced-level assessment targets
as “opportunity of use” (p. 192). For example, at the lower proficiency levels a
student can display his or her knowledge adequately in class activities, exams, and
other tasks because the assessment tasks allow students to display their knowledge
straightforwardly. Such knowledge display is not so easy at the advanced level,
where the limits of the essay or other assessment task may mean that only a small
portion of the student’s knowledge can ever be on display. This phenomenon is
reflected in the fact that, in terms of the CEFR, it is inherently more difficult to
describe the difference between a typical C1 student profile and a C2 student
profile than between an A2 and a B1 profile. This dilemma surfaces in the some-
times blurred boundaries between the higher levels as described in the official
documents that underpin the European system, such as those of the Council of
Europe (2001).
One possible response is to assert that it does not matter what we do at the
advanced level, that anything and everything new is valuable. There may be some
truth in this view, especially with advanced-level students who have learned to
organize their learning in a way that suits their needs, contexts, individual desires,
and purposes. After all, the overarching label describing learners at the CEFR
B-level (and, by extension, the C-level) is “Independent User” (Council of
Europe, 2001, pp. 23–24). Furthermore, many language teachers prefer the free-
dom of the advanced-level curriculum, where interesting texts can be brought
in from the outside world, where topics that happen to crop up in the class-
room can be pursued at leisure, where learning opportunities can be maximized
(Walsh, 2006), and where the syllabus itself is open to negotiation (Clarke, 1991).
Equally, in such contexts, the course book and syllabus might take a temporary
back seat while teachers and learners jointly explore the language, taking plea-
sure in discussing new words, interesting idioms, and the complexities of the
English grammatical repertoire. A valid assertion by Ellis (2002) is that the pur-
pose of a grammar syllabus is not so much to teach learners to use grammar but
to teach them how grammar works. This approach might seem more worthy of
attention at the advanced level than any other and suggests that a grammar syl-
labus should devote time and space to raising language awareness instead of
simply being a vehicle for the constant drip-feeding of new grammatical items.
Nonetheless, doing so does not remove the problems of appropriate assessment
targets and the potential lack of a sense of organized progression for both teach-
ers and learners.
It is my view that we can present a coherent and progressive syllabus at the
upper-intermediate and advanced levels, one that will continue to motivate stu-
dents and give them the feeling that they are building their communicative skills
and, in a meaningful fashion, their (lexico)grammatical knowledge. We should also
seek to present a syllabus that (1) exposes students to language that they will use
in both spoken and written English in the real world outside of the classroom,
(2) enables them to communicate at a more sophisticated level, and (3) capitalizes
on any knowledge from research as to how to set appropriate assessment targets
for them. To achieve this aim, it has been my experience as a materials writer at
the advanced level that basing the syllabus on reliable corpus information is the
most useful and productive way of moving forward.
Corpus Research
In this chapter I shall refer to information derived from British and North Ameri-
can English corpora. The British data come from the British National Corpus
(Davies, 2004; hereafter BNC)1 and the North American data from the Corpus of
Contemporary American English (Davies, 2008; hereafter COCA).
Good corpora (of which there are now many, and some of which are wholly or
partly accessible online) offer the potential for generating wordlists for a whole
corpus or for comparisons between corpora or between the sub-components of a
corpus (e.g., speech versus writing, general English versus academic English).
Many other kinds of specific searches can be carried out with present-day software
suites that give us the ability to detect recurrent grammatical patterns over stretches
of several words, to associate such patterns with their characteristic lexical realiza-
tions, to compare the behavior of apparently synonymous words, and to find out
which are the keywords that represent the “DNA” of particular genres and regis-
ters, as well as a number of other useful procedures. O’Keeffe and McCarthy
(2010) provide a full account of corpus construction and exploitation. In this
chapter I will be looking at available evidence on learner problems concerning
grammar at the advanced level.
Corpus Research in Advanced Grammar Syllabus Design

The following questions that arise with regard to grammar at the advanced level
can form the basis for a principled and coherent syllabus when underpinned by
corpus evidence.
1. Are there new grammatical structures and items to be learned at the advanced
level that are important and/or useful but have not yet been dealt with in the
class or in the course book?
2. Are there grammatical patterns that are low frequency but still worth teaching,
for example, in special-purpose contexts such as academic writing? Conversely,
can some grammatical patterns safely be consigned to some point in the future?
3. Are there different meanings and functions for the grammatical forms that
students already know that they can learn to manipulate?
4. Are there meanings and functions based on core grammatical forms that stu-
dents already know that can be used to realize less common forms (e.g.,
expressing modal meanings)?
5. Are there areas where grammatical choice has implications beyond the sen-
tence level? In other words, can we usefully incorporate a notion of “gram-
mar as discourse” into the advanced-level syllabus?
6. Are there ways of using the grammar that will improve the learner’s writing
style and perhaps contribute to overall academic success or success in assess-
ment contexts?
Low-Frequency Grammatical Structures

Some of the structures that may be included in an advanced-level grammatical
syllabus simply have not appeared in a syllabus at the lower levels for a variety of
reasons (e.g., time pressures, syllabus specifications dictated from above, or the
structure is seen as being too complex to handle at lower proficiency levels). The
advanced level is the natural place to fill such gaps (acknowledging the funda-
mental questions that may arise in second language acquisition as to what is
teachable and learnable). Here we might find room, for example, to include cer-
tain low-frequency determiners that may not have previously gotten much atten-
tion, for example, such with uncountable nouns, as in I will simply not tolerate such
behavior. Corpus evidence (in this case, the written portion of the BNC) enables
us to see not only that the pattern is relatively common (matching, for example,
the frequency of the determiner few + plural noun) but also that certain lexico-
grammatical combinations are favored over others. For example, the five most
frequent uncountable nouns following such are information, evidence, work, behavior,
and legislation (in the genre represented by this corpus). The well-constructed
syllabus will take both the grammatical and lexical information into account
when prioritizing what should be taught, and, at the advanced level, much, if not
all, of the lexis is likely to be familiar if based on frequency. Another example of
a determiner for consideration, this time with even lower frequency, might be
what, as in What food was left was shared among the children (see Carter & McCarthy,
2006, p. 356). Similarly, certain verb phrase structures (e.g., past continuous passives
as in She was being interviewed for a TV program) and certain types of subordination
and sentence-initial non-finite passive clauses (e.g., Encouraged by my parents,
I decided to study law) may be new grammar that could be included, especially the
latter example with its -ed form initial non-finite element. Occurrences of
sentence-initial -ed clauses in the 450-million-word North American English
COCA corpus include:
1. Inspired by Georgia O’Keeffe’s bold and colorful forms, . . .

2. Designed by Kenneth Franzheim and built in 1952, . . .
3. Assisted by an army of field workers, . . .
4. Confronted with such concerns, . . .
The lexicogrammatical evidence shows a preference for verbs such as organize,

design, inspire, lead, publish, surround, and influence occurring in the above pattern.
Non-finite clauses can also be introduced by not, as in the -ing clause in Example 5
from the COCA corpus.
5. Not having seen another living soul for a while, I was starting to get nervous.
Although a less frequent pattern than the passive affirmative -ed clauses exempli-
fied above, the negative form can be added (without demanding too much extra
space) to the presentation of the relatively frequent affirmative -ing form non-finite
clauses, something that McCarthy, McCarten, and Sandiford (2014b) include in
their presentation of -ing clauses. For further examples of non-finite clause types,
see Carter, McCarthy, Mark, and O’Keeffe (2011).
Obviously, what is new for any particular syllabus will depend on what was old
and will vary from syllabus to syllabus. If a decision is made to incorporate items such
as those illustrated above into the syllabus, corpora can provide useful evidence of the
common contexts and lexical configurations in which such features occur.
An example of a low-frequency grammatical pattern, and one that deserves
closer examination, is the English subjunctive form. The subjunctive in English
requires the use of the base form of the verb regardless of grammatical person (thus,
no third-person singular -s in the present). The typical pattern in which this is
encountered in teaching materials is verb + that + subject + base form of verb, for
example, She insists that he address her as Madam. This use of subjunctive is a low-
frequency pattern that is found mostly in writing and can be dispensed with by
using the alternative form with should (She insists that he should address her as
Madam), though Azar and Hagen (2009) suggest that this option may be more
common in British English than North American English. A corpus search for
the form that + subject + base form of verb yields a surprising number of occur-
rences. Many of these turn out to be subjunctive clauses following adjectives and
nouns, rather than following verbs. Figure 6.1 shows some sample concordance
lines of subjunctive forms for the following nouns—insistence, requirement, stipula-
tion, demand, and proviso. These examples were each drawn from 100 random
sample corpus lines in the COCA. In the case of the noun insistence, 38% of the
sample lines have the subjunctive following the noun, while for the noun require-
ment 63% are followed by a subjunctive verb form.
Corpus information of this kind not only helps to dispel the notion that a form
such as the subjunctive is hardly worth dealing with but also provides us with
numerous naturally occurring contexts in which the subjunctive is found and a
view of the most common lexicogrammatical patterns. In the case of Figure 6.1,
we see a pattern of nouns concerning things that are demanded or that must hap-
pen, which can provide a useful basis for pedagogy. Richards and Sandy (2008,
p. 67), Saslow and Ascher (2006, p. 42), and Azar and Hagen (2009, p. 450) include
verb and adjective patterns in their presentation of the subjunctive. McCarthy
et al. (2014b), whose syllabus is strongly corpus-informed, show the full range of
. . . Dr. insistence that he go to work.

Reed’s
It seems a requirement that the quality of the land which is left be the same.
simple
. . . with the stipulation that all be free of charge.
The demand that MacDonald be the principal sculptor in the
gallery . . .
. . . with the proviso that he only drive between 4 a.m. and noon.
FIGURE 6.1 Subjunctive forms following nouns (COCA examples)

patterns, including noun patterns. In the latter, we are presented not only with a
way of dealing with a low-frequency form of high stylistic value but also with
types of patterning that are probably quite difficult to arrive at purely through
intuition, which could also explain why such patterns are often neglected. Fur-
thermore, the inclusion of the subjunctive following noun phrases simultaneously
focuses on a word class that is an important characteristic of academic writing.
Grammatical Structures for the “Long Grass”

In an ideal world, no grammatical structure would need to be kicked into the long
grass and forgotten. Grammar is a finite set of items and patterns that changes rela-
tively slowly in comparison to the rapid shifts in vocabulary, where new items
cascade in and old, unused items fade away. Theoretically at least, in a comprehen-
sive and sufficiently long course, one could teach the whole grammar. However,
as we have already stated, in practice, time and space within syllabuses are always
at a premium, and choices have to be made about which items to include or
exclude. Some considerations for exclusion might be the following:
• Are the learners’ aims and needs mainly oriented toward informal speaking?
If so, some written forms might be safely excluded.
• Are the learners’ aims and needs mainly oriented toward writing? If so, some
spoken forms might be safely excluded.
• Are the learners’ aims and needs mainly oriented toward academic, profes-
sional, or vocational writing in formal contexts? If so, some forms that may
be low frequency or rare may be appropriate to such contexts and may enrich
the writers’ writing style and enhance the reception of their texts.
For example, learners whose needs do not go beyond informal speaking may prog-
ress happily without being presented with the subjunctive. Learners hoping to
improve their academic or professional writing might, on the other hand, benefit
from exposure to and practice of a variety of subjunctive patterns, as already dis-
cussed. By the same token, an initial negative adverb followed by subject-verb
inversion and another negative item is an example of a very rare pattern that can
be safely omitted from the syllabus in all cases except the most formal contexts of
writing. Example 6 is an isolated occurrence from the written segment of the
BNC.
6. . . . money is a relative thing and seldom does a rich man not find someone still richer
to be jealous of.
Learners whose needs and goals are oriented toward academic writing may find
some features of spoken English a luxury that can be omitted. For example, there
is a fairly common kind of tag structure in speaking involving a negative verb that
follows an already negative clause. Examples from the spoken segment of the BNC
and COCA include:
7. No, I couldn’t face that, I don’t think. (BNC)

8. We don’t particularly need one, I don’t think. (BNC)
9. . . . they’ll never understand me, I don’t suppose. (BNC)
10. I’m not allergic to salmon, I don’t think. (COCA)
11. We didn’t e-mail much, I don’t think. (COCA)
12. . . . not yet, I don’t suppose. (COCA)
Two British examples of this phenomenon in spoken language that I have attested
to myself are the following:
13. A: We won’t see much wildlife today. B: Not without binoculars we won’t.
14. A: I thought a secret was something you didn’t tell anybody. B: Not where I work it
isn’t!
Formal, written versions of Examples 7–12 typically place the negative reporting verb
first, followed by an affirmative reported clause (e.g., I do not think we particularly need
one). It is questionable whether this structure, which is common in conversational
speech, should be included in an advanced-level syllabus where writing is a priority
and space is at a premium. However, there is also the argument that continual
awareness-raising of the differences between spoken and written grammar is a good
way of pre-empting problems associated with inappropriate register choices. For
example, the intrusion of conversational forms into academic writing is a problem
I have encountered in abundance in my years as a teacher of English for academic
purposes. Others have also noticed similar issues in the academic writing of English
learners. (See Hinkel, 2003, for an interesting discussion on the relationship between
adverbials common in conversation and their occurrence in L2 student writing.)
Grammatical Forms with New or Extended Meanings

One example of a grammatical form that advanced-level students may already
know is the so-called future perfect. It is likely that students will first become
familiar with this form in contexts like By the end of this year I will have been living
here for five years. In other words, it is a structure that is used to project forward to
a point in the future from which to look back to the present (see the excellent
visual representation in Azar and Hagen, 2009). This is one of the uses of the pat-
tern will + have + -ed form. However, corpus evidence suggests there is another
common use, one that, to the best of my knowledge, is little taught but that is by
no means an arcane function. Readers may be familiar with the experience of
being at a conference presentation and hearing the presenter say: You will have been
given a hand-out as you entered the room. A professional organization to which I
. . . many will have been given ‘junior aspirin’ in infancy as it is an excellent way of
combating pain and fever. Some will have had a rash, and their records labelled ‘aspirin
allergic’ for all time.
The ideal place from which to get a pet dog is a busy family home, where puppies will
have been bred from a mother dog that is well loved.
By now, most of you will have heard about the cholera epidemic . . .
. . . and any well-traveled specialist will have seen dozens of unusual cases.
FIGURE 6.2 Selection of concordance lines for will + have + past participle (COCA)
belong includes as a guideline to logging in at its website: You will have created your
own memorable word upon your first visit to the Members’ area. These examples repre-
sent a different use of the will + have + -ed pattern. In this case the speaker/writer
is making an assumption about something that has already happened or is already
true, rather than something that will happen or will be true at some point in the
future. This usage is far from rare, as the random concordance lines for the form
shown in Figure 6.2 demonstrate.
McCarthy et al. (2014b) present and practice this usage after presenting the
“past seen from the future” usage. Extending the meaning and contexts of use of
the form in this way enables learners to explore new territory and generates a feel-
ing of continued progression.
Different Grammatical Forms for Familiar Functions

and Meanings
Grammatical meanings and functions are usually sensibly taught via their most
frequent realizations, so, for example, modal meanings and functions, such as pos-
sibility and request-making, are presented through the high-frequency modal
verbs, while conditional meanings are presented via if-sentences. In both cases, the
same meanings can be expressed using other, non-canonical forms. Example 15
could be expressed as in Example 16.
15. He often amazed clients with his ability to draw upside down as he sketched their
dream homes . . . (COCA)
16. He often amazed clients because he could draw upside down as he sketched their dream
homes.
Most would agree that Example 15 represents the more sophisticated version
because of the nominalization. At the advanced level, exploring the range of modal
expressions across different word classes offers learners the opportunity to build on
familiar functions (e.g., expressing ability, possibility, obligation, etc.) using alterna-
tive forms while at the same time enhancing style and sophistication.
Conditional meanings can also be expressed via a range of forms other than if-
clauses. Azar and Hagen (2009, p. 429) present inversions with were (as in Were I to
own my own company . . .), had (Had I known this would happen . . .), and should (Should
you see Charles . . .). But conditional meanings can also be carried by the imperative
+ and construction (often including any as a determiner), as in Example 17.
17. Talk to any vet, and you’ll get stories about pets consuming all kinds of nonedibles. (COCA)
McCarthy et al. (2014b), in materials aimed at the C1 level of the CEFR, present
the inversions with were, had, and should, but, in addition, they include the impera-
tive + and pattern, based on corpus evidence.
Grammar as Discourse
In the strictest and most circumscribed definition, grammar is concerned with the
internal structure of sentences. Beyond the period/full stop, other considerations
take over, such as the typical patterns of paragraphs in writing or turns in speaking,
the rhetorical structure of generic texts, and so on. However, sentences rarely occur
in isolation and with no context; we use grammar to create texts, whether spoken
or written. Thus, the choice of a grammatical form, at any point in a sentence, is
best made in light of the text in which the sentence is located.
Practicing grammatical forms in isolated sentences is a common pedagogical
practice, and one that has served us well in terms of focusing attention on getting
things right within tricky structures, such as verb phrases or clause combinations;
however, sooner or later, learners will want to (or be required to) create longer
texts to achieve their purposes. This principal argument is made by Hinkel (2002),
who comments on the frequent disjointedness between the grammar class and the
writing class and the key role in the holistic perception of text quality played by
accuracy, or lack of it, in phrase- and clause-level grammar. It is at the advanced
level that the best opportunities open up for exploring the implications of gram-
matical choice for the creation of meaning beyond the sentence, for the realiza-
tion of discoursal functions, and for the creation of satisfactory texts. Hinkel also
gives examples of infelicitous sequences of tense choice in the writing of
advanced-level learners and discusses the importance of text-level contextual or
discoursal frames insofar as such frames conventionally orient toward particu-
lar tense choices in the verb phrases in the sentences that comprise the text. At
the advanced level, the embedding and exploration of grammar in longer texts
may be beneficial compared to simply presenting the usual grammar chart plus
sentence-level practice.
A familiar, everyday example of grammatical choices operating at the discourse
level is tense shifting that is regularly present in oral narratives (Schiffrin, 1981).
Story-tellers often start their tale in the conventional simple past tense (I remember
once when I was a kid we went to the local museum), and then, as the drama increases,
they shift to the simple present (And suddenly this big guy wearing a dinosaur costume
comes toward us), and at heightened moments of drama, they shift further into the
action via the present continuous (And he’s roaring at us like a real dinosaur and I’m
screaming and running off down the hallway). Such stories often end with a present
perfect linking the story world to the present (And ever since then I’ve been scared of
anyone in an animal costume), a coda in Labov’s (1972) terms. McCarthy, McCarten,
and Sandiford (2014a) exploit the narrative tense-shift pattern and give students a
chance to practice it.
Another common narrative pattern above the level of the sentence is the pre-
ferred sequence of used to and would for past habitual reference when no adverbial
time marker has previously been established. For example, a story might begin as
in Example 18, but Example 19 sounds less felicitous.
18. I love home-made lemonade. We used to make our own lemonade. My mother would
buy a big bag of lemons . . .
19. I love home-made lemonade. We would make our own lemonade. My mother used to
buy a big bag of lemons . . .
But even when a time marker or a clear past-time context is already established,
there seems to be a clear preference, especially in oral narratives, for used to to
precede would. In the written segment of the BNC, for example, narratives
where used to precedes would are more than twice as frequent as narratives where
would precedes used to. The fact that the pattern is not absolute tells us about
the importance of considering grammatical structures in the context of the
discourse. At the discourse level we are not dealing with deterministic rules but
with probabilistic or preferred patterns, and it is in the raising of awareness of
this relationship that advanced-level grammar teaching can really come into its
own. The advanced grammar syllabus should include such patterns, whether for
speaking or writing or both, with the aim of inculcating in learners the pre-
ferred patterns and sequences that characterize genres. It is through corpus
investigations that such patterns are best observed because intuition alone often
fails us when it comes to grammatical patterning above the sentence level. Two
corpus examples (Examples 20 and 21) illustrate the preferred sequence as
follows:
20. Dad used to sometimes work in Mr. Farr’s garden on Saturday afternoons and would
take me along with him. (BNC)
21. He used to drive all the way to Huntsville just to watch me play baseball. He would
come to all my games and sit there. (COCA)
These and other discourse-level patterns can be exploited with the triple benefit
of (a) introducing a new slant on known grammar; (b) bolstering writing or speak-
ing classes, as appropriate; and (c) enhancing grammatical awareness.
Academic Success
Research into student writing suggests that the ability to control and display certain
types of grammatical complexity correlates with academic success and movement
between developmental stages of learning. Liu (2011) cites complex noun phrases
with their post-modifying subjunctive clauses as one example of this relationship and
suggests that learners might be encouraged to explore such patterns as they move
toward the advanced level. A related aspect of mastery of the noun phrase is the
process of nominalization, whereby entities in the clause that are typically realized by
verb phrases or adverbials become noun phrases (e.g., I fly at 8 pm becomes My flight
is at 8 pm). Halliday (1994) stresses the significant role of nominalization in scientific
writing. Indeed, nominalization is a characteristic feature of academic writing as a
whole, and complex noun phrases have been shown to be an important feature in
academic corpora (Biber & Gray, 2010). Noun phrases typically pack in a great deal
of key information in the sentence. Nominalization is a process that can directly lend
itself to pedagogical presentation, exercises, and activities. For example, McCarthy,
McCarten, and Sandiford (2012) include an activity that shows how to embed nomi-
nalization in an ordinary but useful context, that of writing one’s curriculum vitae
or résumé. They recommend that the student “use nouns to make your writing
more formal and varied” (p. 50) and offer several models, including transforming “I
was interested in business in high school” into “My interest in business began in high
school” (p. 50). Following the presentation of the models, students practice rewriting
sentences, changing the bolded item into a noun form of the word, such as “I was
responsible for advertising student events” (an appropriate response would begin
with “My responsibilities included . . .”) (p. 50).
Other subtle grammatical features have been found to correlate with success in
assessment contexts for student writers, based on corpus evidence. For example,
Alexopoulou, Yannakoudakis, and Salamoura (2013) point to the use of a modal
verb plus an adverb (e.g., could clearly, can always, should often) as a positive discrimi-
nating feature in successful examination essays in the Cambridge Learner Corpus.
Another feature they point to is -ing clauses as post-modifiers in object noun
phrases (as in looking at the boats arriving and going away). Such features are therefore
not only worthy of attention in their own right as pieces of grammar but are also
important to include in the syllabus because they are clearly shown to correlate
with better examination results, although their effect may be subliminal on raters
and examiners. (See McCarthy et al., 2012, p. 70, for an example of implementa-
tion of the modal verb plus adverb feature.)
Conclusion
The content of the advanced-level grammar syllabus need not be left to vague
intuitions about difficulty or complexity, nor need it be a rag-bag of grammatical
features that feel “sophisticated.” Corpus research, in the domain of native-speaker
usage as well as learners’ performances, can provide a solid foundation for an orga-
nized and coherent approach as learners move to the upper levels of language
proficiency. Using corpus research will mean bringing to the forefront some
grammatical features that are not traditionally focused on in advanced-level courses
and may mean downplaying other grammatical features. It will also mean paying
greater attention to the lexical configurations that regularly attach to particular
structures, to grammar at the discourse level, and to features that will enhance the
learners’ performances in assessment contexts. This chapter does not present any
solutions in the form of ready-made syllabuses for advanced-level learners; how-
ever, syllabuses are always at their best when they are fine-tuned to the needs of
learners and to specific learning contexts. Based on my own experience as co-
author of advanced-level materials, I offer preliminary guidelines in this chapter
for decisions concerning grammar at the advanced level. These are guidelines that
have at their foundation a belief in the power of corpora to make the task of creat-
ing syllabuses for advanced-level English learners more systematic, authentic, and
useful.
Note
1 Data cited herein have been extracted from the British National Corpus Online service,
managed by Oxford University Computing Services on behalf of the BNC Consortium.
All rights in the texts cited are reserved. The version of the BNC used here is the BYU-
BNC (Davies, 2004).
References
Alexopoulou, T.,Yannakoudakis, H., & Salamoura, A. (2013). Classifying intermediate learner
English: A data driven approach to learner corpora. In S. Granger, G. Gilquin, & F. Meunier
(Eds.), Twenty years of learner corpus research: Looking back, moving ahead (pp. 11–23). Louvain-la-
Neuve, Belgium: Presses Universitaires de Louvain.
Azar, B. S., & Hagen, S. A. (2006). Basic English grammar (3rd ed.). White Plains, NY: Pearson
Longman.
Biber, D., & Gray, B. (2010). Challenging stereotypes about academic writing: Complexity,
elaboration, explicitness. Journal of English for Academic Purposes, 9, 2–20.
Buttery, P., & Caines, A. (2012). Normalising frequency counts to account for “opportu-
nity of use” in learner corpora. In Y. Tono, Y. Kawaguchi, & M. Minegishi (Eds.), Devel-
opmental and crosslinguistic perspectives in learner corpus research (pp. 187–204). Amsterdam,
the Netherlands: John Benjamins.
Capel, A. (2010). A1-B2 vocabulary: Insights and issues arising from the English Profile
Wordlists project. English Profile Journal 1. Retrieved from http://journals.cambridge.
org/action/displayJournal?jid=EPJ
Capel, A. (2013). Completing the English vocabulary profile: C1 and C2 vocabulary.
English Profile Journal, 3. Retrieved from http://journals.cambridge.org/action/
displayJournal?jid=EPJ
Carter, R. A., & McCarthy, M. J. (2006). Cambridge grammar of English. Cambridge, UK:
Carter, R., McCarthy, M. J., Mark, G., & O’Keeffe, A. (2011). English grammar today.
Clarke, D. (1991). The negotiated syllabus: What is it and how is it likely to work? Applied
Linguistics, 12(1), 13–28.
Council of Europe. (2001). Common European Framework of Reference for Languages: Learning,
teaching, assessment. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
Davies, M. (2004). BYU-BNC. (Based on the British National Corpus from Oxford Uni-
versity Press.) Retrieved from http://corpus.byu.edu/bnc/
Davies, M. (2008). The Corpus of Contemporary American English: 450 million words,
1990–present. Retrieved from http://corpus.byu.edu/coca/
Ellis, R. (2002). The place of grammar instruction in the second/foreign language curricu-
lum. In E. Hinkel & S. Fotos (Eds.), New perspectives on grammar teaching in second language
classrooms (pp. 17–34). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
Halliday, M. A. K. (1994). The construction of knowledge and value in the grammar of sci-
entific discourse with reference to Charles Darwin’s The origin of species. In M. Coulthard
(Ed.), Advances in written text analysis (pp. 136–156). London, UK: Routledge.
Hinkel, E. (2002). Teaching grammar in writing classes: Tenses and cohesion. In E. Hinkel &
S. Fotos (Eds.), New perspectives on grammar teaching in second language classrooms (pp. 181–198).
Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
Hinkel, E. (2003). Adverbial markers and tone in L1 and L2 students’ writing. Journal of
Pragmatics, 35(7), 1049–1068.
Kwon, E.Y. (2005). The “natural order” of morpheme acquisition: A historical survey and
discussion of three putative determinants. Teachers College, Columbia University Working
Papers in TESOL & Applied Linguistics, 5(1), 1–21.
Labov, W. (1972). Language in the inner city. Philadelphia, PA: University of Pennsylvania
Press.
Liu, X. (2011). A corpus-based evaluation of syntactic complexity measures as indices of
college-level ESL writers’ language development. TESOL Quarterly, 45(1), 36–62.
McCarthy, M. J., McCarten, J., & Sandiford, H. (2012). Viewpoint. Student book 1. Cam-
bridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
McCarthy, M. J., McCarten, J., & Sandiford, H. (2014a). Touchstone. Workbook 4 (2nd ed.).
McCarthy, M. J., McCarten, J., & Sandiford, H. (2014b). Viewpoint. Student book 2. Cam-
Meara, P. (1995). The importance of an early emphasis on L2 vocabulary. The Language
Teacher, 19(2), 8–10.
Milton, J. (2009). Measuring second language vocabulary acquisition. Bristol, UK: Multilingual
Matters.
Milton, J. (2010). The development of vocabulary breadth across the CEFR levels. In
EUROSLA monographs series 1: Communicative proficiency and linguistic development
(pp. 211–232). Retrieved from http://eurosla.org/monographs/EM01/211–232Milton.pdf
O’Keeffe, A., & McCarthy, M. J. (Eds.). (2010). The Routledge handbook of corpus linguistics.
Oxon, UK: Routledge.
O’Keeffe, A., McCarthy, M. J., & Carter, R. A. (2007). From corpus to classroom. Cambridge,
Richards, J. C., & Sandy, C. (2008). Passages. Student books 1 and 2. Cambridge, UK:
Saslow, J., & Ascher, A. (2006). Summit. Student books 1 and 2. White Plains, NY: Pearson
Education.
Schiffrin, D. (1981). Tense variation in narrative. Language, 57(1), 45–62.
Sinclair, J. (2004). Trust the text: Language, corpus, and discourse. London, UK: Routledge.
Walsh, S. (2006). Investigating classroom discourse. London, UK: Routledge.
Waring, R. (2002). Why should we build up a start-up vocabulary quickly? Retrieved from
http://www.robwaring.org/vocab/principles/early.htm
7
CORPUS-BASED
LEXICOGRAMMATICAL
APPROACH TO GRAMMAR
INSTRUCTION
Its Use and Effects in EFL and ESL Contexts
Dilin Liu and Ping Jiang

The past two decades have witnessed a call for new theories and approaches to
grammar instruction (Conrad, 2000; Ellis, 1995; Hinkel & Fotos, 2002; Hughes &
McCarthy, 1998; Larsen-Freeman, 2002, 2003; Liu & Master, 2003). Of the proposed
theories and approaches, three stand out: grammar teaching in discourse contexts, the
lexicogrammatical approach to grammar, and corpus data-driven teaching. The call
for teaching grammar in discourse contexts has its roots in functional grammar and
is founded largely on the belief that grammar deals not only with forms but also with
semantics (meaning) and pragmatics (context-appropriate use) (Celce-Murcia &
Larsen-Freeman, 1999; Celce-Murcia & Olshtain, 2000; Halliday, 1994; Halliday &
Hasan, 1989; Hughes & McCarthy, 1998; Larsen-Freeman, 2002, 2003). Functional
grammar focuses on meaning and treats grammar as a resource for language users in
making meaning in a given social context. Thus, as Larsen-Freeman (2003) suggests,
language form, meaning, and use should be approached as an integrated whole.
The three aspects of grammar are interwoven because “a change in one will
involve a change in another” (Celce-Murcia & Larsen-Freeman, 1999, p. 4). Stu-
dents of English as a second language (ESL) and English as a foreign language
(EFL) should learn not only how to use correct grammatical forms but also how
to use them in a meaningful and appropriate way. This view contrasts with tradi-
tional grammar teaching with its focus on grammatical forms and little attention
to their discourse contexts, resulting in students often not knowing how to use
grammatical forms meaningfully and appropriately. A discourse-based grammati-
cal approach can help address this problem.
Lexicogrammar views lexicon and grammar as two inherently connected parts
of one entity, challenging the traditional “wisdom of postulating separate domains
of lexis and syntax” (Sinclair, 1991, p. 104). In this view, “a grammatical structure
104 Dilin Liu and Ping Jiang
may be lexically restricted” (Francis, 1993, p. 142), and, conversely, lexical items are
often grammatical in nature, for the use of a lexical item often has grammatical
implications (Biber, Conrad, & Reppen, 1998; Conrad, 2000; Hunston & Francis,
2000). Many corpus studies have exhibited this close lexical and grammatical con-
nection (Biber et al., 1998; Biber, Johansson, Leech, Conrad, & Finegan, 1999;
Francis, Hunston, & Manning, 1996, 1998). In light of these findings, some scholars
have argued for the use of the lexicogrammatical approach in language instruction
(Aston, 2001; Hunston & Francis, 1998, 2000).
The suggestion of using corpus analysis in grammar teaching emerges from new
advancements in corpus linguistics that show how corpus concordance not only makes
accessible an enormous amount of authentic language input but also creates various
inductive and deductive language learning opportunities not available previously
(Aston, 2001; Conrad, 2000; Francis, 1993; Hunston, 2002; Hunston & Francis, 1998;
Johns, 1994; Sinclair, 2004; Stevens, 1995). Corpus-based L2 instruction can involve
either inductive or deductive learning. In terms of inductive learning, language learners
observe grammar and vocabulary usages in concordance data and then discover and
generalize findings about usage patterns and rules. In deductive learning, language
learners use corpora either to test the rules and patterns they have learned or to classify
concordance data by applying the rules and patterns. It has been argued that such
learning activities motivate students and promote discovery learning—a method of
inquiry-based instruction in which learners build on prior knowledge and discover
facts as they are guided in the exploration of new ideas and concepts, and these activi-
ties are “particularly effective for the acquisition of grammar and vocabulary” because
they help learners to notice and retain lexicogrammatical usage patterns better by
engaging them in “deeper [language] processing” (Aston, 2001, p. 19). Furthermore,
corpus data offer contextualized language use, which enables learners to understand
better what Larsen-Freeman (2002) calls “grammar of choice” in language use. It is
important to note that corpus-driven learning is not appropriate for beginning- or
low-level students due to their limited English proficiency (Aston, 2001).
In short, the research examined above supports a contextualized, corpus-based
lexicogrammar approach to grammar instruction. However, while there have been
quite a few publications introducing the use of corpora in language teaching
(Aston, 2001; Flowerdew, 1996; Hunston & Francis, 1998, 2000), there has been
little empirical research on the applicability and effectiveness of a corpus-based
lexicogrammatical approach in grammar instruction.
Research Questions
The specific research questions motivating the current study were the following:
1. To what extent is a corpus-based lexicogrammatical approach applicable

when used as a unified approach in EFL and ESL contexts?
2. How effective and useful is this approach from the perspectives of students
and teachers in such contexts?
Corpus-Based Lexicogrammatical Approach 105
Context and Participants

This study was conducted at a university in China and two universities in the
United States (see also Liu and Jiang, 2009). It lasted one semester at each school.
The participants in the study at the Chinese university were five sections of the
Essentials of English course for second year English majors (160 students). The
course was designed to provide students with essential language skills, including
the ability to use vocabulary and grammar. The participants at one of the U.S.
universities were two Level 5 Reading and Structure classes (21 students) at the
school’s English Language Institute. At the other U.S. university, the study included
three English classes: two composition classes for non-native speakers of English
(27 students) and one MA TESOL grammar class with over 80% of the students
being non-native speakers of English (28 such students). Despite the fact that the
two composition classes differed somewhat in language content/skill and the ESL
students in the MA class possessed a somewhat higher English proficiency, the
subjects were included in the study for two reasons: (1) they were the only ESL
classes available, and (2) the number of participants in the ESL setting was much
smaller compared with that in the EFL setting (76 vs. 160). To limit the effect that
the differences in language context might have on the study, efforts were made to
align the content of the classes as closely as possible by making corpus-based lexi-
cogrammar a focus for all the classes. The subjects’ English proficiency level was
within the intermediate to upper-intermediate range with some students in the
MA class reaching the advanced level. No low-level students were included
because, as mentioned above, corpus-based learning would be too difficult for
them.
The corpus used in the study was the British National Corpus (BNC) and the
BNC Baby. (Some students in the United States had access to the BNC via a free
online interface provided by Brigham Young University professor Mark Davies.)
Prior to the study, the participating instructors underwent extensive training on
corpus use and the issues of lexicogrammar and contextualization of grammar
teaching. During the training, the researchers and the instructors also spent a sub-
stantial amount of time discussing how to effectively incorporate corpora and lexi-
cogrammar in the existing language curriculum and developing teaching strategies,
sample classroom activities, and sample lessons.
Data Collection
The data for this study consisted of the following: (1) students’ work including
their corpus search assignments, grammar exercises, written reports about their
corpus data analyses and findings, and reflections about their corpus studies on
lexicogrammar; (2) instructors’ teaching logs, lesson plans, sample teaching activi-
ties, reflection journals, author notes taken during instructor discussion meetings,
and the authors’ informal discussions with the instructors; and (3) students’ and
instructors’ post-study questionnaires (see Appendix A). The various sources of
data allowed data triangulation to enhance the validity and reliability of the study.
The questionnaire consisted of two parts—open-ended questions (1–10 on the
students’ version and 1–13 on the instructors’ version; instructors answered Ques-
tions 11–13, while learners did not) and five Likert-scale questions that were
answered by all participants. The open-ended questions sought to obtain informa-
tion regarding the participants’ practices in and assessment of the use of corpora
and lexicogrammar. The questions were the same on both the students’ and
instructors’ versions except for some wording differences (i.e., learning vs. teach-
ing) to reflect their respective perspectives. The Likert-scale questions were
intended to ascertain the subjects’ general assessment of the lexicogrammar
approach on a five-point scale. The total number of students who completed the
questionnaire was 198 out of the 236. With the eight teachers’ (four in each set-
ting) responses added, the total number of completed questionnaires was 206.
Analyses included qualitative and quantitative parts. The qualitative part focused on
an interpretive examination of the students’ and teachers’ responses to the open-
ended questions on the post-study questionnaire, as well as student-written corpus
research assignments, reports, and reflections. In addition, teacher data (teaching logs,
lesson plans, sample teaching activities, reflection journals, and the authors’ informal
discussions with the instructors) were analyzed as they supported the themes that had
emerged from learner data. Quantitative analyses were conducted on the subjects’
responses to the Likert-scale questions on the post-study questionnaire.
Qualitative Analysis
In examining the various qualitative data from both the students and instructors, we
followed a two-step procedure commonly used in social sciences/education research.
First, we perused the data multiple times and marked up sections that seemed interest-
ing and important to answering the research questions. Then, we scrutinized the data
again, paying special attention to the marked sections, and organized the important
marked sections/quotes thematically. The analysis identified four major beneficial
effects and two major challenges in corpus-based lexicogrammar learning, as well as
a number of factors that were reported to influence the learners’ experience.
Positive Effects
The first benefit of the corpus-based lexicogrammatical approach was enhanced
language awareness and a better command of some lexicogrammatical usage rules/
patterns reported by many of the learners and the teachers. On the first
open-ended question of the survey—what were the most useful and valuable
things learned—a majority of the participants (n = 118) mentioned lexicogram-
matical usage patterns. Similarly, in answering Questions 3 and 4 on the question-
naire concerning what they had learned from the corpus searches and what aspects
of language they found corpus searches most helpful in learning, more than two-
thirds (n = 138) responded with some version of “lexicogrammatical usage rules
and patterns.” As one student put it, “I solved some [grammar] problems that I had
for a long time [by using corpus searches].” Quite a few commented that they
obtained a lot of information that they could not have found in other sources such
as dictionaries. As indirect evidence of the value of corpus research in learning
lexicogrammatical patterns, searching for such patterns was the most frequently
conducted type of search reported by the majority of the students. It was also the
type of search activity they would like to do more in the future.
The second positive effect reported by participants was a greater appreciation
of the importance of context for a vocabulary item or grammatical form. More
than half of the student participants mentioned that the study helped them to bet-
ter understand how lexicogrammar use is often affected by context. In answering
the question about the role of context in lexicogrammar use based on their learn-
ing in the course, 182 subjects (88.3%) wrote that it was important or very impor-
tant. In their answers as well as in their reflection papers, some subjects explained
that by examining lexicogrammatical patterns, they had many opportunities to see
first-hand how context/register determined people’s choices of lexicogrammatical
items and how form, meaning, and use were interwoven. For example, one group’s
corpus search project about the passive use of the verb give showed a significant
difference across BNC Baby’s four sub-corpora: only 6.7% of the total tokens
occurred in Spoken, 15.8% in Written Fiction, and 25.5% in Written Newspaper,
but 52% in Written Academic. The finding led one member of the group to the
following reflection: “I’d never given much thought to the passive voice in English
before. . . . Now I see that it is not only important to know how to use the passive
voice, but also when to use it, which is something I had never considered.” As
another example, one student conducted a corpus search about the phrasal verb
back up in the different sub-corpora and found that in the written language, espe-
cially academic/news writing, it was used mostly to mean “support” but in spoken
language it often meant “move backwards or reverse.”
The third positive impact reported by participants was an increased critical
understanding of grammar. One student wrote, “Before the course, I learned tra-
ditional grammar from my Korean teachers. I followed their concepts [rules] and
indications [explanations] without thinking why they [the rules] should be con-
sidered like that. . . . [Now I have developed] a good habit to judge whether a
grammatical rule is correct.” Similarly, another student stated the following regard-
ing the most valuable things gained: “Grammar can’t be taught like a math for-
mula: applying a fixed formula to the sentences without the understanding of the
meaning in context.” The subjects’ enhanced critical understandings of grammar
can also be seen in their responses to the question about whether their corpus
research findings challenged the traditional view about grammar being rigid rules
that native speakers follow. A majority (68%) answered “yes,” although 26% said
“no” and 6% did not respond. One student wrote, “our group research results are
somewhat different from [the description in] the textbook. As a result, I now know
the grammar textbook is not always correct.”
Finally, the lexicogrammar approach helped promote discovery learning and
made learning more interesting and effective for students. A positive effect was
noted by both students and teachers. More than a third of the students put down
enhancement of discovery learning skills as one of the most useful and valuable
things they learned in the course. Furthermore, quite a few students commented
that they really enjoyed the discovery learning aspect of the corpus searches. As
one student wrote, “Comparing the different sentences and seeing how the speak-
ers and writers used the same word or structure for varying effects was a surpris-
ingly effective way to study not only English structure but usage by real people.”
Another student stated the point succinctly in explaining why corpus research was
helpful: “I just can type [in] words or phrases. Then a lot of examples [will] come
up on the screen in front of me. From the examples, I can figure out some rules of
English.” Quite a few students also mentioned in the questionnaire responses that
they remembered better by conducting corpus analyses.
In the teaching journals, some instructors also discussed discovery learning and
focused on how conducting corpus analyses promoted the retention of new infor-
mation for their students. One instructor at the Chinese university summarized
the value of discovery learning this way: “I’ve found that using corpus searches
allowed the students to infer [to make inferences about] the unique features and
patterns [of the lexicogrammatical items they were learning] and then to compare
their findings with the descriptions in the textbook. As a result, students gain a
better understanding and [experience] better retention of what they were [are]
learning.” Finally, by working with students on their searches and reading their
reports, teachers had the opportunity to guide and facilitate learning and to under-
stand students’ discovery learning/thinking process on a deeper level than would
occur during non-corpus-based classroom activity. For example, in reflecting on
how much she had learned from the way her students used corpus data to figure
out the differences among modal verbs, one U.S. instructor wrote: “Interestingly
enough, I think I learned as much as the students did, not about modals themselves
but about how the students understand modals.”
Challenges
The first major challenge was access to corpora. This challenge was manifested in
the lack of easy access to corpora in some contexts, especially at the Chinese univer-
sity, due to the limited number of computers available for student use. The second
challenge, and perhaps the most difficult one from the students’ perspective, was how
to effectively analyze concordance data to identify lexicogrammatical usage rules/

patterns. Almost all the students mentioned this issue either directly or indirectly in
their answers to the question about the greatest challenge(s) they faced in using
corpora. Many of them stated that they often felt overwhelmed by the extremely
large number of examples generated by their searches and the time required for
going over and analyzing the data. The problem was further exacerbated when many
of the generated examples were irrelevant to their study question. In addition, many
students were frustrated by the large number of unknown words in the data gener-
ated by the initial searches. There are three likely sources for these problems. The
first explanation is inadequacy in the training given to the students about how to
conduct effective corpus searches. The second explanation may be related to the lack
of sophisticated search functions in the existing corpus search engines. Finally, a third
explanation is the low-level English language proficiency of some of the students.
Quantitative Analysis
General Attitudes
The Likert-scale questions elicited responses on a five-point scale showing the gen-
eral attitudes of both the students and teachers about the use of corpora. Data from
the two participant groups were combined. The results are summarized in Table 7.1.
These data generally corroborate the aforementioned findings from the qualitative
analysis. Concerning Question 1 (i.e., how helpful was corpus use in lexicogrammar
TABLE 7.1 Post-Study Assessment Ratings of Attitudes Toward Use of Corpora
Rating Question 1 on Question 2 Question 3 on Question 4 on Question 5

Helpfulness of on Amount of Plan to Use Relationship on Importance
Corpus Use Learning From Corpora in the Between of Context in
Corpus Use Future Grammar/Lexicon Grammar Use
1 Not at all Nothing No Not as close as Not as

8 (3.9%) 8 (3.9%) 9 (4.4%) 7 (3.4%) important
10 (4.9%)
2 Minimally Minimal Probably not Not quite as close Not quite as
31 (15.0%) 18 (8.7%) 24 (11.7%) 34 (16.5%) important
15 (7.3%)
3 Somewhat A little Not sure About the same About the
106 (51.5%) 100 (48.5%) 65 (31.6%) 63 (30.6%) same
70 (34.0%)
4 Quite A good Yes Closer More
46 (22.3%) amount 90 (43.7%) 81 (39.3%) important
75 (36.4%) 73 (35.4%)
5 Very A great deal Yes, very Much closer Much more
15 (7.3%) 5 (2.4%) much 21 (10.2%) important
18 (8.7%) 38 (18.4%)
learning), 81% of the subjects selected the positive choices “Very,” “Quite,” and
“Somewhat.” On Question 2, regarding how much they learned, 87% selected the
positive choices with about 40% believing they had learned a good amount or a
great deal. Question 3 focused on whether the subjects would use corpora in their
future learning or teaching activities, and the majority (54%) of the subjects said
“Yes” or “Yes, very much.” Although the overall response to the question was posi-
tive, a little over 30% were “Not sure,” and about 15% said “No.” As indicated above
in the qualitative analyses, possible reasons for participants’ expressions of uncer-
tainty about the value of corpora include the large amount of time and effort that
corpus analyses demand and the lack of easy access to corpora.
Regarding Question 4 (i.e., comparing their views on the relationship between
grammar and vocabulary before and after their experiences with using corpora),
50% now consider the relationship “Closer” or “Much closer” than before. Thirty
percent hold the same view as before, and 20% now view it as not as close. On
Question 5 (i.e., comparing their views before and after their experiences with
using corpora on the importance of context in selecting a vocabulary item or
grammatical structure in a text or in discourse), 54% selected “More important”
or “Much more important,” suggesting that the use of corpora and lexicogrammar
enhanced the majority of the subjects’ understanding of the relationship between
grammar and vocabulary choice.
Factors Influencing Learning

To ascertain whether the context for learning (i.e., EFL vs. ESL) was a possible
factor affecting learners’ responses, a t-test was conducted between groups using
combined means. The results of the t-test are reported in Table 7.2, where a sig-
nificant difference between means can be seen, with the ESL group mean higher
than that of the EFL group, meaning that the ESL students were more positive
about the benefits of using corpora compared with the EFL group.
There are a number of factors in both the ESL and EFL contexts that may have
affected students’ responses on the usefulness of corpora in grammar instruction
and should be taken into account in considering this result. The ESL students had
better access to corpora, and the classes were smaller, which would likely mean
more individual attention from the teacher and more interactive learning
TABLE 7.2 Post-Study Overall Assessment of Attitudes Toward Use of Corpora by

Context
EFL ESL Both t-Test Results

(n = 152) (n = 54) (n = 206)
M SD M SD M SD Mean t p d
Difference (effect size)
3.26 0.59 3.57 0.80 3.34 0.67 0.31 2.527 0.01 0.43
opportunities. The lack of good access to corpora and large class sizes pose special
challenges in the implementation of the corpus-based approach, yet corpora offer
EFL learners a source of authentic language data not available otherwise. Thus,
how to deal with the special challenges of using a corpus-based approach in EFL
is a very important question. We will return to this issue in the Discussion section
of this chapter. A final factor that may have influenced students’ responses was that
one of the ESL classes was an MA-level course whose students possessed a higher
English proficiency and appeared more motivated than students in the EFL classes.
Besides comparing the responses to the Likert-scale questions from the two dif-
ferent contexts, we ran an ANOVA to check whether there were significant differ-
ences among the nine different classes. The results indicate that there are significant
differences (see Table 7.3). The results of the post hoc Tukey’s test is shown by
subscript letters attached to the class means (e.g., for EFL Group 1, M = 3.04a,b).
The test reveals where the differences lie between the groups. Means (M) that share
a common subscript are not significantly different by Tukey’s test, where p < 0.05,
while means that do not share a common subscript are significantly different. For
example, ESL Group 3, with a subscript of “c” (i.e., M = 4.14c), which focused on
grammar, was significantly different from ESL Group 1, with subscripts of “a” and
“b” (i.e., M = 3.16a,b), and Group 2, with a subscript of “a” (i.e., 2.75a), which focused
on composition, and from all of the EFL groups except for Group 2 with subscripts
of “b” and “c” (i.e., M = 3.67b,c). In addition, the results show that four of the classes
stood out, with three having noticeably higher means on the five-point scale (EFL
2, ESL 3, and ESL 4), indicating more positive attitudes, and one showing a markedly
lower mean (ESL 2), indicating less positive attitudes. Of the three classes with the
highest means, two were grammar classes (ESL 3 and 4), and the one with the lowest
TABLE 7.3 Students’ Overall Assessment of Attitudes Toward Use of Corpora by Class
Class Content/Skill M SD ANOVA
df F Sig R (effect size)
EFL 1 (n = 27) Overall 3.04a,b 0.62

EFL 2 (n = 26) Overall 3.67b,c 0.42
EFL 3 (n = 36) Overall 3.21a,b 0.55
EFL 4 (n = 35) Overall 3.27a,b 0.59
EFL 5 (n = 24) Overall 3.08a,b 0.56 8/189 10.64 0.000 0.31
ESL 1 (n = 10) Composition 3.16a,b 0.70
ESL 2 (n = 12) Composition 2.75a 0.79
ESL 3 (n = 24) Grammar 4.14c 0.48
ESL 4 (n = 4) Read/grammar 3.65b,c 0.57
Note: Means (M) sharing a common subscript are not significantly different by Tukey’s test,
where p < .05.
TABLE 7.4 Student Attitudes Toward Use of Corpora by Content Groups
Content Group M SD ANOVA
Composition (n = 22) 2.94a 0.76

Overall skill (n = 148) 3.25a 0.59 2/195 27.33 0.000 0.22
Reading/grammar (n = 28) 4.07b 0.51
mean was a composition class (ESL 2). These differences would suggest that the
language content/skill focus of the class might have been an influencing factor on
attitudes toward corpora-based instruction in ESL contexts.
We also ran an ANOVA on the students’ mean ratings grouped by the three
major language skills the classes respectively focused on: (1) composition, (2) over-
all skills, and (3) grammar. The results of the ANOVA and a post hoc Tukey’s test
are reported in Table 7.4. The grammar group’s mean rating is significantly higher
than the other two groups’ ratings, and the overall skill group’s rating is higher,
though not significantly, than the composition group’s rating. Such a finding
would suggest that the language skill focus of a class was also a likely factor in
determining students’ responses to corpus-based lexicogrammar teaching.
In Table 7.3, we saw that there was a significant difference in the overall assess-
ment means among classes with the same language skill focus (e.g., the five EFL
classes), suggesting other factors, such as the teacher and individual differences
among the students themselves, may be factors influencing the result. A compari-
son of the instructors’ responses to the five-point Likert-scale questions with their
own students’ responses shows a relationship between the two on their reactions
to corpora-based instruction. The students whose teacher ratings were high
responded more positively on the Likert-scale ratings than those whose teacher
ratings were low. The teachers whose Likert-scale ratings were high also had very
positive views about their teaching practice as noted in the data from their teach-
ing journals and researcher observations of instructor meetings.
Based on these data, it seemed reasonable to pursue further quantitative analy-
ses to ascertain whether the instructors’ attitude had an impact on their students’
learning experiences.We classified the instructors into three groups based on their
Likert mean ratings (1 to 5): “Not very positive” (with a mean of 3.0 and below),
“Median positive” (with a mean between 3.1 and 3.99), and “High positive” (with
a mean of 4.0 and higher).Two instructors fell into the low positive attitude group,
four into the middle group, and two into the high group.Then we ran an ANOVA
on students’ mean ratings. The test with post hoc Tukey’s results is reported in
Table 7.5 and reveals that the mean rating by students whose instructors were in
the high group is significantly higher than the mean ratings of the students in the
other two groups. These findings suggest that the instructors’ attitude likely had
TABLE 7.5 Student Assessment of Corpus-Based Instruction by Groups Based on Instructors’

Attitudes
Groups by M SD ANOVA
Instructors’ Attitudes
Low (n = 39) 2.96a 0.68

Middle (n = 109) 3.21a 0.58 2/195 33.65 0.000 0.26
High (n = 50) 3.90b 0.51
an influence on the students’ learning experiences. Of course, the students them-

selves could have been a factor. The wide distribution of the students’ answers on
the Likert-scale questions shown in Table 7.1 may serve as evidence. Based on the
instructors’ observations, students who were usually more motivated responded to
corpus use more positively than those who were less motivated.
Limitations of the Study

While the study has yielded some interesting findings, it is important to note that
there are a few limitations. First, there was a large difference in the number of sub-
jects between the two settings; also, the content and language skills taught were not
the same across all classes. Second, due to limited resources and other factors related
to access, no formal face-to-face interviews could be conducted with the students
or teachers; consequently, we had no opportunity to gain a more in-depth under-
standing of some of the issues that we examined. Third, the study did not employ
language tests to measure, in quantitative terms, students’ language learning achieve-
ment. Therefore, it lacked an objective measure of students’ learning gains.
These limitations point to important considerations for future research. First,
future studies on corpus-based lexicogrammar teaching should include better sam-
pling techniques across contexts and more balanced samples across groups. Second,
several more specific lines of inquiry need to be explored. More content and lan-
guage skill-specific research on the use of corpora is needed to help determine the
effectiveness of this approach in various specific language skill areas, such as lexico-
grammar skills in reading or writing. Quasi-experimental research that uses tests of
language proficiency to more accurately measure the effects of the use of corpora
and lexicogrammar on students’ language learning would also be useful.
Pedagogical Implications
Despite these limitations, the overall positive effects of the corpus-based lexico-
grammatical approach in both EFL and ESL settings shown in the current study
indicate that EFL/ESL teachers should try to incorporate this strategy into their
instruction, if they have the resources. However, teachers who implement a lexi-
cogrammar approach need to be fully aware of the challenges they may face and
the different variables that can affect the design and use of corpus-based curricula,
such as access to computers and the Internet. As they consider whether or not and
to what extent they want to incorporate corpus-based learning, a number of fac-
tors should influence the decision-making process, such as their students’ own
learning objectives and levels of language proficiency.
It is also important to note that some of the difficulties in corpus searches found in
the study, such as the limited functions of certain search engines, will require advance-
ments in technology before they can be resolved. Some progress has been made in this
regard. For example, Wible, Chien, Kuo, and Wang (2002) have developed the Lexical
Difficulty Filter software program, which can filter out examples that contain difficult
words. Progress is being made, but more work in this area is needed.
The research on using corpora in language classrooms can help teachers con-
front the challenges they may face in the implementation of a lexicogrammar
approach. For example, in dealing with the issue of the lack of good access to
corpora, teachers could sometimes print out concordance lines about a lexico-
grammatical issue they want to talk about in class and give each student a hard
copy. In this way, students will have access to the data and be able to work on
specific problems in or out of class.
To help students become more confident and proficient in corpus use, teachers
should model corpus searches. Modeling is a crucial scaffolding technique in pre-
paring students for success in their own corpus research. Many students and
instructors in the current study talked about the need for such modeling, from
both positive and negative experiences. While modeling is extremely helpful, it is
not sufficient for students to become competent corpus users. “Learning by
doing” is equally important. As a student research group reported in their corpus
project that compared the use of maybe and perhaps in the spoken and written
corpora, they first included fiction as a sub-corpus of their written corpus. How-
ever, on further examination of the data, they noticed that a substantial portion of
the writing in fiction was actually dialogue, so they decided to exclude fiction
from their written corpus, which was an appropriate decision and one based
entirely on their own learning.
Another effective practice is to have students participate in deductive search
activities before engaging in inductive ones. In deductive learning activities the
students are asked to test a lexicogrammatical rule or usage pattern they have been
taught or already know. In such an activity, students search the corpora for exam-
ples to confirm or reject a rule or usage pattern they have been given. Such an
activity is much easier than an inductive one in which students must go through
language examples by themselves to identify a rule or pattern. Students’ successes
in conducting deductive learning searches give them more confidence to pursue
inductive searches, enhancing their interest and increasing motivation.
In another useful practice, students can conduct group corpus research assign-
ments in addition to or in lieu of individual ones. There are several advantages to
having students work in groups in corpus searches. First, identifying lexicogram-

matical rules and usage patterns is a very demanding task, so if group members
pool resources, they are generally more successful than an individual might be.
Second, corpus searches are time-consuming, especially the task of going through
the many tokens or examples a search usually generates. When several people share
the work, the process becomes more efficient. Additionally, in large classes, small
group work may help students become more engaged by offering them more
opportunities to participate, interact with, and learn from one another. In fact, the
findings of this study show that students generally prefer group corpus projects
over individual ones. However, teachers should be aware of the fact that group
work can sometimes be very difficult if there are problems with group chemistry
that might result from personality clashes, cultural differences, or levels of language
proficiency, among other things.
Finally, thorough preparation on the part of the teacher (e.g., going through cor-
pus query results before each lesson) is important, especially for non-native-speaker
teachers, who, as research has shown, may not feel confident enough about their
language ability and may not be quite sure about some of the lexicogrammatical
usage rules/patterns (Liu, 1998; Llurda, 2005). It is advisable for teachers to make
detailed preparations by doing any necessary corpus searches before class on each
lexicogrammatical point to be taught. In this way, they are less likely to be caught off
guard about issues about which they are unsure. In fact, the process of doing a corpus
analysis gives teachers additional opportunities for language study, which will in turn
further enhance their language knowledge and confidence in teaching.
Conclusion
This study has provided additional data on using a lexicogrammatical approach to
teaching English grammar in both EFL and ESL post-secondary contexts. The
results of the study support findings from previous research, indicating that there is
a close lexical and grammatical connection in language use. Both language learners
and teachers recognized the connection. The data also suggest that a lexicogrammar
approach is useful in promoting discovery learning and therefore can serve as a cata-
lyst for helping language learners develop a deeper understanding of usage patterns
and of how vocabulary and grammar are connected. In addition, findings from this
study have been useful in identifying some of the pedagogical challenges that teach-
ers face in implementing a lexicogrammar approach, particularly in EFL contexts,
and in offering suggestions for how these challenges may be resolved.
Acknowledgments
This is a condensed version of our 2009 paper “Using a Corpus-Based Lexico-
grammatical Approach to Grammar Instruction in EFL and ESL Contexts,” pub-
lished in Modern Language Journal, 93(1), 61–78.
APPENDIX A
Post-study Questionnaire
I. Open-Ended Questions
(Questions 11–13 were on the teacher version only)
1. What are the most useful and valuable things you have learned in the course?
2. What corpus search activities have you done and for what type of information?
3. What have you learned from the corpus searches?
4. In learning/teaching what aspects of language have you found the use of
corpora most helpful for?
5. What do you think are the greatest challenge(s) in the use of corpora for
English learning?
6. What types of searches would you like to do more in the future for English
learning/teaching?
7. Based on your learning/teaching this semester, what do you think is the
relationship between grammar and vocabulary (entirely different or closely
related), and why?
8. Based on your learning/teaching this semester, what do you think is the role
of context in our choice of words and grammatical structure in language use?
9. Traditional grammar (especially prescriptive grammar) views grammar as
rigid rules that naïve speakers of the language follow. Have your corpus
research findings challenged this view? By the same token, have your corpus
findings changed your view about grammar? If yes, then how?
10. Besides what you have been provided, what additional help and resources
would you like to have in the future in order to use corpora and contextual-
ized lexicogrammar more effectively for English learning?
11. In what ways do you find corpora useful for you as an ESL/EFL teacher?
12. What are the challenges you have found in incorporating corpus-based lexi-
cogrammar in your teaching?
13. What have you done in assessing your students’ learning of lexicogrammar?
II. Likert-Scale Questions
1. How helpful has the use of corpora been for your learning/teaching?
1. Not at all. 2. Minimally. 3. Somewhat. 4. Quite. 5. Very.
2. How much have you learned from the use of corpora?
1. Nothing. 2. Minimal. 3. A little. 4. A good amount. 5. A great deal.
3. Would you like to include the use of corpora for your future English learning/
teaching?
1. Not at all. 2. Probably not. 3. Not sure 4. Yes. 5. Yes, very much.
4. Compared with your previous understanding (i.e., before the course), what is
your current view about the relationship between vocabulary and gram-
mar (i.e., how closely they are connected)?
1. Not as close. 2. Not quite as close. 3. About the same.
4. Closer. 5. Much closer.
5. Compared with your previous understanding (i.e., before the course), what is
your current view about the importance of context in determining langu-
age users’ choice of words/grammar?
1. Not as important. 2. Not quite as important. 3. About the same.
4. More important. 5. Much more important.
References
Aston, G. (2001). Learning with corpora: An overview. In G. Aston (Ed.), Learning with
corpora (pp. 6–45). Houston, TX: Athelstan.
Biber, D., Conrad, S., & Reppen, R. (1998). Corpus linguistics: Investigating language structure
and use. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
Biber, D., Johansson, S., Leech, G., Conrad, S., & Finegan, E. (1999). Longman grammar of
spoken and written English. London, UK: Longman.
Celce-Murcia, M., & Larsen-Freeman, D. (1999). The grammar book: An ESL/EFL teachers’
course (2nd ed.). Boston, MA: Heinle & Heinle.
Celce-Murcia, M., & Olshtain, E. (2000). Discourse and context in language teaching. Cam-
Conrad, S. (2000). Will corpus linguistics revolutionize grammar teaching in the 21st century?
Ellis, R. (1995). Interpretation tasks for grammar teaching. TESOL Quarterly, 29(1),
87–105.
Flowerdew, J. (1996). Concordancing in language learning. In M. Pennington (Ed.), The
power of CALL (pp. 97–113). Houston, TX: Athelstan.
Francis, G. (1993). A corpus-driven approach to grammar: Principles, methods, and examples.
In M. Baker, G. Francis, & E. Tognini-Bonelli (Eds.), Text and technology (pp. 137–156).
Amsterdam, the Netherlands: John Benjamins.
Francis, G., Hunston, S., & Manning, E. (1996). Cobuild grammar patterns 1: Verbs. London,
UK: Harper Collins.
Francis, G., Hunston, S., & Manning, E. (1998). Cobuild grammar patterns 2: Nouns. London,
UK: Harper Collins.
Halliday, M. A. K. (1994). Introducing functional grammar. London, UK: Arnold.
Halliday, M. A. K., & Hasan, R. (1989). Language, context, and text: Aspects of language in a
social-semiotic perspective. Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.
Hinkel, E., & Fotos, S. (Eds.). (2002). New perspectives on grammar teaching in second language
classrooms. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
Hughes, R., & McCarthy, M. (1998). From sentence to discourse: Discourse grammar and
English language teaching. TESOL Quarterly, 32(2), 263–287.
Hunston, S. (2002). Corpora in applied linguistics. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University
Press.
Hunston, S., & Francis, G. (1998). Verbs observed: A corpus-driven pedagogical grammar.
Applied Linguistics, 19, 45–72.
Hunston, S., & Francis, G. (2000). Pattern grammar: A corpus-driven approach to the lexical gram-
mar of English. Amsterdam, the Netherlands: John Benjamins.
Johns, T. (1994). From printout to handout: Grammar and vocabulary teaching in the
context of data-driven learning. In T. Odlin (Ed.), Perspectives on pedagogical grammar
Larsen-Freeman, D. (2002). The grammar of choice. In E. Hinkel & S. Fotos (Eds.), New
perspectives on grammar teaching (pp. 103–118). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
Heinle & Heinle.
Liu, D. (1998). Ethnocentrism in TESOL: Teacher education and the neglected needs of
international TESOL students. ELT Journal, 52, 3–10.
Liu, D., & Jiang, P. (2009). Using a corpus-based lexicogrammatical approach to grammar
instruction in EFL and ESL contexts. Modern Language Journal, 93, 61–78.
Liu, D., & Master, P. (Eds.). (2003). Grammar teaching in teacher education. Alexandria, VA:
TESOL.
Llurda, E. (Ed.). (2005). Non-native language teachers: Perceptions, challenges and contributions to
the profession. New York, NY: Springer.
Sinclair, J. M. (1991). Corpus, concordance, and collocation. Oxford, UK: Oxford University
Press.
Sinclair, J. M. (2004). How to use corpora in language teaching. Amsterdam, the Netherlands:
John Benjamins.
Stevens, V. (1995). Concordancing with language learners: Why? When? What? CAELL
Journal, 6, 2–10.
Wible, D., Chien, F., Kuo, C., & Wang, C. C. (2002). Toward automating a personalized
concordancer for data-driven learning: A lexical filter for language learners. In B. Kette-
mann & G. Marko (Eds.), Learning and teaching by doing corpus analysis: Proceedings of
Fourth International Conference on Teaching and Language Corpora, Graz, 19–24 July, 2000
(pp. 147–154). Amsterdam, the Netherlands: Rodopi.
8
CREATING CORPUS-BASED
VOCABULARY LISTS FOR TWO
VERB TENSES
A Lexicogrammar Approach
Keith S. Folse
Since the mid-1990s, there has been a surge in quantitative and qualitative research
regarding the role of vocabulary in English as a second language (ESL) courses.
While much of the initial research on vocabulary development was designed
experimentally to identify best teaching or best learning practices, more recent
research has focused on the use of corpus linguistics and how it can inform teach-
ers, learners, researchers, and materials writers. It is widely understood that corpus
linguistics informs teachers and materials writers about lexical issues such as word
frequency (e.g., stubborn is more common than pig-headed), as well as collocations
for certain words (e.g., of great importance, not of high importance). Though certainly
useful for lexical issues, corpus linguistics has not been exploited as much for
information on how certain grammatical features are used as those who advocate
for a more lexicogrammar view of language would hope (Conrad, 2000; Liu &
Jiang, 2009; Römer, 2009; Sinclair, 1991). In an almost clairvoyant manner, Conrad
(2000) skillfully laid out what corpus linguistics could do for the teaching of
vocabulary and grammar individually, as well as grammar and vocabulary together.
She noted three possible contributions of corpus work to the teaching of grammar,
one of which was that the teaching of grammar would become more integrated
with the teaching of vocabulary.
In a 2011 article entitled “Applying L2 [second language] Lexical Research
Findings in ESL Teaching” for the Teaching Issues section of TESOL Quarterly (see
Folse, 2011), I summarized my understanding of the contributions of research on
vocabulary to date and posed four questions that future research should address.
Second language vocabulary research has given us better information on

which words to teach as well as how to teach them. We also have more
information about how people learn vocabulary, and this information can
inform the design of classroom activities, books, and software for vocabulary.
120 Keith S. Folse
Despite this growing information, many questions are still unresolved, such
as (1) Is there an ideal number of words to be learned in one lesson? (2) How
can vocabulary best be presented in textbooks to optimize learning?
(3) Should vocabulary be given more attention in curricula than grammar?
(4) What connections are there between grammar and vocabulary?
(p. 366)
In this chapter, I focus on answering two questions from that article—Question 4

specifically and Question 3 tangentially—and demonstrate how corpora can be used
to accomplish the integration of vocabulary and grammar. I explain how vocabulary
and grammar can be connected for English learners in a highly practical way. I do so
from the point of view of a researcher and a classroom practitioner with more than
35 years of experience in the field of second and foreign language teaching and
learning. Using my practitioner’s hat, I have identified two key grammar points cov-
ered in beginning ESL grammar classes, namely, the present progressive tense and the
simple past tense with regular verbs. I then explain how I used my research skills to
search easily accessible corpora to identify the key lexical items specifically associated
with both of these grammar points. The result is new information that I believe is
helpful for teachers, learners, and especially materials writers who use the informa-
tion from corpus studies to produce textbooks for English learners.
Some Recent History on the Teaching of English Grammar

We cannot talk about how connections between teaching grammar and teaching
vocabulary developed without talking at least briefly about the recent history of
the teaching of English grammar (see Celce-Murcia, Chapter 1, for more detail).
For many decades, grammar was viewed as the most important component in the
teaching of English as a second or foreign language (i.e., ESL or EFL). It was not
only desirable but necessary. In the late 1980s and early 1990s, the field of English
language teaching went through a period when some practitioners and researchers
questioned the value of grammar instruction (Krashen, 1989, 1993; Krashen &
Terrell, 1983; Truscott, 1996). Should grammar be taught? Should grammar be
taught through consciousness-raising tasks? Should we focus on fluency or accu-
racy or both? When should grammar be taught? Should grammatical errors be
corrected? If so, how should they be corrected? These are among the many ques-
tions that practitioners and researchers continue to ask about teaching grammar,
and this intense questioning has brought about a renewed interest in research on
teaching and learning English grammar.
At present, few question the value of some kind of focus on grammatical struc-
tures in learning English. Longtime teacher and textbook writer Betty Azar (2009)
sums up this rather tumultuous period in English language teaching:
Our field has seen tremendous changes since 1965, when language teaching
was shifting away from grammar. Fortunately, we have shifted back (though
Creating Corpus-Based Vocabulary Lists 121
some of us never stopped teaching grammar, much to our students’ benefit

and delight). With both research and teaching outcomes on its side, gram-
mar is now recognized by most in the field as an essential component in
balanced programs of second language instruction.
(p. v)
In sum, since the 1970s, greater and lesser attention has been paid to the teaching
of grammar in second/foreign language instruction. As the methodologies of the
day varied, so did the textbooks and other learning materials prepared for
students.
The Importance of Vocabulary in Mastering English

As important to the successful mastery of any foreign language as grammar may
be, knowledge of grammar structures alone will not suffice. An entire conversation
may come to a halt simply owing to a lack of knowledge of one or two lexical
items. In her seminal work on the lexical plight that English learners face, Laufer
(1997) aptly notes that “[n]o text comprehension is possible, either in one’s native
language or in a foreign language, without understanding the text’s vocabulary”
(p. 20). Wilkins (1972) offers the most succinct version of a language learner’s
predicament: “While without grammar very little can be conveyed, without
vocabulary nothing can be conveyed” (p. 111).
What can be taught about any one language is vast and beyond measure, but
clearly the amount of grammar is more limited than the amount of vocabulary. For
example, we have only 12 verb tenses in English, and some of them are not very
frequently used; however, we have thousands of individual verbs. While most ESL
grammar textbook series consist of three to five books, with each book represent-
ing an agreed-upon proficiency level of grammar from beginning to more
advanced, the number of books in a vocabulary series would be much greater and
still would cover only a fraction of the words, idioms, collocations, and lexical
bundles in English.
Even after taking many courses over several years, English learners may still not
have sufficient vocabulary to meet their academic language needs. Adult L2 learn-
ers are painfully aware of this very real plight. They see the acquisition of vocabu-
lary as the greatest source of their language problems, express a strong desire for
vocabulary instruction in end-of-term course evaluations, and rank more vocabu-
lary development second only to more opportunities to speak English in class
(Folse, 2004). L2 learners appreciate the importance of vocabulary, and they rec-
ognize their limited lexicon as a deficit in meeting their goals. Meara (1980) notes
that “learners themselves readily admit that they experience considerable difficulty
with vocabulary, and once they have got over the initial stages of acquiring their
second language, most learners identify the acquisition of vocabulary as their
greatest single source of problems” (p. 221). Cobb (1999) sums up the dilemma
for L2 learners with “[s]tudents typically need to know words measured in
122 Keith S. Folse
thousands, not hundreds, but [they] receive language instruction measured in

months, not years” (p. 345).
The lack of curricular attention to vocabulary (Folse, 2004) is most unfortunate.
As Lewis (1993) points out, “Language consists of grammaticalised lexis, not lexi-
calised grammar” (p. vi), and a language teaching curriculum should reflect this
notion. In other words, in Lewis’s view lexis plays a central role in creating mean-
ing while grammar plays a lesser, subservient role. In addition, grammar and vocab-
ulary are not learned separately, and a great deal of L2 lexical research clearly shows
that vocabulary is strongly related to proficiency in L2 listening, L2 writing, and
L2 reading (Folse, 2010b).
The Relationship between Grammar and Vocabulary

When I first started teaching ESL in 1980, there was little focus on the relationship
between grammar and vocabulary. Grammar was grammar, and vocabulary was
vocabulary. However, these two areas are most certainly related. Grammar requires
words, and words need grammar to be sequenced correctly. Though our awareness
of the interconnected nature of grammar and vocabulary is improving, vocabulary
is still seen for the most part as a secondary component to grammar. For example,
in intensive English programs (IEPs) in the United States, grammar is usually
taught as a separate class or, in an integrated curriculum, in a course called gram-
mar and writing, while vocabulary is seldom a separate course. In a case study
depicting how much explicit attention teachers and textbooks dedicated to vocabu-
lary teaching in an IEP, Folse (2010b) discovered that the best predictor of how much
vocabulary is being taught in a course is not the subject matter (e.g., reading vs.
grammar) but the teacher. In other words, there are some teachers who may focus
more on vocabulary development than other teachers regardless of the content or
skill they may be teaching. Even though some teachers incorporate vocabulary
into their grammar courses, the connection between grammar and vocabulary
remains largely unacknowledged.
Explaining why it is not appropriate to divide a language into grammar and
vocabulary, Min (2013) states that
[i]f the goal of L2 education is to develop the learner’s communicative

ability, then it is crucial to enhance the learner’s awareness of the connec-
tion between lexis and grammar. It is important to remember that
communicative competence goes hand in hand with vocabulary compe-
tence, and vocabulary competence goes hand in hand with collocational
competence.
(p. 65)
Liu and Jiang (2009) also argue that the lexicon and grammar are “inherently
connected parts of a single entity” (p. 62). Hancioglu, Neufeld, and Eldridge
(2008) go much further, arguing that what teachers need is lexicogrammar that is
culled from a particular genre, thus focusing on the vocabulary and grammar spe-
cific to a given student’s academic needs.
The Role of Corpus Linguistics in Identifying

Lexicogrammar Items
Perhaps the single biggest advance in the teaching of languages since 2000 is the use
of corpora to identify how elements of language, such as lexis and grammar, actually
work together. A corpus is a large collection of purposefully collected language
texts, such as the works of a certain author or writings on a particular subject. There
are corpora for both written and spoken text. Language teachers, learners, research-
ers, and materials writers can use information gleaned from searching a corpus to
better understand how a word or phrase is actually used—as opposed to how we
think it is used or how a prescriptive grammar rule dictates that it should be used.
Thus, corpus work is descriptive as opposed to prescriptive in nature.
The Michigan Corpus of Academic Spoken English (MICASE) is an example.
(See Appendix A for websites that can be used for accessing information about the
corpora referenced in this chapter.) MICASE is a collection of 152 transcripts of
academic lectures from a variety of subjects and courses; meetings of students with
students and with professors; and study groups. The searchable site contains
1,848,364 words and is free to students who are interested in improving their
understanding of the type of language used in academic contexts.
Teachers and learners can also make use of the Corpus of Contemporary
American English (COCA), the largest freely available corpus of American Eng-
lish. COCA is a corpus of 450 million words equally divided among spoken lan-
guage, fiction, magazines, newspapers, and academic texts. As with other corpora,
COCA’s interface allows you to search for words or phrases, but it also allows you
to search by part of speech, frequency, genre, time period (e.g., the 1960s with the
1990s), and surrounding words, which are called collocates.
Other useful corpora that are continually updated include the British National
Corpus (BNC) with 100 million words, the Brown Corpus with 1 million words,
the Lancaster-Oslo-Bergen (LOB) Corpus with 1 million words from the 1980s,
and the Collins Birmingham University International Language Database
COBUILD Bank of English with 2.5 billion words. The number and type of
corpora keep growing and now include corpora of English learners, such as the
Chungdahm English Learner Corpus of 131 million words in 861,481 English
essays written by Korean-speaking students, and the Chinese-Speaking Learners of
English Corpus of 222,168 words in 409 student essays (see Gui & Yang, 2002;
Yang & Wei, 2005; and Wen, Wang, & Liang, 2005).
One concrete use of corpus research has been the creation of general and spe-
cific wordlists. Perhaps the best known of all ESL lexical lists is the Academic Word
List (AWL) (Coxhead, 2000). The AWL is a list of 570 individual words found
124 Keith S. Folse
frequently in a variety of academic subjects (i.e., four disciplines with seven subject
areas each) in a corpus of 3,500,000 words of written academic text. Other useful
corpus-based vocabulary lists teach idioms (e.g., Liu, 2003; Simpson & Mendis,
2003), phrasal verbs (e.g., Gardner & Davies, 2007), collocations (e.g., Ellis,
Simpson-Vlach, & Maynard, 2008), phrasal expressions (e.g., Martinez & Schmitt,
2012), and academic formulaic sequences (e.g., Simpson-Vlach & Ellis, 2010).
In the 1980s, when I was an ESL teacher in an IEP, an Iranian student asked me out
of the blue if convince and persuade had the same meanings. In order to answer his ques-
tion, I had to consult with several dictionaries and grammar resource books and discuss
it with other colleagues. Now, with modern computer technology, we can compare
the use of two words such as persuade and convince using a corpus, such as COCA, and
even limit our search to a specific genre, such as newspapers or academic texts.
Two Types of Vocabulary in Learning a Second Language

My current research interest is on using corpora to clarify the distinction between
content vocabulary and grammar vocabulary. Content vocabulary refers to vocabulary
that is selected for use in a grammar exercise because it is associated with a specific
topic. Grammar vocabulary is the set of lexical items that are most frequently used
in conjunction with the grammatical pattern. To understand the difference
between these two types of vocabulary—content and grammar—we can consider
a grammar lesson on the present progressive (or continuous) tense in English. Such
a lesson would most likely be part of a course for beginning-level learners. A tra-
ditional grammar lesson would probably begin by giving the learner information
on the form of the grammar point, which in teacher terms means making it clear
that the present progressive tense is formed by using the present tense of the verb
be plus the present participle form of a verb. Putting this information in simpler
language for beginning-level students, a teacher might say that this verb tense has
two parts—am, is, or are and verb + -ing.
After the form has been presented, most grammar books then provide several
examples to illustrate actual usage. Whatever material is provided, its sole purpose
is to serve as a vehicle to illustrate the grammar point being taught, as grammar
books are notorious for intentionally limiting the introduction of much new
vocabulary. Azar (2007) explains that
[n]ew vocabulary is not introduced at the same time a new structure is intro-
duced. Unfamiliar vocabulary can interfere with students’ understanding the
meaning of a grammar form. After the structure is well understood and prac-
ticed, new vocabulary is brought in, especially in contextualized exercises.
(p. 10)
The vocabulary that is selected for use in contextualized grammar exercises is

associated with a topic that has been selected and is not based on the frequency
of occurrence of the vocabulary in conjunction with the grammatical structure.
To further illustrate the distinction between content and grammar vocabulary, con-
sider Figure 8.1, a short grammar exercise from Clear Grammar 1, 2nd Edition (Folse,
2010a, p. 233). As you read through this exercise, try to identify 10 vocabulary words
that are used in the sentences that high beginning-level students might not know.
My prediction is that your list of vocabulary words might contain at least some of
the following: laugh, blow, catch, shine, throw, sun, wind, lightly, bench, cone, soft drink, beard,
teenager, the other side, and kite. While these lexical items may indeed be words that are
worth learning, they are not the words that are frequently connected to the grammar
point of present progressive tense. In the exercise in Figure 8.1, it would be helpful to
incorporate the verbs that most frequently occur in present progressive tense (i.e., the
grammar vocabulary). Without the benefit of corpora to guide us, materials develop-
ers often create grammar practice activities using content vocabulary that in fact may
draw learners’ attention away from the grammar point in question.
Part 1.
Fill in the blanks with one of the words from the wordlist. Use each word one time. You
might have to make some changes in the form of the word.
Wordlist
be blow catch drink eat fly have
laugh like play shine sit sleep throw
There are six people in the part. It (1) _________________________ a

beautiful day. The sun (2) ___________________________, and the wind (3)
_________________________ lightly.
There is a little g irl with her mother. They (4)
___________________________ next to each other on the bench. The girl (5)
__________________________ an ice cream cone. Her mother (6)
____________________________ a soft drink. She doesn’t have an ice cream
cone because she doesn’t (7) _____________________ ice cream.
There is an old man with a long beard. His eyes are closed. Yes, he
(8) ____________________________ on the bench.
There are two children near a big tree. They (9) ____________________
with a ball. One of them (10) _________________________ the ball, and the
other one (11) __________________________ it. They (12)
_______________________________ because they (13) __________________
_______________ a great time. They are really happy.
Finally, there is a teenager on the other side of the park. He (14)
____________________________ a kite.
FIGURE 8.1 A grammar exercise for beginning English learners

Source: Reproduced by permission of University of Michigan Press, Ann Arbor, MI, from Keith Folse, Clear
Grammar 1, 2nd edition: Keys to Grammar for English Language Learners, p. 233, © University of Michigan Press.
126 Keith S. Folse
The Current Study

In the study reported below, I used different corpora and employed different search
methods to answer two research questions to identify key grammar vocabulary
words that are used with two grammar structures that are commonly taught in
beginning-level classes in both ESL and EFL contexts, namely, the present progres-
sive and past tenses. The research questions are:
1. What are the most common verbs used in present progressive tense based on
corpus evidence?
2. What are the most common verbs used in regular past tense based on corpus
evidence?
Data Collection
I intentionally selected two different corpora—COCA and AWL—for my searches.
As you may recall, COCA is nearly evenly divided among spoken texts, fiction,
popular magazines, newspapers, and academic texts (20% in each), while AWL is
written academic vocabulary. The decision about which corpus to use was deter-
mined by learner needs related to the grammar point (e.g., a general vocabulary
for communicative needs vs. written academic use of vocabulary). The difference
between the searches I conducted is explained in detail below.
Because of COCA’s extensive searchability features, including grammar tagging
for a variety of genres, as well as for both written and spoken language, I was able
to conduct different searches in COCA (see Appendix A for the URL). To answer
the first research question, the method I used was complicated because it required
searching within a large corpus and gradually narrowing the searches to find spe-
cific information. To perform the initial search, I inserted the code [be] [vvg*].
This string provided all combinations of any form of to be (am, is, are, was, were),
including contractions (’m, ’s, and ’re) [be], with a present participle [vvg*].
In the second COCA search, I looked for frequently occurring verbs in the corpus
and then refined the search by focusing on those verbs with at least 1,000 examples;
the search yielded 293 verb possibilities. I then limited the search to their use with the
present progressive and identified the combinations (i.e., am, is, are, ’m, ’s, ’re) within
the occurrences of these 293 verbs and targeted 40 with the highest frequency counts.
To answer the second research question, I used the AWL corpus (Coxhead,
2000). My main interest in asking this research question was motivated by ques-
tions related to students’ use of regular past tense verbs in academic English. This
question is especially important for many of my learners, whose goal is to function
with English in an academic setting, especially those who want to write academic
papers. The intent of this question is to identify the most frequently used verbs
that follow a regular pattern (i.e., add -ed to form the past tense) when forming
the simple past tense. The AWL is a small corpus that consists of 570 academic
words arranged in 10 sub-lists by frequency. I did not need a multi-layered process
to conduct this search as I had used with COCA; I simply consulted each sub-list
and identified the high-frequency verbs that had regular forms in simple past tense.
Data Analysis and Results

The results of the corpora searches are presented for each of the research
questions.
Research Question 1
This question focused on determining the most common or frequently used verbs
with present progressive tense in English. I conducted two searches in order to
answer this question. Table 8.1 shows the results of the first search and the top 10
occurrences for to be plus a present participle ([be] [vvg*]). According to the results
of the search, ’re going is the top occurrence with 81,767; in fact, the present par-
ticiple going appears with forms of to be for Numbers 1–6 and 8. It is the most
frequently used verb for to be +verb +-ing. Talking, trying, and looking are the three
other verbs that appear in the list; however, only talking and looking appear in the
present progressive form. It is also important to note the differences in frequency
distribution—’re looking is the 10th most frequent with 9,478 examples as com-
pared with ’re going, the most frequent with 81,767 examples.
My next search using COCA was limited to verbs in the present progressive. The
search indicated that there were thousands of verbs possible in the present progres-
sive tense; therefore, I limited my search to verbs that appeared at least 1,000 times.
This search indicated that of the thousands of verbs that are possible with the pres-
ent progressive tense, the number of verbs that actually appear frequently is relatively
small. Table 8.2 presents the top 40 verbs occurring in the present progressive tense
in COCA. Verbs that are very frequent in this search include do, go, try, talk, get, look,
TABLE 8.1 The 10 Most Frequent [be] [vvg*] Occurrences in COCA
Ranking Verb Frequency
1 ’re going 81,767

2 ’s going 66,965
3 is going 49,718
4 was going 42,082
5 are going 35,721
6 ’m going 31,439
7 ’re talking 16,370
8 were going 16,340
9 was trying 9,521
10 ’re looking 9,478
TABLE 8.2 The Top 40 Verbs Occurring in Present Progressive
Tense in COCA
Verb Frequency
1. do 43,566
2. go 36,558
3. try 34,547
4. talk 29,689
5. get 28,014
6. look 26,934
7. say 24,698
8. come 20,914
9. work 18,032
10. take 15,318
11. make 14,474
12. happen 11,540
13. have 11,124
14. think 7,503
15. sit 7,108
16. run 7,007
17. play 6,911
18. use 6,823
19. see 6,812
20. move 6,639
21. ask 6,479
22. become 6,148
23. start 5,279
24. tell 5,235
25. begin 4,616
26. give 4,060
27. wait 4,021
28. grow 3,935
29. pay 3,815
30. put 3,780
31. watch 3,487
32. stand 3,239
33. change 3,051
34. live 2,923
35. wear 2,881
36. seek 2,828
37. face 2,731
38. call 2,531
39. turn 2,242
40. listen 2,201
TABLE 8.3 Ten Frequently Occurring Regular Past Tense Verbs in Academic English in
Alphabetical Order
1. People assumed Henry’s story was true.

2. The teacher created two copies of the exam.
3. In that story, humans established a city on the moon in 2000.
4. They estimated the value of the coin to be over one million dollars.
5. Saudi Arabia exported over $350 billion of oil products in 2008.
6. The police identified the person who robbed the bank.
7. My dad’s last health test indicated that he had high blood pressure.
8. The accident involved a car and a truck.
9. Several problems occurred when the inventors tested their new product.
10. Prior to 2005, the city required pet owners to walk their dogs on a leash.
Source: Reproduced by permission of University of Michigan Press, Ann Arbor, MI, from Keith Folse,
Clear Grammar 1, 2nd edition: Keys to Grammar for English Language Learners, p. 149, © University of
Michigan Press.
say, and come. However, the frequency distribution for verbs in Table 8.2 is quite
uneven: the most frequent verb, do, occurs twice as often as the 8th most frequent
verb, come; 4 times as often as the 14th most frequent verb, have; and about 20 times
as often as the 40th most frequent verb listen. Perhaps the strongest indication of
how lopsided the frequency distribution of verbs is in the present progressive tense
is the fact that the top 7 verbs are as frequent as the remaining 33.
Research Question 2
To explore the second research question, I used the AWL corpus (Coxhead, 2000).
The AWL consists of 570 academic words arranged in 10 sub-lists by frequency. I
consulted each sub-list and identified the verbs that have regular forms in simple
past tense. Table 8.3 lists 10 frequently used regular past tense verbs from the AWL
(Folse, 2010a, p. 149), presented in alphabetical order with an example sentence
retrieved from that corpus.
Discussion and Pedagogical Implications

It is important to note that the calculations for all 40 verbs in Table 8.2 are based
entirely on form, not actual function. The form to be + verb + -ing can be used to
refer to an action happening right now (What are you doing now?) as well as to
the future (What are you doing tomorrow?). Therefore, while we can safely say
that these are the 40 verbs most likely to occur with the present progressive verb
form, the calculations do not allow us to say whether the frequency count for this
form also includes its meaning as a future action.
130 Keith S. Folse
To illustrate this point, consider the verb to go in the present progressive form.
Because the formula [be] [vvg*] elicited present progressive forms, such as What is
going on here? as well as the non-targeted future form, such as They are going to talk
soon, in which the [be] [vvg*] is actually to be going to + verb, the total frequency
required an estimation. With 271,397 examples of am, is, are, ’m, ’s, ’re + going to in
the data, it was not feasible to go through each example to determine which
examples were present progressive (i.e., to be + verb) and which were future (to be
going to + verb). A reasonable alternative was to examine a random sample of 100
items for each of the six forms (am, is, are, ’m, ’s, ’re), determine the percentage of
true present progressive verbs as compared with future uses, and then make a rea-
sonable prediction for the whole group.
To illustrate, there were 66,965 occurrences of ’s going in the corpus. A careful
examination of a random sample of 100 items from COCA, using the random
search option available on the interface, showed that 25% of the items were true
present progressive forms. If we apply that proportion to the full sample and take
25% of 66,965, we estimate that approximately 16,741 of the ’s going items would
be examples of the present progressive tense. Because there may also be variations
in the percentage of target examples according to the subject (you vs. they) and full
or contracted forms (e.g., are doing vs. ’re doing), the percentage was calculated for
each of the six combinations and then applied to the total count for that combina-
tion. The percentages of progressive tense for the six present tense combinations
are the following: am going = 16%, ’m going = 7%, is going = 19%, ’s going = 25%,
are going = 18%, and ’re going = 5%. This calculation resulted in the estimate of
36,558 present progressive examples with go shown in Table 8.2.
Further analyses can also help us understand how individual verbs in the top
40 list in Table 8.2 behave. For example, in the random sample of 100 examples
of the verb to go in [be] [vvg*], 18 of the 25 examples that were true present
progressive tense used the idiom to go on, meaning to happen, as in to show people
what’s going on here. These data are counterintuitive to what most English teach-
ers might think; there is only one example in which to go means to travel to a
place. In most ESL textbooks or materials the focus is on to go in the present
progressive as a verb of motion; however, the corpora show that idiomatic uses
involving to go are much more frequent than examples of to go as motion. Given
these data it seems that pedagogical materials should also include idiomatic uses
of the verb to go.
Most grammar lessons concentrate on form and usage, but less consideration
has been given to the vocabulary that should be used in the grammar practice
activities. If we teach learners that the present progressive tense consists of to be +
verb + -ing, we have enabled them to produce the form correctly. If we teach them
that to be + verb + -ing is also used for discussing future events, then we have cov-
ered usage. In theory, it seems simple; however, the reality is that of the thousands
of verbs possible in the present progressive tense, the number of verbs that actually
appear frequently in this tense in the entire COCA database is relatively small. As
discussed above, the tense occurs most frequently with do, go, try, talk, get, look, say,
and come—all with over 20,000 examples in the data (see Table 8.2). These words
are grammar vocabulary for the present progressive tense. Given the frequency of
their occurrence, it seems reasonable to recommend that any grammar practice
exercise for the present progressive tense in English should include at least some of
these high-frequency verbs. The same could also be said for the inclusion of the
past tense regular verbs (e.g., assumed, established, identified) in Table 8.3. These data
show that corpus searches can be used to provide teachers and materials writers
with important information about grammar vocabulary.
Researchers are also beginning to use corpora to answer questions about how
to teach English grammar. For example, Folse and Gonzalez (2014) used corpora
to clarify the distinction between the use of be going to and will to express future
time. The results of their findings go beyond the oversimplified grammar expla-
nations in ESL textbooks, which suggest that planned actions use be going to,
spontaneous actions use will, and predictions can use either, finding evidence for
additional lexical connections, with certain verbs tending to occur more fre-
quently with one variant than the other—a finding also noted by Harris (2013).
(See also Berglund, 1997, 1999; Cacoullos & Walker, 2009; McCarthy & Carter,
1995; and Szmrecsanyi, 2003.)
Other researchers such as Biber and Reppen (2002) have used corpora to deter-
mine which of the 12 verb tenses in English should be introduced first in grammar
textbooks. In their corpus data, they found that the simple present tense occurs in
conversation more than 20 times as often as the present progressive tense, thereby
suggesting that teachers and materials developers strongly consider how often a
structure is used and also the context for use.
Because students say, “The lecture was interested” or “I am boring,” grammar
books cover present participles and past participles used as adjectives. Almost all
grammar books provide a list of useful participial adjectives that are presented in
contrasting pairs such as surprising – surprised and boring – bored. In a very detailed
analysis of present and past participles in COCA, Reilly (2013) found that a list of
the 20 most frequent -ing participial adjectives and the list of the 20 most frequent -ed
participial adjectives have only two base verbs in common, interest and surprise.
Therefore, the only pairs that would illustrate the grammar issue and lexical fre-
quency would be interesting – interested and surprising – surprised. Textbooks con-
tinue to focus only on pairs of participial adjectives, ignoring common adjectives
such as willing, growing, following, unidentified, concerned, and involved. These examples,
along with the two research questions on present progressive and past tense in this
chapter, are yet more evidence of the connection between vocabulary and gram-
mar and should serve as indicators to teachers about when a structure should be
introduced, how it should be introduced, and how much time should be spent on
the structure in class.
132 Keith S. Folse
Conclusion
Most ESL and EFL teachers are prepared to teach the grammatical forms that are
presented in the book, such as be + verb +-ing for present progressive tense, and
even novice teachers are able to explain the verbs that are practiced in the textbook
activities. However, most teachers have a great deal of difficulty judging which
vocabulary items are appropriate for which proficiency level, and even fewer have
any idea at all of the vocabulary that might be tied to a certain grammar point.
The solution is simple: corpus linguistics.
Current computer capabilities allow us to compile corpora made up of millions
of words and to search the lexical trove for collocations and other patterns of usage.
As I have demonstrated in this chapter, corpus searches are relatively easy to do.
Even though grammar books may contain lists of grammatical items to be learned,
corpora “offer a substantial improvement over these lists because information no
longer has to be based on intuition or anecdotal evidence” (Conrad, 2000, p. 553).
It is hoped that the information in this chapter will encourage further lexico-
grammatical corpus-based research that will reveal useful information about vocab-
ulary connected to ESL grammar issues. Skilled and dedicated ESL practitioners
such as Betty Azar helped teachers survive the anti-grammar decade in TESOL, and
it is up to current teachers, researchers, and materials writers to continue to improve
the teaching of grammar. Using corpora, as shown by the research presented here,
can directly contribute to the teaching of grammar by making teachers, students,
and materials writers aware of which vocabulary should be introduced when gram-
mar points are being taught.
APPENDIX A
Website Addresses
Academic Word List (AWL): http://www.nottingham.ac.uk/alzsh3/acvocab/
wordlists.htm
British National Corpus (BNC): http://www.natcorp.ox.ac.uk
Brown Corpus: http://www.essex.ac.uk/linguistics/external/clmt/w3c/corpus_
ling/content/corpora/list/private/brown/brown.html
Chungdahm English Learner Corpus: http://saffron.deri.ie/lrec/topic/
chungdahm_corpus/
COBUILD Bank of English: http://www.lt-world.org/kb/resources-and-
tools/language-data/ltw_x3alanguage_x5fdata_.2010-09-23.5678579368
Corpus of Contemporary American English (COCA): http://www.corpus.
byu.edu/coca/
Lancaster-Oslo-Bergen (LOB) Corpus: http://www.essex.ac.uk/linguistics/
external/clmt/w3c/corpus_ling/content/corpora/list/private/LOB/lob.
html
Michigan Corpus of Academic Spoken English (MICASE): http://www.hti.
umich.edu/m/micase/
Oxford English Corpus (OEC): http://www.oxforddictionaries.com/us/words/
the-oxford-english-corpus
References
Azar, B. (2007). Grammar-based teaching: A practitioner’s perspective. TESL-EJ, 11(2), 1–12.
Azar, B. (2009). Foreword. In K. Folse (Ed.), Keys to teaching grammar to English language
learners: A practical handbook (pp. v–vi). Ann Arbor, MI: University of Michigan Press.
Berglund, Y. (1997). Future in present-day English: Corpus-based evidence on the rivalry
of expressions. ICAME Journal, 21, 1–20.
Berglund, Y. (1999). Gonna and going to in the spoken component of the British National
Corpus. Corpus Linguistics and Linguistic Theory, 1999, 35–48.
Biber, D., & Reppen, R. (2002). What does frequency have to do with grammar teaching?
Cacoullos, R., & Walker, J. (2009). The present of the English future: Grammatical variation
and collocations in discourse. Language, 85(2), 321–354.
Cobb, T. (1999). Breadth and depth of lexical acquisition with hands-on concordancing.
Computer Assisted Language Learning, 12, 345–360.
Conrad, S. (2000). Will corpus linguistics revolutionize grammar teaching in the 21st century?
Coxhead, A. (2000). A new academic word list. TESOL Quarterly, 34, 213–238.
Ellis, N., Simpson-Vlach, R., & Maynard, C. (2008). Formulaic language in native and
second language speakers: Psycholinguistics, corpus linguistics, and TESOL. TESOL
Quarterly, 42(3), 375–396.
134 Keith S. Folse
Folse, K. (2004). Vocabulary myths: Applying second language research to classroom teaching. Ann
Arbor, MI: University of Michigan Press.
Folse, K. (2010a). Clear Grammar 1 (2nd ed.). Ann Arbor, MI: University of Michigan Press.
Folse, K. (2010b). Is explicit vocabulary focus the reading teacher’s job? Reading in a Foreign
Language, 22(1), 139–160.
Folse, K. (2011). Applying L2 lexical research findings in ESL teaching. TESOL Quarterly,
45, 362–369.
Folse, K., & Gonzalez, M. (2014). Identifying corpus-based vocabulary for three ESL grammar
points. Unpublished manuscript.
Gardner, D., & Davies, M. (2007). Pointing out frequent phrasal verbs: A corpus-based
analysis. TESOL Quarterly, 41(2), 339–359.
Gui, S., & Yang, H. (2002). Chinese Learner English Corpus (CLEC). Shanghai, China: Shanghai
Foreign Language Education Press.
Hancioglu, N., Neufeld, S., & Eldridge, J. (2008). Through the looking glass and into the
land of lexico-grammar. English for Specific Purposes, 4, 459–479.
Harris, B. (2013). Expressing future time in spoken conversational English: A corpus-based ana-
lysis of the sitcom Friends (Master’s thesis). University of Central Florida, Orlando,
Florida.
Krashen, S. (1989). We acquire vocabulary and spelling by reading: Additional evidence for
the input hypothesis. Modern Language Journal, 73, 440–464.
Krashen, S. (1993). The case for free voluntary reading. The Canadian Modern Language
Review/La Revue Canadienne des Langues Vivantes, 50(1), 72–82.
Krashen, S., & Terrell, T. (1983). The natural approach: Language acquisition in the classroom.
Oxford, UK: Pergamon.
Laufer, B. (1997). The lexical plight in second language reading: Words you don’t know, words
you think you know, and words you can’t guess. In J. Coady & T. Huckin (Eds.), Second
language vocabulary acquisition (pp. 20–34). Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
Lewis, M. (1993). The lexical approach. Hove, UK: Language Teaching Publications.
Liu, D. (2003). The most frequently used spoken American English idioms: A corpus analysis
and its implications. TESOL Quarterly, 37, 671–700.
Liu, D., & Jiang, P. (2009). Using a corpus-based lexicogrammatical approach to grammar
instruction in EFL and ESL contexts. Modern Language Journal, 93(1), 61–78.
Martinez, R., & Schmitt, N. (2012). A phrasal expressions list. Applied Linguistics, 33,
299–320.
McCarthy, M., & Carter, R. (1995). Spoken grammar: What is it and how can we teach it?
ELT Journal, 49(3), 207–218.
Meara, P. (1980). Vocabulary acquisition: A neglected aspect of language learning. Language
Teaching and Linguistics, 13(4), 221–246.
Min, Y.-K. (2013). Vocabulary acquisition: Practical strategies for ESL students. Journal of
International Students, 3(1), 64–69.
Reilly, N. (2013). A comparative analysis of present and past participial adjectives and their colloca-
tions in the Corpus of Contemporary American English (COCA) (Master’s thesis). University
of Central Florida, Orlando, Florida. Retrieved from http://www.slideshare.net/Natalia
ReillyPhD/reilly-natalia-v201312ma
Römer, U. (2009). The inseparability of lexis and grammar: Corpus linguistic perspectives.
Annual Review of Cognitive Linguistics, 7(1), 140–162.
Simpson, R., & Mendis, D. (2003). A corpus-based study of idioms in academic speech.
Simpson-Vlach, R., & Ellis, N. (2010). An academic formulas list: New methods in phrase-
ology research. Applied Linguistics, 31, 487–512.
Sinclair, J. M. (1991). Corpus, concordance, and collocation. Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.
Szmrecsanyi, B. (2003). Be going to versus will/shall: Does syntax matter? Journal of English
Linguistics, 31, 130–160.
Truscott, J. (1996). The case against grammar correction in L2 writing classes. Language
Learning, 46(2), 327–369.
Wen, Q., Wang, L., & Liang, M. (2005). Spoken and Written English Corpus of Chinese Learners
(S WeCCL 1.0). Beijing, China: Foreign Language Teaching and Research Press.
Wilkins, D. (1972). Linguistics in language teaching. London, UK: Arnold.
Yang, H., & Wei, N. (2005). College English Learners’ Spoken English Corpus (COLSEC).
Shanghai, China: Shanghai Foreign Language Education Press.
PART IV
Instructional Design
and Grammar
9
PUTTING (FUNCTIONAL)
GRAMMAR TO WORK IN
CONTENT-BASED ENGLISH
FOR ACADEMIC PURPOSES
INSTRUCTION
Patricia A. Duff, Alfredo A. Ferreira,
and Sandra Zappa-Hollman
There is increasing awareness that contextualized grammar instruction can play a

valuable role in supporting English language learners’ (ELLs’) development and
performance in English for academic purposes (EAP) and content-based pro-
grams. One key factor driving explorations of new ways of attending to grammar
in English language teaching (ELT) is the dramatically expanding population of
non-native speakers of English internationally engaging in some form of content-
based learning through English. These students may be in English classes in K–12
and post-secondary contexts preparing to be or already in mainstream, credit-
bearing content courses, or in sheltered content instruction or “bridge” programs
transitioning into the academic or vocational mainstream. These latter courses may
be in content and language-integrated learning programs, in programs designed
primarily for native English speakers in English-dominant countries, or for users
of English as a lingua franca in non-English-dominant countries.
At our own institution (the University of British Columbia), a large research-
intensive Canadian university with nearly 60,000 students, and at many other
institutions worldwide, English language specialists are being called on to help
design forward-looking programs. Such programs help to maximize the learning
potential and achievement of students, in terms of both language/literacy and
content, and the intercultural, social, affective, and other dimensions of their
education. This goal becomes especially important as language and content pro-
grams become more tightly integrated in K–12, undergraduate, and teacher edu-
cation programs, and as the focus shifts from oral to written language. Evidence
of this new priority is that all teacher candidates in elementary and secondary
school programs at our university (i.e., not just those specializing in language
education) must now take coursework on language/discourse across content
areas ranging from social studies and mathematics to music, physical education,
140 Patricia A. Duff et al.
and applied skills courses such as technology education. This changing curricu-
lar and programmatic context, described more fully below, necessitates maximiz-
ing educational possibilities and outcomes for ELLs as well as English-dominant
students by raising teachers’ awareness of how language functions within their
own and others’ curricular areas. To this end, ESL specialists, together with uni-
versity content specialists in the arts and sciences, as well as candidates preparing
for K–12 schooling, have sought to find appropriate ways of “putting grammar
to work” in content-based EAP programs. This practical programmatic issue has
led to our exploration of current research-informed developments in the teach-
ing of grammatical structure for academic purposes and to a consideration of
sound practices and principles to guide our implementation of these new teach-
ing initiatives. Insights gained are likely relevant to educators and researchers in
other contexts as well.
In this chapter, we briefly discuss the changing contexts for the teaching of
English grammar across educational programs worldwide and compare conven-
tional approaches to grammar instruction with promising functional approaches
being taken up by language and content specialists in the United States, Australia,
and elsewhere (Byrnes, Maxim, & Norris, 2010; Christie & Derewianka, 2008;
Coffin, 2010; Derewianka & Jones, 2012). We provide theoretical and research
foundations and examples of the implementation and effectiveness of such
approaches to the teaching and learning of discourse grammar and discuss gram-
matical metaphor and nominalization as important overlapping components of aca-
demic language development and instruction. The chapter concludes with a
discussion of implications of developments in this area for teacher education—for
language instructors and content specialists—as well as for program development
and future research on grammar instruction.
Toward a More Functional Orientation

to English Teaching
Beginning in the 1970s the focus in ELT on fostering communication across all
skills, with much less attention paid to grammar, represented a dramatic shift from
earlier approaches that emphasized mastery of word-, phrase-, and sentence-level
grammatical forms with little real communication. However, in some communica-
tive approaches and materials the treatment of grammar became incidental, ad hoc,
atomistic, and purely reactive. If and when it occurred at all, grammar instruction
might focus either implicitly or explicitly on (1) areas of grammatical “trouble” or
infelicities that arose when students engaged in particular tasks, (2) challenging
aspects of form related to differences between the learners’ first and second lan-
guages (e.g., position of adverbials relative to verbs in French vs. English) and
instructional strategies for helping students avoid such cross-linguistic influences, or
(3) complicated structures in English that proved difficult to master regardless of a
learner’s first language, such as uncommon verb tenses or aspectual forms or the
Putting (Functional) Grammar to Work 141
article system. (Lightbown and Spada [2013] review studies illustrating some of
these trends.) Much of the focus-on-form grammar research in ELT language courses
has examined such phenomena as question formation, relative clauses, and mor-
phemes associated with persistent errors in students’ performance in task-related
language use, in personal narratives, or in teacher-fronted classroom interactions
with students at low to intermediate levels of proficiency in their second language
(L2). From the research being conducted, however, one might get the impression
that grammar instruction is often delivered as instructional feedback, such as recasts,
rather than through planned, proactive instruction and consciousness-raising activi-
ties. But as the chapters in this volume demonstrate, actual educational practice is
much more varied, suggesting that there is widespread attention to—and integra-
tion of—grammar in the communicative language curriculum, depending of
course on the instructional context and goals, curricula, textbooks, assessment prac-
tices, and second versus foreign language contexts. Teachers’ own prior experiences,
training, and beliefs about grammar instruction also influence their practice.
Together with the issue of whether, to what extent, how, and during what phase
of instruction in communicative language teaching teachers and students should
attend to lexical and grammatical (lexicogrammatical) form comes the issue of how
meaning should be addressed in connection with grammar. As Larsen-Freeman (2003)
and Halliday (2003 [1975]) have long argued and demonstrated, an examination of
(grammatical) form in discourse must necessarily attend to meanings and the uses to
which it is being put, the various choices available to speakers and writers, and the
rhetorical and other consequences of those choices. Producing a construction in the
passive voice in English, for example, represents not just the mechanical transforma-
tion of an active construction through inversion and the optional deletion of the
agent; the passive means something different and is often used quite deliberately in
discourse to do different things. In sum, there is now considerable consensus that
grammar instruction should not be ignored, left to chance, or done in an unprinci-
pled way in ELT (Byrd, 2005; Byrnes et al., 2010; Christie & Derewianka, 2008;
Hinkel & Fotos, 2002; Larsen-Freeman, 2014; Lightbown & Spada, 2013) and that
much more attention should be paid to grammar at the discourse level.
How Functional Grammar Works

There are various functional options for attending to grammar in instructional
contexts, including genre- and register-based instruction (e.g., Gibbons, 2002;
Hyland, 2004, 2005; Knapp & Watkins, 2005; Martin & Rose, 2008; Unsworth,
2000, 2001). The fundamental objective of this collection of approaches, we
believe, is to enable learners to develop “the capacity to create and understand
meaning by using language, adapting what they know to new situations” (Larsen-
Freeman, 2014, p. 269).
Language in systemic functional linguistics (SFL), more specifically, is a socially
evolved system for making meaning. In this view, people’s lexicogrammatical
choices from the functional systems of language (e.g., the systems of modality,
theme, transitivity, agency, and voice) are acts of meaning in context—intersubjective
acts in spoken or written texts and intrasubjective acts of thinking (Hasan, 2005
[1992]). As Bloor and Bloor (2013) put it,
[W]hen people use language, their language acts produce or, more techni-
cally, construct meaning. From this point of view, grammar becomes a study
of how meanings are built up through the choice of words and other gram-
matical resources . . . such as tone and emphasis.
(p. 2)
The view of language as systems of choices for meaning in context focuses on what
could occur instead of what. For example, when initiating an interaction in speech or
writing, our choice to state something means what it does in a community of speak-
ers by virtue of its contrast with alternative possible choices (e.g., questioning, com-
manding, or offering) from the subsystem of grammatical mood, which captures
(for now) the potential choices available in this culture for the social roles of inter-
locutors. The choice of stating activates a series of other functional grammatical
subsystems at the clause level associated with the declarative mood. Thus, paradig-
matic systems of language are privileged in SFL for their capacity to reflect cultural
meaning potential. This perspective contrasts with that of traditional grammars,
which focus more on rules for what follows what in language, its syntagmatic
ordering (see, e.g., Fontaine, 2013, pp. 5–8; Halliday & Matthiessen, 2004).
Indeed, a growing number of researchers internationally draw on SFL to inform
their language/literacy teaching and teacher education (e.g., Byrnes et al., 2010;
Ferreira, 2007; Gebhard, 2010; Mohan, 1986; Mohan, Leung, & Davison, 2001;
Schleppegrell, 2001, 2002, 2012; Unsworth, 2001). Much of this work examines
not just the oral language produced by students undertaking tasks but also the
language of the written and multimodal texts they encounter or produce; the
knowledge or rhetorical structures being used and the logic behind them, for
example, in classification, sequence, and evaluation (such as in Mohan et al., 2001);
and any accompanying graphic displays.
For educators interested in using functional grammatical knowledge to help
learners engage meaningfully in scholarly conversations, the question becomes how
grammatical selections “tie up” with meaning in academic contexts. Across the
better-known functionally informed linguistic approaches to the discourses of
schooling, notably those associated with Halliday (e.g., Halliday & Matthiessen, 2004;
de Oliveira & Schleppegrell, 2015; Schleppegrell, 2004a), Martin (e.g., Martin & Rose,
2008), Biber (Biber & Conrad, 2009; Biber & Gray, 2010), and Hyland (2005), the
concept of register is pivotal. Register captures the relation between meanings at
stake in situated contexts and the lexicogrammatical choices instantiated in texts.
(Meaning, as it is used here, is closely synonymous with function, which is a term used
in very different ways across applied linguistics; see, for example, Ellis, 1994, p. 142.)
Register is typically defined as a context-specific variation of language use. Although
functional approaches differ in, for example, the ways register and the complemen-
tary concept of genre are formalized, they all recognize several aspects of context-
specific language variation, including the functions of ideation, logical ordering,
social positioning, evaluation, and text organization.
Among these approaches, SFL has perhaps been the most widely used, both
geographically and across primary, secondary, and tertiary contexts, in support of
academic literacy. In SFL, the ideational, interpersonal, and textual functions of
language are understood to evolve culturally and ontogenetically into relatively
distinct grammars. These subsystems of language work together in texts to reflect
and realize three respective aspects of contexts: Field (What is going on?), Tenor
(What social roles are involved?), and Mode (How is meaning organized in texts?).
The general model of register is shown in Table 9.1, with some elaboration of
grammatical features that “realize” variables of the context.
As shown in Table 9.1, the relationship between grammar and contextual vari-
ables advanced in this model is a stratified one, reflecting a constructivist notion that
language use at once realizes (maps onto and also produces) contexts and is con-
strained by them. In this view, grammatical choices that comprise language use are
seen as distinctly functional social acts. Thus, for example, choices associated with
Tenor values are especially salient in realizing social roles; choices associated
with Field are pivotal in realizing experiential and conceptual knowledge. Educa-
tors using SFL and related approaches to register, often in conjunction with the
concept of genre as the achievement of social purposes through a conventionalized
series of stages (Martin & Rose, 2008; Rose & Martin, 2012), claim these approaches
help make explicit the relationship between meanings in academic contexts and
textual choices of representing, reasoning, evaluating, and positioning (Coffin &
Donohue, 2012; Daniello, Turgut, & Brisk, 2014; Derewianka & Jones, 2012; De
Silva & Feez, 2012; Humphrey, Love, & Droga, 2011).
TABLE 9.1 The SFL Model of Language in Context
Variables of Field: What is Tenor: What social Mode: How is meaning

Context: Register going on? roles are involved? organized in texts?
Lexical and Representing the Enacting through Points of departure

grammatical processes, participants, choice of social and arrival: clause
resources in (and and circumstances role/mood: stating, themes; thematic
beyond) the involved. Reasoning: questioning, patterns; given/new.
clause logical relations commanding, or Cohesion: cohesive
within and offering. Evaluating: links within the text
between clauses. modality; Appraisal: and with entities
Nominalization attitude, graduation, outside the text.
of experience and and engagement. Conjunction: order
reasoning: ideational Shifting social roles according to field or
grammatical and evaluations: designed by author.
metaphor. interpersonal
grammatical
metaphor.
The argument about grammar in language learning, then, is not that knowledge
of academic interactions is internalized with functional grammatical knowledge.
Rather, it is that felicitous interaction can be facilitated when interactants connect
the meanings they recognize in specific contexts with the functional grammatical
choices most likely to encode those meanings. This view foregrounds the concep-
tion of language as a resource for making meaning, rather than as a grammatical
construct. These orientations are evident, for example, in EAP instruction as
described in Moore (2006), who emphasizes that educators should help language
learners expand their capacity to generate their own meanings in academic con-
texts. His work shows that offering students opportunities to experience and
reflect on the complementarity of meanings and wordings in specific academic
communities can serve to accelerate their academic apprenticeship.
Traditional grammar, based on the rules of the internal structure of language, is
poorly suited to the task of understanding the unfolding of social events. In many
EAP courses and materials, such rule-based grammar is not employed as a genera-
tive resource that helps learners to connect choices of wording with meanings
relevant to interlocutors in context and to communicate more clearly (for excep-
tions see, e.g., Celce-Murcia, 2002; Celce-Murcia & Larsen-Freeman, 1999). Too
often, the primary role for grammar in teaching and learning is to identify and
correct errors in form. This is the case even in L2 teaching in university contexts
with communicative aims and sociocultural foundations, such as Smith’s (2010)
scenario-based language learning. In a scoring rubric for group interaction, a score
for “Grammar” will fall between “errors” and “error-free” (p. 75). Such a rubric
is likely to result in treating grammar in a rather piecemeal fashion.
Thus, while the value of grammatical accuracy cannot be dismissed, this orien-
tation to language use is often guided by arbitrary rules rather than by the ways
choices reflect and realize aspects of context. Grammatical accuracy may be more
usefully understood as a by-product of people using functional knowledge of
language (tacit or otherwise) to express their meanings in specific communicative
contexts (Schleppegrell, 2002). Furthermore, when all lexicogrammatical choices,
including infelicitous ones, are treated as meaningful, learners gain awareness of the
ways their choices encode more or less intended meanings in context. Aljaafreh
and Lantolf (1994) provide a simple example of spoken instructional feedback
showing how engaging dialogically with learners about what their (infelicitous)
grammatical choices (singular vs. plural marking on nouns) mean in context helps
them gain awareness and control of text-context links and does so with very little
metalanguage. However, the need for metalanguage increases as instruction aims
to support the kinds of specialized knowledge that learners in high school and
beyond are expected to generate (Matthiessen, 2006). The increase in complexity
encompasses not only more specialized concepts and forms of reasoning but also
more subtle evaluations, social positionings, and choices of text organization.
The resources educators bring together to support learners in negotiating
knowledge construction can be used in combination with the resources that
students bring with them. These resources include their knowledge of academic
and other social contexts, their discursive repertoires, and their knowledge about
language. Instruction using functional grammatical knowledge very often builds
on learners’ existing knowledge of grammar. L2 students in particular may be
familiar with metalanguage, such as verb, relative clause, subject, and object, which can
be explored and reframed in functional terms. Such basic metalanguage indicates
that students have some awareness of the constituency structure of language, that
is, knowledge of the part-whole relations that occur between the ranks of word,
phrase/group, clause, and sentence. Given the possible value of students’ existing
knowledge of grammar, EAP instructors using functional approaches are very
likely to use this knowledge as a bridge to other, potentially more productive,
understandings of language (as we discuss in the final part of this chapter).
Grammatical Metaphor and Nominalization

As indicated above, a feature typical of academic discourse is what is known as gram-
matical metaphor (GM). GM is premised on the view that the functions of grammatical
structures can be recycled in discourse as meaning-making resources. For example, in
non-metaphorical use, the noun encodes the function of “entity,” and the verb
encodes the function of a relational or material “process” (cf. state or action). When
we treat what was originally a verb as a noun, the newly created noun/entity retains
the semantic properties of the verb. Thus, for example, the nominalization thinking
(from the verb think) is semantically both an entity and a process. Nominalization is
the most common type of GM in academic discourse, involving various possible
combinations toward more nominal discourse. Language users who have been social-
ized into their academic discourse communities are generally able to unpack or infer
the multiple meanings in nominalized discourse. They are also able to use strategies of
nominalization and denominalization to construct meanings in ways that serve the
expectations of their scholarly communities (from early high school onwards) (Christie &
Derewianka, 2008; Halliday, 1998; Schleppegrell, 2004b). However, this type of medi-
ation presents challenges to L2 EAP learners (e.g., Schleppegrell, 2004b).
GM emerged over the last 400 years as scholars exploited the affordances of
language for constructing new kinds of specialized knowledge. GM expanded
scholars’ knowledge-building capacities by helping generate complex abstractions
and technical taxonomies (largely in noun phrases) and compressing processes of
reasoning (by shifting the functional load for reasoning from interclausal conjunc-
tions to intraclausal noun, verb, and adverb phrases). The variation in discourse
that emerged is relatively “packed” in the sense of affording greater information
density, as happens with increased lexical density. These packed meanings were
also more easily shifted within the clause, either as clause-initial, thematic (typi-
cally background or known) information or as new information closing the
clause (Halliday, 1998). Clusters of dense information also serve to define, sum-
marize, paraphrase, and review/preview discourse (e.g., in topic and transition
sentences). To use an example from an EAP lesson in first-year human geography

(McPhee & Ferreira, 2014), compare the following variations:
1. Bureaucrats regularly swamp councillors with long reports.

2. Bureaucrats’ regular swamping of councillors with long reports . . .
In clause (1), the activity in focus is encoded with a verb, swamp, the natural clause-
level structure for an action; likewise, the actor in this case, Bureaucrats, is encoded
with a noun, also the natural (i.e., developmentally prior), congruent choice.
(Swamp, meaning “to oversupply,” operates in this clause as a lexical, not grammati-
cal, metaphor.) However, writing in high school and university is distinguished by
a relatively high proportion of “non-congruent” or metaphorical construals where
verb-centered meanings become reified in the direction of complex entities, as in
the noun phrase in (2). The verb (swamp) has been construed as an entity in the
head noun swamping, and, among related shifts, the original entity Bureaucrats is
now semantically encoded as a quality of an entity, in the noun pre-modifier. The
nominalized version “Bureaucrats’ regular swamping” is less dynamic (and likely
harder to process as well); however, in this version, the action meaning of the verb
(swamp) still resonates semantically alongside the metaphorized one (swamping).
Figure 9.1 shows variation in the information density of a knowledge claim
in basic science. It is adapted from an elementary school science textbook. (The
full paragraph is analyzed in Tables 9.2 and 9.3.) The figure shows several kinds of
FIGURE 9.1 Forms of nominalization and variation in information density

TABLE 9.2 Excerpt From a Senior Elementary School Science Textbook (Mason et al.,
2004, p. 7) as a Consequential Explanation
Excerpt from Science Textbook Genre Stages of a

Consequential Explanation
Some examples of how the abiotic parts of an environment Phenomenon

affect living things are described here. The term climate Definition
means average weather pattern of a region over a long
period of time. For example, the climate in northern
Canada is very cold, with long, harsh winters and short,
cool summers.
Climate affects where and how plants and animals live. For Explanation
example, the bunchgrasses shown in Figure 1.5 on the next Claim/Preview
page [not shown here] look as if they are dead during the Consequence 1
hot summer in the Okanagan. In fact, the roots are alive. As Consequence 2
soon as the soil receives some moisture, usually in the fall or
early spring, the bunchgrasses begin to grow again.
TABLE 9.3 Register Features in Science Discourse With Analysis of an Excerpt From a
Science Textbook
Situated Expectations (Context) Grammatical Features (Register) Examples of Features

From a 7th Grade Science
Textbook (italics added)
(Field) (1) Technical terms in (1) abiotic, climate; (2) Some

Display knowledge disciplines; (2) Expanded examples of how the abiotic
by classifying things, noun groups with multiple parts of an environment affect
explaining processes, and modifiers; (3) Material living things; (3) the soil
building theories. processes (cf. action verbs) receives some moisture, . . .
construct events and the bunchgrasses begin to
happenings; (4) Relational grow again; (4) The term
processes (cf. state verbs) climate means average
construct description, weather pattern of a region
definition, and conclusions. over a long period of time,
the bunchgrasses . . . look as
if they are dead . . .
(Tenor) Claims are evaluated using the bunchgrasses . . . look as
Be authoritative objective choices of modality if they are dead . . .; In fact,
by presenting conclusions in that suppress the agency of the roots are alive.
“objective” ways. knowers.
(Mode) Information and reasoning Climate affects where and
Structure text in are condensed using how plants and animals live;
expected ways that build nominalizations (as in the As soon as the soil receives
up information step by step. causal verb affects) and other some moisture, . . . the
grammatical metaphors, bunchgrasses begin to grow
enabling thematic progression again.
(cf. topic development) across
clauses and stretches of text.
Source: Register Features in Science Discourse adapted with permission from Schleppegrell, 2004a, p. 188.
nominalization involved in increasing the information density by degrees, from

two clauses joined by a conjunction (Row 1) to a single noun phrase (called a
nominal group in SFL) (see Halliday, 1998, and Halliday and Matthiessen, 1999,
for comprehensive treatments of GM and nominalization). Thus, (a) below (from
Row 1 in Figure 9.1) can be stated as (b), from Row 5, or in a number of other
possible ways (Rows 2 to 4), with varying degrees of compactness:
a. The grasses begin to grow again as soon as the soil receives moisture.
b. The seasonal growth of grasses associated with climate
The original text (found in Table 9.2) has sentences close in meaning and
structure to those in Rows 1 and 3; the adaptations in the figure were designed
specifically to illustrate and teach this range of nominalizations. As the analysis in
Figure 9.1 shows, the levels of nominalization (and types of GM) in Rows 3 and 1
correspond to the discourse functions of previewing a claim abstractly in a topic
sentence and supporting the claim in the body of a text, respectively.
In EAP instruction for high school and university students, such visual displays
show how various kinds of nominalization can be used to vary the density of
information for the discourse functions presented above. However, this approach
does not mean that greater density is always desirable in academic texts. Examples
can be taken from a text with which learners have worked. A sample university
EAP writing lesson might involve reading the text for a contextualized perspective
and then examining specific abstractions, technical terms, logical relations, and/or
organizational features. To develop an understanding of the roles and variations of
nominalizations, a specific claim or statement (as in Row 1) is examined. A list of
the kinds of nominalizations that are possible (as shown in the box at the bottom
right of the figure) is generated by students, who can then use these examples as
the basis for exploring the functionality of nominalization and denominalization
in disciplinary texts, as well as in their own writing.
Functional Grammar in the Content Areas: Science

The text shown in Table 9.2 is drawn from a Grade 7 (senior elementary school)
textbook used in western Canada (Mason, Charleson, Grace, & Martin, 2004). This
text (which we divide into two parts in Table 9.2 for ease of exposition) is a variety
of consequential explanation. The explanation is achieved in two stages (Martin &
Rose, 2008): a phenomenon is introduced (in this case, climate is defined) and is
followed by an explanation of its consequences (in the lower half of Table 9.2; i.e.,
how “climate affects where and how animals live”). This analysis helps contextualize
the register analysis based in functional grammar, shown in Table 9.3.
We highlight two insights from the brief register analysis of this text: the first
indicates how advanced academic literacy might be deconstructed with students
at an appropriate (e.g., post-secondary) level of education. The analysis also illus-

trates how this academic text socializes readers through changes in the positioning
of the reader/apprentice and writer/expert. In this text, the two consequences
(dead grass and growing grass) are explained using two rather different functional
strategies. The point that climate can make plants look dead is achieved by con-
trasting the folk classification made by the casual observer (looks as if ) with the
authoritative claim by the disciplinary expert (In fact). In this part of the explana-
tion, experiential and textual strategies have been adopted to do the interpersonal
work of evaluating contrasting observations. The second part of the explanation,
on the other hand, does not involve such subtle shifts in the positioning of the
writer and reader; no contrasting evaluation is evident. In this phase of the expla-
nation, the functional weight is squarely on textual and ideational means: the causal
reasoning for the explanation is presented in its unpacked form with as soon as, and
this subordinate clause is fronted, establishing the cause (precipitation) as prior and
as Given information, as befits a consequential explanation. As discussed below, the
analysis could inform an EAP lesson on options for positioning readers in research-
based academic writing.
Ideational, interpersonal, and textual functions are all in play throughout all
texts. However, the work of the first stage of the explanation in this example is
carried out in interpersonally subtle ways in which the reader and writer are posi-
tioned to enact the contrasting roles of novice and expert (to the novice, things
look a certain way; the expert then explains why observation is not what it seems).
In quick contrast, the second stage is achieved by positioning writer and reader in
a common social role, that of disinterested scientists reflecting on a state of affairs
as a general truth: effectively, the unpacked logical relation is “if X, then Y.” In these
ways, the text enacts something of a micro-episode of a scientific apprenticeship.
From pedagogical and developmental perspectives, it is noteworthy that the
novice is not represented as a novice and then as an expert (as might be the case with
“imagine you are . . .”); rather, the reader is textually guided in constructing
knowledge, a social process crucially mediated by the logical, experiential, and
interpersonal dimensions of language. The student is socialized through the dis-
course to think first as a novice and then as a scientist.
In Table 9.3, we present register features of science discourse, adapted from
Schleppegrell (2004a). We supplement her descriptions of context and features
(the first two columns) with an analysis of the climate text from Table 9.2, with
specific examples on the right. The first column on the left identifies “situated
expectations” within science, such as stances of objectivity and authority in knowl-
edge presentation; corresponding “grammatical features” or register components
found in the center column include technical language (e.g., abiotic), types of verbs
(material and relational processes), use of modality to indicate an authoritative stance
(In fact), nominalization, and so on.
The Effectiveness of Teaching Functional

Grammar in EAP and Content Areas
Instruction in the language features that characterize academic engagement is typi-
cally aimed at advancing learners’ capacities to recognize meanings in academic
texts and contexts and to use metalanguage to understand how knowledge is
constructed linguistically. According to Myhill (2011), “Metalinguistic activity is
the explicit bringing into consciousness of an attention to language as an artifact,
and the conscious monitoring and manipulation of language to create desired
meanings grounded in socially shared understandings” (p. 250). Focusing on meta-
language for managing nominalization in L2 writing, Dare (2010) claims that
appropriately scaffolded functional metalanguage provides students with a depend-
able understanding of how language works in context.
A review of research on the efficacy of grammatically informed instruction on
writing points to a shift over time toward more positive results. This trend may
reflect a general improvement in the ways grammar has been understood and
taught. As Derewianka (2007) has noted, in retrospect, we might have predicted that
the teaching of traditional rule-based grammar in rote and decontextualized ways
would not be highly productive (e.g., Hillocks, 1986). However, with considerable
developments over the last few decades in our understanding of how language
works and the appropriate application of these developments in classrooms, evi-
dence has begun to accumulate that the teaching of grammar does benefit literacy
(Derewianka & Jones, 2012; Hudson, 2001; Myhill, 2005). Given the complexities
of language exemplified in the previous section, we appreciate more than ever the
challenges of tracking its development and the problems with positing “simple
causalities between instruction and learning” (Byrnes et al., 2010, p. 31). Never-
theless, generally positive evidence is emerging: Myhill’s (2011) investigation of
changes in the writing of secondary students in a year-long program involving
contextualized treatment of language found a 20% improvement in their overall
writing scores.
The evidence from mostly qualitative research in SFL-informed instruction
is especially encouraging (e.g., Derewianka, 2007; Enright, 2013). In Williams’s
(2000, 2004) research, for example, primary and early secondary schoolchildren
were shown to be able to use functional concepts and terminology learned in
school productively, for purposes well beyond parsing and description. Research-
ing middle and senior high school students’ outcomes in state exams, Achugar,
Schleppegrell, and Oteíza (2007) found that students who were taught to
deconstruct language choices, including nominalization, forms of reasoning,
and ambiguity, in their history textbooks performed significantly better in his-
tory content than students who were not. Similarly, students whose teachers had
received subject-area language training improved their state exam results sig-
nificantly more than the students whose teachers had not participated in the
program. ELLs were found to have especially benefited from their instructors’
knowledge of language. Furthermore, ELLs instructed in functional grammar
developed greater awareness of the language practices involved in construing

disciplinary knowledge (Gebhard & Martin, 2010). Also, SFL-based pedagogy
was found to support L2 writers’ analysis and production of coherent texts that
reflect more written versus oral forms of discourse (Gebhard, Willett, Jimenez, &
Piedra, 2010). These results are encouraging, but there is still a great need to
find effective (and evidence-based) ways of supporting students across the
spectrum.
Applications of Functional Grammar to Educational

Policy, Teacher Education, and Program Development
Functional approaches to grammar are also gaining momentum in educational
policy, teacher education, and program development. As others have argued, “[I]n
Australia, as in New Zealand, the United Kingdom and North America, teachers
are becoming increasingly aware of the relationship between their own knowledge
about language and their students’ ability to appreciate and create texts they
encounter in school English” (Macken-Horarik, Love, & Unsworth, 2011, p. 9). In
her overview of approaches to the conceptualization and teaching of grammar,
Derewianka (2007) notes that “[g]rammar is currently enjoying a vigorous revival
of interest following a period when it had become virtually a taboo area” (p. 843).
This recognition is evident, for instance, in the latest version of the Australian Cur-
riculum: English (Australian Curriculum Assessment and Reporting Authority,
2011), as well as in the Common Core State Standards (CCSS) for English Lan-
guage Arts and Literacy, recently adopted in many U.S. states (National Governors
Association Center for Best Practices & Council of Chief State School Officers,
2010). In both cases, grammar instruction is assigned a key role in the development
of language and literacy across the content areas. Grammar is seen as referring
“both to the language we use and the description of language as a system. In
describing language, attention is paid to both structure (syntax) and meaning
(semantics) at the level of the word, the sentence and the text” (National Curricu-
lum Board, 2009, p. 5).
This expanded notion and role of grammar underscores the need to teach stu-
dents the functions of different grammatical features across text types and disci-
plines because students are expected to be able to shift between registers. Being
able to do so demands “an understanding about which vocabulary and grammati-
cal structures to use to convey understanding of the subject matter and topic in
question, how to interact with the audience, how to organize information, and
what kind of communicative method to use” (Torlakson, 2012, p. 4).
The move toward teaching language from a functional perspective requires that
teachers have a certain set of skills and knowledge. However, the use of functional
grammar in education requires careful training of teachers in the approach, a chal-
lenge that has reportedly slowed the implementation of some programs (Gebhard,
2010; Valdés, Kibler, & Walqui, 2014). Yet research examining a number of
professional development initiatives in Australia and the United States has shown
that SFL-trained teachers later report increased confidence in their ability to teach
ELLs to read and write both in the L2 classroom and in the content areas (Achugar
et al., 2007; Brisk & Zisselsberger, 2011; Derewianka & Jones, 2012; Fang &
Schleppegrell, 2010; Macken-Horarik, 2002).
Our university’s response to the growing number of ELLs in K–12 classrooms
in local schools has included updating the bachelor of education curriculum to
provide enhanced training to pre-service teachers who will be working with a
highly diverse student body. The revamped curriculum includes a course titled
Classroom Discourses and Teaching English Language Learners, designed for
teaching candidates in the secondary (Grades 8–12) program, and a parallel course
for those in the elementary program (K–7). Prior to the curricular revisions, only
candidates with a specialization in Teaching English as a Second Language (TESL)
were required to earn course credit in ELL teaching theory and methodology. At
present, all teaching candidates complete coursework on theory and pedagogical
practices that are in line with current developments in the field of L2 education to
expedite students’ development of academic language proficiency. One of the
novel aspects of these courses, which were either newly designed or signifi•antly
revised for the new curriculum, relates to the underlying view of language as social
practice.
This functional approach has students first examine their original assumptions
about how language works. Traditional views of grammar as a set of rules that can
be taught in a (relatively) decontextualized manner are contested. As teacher can-
didates then progress through their coursework, they are involved in readings,
discussions, and tasks that allow them to reconsider their views about language,
particularly by recognizing the central role grammar plays in constructing mean-
ing and appreciating the usefulness of metalanguage. Schleppegrell (2001), Fang
and Schleppegrell (2010), Fang, Schleppegrell, and Cox (2006), Gibbons (2002),
and Mohan and Slater (2006) provide tools to analyze language use from a func-
tional perspective, which allows students to identify features that characterize texts
along a continuum of registers.
Consider, for instance, the linguistic features of the following math word
problem: “If a rectangular solid has side, front and bottom faces with areas of 2x,
y/2 and xy cm2 respectively, what is the volume of the solid in centimeters cubed
(Problem 33)?” (Fang & Schleppegrell, 2010, p. 590). Pre-service teachers soon
realize that students need to know more than technical words to solve the prob-
lem; they also need to know how to unpack complex noun phrases and recog-
nize that conjunctions such as if function in very specific ways in math
discourse.
In addition, gaining some experience analyzing their own language choices
across school texts (e.g., in pedagogical speech, reading materials, and task instruc-
tions) helps teacher candidates connect meanings that are relevant in academic
texts and contexts with appropriate language features. This process in turn helps
teachers anticipate which features might prove difficult for ELLs and provides
them with tools to give meaningful feedback that students can use to modify texts
by themselves. The underlying message of this work is that all teachers (including
content specialists) are language educators, and as such it is imperative that they all
possess the required knowledge and skills to effectively assist ELLs in their language
development (Schleppegrell, 2012).
Implications and Future Directions

In this chapter we have described the changing educational contexts, currents, and
demographics in ELT that have led to explorations into promising approaches to
the teaching of grammar, particularly in instruction that integrates content and
language. The scholarly and pedagogical insights of Australian and North Ameri-
can pioneers in functional approaches to grammar instruction were discussed, and
examples were given from science and math. These examples illustrated how and
why nominalization, GM, and other aspects of lexicogrammar, such as modality,
function as they do in disciplinary discourse. We also described the impact func-
tional approaches are having on national and state educational policies related to
language and literacy instruction and teacher education.
Although most of the existing research on functional approaches to grammar
instruction and teacher education has dealt with K–12 language and content inte-
gration, many clear possibilities exist for curricular implementation in higher edu-
cation as well. An emerging body of scholarship illustrates how this might take
place, particularly to support learners’ academic writing development. De Rosa
(2014), for example, shows how college instructors transitioned from a process-
based approach to using SFL in a summer bridge-program writing course for
first-generation immigrant students. By learning how to explore the thematic
organization of their own texts, students acquired valuable tools that helped them
analyze their writing and ultimately produce more cohesive, logically organized
writing.
Several highly accessible textbooks on English grammar can also help novice
teachers understand this functional approach better (see, for instance, Bloor &
Bloor, 2013; Coffin, Donohue, & North, 2009; Derewianka, 1990, 2011; Fontaine,
2013). These materials serve as a user-friendly bridge between traditional and
functional approaches and are particularly helpful for non-specialists. Other useful
resources not directly grounded in SFL include Building Academic Language (Zwiers,
2014), a textbook that helps teachers, especially in Grades 5–12, understand how
language works across content areas; this latest edition of the book is referenced to
the Common Core State Standards in the United States. There is growing evi-
dence, therefore, that scholars, program administrators, state officials, and teachers
are putting functional grammar and other resources to work and that this develop-
ment holds much promise for academic English instruction across the
curriculum.
References
Achugar, M., Schleppegrell, M., & Oteíza, T. (2007). Engaging teachers in language analysis:
A functional linguistics approach to reflective literacy. English Teaching: Practice and Critique,
6(2), 8–24.
Aljaafreh, A., & Lantolf, J. (1994). Negative feedback as regulation and second language learn-
ing in the zone of proximal development. Modern Language Journal, 78(4), 465–483.
Australian Curriculum Assessment and Reporting Authority. (2011). The Australian Curricu-
lum: English. Retrieved from http://www.australiancurriculum.edu.au/English/
Curriculum/F-10
Biber, D., & Conrad, S. (2009). Register, genre, and style. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge
University Press.
Biber, D., & Gray, B. (2010). Challenging stereotypes about academic writing: Complexity,
elaboration, explicitness. Journal of English for Academic Purposes, 9, 2–20.
Bloor, T., & Bloor, M. (2013). The functional analysis of English (3rd ed.). New York, NY:
Routledge.
Brisk, M. E., & Zisselsberger, M. (2011). “We’ve let them in on the secret”: Using SFL
theory to improve the teaching of writing to bilingual learners. In T. Lucas (Ed.), Teacher
preparation for linguistically diverse classrooms: A resource for teacher educators (pp. 111–126).
New York, NY: Routledge.
Byrd, P. (2005). Instructed grammar. In E. Hinkel (Ed.), Handbook of research in second lan-
guage teaching and learning (pp. 545–561). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
Byrnes, H., Maxim, H. H., & Norris, J. M. (2010). Realizing advanced L2 writing develop-
ment in a collegiate curriculum: Curricular design, pedagogy, assessment. Modern Lan-
guage Journal, supplement to vol. 94, monograph.
Celce-Murcia, M. (2002). Why it makes sense to teach grammar in context and through
discourse. In E. Hinkel & S. Fotos (Eds.), New perspectives on grammar teaching in second
language classrooms (pp. 119–133). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
guide (2nd ed.). Florence, KY: Heinle & Heinle.
Christie, F., & Derewianka, B. (2008). School discourse. London, UK: Continuum.
Coffin, C. (2010). Language support in EAL contexts. Why systemic functional linguistics? (Special
Issue of NALDIC Quarterly). Reading, UK: National Association for Language Devel-
opment in the Curriculum.
Coffin, C., & Donohue, J. P. (2012). Academic literacies and systemic functional linguistics:
How do they relate? Journal of English for Academic Purposes, 11, 64–75.
Coffin, C., Donohue, J., & North, S. (2009). Exploring English grammar: From formal to func-
tional. New York, NY: Routledge.
Daniello, F., Turgut, G., & Brisk, M. E. (2014). Applying systemic functional linguistics to
build educators’ knowledge of academic English for the teaching of writing. In A.
Mahboob & L. Barratt (Eds.), Englishes in multilingual contexts (pp. 183–203). New York,
NY: Springer.
Dare, B. (2010). Learning about language: The role of metalanguage. In C. Coffin (Ed.),
Language support in EAL contexts: Why systemic functional linguistics? (pp. 18–25). (Special
Issue of NALDIC Quarterly.) Reading, UK: National Association for Language Devel-
opment in the Curriculum.
Derewianka, B. (1990). Exploring how texts work. Newtown, Australia: Primary English
Teaching Association Australia.
Derewianka, B. (2007). Changing approaches to the conceptualization and teaching of

grammar. In J. Cummins & C. Davison (Eds.), International handbook of English language
teaching (pp. 843–858). New York, NY: Springer.
Derewianka, B. (2011). A new grammar companion for primary teachers. Newtown, Australia:
Primary English Teaching Association Australia.
Derewianka, B., & Jones, P. (2012). Teaching language in context. Oxford, UK: Oxford
University Press.
De Rosa, M. (2014, March). From process-based writing instruction to SFL: Supporting
the transition to academic language for first-generation college students. Paper presented
at the annual meeting of the American Association for Applied Linguistics, Portland,
Oregon.
De Silva, J., & Feez, S. (2012). Text-based language and literacy education: Programming and
methodology. Putney, Australia: Phoenix Education.
Ellis, R. (1994). The study of second language acquisition. Oxford, UK: Oxford University
Press.
Enright, K. A. (2013). Adolescent writers and academic trajectories: Situating L2 writing
in the content areas. In L. C. de Oliveira & T. Silva (Eds.), L2 writing in the secondary
classroom: Experiences, issues, and teacher education (pp. 27–43). New York, NY:
Routledge.
Fang, Z., & Schleppegrell, M. (2010). Disciplinary literacies across content areas: Support-
ing secondary reading through functional language analysis. Journal of Adolescent and
Adult Literacy, 53, 587–597.
Fang, Z., Schleppegrell, M., & Cox, B. (2006). Understanding the language demands of
schooling: Nouns in academic registers. Journal of Literacy Research, 38 (3),
247–273.
Ferreira, A. A. (2007). Japanese semiotic vernaculars in ESP multiliteracies projects. In T. D.
Royce & W. Bowcher (Eds.), New directions in the analysis of multimodal discourse
(pp. 299–329). New York, NY: Lawrence Erlbaum.
Fontaine, L. (2013). Analysing English grammar: A systemic-functional introduction. Cambridge,
Gebhard, M. (2010). Teacher education in times of change: An SFL perspective. TESOL
Quarterly, 44(4), 797–803.
Gebhard, M., & Martin, J. (2010). Grammar and literacy learning. In D. Fisher & D. Lapp
(Eds.), Handbook of research on teaching the English language arts (3rd ed.) (pp. 297–304).
Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum/Taylor & Francis.
Gebhard, M., Willett, J., Jimenez, J., & Piedra, A. (2010). Systemic functional linguistics,
teachers’ professional development, and ELLs’ academic literacy practices. In T. Lucas
(Ed.), Teacher preparation for linguistically diverse classrooms: A resource for teacher educators
(pp. 91–110). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum/Taylor & Francis.
Gibbons, P. (2002). Scaffolding language, scaffolding learning: Teaching second language learners in
the mainstream classroom. Portsmouth, NH: Heinemann.
Halliday, M. A. K. (1998). Things and relations: Regrammaticising experience as technical
knowledge. In J. R. Martin & R. Veel (Eds.), Reading science: Critical and functional perspec-
tives on discourses of sciences (pp. 185–235). London, UK: Routledge.
Halliday, M. A. K. (2003 [1975]). Learning how to mean: Explorations in the development of
language. London, UK: Edward Arnold. Reprinted in J. J. Webster (Ed.), The language of
early childhood:Vol. 4. The collected works of M.A.K. Halliday. London: Continuum.
Halliday, M. A. K., & Matthiessen, C. M. I. M. (1999). Construing experience through meaning:

A language-based approach to cognition. London, UK: Continuum.
(3rd ed.). London, UK: Edward Arnold.
Hasan, R. (2005 [1992]). Speech genre, semiotic mediation and the development of higher
mental functions. Language Sciences, 14(4), 489–529. Reprinted in J. J. Webster (Ed.),
Language, society and consciousness: The collected works of Ruqaiya Hasan (Vol. 1, pp. 68–105).
London, UK: Equinox.
Hillocks, G., Jr. (1986). Research on written composition: New directions for teaching. Urbana, IL:
National Council of Teachers of English.
Hinkel, E., & Fotos, S. (Eds.). (2002). New perspectives on grammar teaching in second language
classrooms. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
Hudson, R. (2001). Grammar teaching and writing skills: The research evidence. Syntax in
the Schools, 17, 1–6.
Humphrey, S., Love, K., & Droga, L. (2011). Working grammar: An introduction for secondary
English teachers. Melbourne, Australia: Pearson Australia.
Hyland, K. (2004). Disciplinary discourses: Social interactions in academic writing. Ann Arbor, MI:
University of Michigan Press.
Hyland, K. (2005). Metadiscourse. London, UK: Continuum.
Knapp, P., & Watkins, M. (2005). Genre, text, grammar: Technologies for teaching and assessing
writing. Sydney, Australia: University of New South Wales Press.
Heinle/Cengage.
Larsen-Freeman, D. (2014). Teaching grammar. In M. Celce-Murcia, D. Brinton, & M. A.
Snow (Eds.), Teaching English as a second or foreign language (4th ed.) (pp. 256–270). Boston,
MA: Heinle/Cengage/National Geographic.
Lightbown, P., & Spada, N. (2013). How languages are learned (4th ed.). Oxford, UK: Oxford
University Press.
Macken-Horarik, M. (2002). Something to shoot for: A systemic functional approach to
teaching genre in secondary school science. In A. Johns (Ed.), Genre in the classroom:
Multiple perspectives (pp. 17–43). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
Macken-Horarik, M., Love, K., & Unsworth, L. (2011). A grammatics “good enough” for
school English in the 21st century: Four challenges in realising the potential. Australian
Journal of Language and Literacy, 34(1), 9–23.
Martin, J. R., & Rose, D. (2008) Genre relations: Mapping culture. London, UK: Equinox.
Mason, A., Charleson, K., Grace, E., & Martin, J. (2004). BC Science 7: Student edition.
Whitby, ON: McGraw-Hill Ryerson.
Matthiessen, C. M. I. M. (2006). Education for advanced foreign language capacities:
Exploring the meaning-making resources of languages systemic-functionally. In
H. Byrnes (Ed.), Advanced language learning: The contributions of Halliday and Vygotsky
(pp. 31–57). London, UK: Continuum.
McPhee, S., & Ferreira, A. A. (2014, March). Flexible learning, international students, and
Geography. Presentation at the Association of American Geographers Annual Meeting,
Tampa, Florida.
Mohan, B. (1986). Language and content. Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley.
Mohan, B., Leung, C., & Davison, C. (Eds.). (2001). English as a second language in the main-
stream: Teaching learning and identity. New York, NY: Longman.
Mohan, B., & Slater, T. (2006). Examining the theory/practice relation in a high school
science register: A functional linguistic perspective. Journal of English for Academic
Purposes, 5, 302–316. doi:10.1016/j.jeap.2006.08.004
Moore, N. (2006). Advanced language for intermediate learners: Corpus and register analy-
sis for curriculum specification in English for Academic Purposes. In H. Byrnes (Ed.),
Advanced language learning: The contribution of Halliday and Vygotsky (pp. 246–264). London,
UK: Continuum.
Myhill, D. (2005). Ways of knowing: Writing with grammar in mind. English Teaching:
Practice and Critique, 4(3), 77–96.
Myhill, D. (2011). The ordeal of deliberate choice: Metalinguistic development in second-
ary writers. In V. W. Berninger (Ed.), Past, present, and future contributions of cognitive writing
research to cognitive psychology (pp. 247–273). New York, NY: Psychology Press.
National Curriculum Board. (2009). The shape of the Australian curriculum. ACT, Australia:
Commonwealth of Australia.
National Governors Association Center for Best Practices & Council of Chief State School
Officers. (2010). Common Core State Standards for English Language Arts & Literacy
in History/Social Studies, Science, and Technical Subjects: Appendix A: Research sup-
porting key elements of the standards. Retrieved from http://www.corestandards.org/
assets/Appendix_A.pdf
de Oliveira, L., & Schleppegrell, M. (2015). Focus on grammar and meaning. Oxford, UK:
Rose, D., & Martin, J. R. (2012). Learning to write, reading to learn: Genre, knowledge and peda-
gogy in the Sydney School. Bristol, UK: Equinox.
Schleppegrell, M. (2001). Linguistic features of the language of schooling. Linguistics and
Education, 12, 431–459.
Schleppegrell, M. (2002). Challenges of science register for ESL students: Errors and
meaning-making. In M. Schleppegrell & M. C. Colombi (Eds.), Developing advanced
literacy in first and second languages: Meaning with power (pp. 119–142). Mahwah, NJ:
Lawrence Erlbaum.
Schleppegrell, M. (2004a). The language of schooling. New York, NY: Routledge.
Schleppegrell, M. (2004b). Technical writing in a second language: The role of grammatical
metaphor. In L. J. Ravelli & R. A. Ellis (Eds.), Analysing academic writing: Contextualised
frameworks (pp. 172–189). London, UK: Continuum.
Schleppegrell, M. (2012). Academic language in teaching and learning. The Elementary
School Journal, 112(3), 409–418.
Smith, V. (2010). Tertiary language learning: Changing perspectives and practical responses. Tübingen,
Germany: Narr.
Torlakson, T. (2012). Appendix B: The California English language development standards.
Part II: Learning about how English works. Sacramento: Department of Education,
State of California. Retrieved from http://www.cde.ca.gov/sp/el/er/documents/
sbeapdbhew.pdf
Unsworth, L. (Ed). (2000). Researching language in schools and communities: Functional linguistic
perspectives. London, UK: Continuum.
Unsworth, L. (2001). Teaching multiliteracies across the curriculum: Changing contexts of text and
image in classroom practice. Buckingham, UK: Open University Press.
Valdés, G., Kibler, A., & Walqui, A. (2014). Changes in the expertise of ESL professionals:
Knowledge and action in an era of new standards. Alexandria, VA: TESOL International.
Retrieved from http://www.tesol.org/docs/default-source/papers-and-briefs/

professional-paper-26-march-2014.pdf?sfvrsn=2
Williams, G. (2000). Children’s literature, children and uses of language description. In L.
Unsworth (Ed.), Researching language in schools and communities (pp. 111–129). London,
UK: Continuum.
Williams, G. (2004). Ontogenesis and grammatics: Functions of metalanguage in pedagogic
discourse. In G. Williams & A. Lukin (Eds.), The development of language: Functional
perspectives on species and individuals (pp. 241–267). London, UK: Continuum.
Zwiers, J. (2014). Building academic language: Meeting Common Core Standards across disciplines
(2nd ed.). San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
10
INTEGRATING GRAMMAR IN
ADULT TESOL CLASSROOMS
Anne Burns and Simon Borg

According to Mitchell (2000), “grammar teaching needs to be supported and
embedded in meaning-oriented activities and tasks” (p. 297). Various linguistic
and methodological frameworks for integrating grammar exist, such as lexical
approaches (Little, 1994), systemic functional linguistics (Burns, 2003), task-based
learning (Ellis, 2003), and discourse approaches (Celce-Murcia & Olshtain, 2000).
They aim to make learning grammar part of broader linguistic, contextual, and
communicational phenomena. Specifically, Doughty and Williams (1998) and Ellis
(2006) analyze relationships between grammar teaching and communicative activ-
ities in terms of broad instructional options. Doughty and Williams (1998) outline
three models for integrating form and meaning: (1) prior brief explicit instruction,
complemented by short form-focused interventions in meaning-oriented work;
(2) a presentation-practice-production (PPP) approach to language teaching, from
explicit grammatical explanation, to controlled practice, to more extensive com-
municative practice; and (3) explicit or inexplicit integrated attention to form and
meaning. Ellis (2006) also highlights three options for the integration of form and
meaning: (1) focus on forms (which isolates grammar); (2) planned focus on form
using tasks to elicit a predetermined structure; and (3) incidental focus on form
during communicative work. Thus, there are a number of options available to
teachers for integrating grammar in a communicative language-teaching class-
room. This notion of integration (or embeddedness, as in Mitchell’s [2000] state-
ment above) is a key concern in the study we report on in this chapter.
The research detailed in this study arose from our mutual interest in what Eng-
lish language teachers believe about teaching grammar and how they integrate
grammar into classroom practices. While we are interested in second language
160 Anne Burns and Simon Borg
acquisition (SLA) insights, it is the field of language teacher cognition that most
strongly informed our study. Teacher cognition relates the study of what teachers
know, think, and believe to what teachers do (Borg, 2006). There is considerable
interest in teachers’ cognitions about grammar teaching (e.g., Andrews, 2003;
Burgess & Etherington, 2002; Eisenstein-Ebsworth & Schweers, 1997; Schulz,
2001), which we draw on later. Much L2 teacher cognition research shows that
teachers base instructional decisions on their own practical theories, formed largely
through experience and grounded in understandings of their teaching contexts
(Borg & Burns, 2008). This work demonstrates the complex nature of teachers’
instructional decision-making, which is shaped by interacting factors inside and
beyond the classroom (Borg, 1999; Burns, 1996). Teachers’ instructional choices
are thus motivated by diverse psychological, instructional, institutional, and social
influences.
These insights on teacher cognition and the complex nature of teachers’
instructional decision-making processes inform the perspective we adopted in this
study. We believe that teachers hold personally defined understandings of the value
of integration of form and meaning, which shape the way grammar and the devel-
opment of skills are related in practice. We also believe that insights into concep-
tions of integration could extend current understandings of grammar teaching and
allow us to assess relationships between theoretical models of integration and what
teachers do.
Research Questions
Informed by these perspectives on teacher cognition, our research questions for the
overall study were the following:
1. What general beliefs about grammar teaching are reported by TESOL prac-
titioners who work with adult learners (18 years and over)?
2. Are the beliefs and practices about grammar teaching reported by teachers
related to (a) their experience, (b) their qualifications, or (c) the status of
English for their learners (English as a foreign language [EFL] vs. English as a
second language [ESL])?
3. To what extent do teachers say that they integrate grammar teaching into
their work?
4. What conceptions of integration emerge from teachers’ accounts of the rela-
tionship between the teaching of grammar and of language skills (reading,
writing, listening, and speaking) in their work?
5. To what extent do teachers believe that their reported approach to the inte-
gration of grammar is effective in promoting language learning?
6. What evidence do they cite in justifying their views about such effectiveness?
7. To what extent do teachers’ explanations of their beliefs and practices vis-à-vis
integration refer to SLA theory?
Integrating Grammar in Adult Classrooms 161
In this chapter, we report on the major insights that stem from an analysis of
responses to Questions 4–7.
Data Collection and Analysis Procedures

Our data were part of a larger study based on surveys, classroom observations, and
interviews that addressed all of the research questions presented above. In this
chapter, we focus only on results from the survey as they relate to Research
Questions 4–7.
The Survey
The study utilized a cross-sectional survey (i.e., a survey which is aimed at deter-
mining the frequency or level of particular attributes). Our survey allowed substan-
tial data to be collected efficiently, economically, and in a standardized manner
(Dörnyei, 2003), and it also facilitated obtaining data from geographically diverse
samples. However, surveys have disadvantages, particularly in examining respon-
dents’ beliefs. For example, they may generate superficial answers and limit in-depth
exploration of issues, and responses may be influenced by social desirability bias
(Dörnyei, 2003), leading to what are perceived to be socially acceptable answers.
Moreover, they cannot measure action but only reports of actions (Babbie, 2003;
Borg, 2006). Thus, the survey data represent teachers’ stated beliefs and reported
practices, and conclusions about teachers’ actual practices cannot be drawn.
The survey questionnaire had three sections (see Appendix A). Section 1 was
designed to collect demographic information. Section 2 presented 15 statements
about grammar teaching and learning on a five-point Likert scale from strongly
agree to strongly disagree. The statements (see Table 10.2 for the full list of statements)
covered a range of issues, including the role of explicit teaching (Statement 4) and
explicit knowledge (Statement 2), the position of grammar in instructional
sequences (Statement 5), the teacher’s role (Statement 9), the importance of prac-
tice (Statement 3), deductive and inductive learning (Statement 12), comparisons
between teaching children and adults (Statement 13), and the integration of gram-
mar with other skills (Statement 6). Section 3 asked specifically about integrating
grammar with the teaching of other communicative skills. Teachers were invited
to indicate the extent to which such integration took place, to illustrate their posi-
tion, and to cite evidence for their belief in its effectiveness or ineffectiveness.
Data Collection
The questionnaire was piloted with 15 teachers in Brazil and eight in Australia.
To obtain the larger sample for the study, we approached personal contacts1 in
different contexts and invited them to administer the final questionnaire between
January and April 2006. We adopted a multi-modal approach to data collection
by using a hard copy, a web-based questionnaire, and an email attachment to

obtain responses to the survey. Through our contacts, we obtained completed
questionnaires from 231 teachers from 18 countries with 109 (47%) from
Australia and New Zealand, six (3%) from South America, 61 (26%) from
Europe, and 55 (24%) from Asia. To balance the geographical distribution, a
random sample of 60 Australian and New Zealand teachers was selected from the
original group, and the South American respondents were omitted. This provided
a non-probability sample of 176 teachers. The distribution of the sample by
region appears in Table 10.1.
Data Analysis
Quantitative data were analyzed using SPSS 12. The two open-ended questions
(see Section 3, Questions 1b and 2b of the survey questionnaire, Appendix A)
generated over 11,000 words that were analyzed qualitatively. Responses were
transferred fully and sequentially into a spreadsheet, and content analysis was
then applied to code responses according to different kinds of relationships
between grammar and other skills (see Question 1b) and different kinds of evi-
dence justifying the effectiveness of teachers’ chosen approach to integration (see
Question 2b). No a priori framework was applied to qualitative data in order to
identify indigenous concepts (Patton, 1990) through comprehensive data
analysis.
For Question 1b, one researcher completed the initial analysis and then the
second researcher independently coded 20% of responses against the categories
of relationships between grammar and other skills that were developed. After
comparing analyses in which there was initially a 60% agreement, the researchers
discussed the responses that had been assigned different interpretations and even-
tually reached consensus on each one. Thus, all categories were soundly grounded
in the data.
For Question 2b, multiple analytic perspectives were also applied, using the
coding procedures described above. A research assistant developed the initial cat-
egories, which were subsequently tested and refined by one of the principal inves-
tigators. The resulting categories were then checked by the second principal
investigator, and there was an initial agreement of 78%. Thus, the classification of
TABLE 10.1 Composition of Sample
Region N %
Australia & NZ 60 34.09

Europe 61 34.66
Asia 55 31.25
Total 176 100
evidence that teachers cited in justifying their approach to integration was also
soundly grounded in data.
Results
Background Data
As shown in Table 10.1, the analytic sample of 176 respondents included teachers
from Australia/New Zealand, Asia, and Europe in roughly proportional numbers.
Teaching experience among the respondents was quite evenly distributed, from
novice to 25-plus years, and 49% of the teachers had an M.A. or a doctoral degree,
suggesting a highly qualified sample. Questions 4 and 5 were designed to collect
information about respondents’ institutions. Overall, 38% of teachers worked in
the private sector and 57% in the state sector; however, the majority (77%) worked
in adult education in colleges and universities. The final background question asked
respondents to indicate if English was a foreign or second language for their adult
students. The results showed two equal groups in the sample (of 174 teachers
responding to the item, 50% had ESL students and 50% had EFL students).
Beliefs About Grammar Learning and Teaching

Respondents were asked to express their degree of agreement with 15 statements
about grammar learning and teaching on a five-point Likert scale from strongly
agree to strongly disagree. Table 10.2 provides a summary of the responses to the
statements. Results show that nine statements elicited over 20% of the responses in
the “unsure” category, which may reflect teachers’ uncertainties about various
aspects of teaching grammar. This trend may also be a reflection of the difficulties
some teachers have in articulating beliefs about grammar teaching.
The responses suggest that the teachers in this sample have strong views about
the use of grammar practice to develop fluency (Statements 3 and 8 received high-
est agreement) and about inductive grammar learning (Statements 12 and 13).
There was mild evidence of a belief that indirect grammar instruction is preferable
with younger learners (Statement 13) (with over 50% responding with agree or
strongly agree, and 24% remaining unsure) and a preference for explicit instruction
with older learners (Statement 3). Without implying a preference for direct formal
instruction, some explicit knowledge of grammar was also seen to be beneficial. A
definite position on grammar teaching in a communicative language-teaching
framework did not emerge. However, 48.5% agreed with the statement that a
grammar focus should follow communicative tasks (Question 5), and 41% agreed
that grammar should be presented beforehand (Question 1). Furthermore, these
two items correlate negatively, and this relationship, while weak, is significant
(N = 169,  = –0.293, p < .0001). Thus, it seems that teachers who agreed with
one of these statements tended to disagree with the other.
TABLE 10.2 Beliefs About Grammar Learning and Teaching
Statement Strongly Disagree Unsure Agree Strongly

Disagree Agree
1. Teachers should present grammar to 6.0% 30.4% 22.6% 29.8% 11.3%

learners before expecting them to use it.
2. Learners who are aware of grammar rules 1.8% 24.1% 17.6% 41.2% 15.3%
can use the language more effectively than
those who are not.
3. Exercises that get learners to practice 0.6% 10.1% 13.6% 56.2% 19.5%
grammar structures help learners develop
fluency in using grammar.
4. Teaching the rules of English grammar 3.6% 19.0% 26.2% 42.3% 8.9%
directly is more appropriate for older
learners.
5. During lessons, a focus on grammar 2.9% 22.8% 25.7% 34.5% 14.0%
should come after communicative tasks,
not before.
6. Grammar should be taught separately, not 47.6% 36.5% 9.4% 3.5% 2.9%
integrated with other skills such as reading
and writing.
7. In a communicative approach to language 5.9% 33.1% 14.2% 37.9% 8.9%
teaching grammar is not taught directly.
8. In learning grammar, repeated practice 0.6% 11.8% 14.2% 58.6% 14.8%
allows learners to use structures fluently.
9. In teaching grammar, a teacher’s main role 15.3% 54.1% 15.9% 14.1% .6%
is to explain the rules.
10. It is important for learners to know 10.5% 28.7% 22.2% 36.8% 1.8%
grammatical terminology.
11. Correcting learners’ spoken grammatical 12.4% 37.1% 25.9% 21.2% 3.5%
errors in English is one of the teacher’s
key roles.
12. Grammar learning is more effective when 4.7% 12.3% 21.1% 38.0% 24.0%
learners work out the rules for themselves.
13. Indirect grammar teaching is more 4.7% 20.5% 24.0% 39.2% 11.7%
appropriate with younger than with older
learners.
14. Formal grammar teaching does not help 3.5% 33.3% 24.6% 31.0% 7.6%
learners become more fluent.
15. It is necessary to study the grammar of 7.1% 33.5% 23.5% 30.0% 5.9%
a second or foreign language in order to
speak it fluently.
Over 84% of the teachers marked disagree or strongly disagree to the statement
that grammar should be taught separately, not integrated with other skills such as
reading and writing. Respondents’ strong views about integration provided the
basis for the more interesting analysis of conceptions of integration presented
below.
Grammar Teaching and the Four Skills

In the third section of the questionnaire, teachers were asked to indicate the extent
to which they integrated the teaching of grammar into the teaching of other skills
and to illustrate and cite evidence for their position on the integration of teaching
grammar into other skills. They were also asked to specify their level of control
over the choice of materials for their classrooms. We first present responses to
closed questions (Questions 1a, 1c, and 2a) and then to open-ended questions
(Questions 1b and 2b). It is important to note that we did not provide a definition
of integration in the survey as this would have been detrimental to our goal of
eliciting teachers’ understandings of the concept.
Responses to Closed Questions

Question 1a asked to what extent grammar was integrated with other skills. Of
162 responses, 160 (almost 99%) reported at least some integration. Question 1c
asked about respondents’ degree of control in choosing instructional materials.
Almost 70% reported much or complete control, suggesting that their position on
integration was not generally imposed on them, which is not to suggest that mate-
rials had no influence on practices. The final quantitative item asked teachers to
rate the effectiveness of their approach to integration. The large majority (90.1%)
indicated they integrated grammar with other skills and believed their instruc-
tional strategy was effective, which accords with the earlier finding in which the
majority of respondents indicated they disagreed or strongly disagreed with the
idea that grammar should be taught in isolation.
Responses to Open-Ended Items

The open-ended items invited elaboration on Questions 1a and 2a. To gain insight
into conceptions of grammar integration, in 1b, respondents were asked to explain
the relationship between grammar and other skills teaching. In 2b, teachers sup-
plied evidence regarding the effectiveness of their approach. Our most important
findings stem from these items, discussed in turn below.
Grammar and skills. Of 162 teachers who answered Question 1a, 138 explained
the relationship between grammar and skill development in their teaching in their
answers to Question 1b. Of these, 136 claimed at least some degree of integration
and provided explanatory comments (approximately 6,500 words of text, averag-
ing about 48 words per respondent).
The data show that integration assumes many forms and is clearly not a concept
understood in a specific, shared way. Nonetheless, recurrent conceptions were
discernible, and they are illustrated below by teachers’ comments. These categories
do not necessarily reflect the use of exclusive instructional strategies, and different
perspectives may assume similar forms in practice. Also, they do not all operate at
the same level of generality; some are more specific realizations of others, as noted
below. Also, the notions of integration typically allow scope for explicit grammar
work; integration as a wholly implicit approach is not in evidence.
Grammar in context. Several comments explained in broad terms the relation-
ship between grammar and language skill development, primarily defined as put-
ting or using grammar in a context. For example, “Integration is important so as
to allow students to apply the rules/forms/structures in context. Teaching gram-
mar rules alone will defeat the purpose” (1017, Malaysia2). Such comments typi-
cally affirmed the value of context without explaining what valuing context meant
in practice. Some explanations regarded context primarily in terms of skills work
providing a meaningful framework for grammar use (with or without subsequent
explicit focus). This relationship between skills and grammar is made more specific
in the next two categories, which describe integration as a relationship between
texts and grammar work.
Deriving grammar from texts. Teachers commonly explained that grammar
work comes from instructional texts:
Grammar points are usually derived from reading texts (or sometimes spo-
ken texts) that the students are already working with. Formal grammar exer-
cises may be introduced if considered appropriate to their content material,
but often the students work together to deduce the grammar rules by them-
selves from the context.
(63, Japan)
This was the most frequently cited notion of integration (21 of 136 teachers, or
15.4%), the implication being that texts are the primary motivators of grammar
instruction, that specific structures are chosen perhaps in relation to specific themes
or skills, and that grammar work is determined by and emerges from these texts.
Presenting grammar through texts. Other comments implied that grammar
determines text choice:
Before dwelling on the grammatical rules, students read texts or listen to con-
versations, which contain a high amount of the grammatical item in question.
(2020, Turkey)
Differences in classroom practice between this category and the previous category
may be hard to discern; both involve use of texts and may postpone the grammar
focus until texts have been used from a skills perspective. Both could also be spe-
cific realizations of placing grammar in context. Conceptually, though, there is a
clear distinction between text-driven (text is primary and grammar emerges) and
form-driven (i.e., texts are chosen for grammatical needs) approaches.
Task-driven grammar work. Another way of providing context is to link gram-

mar to specific task requirements:
I focus on the grammar and the grammar item that is essential in the task
given; whereby the particular grammar item could impact on the effective-
ness of the task to be completed.
(1018, Malaysia)
Here, integration meant tasks were primary and grammar served task needs.
Grammar as preparation for skills work. The relationship between grammar
and skills work was also conceptualized from a temporal, rather than contextual,
perspective, and three positions emerged here. First, grammar was viewed as prepa-
ration for skills work (the second most common notion overall, mentioned by
13 teachers, or 9.6%). One teacher saw this relationship as a “horse and carriage”
(1066, Australia). Another participant commented as follows:
Reading—certain new/difficult grammatical items need to be explained

before reading the text for learners to understand the text read. Writing—
learners need to be taught certain grammatical structures required for the
writing task to reduce errors made in their writing.
(1012, Ukraine)
This respondent sees grammar work as foundational. A grammar focus before

reading facilitates comprehension; prior grammar attention also facilitates writing
and reduces errors. In this category, the need for grammar to precede skills work
was consistently salient.
Grammar after skills work. A second temporal perspective on grammar inte-
gration was also evidenced as in the example statements that follow:
Grammar lessons naturally follow after introducing or studying a piece of

reading or writing.
(1058, Australia)
In my class I focus on the development of the skill first, then the content,
and last find the most relevant grammar forms to discuss.
(30, Indonesia)
Here grammar is explicated as an activity occurring after skills work. The contex-
tual perspective described earlier (grammar derives from texts) seems congruent
with this perspective.
Reactive focus on grammar. A reactive focus on grammar is the third position

with a temporal perspective as in the following:
I usually gather errors from their utterances and after the speaking tasks
highlight the grammatical structures that they need to review. The grammar
needs arise from their performance.
(71, Turkey)
Here, the temporal aspect derives from the fact that a reactive focus on grammar
is triggered by preceding work on language skills, such as when the teacher notices
an error or a student asks a question. The teacher may focus on grammar imme-
diately, or postpone grammar until skills work has been completed.
We organized the ways that teachers conceptualized integration into two broad
groups representing different but complementary perspectives. The first group
describes integration in terms of context—textual and communicative. This
includes notions that refer to context generically, involve deriving grammar from
texts, use texts purposefully to present grammar, and define grammar work in rela-
tion to task goals. The second group defines the relationship between grammar
and other skills temporally; grammar may precede, follow, or occur during a skills
focus. These contextual and temporal perspectives are not mutually exclusive but
reflect different emphases. Whatever the perspective, explicit grammar work was
clearly a salient feature in the different views that teachers articulated, as was the
belief in avoiding grammar teaching isolated from meaning-oriented activities.
Sources of Evidence
Question 2b asked teachers to give evidence for the position on integration chosen
in 2a. One hundred and fifty-nine teachers provided approximately 4,800 words
of text ( just over an average of 30 words). The most prominent position was that
they integrated grammar and found this approach effective in promoting language
learning. We focus on four major sources of evidence.
Communicative ability. The most commonly cited evidence derived from teach-
ers’ observations of students’ ability to use language and communicate effectively.
One teacher explained that “in general I can gauge it [effectiveness of integration]
by the ease in which they [the students] communicate clearly and effectively” (1038,
Australia). Other comments highlighted different perspectives for judging effective
language use more specifically, including the following types of evidence (with
illustrative comments):
• The ability to use grammar correctly
It is apparent through their correct production of the target grammatical

point after having taught it.
(51, Japan)
• The ability to use grammar appropriately in context
Adult learners show more confidence in both written and spoken outputs
in the classroom when grammar teaching is integrated with the other lan-
guage skills. They do not only know the rules but are also able to use them
in appropriate contexts.
(34, Philippines)
• The ability to complete communicative tasks successfully
The project-based approach has helped in the integration of grammar

and the macro skills. Usually, most of my students end up writing a set
of compositions on a list of topics like Myself, My family, My goals in life,
etc. after being introduced to similar passages. . . . The nett [sic] result at
the end of the term is the proof of their achievement—completed
compositions.
(7, Australia)
Overall, the evidence most cited in support of effectiveness was that students were
enabled to communicate effectively, using grammar correctly and appropriately.
Perceived progress. Related to the previous category, but with a slightly different
emphasis, were comments citing evidence of perceived progress in students’ uses
and knowledge of language. A typical comment was “I believe integrating gram-
mar is effective based on . . . their improved performance in communicative tasks”
(61, Philippines).
Teachers also made comparisons between student performances at the start and
end of the course, such as “I see the students at the beginning of the term and at
the end, and I see they communicate more correctly and more confidently” (1033,
Malaysia). There were also references to how progress is achieved when explicit
grammar talk is minimized and the focus is placed on use in context as in the
following:
My learners have made more progress when complicated grammatical terms

are not referred to but are practiced with a context relevant to their situation
in mind.
(2034, Germany)
One specific type of progress mentioned several times was students’ ability to iden-
tify and correct errors.
I pay particular attention to the sentences my students use orally and in writing
at the beginning of each term and gauge their improvement during the term.
Many students are able to correct themselves when I highlight their mistakes.
(13, Australia)
Integrating grammar works. This I discern from the level of confidence

displayed by the learners. They are better able to identify their own errors
even if they may not know how to correct them initially.
(1026, Malaysia)
Another measure of success was whether students were better able to monitor their
own and others’ output and to identify and correct errors.
Student affect. Teachers commonly referred to the affective impact of integra-
tion. Various ways that integrating grammar positively affected students’ feelings
about learning were cited, including the following:
• Increased confidence in using English
Adult learners show more confidence in both written and spoken out-
puts in the classroom when grammar teaching is integrated with the
other language skills.
(34, Philippines)
They participate more in the activities presented and are more interested
and aware of why they do something, the purposes for doing so. Ulti-
mately participation facilitates language proficiency to some extent.
(2002, Australia)
• Student satisfaction
I think the closest thing I have to a reliable measure is student satisfaction.

My students . . . are more satisfied when grammar is related to its use.
Whether this means this approach is effective in improving my learners’
English is anyone’s guess!
(75, Turkey)
One teacher also talked about how integrating grammar reduced threats presented
by isolated explicit grammar work:
My learners are traditionally suspicious of grammar and many . . . have low

levels of education in their L1. Integrating grammar reduces the threat, while
raising awareness of the patterns and structure of the language.
(90, Australia)
For many teachers, an integrated approach was justified by its positive affective
impact.
Student feedback. Comments also referred specifically to student feedback, oral
and written, as a source of evidence for effectiveness. One teacher wrote the
following about student feedback: “They will tell me what they feel works or doesn’t
and what they feel is most beneficial in improving their English” (12, Australia).
Another wrote, “My students have also mentioned to me that they like my inte-
grated approach!” (1061, Australia). Interestingly, the evidence cited contained no
references to formal knowledge, specific insight, or theoretical knowledge obtained
through study, training, professional development, and reading. The only comment
hinting at external sources of evidence came from one teacher who stated the
following:
[They come from] my observation of learners learning English [and] also

through my professional studies and training as well as through my own
experience of learning other languages.
(2029, Germany)
Overall, the evidence cited for integration was largely practical and experiential
rather than theoretical and formal. We explore this issue further in the discussion.
Implications
In terms of discussing implications, we briefly comment on the beliefs emerging
from the 15 Likert-scale statements. Then, we consider findings relating specifi-
cally to beliefs and reported practices regarding integration.
There are several published studies surveying teachers’ beliefs about grammar
teaching, although our survey is distinct in its broader geographical scope. Our
work adds to existing research and suggests that TESOL teachers of adults are
generally favorably disposed to some explicit grammar work (Eisenstein-Ebsworth &
Schweers, 1997; Schulz, 1996). This favorable disposition toward grammar does
not imply a preference for direct instruction, though, as the number of teachers
supporting discovery learning was almost three times greater than the number in
favor of explaining rules. Andrews (2003), on the other hand, found more bal-
anced preferences for inductive and deductive grammar teaching. Also, following
Schulz (1996), teachers did not see grammatical error correction as one of their
primary functions but did express a strong belief in the positive impact of grammar
practice on fluency. (See Schulz, 2001, where 71% of 122 teachers said that com-
municative ability develops most quickly if students study and practice grammar.)
Overall, the portrait of grammar teaching here is characterized by regular phases
of explicit work, a desire for students to discover rules (without discounting the
use of direct explanation), and regular opportunities for grammar practice. Impor-
tantly, the above features should not occur in isolation but in relation to skills-
oriented work. Finally, teachers’ beliefs did not relate significantly to experience
and qualifications or whether English was taught as a foreign or second language.
These conclusions are unsurprising considering the complex range of factors that
interact in determining teachers’ personalized networks of beliefs.
Concerning integration, the key Likert-scale result was the overwhelming belief
that grammar teaching should not be separated from language skills teaching. The
result was corroborated by Section 3, Question 1a. Almost 99% of respondents
reported at least some grammar integration in teaching, and just less than 67% repor-
ted substantial or complete integration. Together, these findings support existing
research highlighting positive views of integration. For example, Eisenstein-
Ebsworth and Schweers (1997) found that most teachers advocated “some use of
conscious instruction combined with communicative practice” (p. 250), while
Andrews (2003) also concluded that his respondents strongly supported “at the
level of belief, if not implementation, a general acceptance of broad communica-
tive principles” (p. 357).
The most interesting insights, in our opinion, are teachers’ conceptualizations
of integration. Respondents illustrated various ways that form-meaning connec-
tions could be conceptualized; however, integration always implied an element of
explicit grammar teaching (even when teachers preferred to keep grammar
implicit). While varying interpretations were evident in the data, we discerned two
general ways of viewing integration. The first was contextual—the relationship
between grammar work and the related text or task. The second was temporal—
grammar and skills work occurring chronologically in relation to one another.
These perspectives are not discrete but reflect the orientation most evident in
teachers’ comments.
These insights make an important contribution to understanding teachers’
conceptualizations of integration. The sources of evidence teachers cited to
support their position on integration were overwhelmingly practical and expe-
riential in nature, referring to accumulated teaching experience; observations
of learners’ ability, progress and achievement; learner feedback; and teachers’
own language learning experiences. The absence of evidence from formal
theory and received knowledge was striking, findings that were also high-
lighted in previous teacher cognition and grammar teaching research (e.g.,
Borg, 1999).
The lack of formal perspectives was also reflected in the absence of technical
language, further evidence that teachers see their work largely in relation to expe-
riential and practical knowledge. The atheoretical nature of teachers’ support for
their grammar integration practices raises interesting questions about the role of
such theory in the work of L2 teachers and merits further research.
The range of conceptualizations reflects, and perhaps goes beyond, those of
Doughty and Williams (1998) and Ellis (2006) reviewed earlier; both sequential
and simultaneous integration, as well as incidental and planned focus on form,
were evident in teachers’ explanations. Many comments also implied widespread
use of PPP in which, Doughty and Williams (1998) argue, grammar is not con-
textualized within meaningful communication but constitutes a focus on forms
(Ellis, 2006). However, in practice PPP is not necessarily so restricted; teachers in
this study whose conceptualizations of integration reflect variations of PPP would
likely dispute claims that they promoted form at the expense of meaning. Theo-
rists’ formal frameworks for analysis of pedagogical activities may not be isomor-
phic with teachers’ systems of pedagogical sense-making.
Rather than directly studying teaching, our conclusions illuminate teachers’
stated beliefs and reported classroom practices. The non-probability sample is also
a limitation, restricting conclusions to this respondent group. The sample was
diverse geographically and demographically and was characterized by well-
qualified teachers, who were all teachers of adults; thus, our findings may not apply
to teachers of teenagers and young children. Nevertheless, this research provides
valuable insights, particularly about teachers’ beliefs on integrating grammar and
skills teaching and the ways they conceptualized the notion of integration. Of
importance too is the overwhelmingly experiential and practical nature of accounts
through which teachers justified their approach. More generally, the evidence
cited may assist researchers and practitioners in understanding how teachers judge
the effectiveness of their work. The evidence presented in this chapter raises
important issues about the role that formal SLA theory plays in teachers’ work.
Finding productive answers to these questions requires collaboration among
researchers working from both SLA and teacher cognition perspectives. Seeking
ways of reconciling these perspectives (Borg, 2006) is key to research development
into language teaching and learning more generally.
APPENDIX A
Survey Questionnaire
Integrating Grammar Instruction in Adult EFL & ESL Classes

Section 1: About Yourself
1. Country where you work: _______________________________________
2. Years of experience as an English language teacher (circle ONE)
0–4 5–9 10–14 15–19 20–24 25+
3. Highest relevant qualification to ELT (circle ONE)
Certificate Diploma Postgraduate Bachelor’s Master’s Doctorate

Certificate
Other (specify): ________________________________________________
4. Type of institution you teach English in most often (circle ONE)
Private State Other (specify): ____________________
5. How would you describe the institution you teach English in most often?
(circle ONE)
Language School Adult Education Secondary or University

College High School
Other (specify): ________________________________________________
6. Which ONE of the following best describes the status of English for your
adult learners?
English as a foreign language English as a second language
Section 2: Views about Grammar Learning & Teaching

For each statement below mark the ONE number that best reflects your view.
Strongly Disagree Neutral Agree Strongly

Disagree Agree
1. Teachers should present grammar to 1 2 3 4 5

learners before expecting them to use it.
Only one statement is included here to illustrate the format. Please refer to
Table 10.2 for the full list of statements.
Section 3: Grammar Teaching in Your Classroom

The questions in this section ask about the role of grammar teaching in your own
work.
1a. In your teaching, to what extent is grammar teaching integrated with the
teaching of other skills? (circle ONE)
No Some Substantial Complete

integration integration integration integration
1b. Please explain your answer to 1a by describing the relationship between gram-
mar teaching and the teaching of language skills (reading, writing, speaking,
listening) in your lessons.
1c. How much control do you have over the choice of teaching materials that
you use in your work with adult learners? (circle ONE)
No Little Some Much Complete

control control control control control
2a. Mark with an X the ONE statement from the four below which best describes
your position:
□ I separate grammar teaching from teaching the other skills and I believe
this helps my students learn language effectively.
□ I separate grammar teaching from teaching the other skills but I do not
believe this helps my students learn language effectively.
□ I integrate grammar teaching and teaching the other skills and I believe
this helps my students learn language effectively.
□ I integrate grammar teaching and teaching the other skills but I do not
believe this helps my students learn language effectively.
2b. With reference to your answer in 2a, how do you know that your approach to
separating or integrating grammar is or is not effective in helping your adult
learners improve their English?
This completes the questionnaire. Thank you for taking the time to respond.
Notes
This chapter is an abridged version of Borg and Burns (2008), produced here by
permission of Oxford University Press.
1 We would like to acknowledge the assistance of the many people who facilitated data
collection for us and to thank the teachers who contributed.
2 Henceforth, qualitative data are followed by a number, which is the respondents’ ID in
our database, and the country where they work.
References
Andrews, S. (2003). “Just like instant noodles”: L2 teachers and their beliefs about grammar
pedagogy. Teachers and Teaching: Theory and Practice, 9(4), 351–375.
Babbie, E. (2003). The practice of social research (10th ed.). Belmont, CA: Thomson/
Wadsworth.
Borg, S. (1999). The use of grammatical terminology in the second language classroom: A
qualitative study of teachers’ practices and cognitions. Applied Linguistics, 20(1), 95–126.
Borg, S. (2006). Teacher cognition and language education: Research and practice. London, UK:
Continuum.
Borg, S., & Burns, A. (2008). Integrating grammar in adult TESOL classrooms. Applied
Linguistics, 29(3), 456–482.
Burgess, J., & Etherington, S. (2002). Focus on grammatical form: Explicit or implicit?
System, 30(4), 433–458.
Burns, A. (1996). Starting all over again: From teaching adults to teaching beginners. In D.
Freeman & J. C. Richards (Eds.), Teacher learning in language teaching (pp. 154–177).
Burns, A. (2003). Grammar as “poison” or “fishing”? Developing an Australian distance-
learning course in systemic functional grammar. In D. Liu & P. Master (Eds.), Grammar
teaching in teacher education (pp. 57–73). Alexandria, VA: TESOL.
Celce-Murcia, M., & Olshtain, E. (2000). Discourse and context in language teaching. Cam-
Dörnyei, Z. (2003). Questionnaires in second language research: Construction, administration and
processing. New York, NY: Lawrence Erlbaum.
Doughty, C., & Williams, J. (1998). Pedagogical choices in focus on form. In C. Doughty
& J. Williams (Eds.), Focus on form in classroom second language acquisition (pp. 197–261).
Eisenstein-Ebsworth, M., & Schweers, C. W. (1997). What researchers say and practitioners
do: Perspectives on conscious grammar instruction in the ESL classroom. Applied Lan-
guage Learning, 8(2), 237–260.
Ellis, R. (2006). Current issues in the teaching of grammar: An SLA perspective. TESOL
Quarterly, 40(1), 83–108.
Little, D. (1994). Words and their properties: Arguments for a lexical approach to pedagogi-
cal grammar. In T. Odlin (Ed.), Perspectives on pedagogical grammar (pp. 99–122). Cam-
Mitchell, R. (2000). Applied linguistics and evidence-based classroom practice: The case of
foreign language grammar pedagogy. Applied Linguistics, 21(3), 281–303.
Patton, M. Q. (1990). Qualitative evaluation and research methods (2nd ed.). Thousand Oaks,
CA: Sage.
Schulz, R. A. (1996). Focus on form in the foreign language classroom: Students’ and teachers’
views on error correction and the role of grammar. Foreign Language Annals, 29(3),
343–364.
Schulz, R. A. (2001). Cultural differences in student and teacher perceptions concerning the
role of grammar teaching and corrective feedback: USA-Colombia. Modern Language
Journal, 85(2), 244–258.
11
TEACHER AND LEARNER
PREFERENCES FOR INTEGRATED
AND ISOLATED FORM-FOCUSED
INSTRUCTION
Nina Spada and Marília dos Santos Lima

In the history of second/foreign language (L2) teaching, grammar instruction has
played a central role. Indeed, it dominated methods of L2 instruction for a very
long time, starting with the Grammar Translation Approach with its deductive focus
on grammar rules and metalinguistic teaching, and continuing with the Audiolin-
gual Method with its inductive approach to the memorization and practice of
sentence structures (Howatt, 1984; Larsen-Freeman & Anderson, 2011). While
these two approaches differ considerably in terms of their principles and practices,
they both view grammar as a critical component in being able to successfully learn
a second/foreign language—whether success is measured in terms of how well one
reads in that language (i.e., the Grammar Translation Approach) or understands and
speaks the target language (i.e., the Audiolingual Method).
In the 1970s, L2 educators began to seriously question whether the ability to
accurately produce sentences and/or the knowledge of grammatical rules was
adequate preparation for L2 learners to genuinely communicate and appropriately
use the L2 outside the classroom setting. This questioning process led to a major
change in the field of applied linguistics and L2 teaching, in which an emphasis on
linguistic competence shifted to a focus on communicative competence (Hymes,
1972). The claim of the theory of communicative competence was that knowl-
edge of how to accurately and grammatically use the L2 was not sufficient to be
an effective communicator. One also needed the knowledge of how to appropri-
ately use language in different contexts with different speakers. The impact of the
emergence of communicative competence as a theoretical construct combined
with new conceptualizations of language teaching reflected in notional functional
syllabuses (Wilkins, 1976), communicative syllabus design (Munby, 1978), and
Teacher and Learner Preferences 179
distinctions between language use versus linguistic usage (Widdowson, 1978)

resulted in the development of Communicative Language Teaching (CLT).
The arrival of CLT on the L2 teaching scene came with different views about
the role of grammar, and this development resulted in different versions of CLT.
One of them, referred to as the strong version, claims no need for grammar instruc-
tion or corrective feedback (Howatt, 1984). Proponents of this view argue that it
is sufficient for learners to be exposed to meaningful and comprehensible input in
order to effectively learn the L2 in much the same way as children learn their first
language (e.g., Krashen, 1982). The weak version of CLT acknowledges the need
for a focus on grammar provided within meaning/content-based instruction.
Most teachers and learners support this view of CLT, which is also consistent with
classroom research, indicating that a combined focus on form and meaning is more
effective than an exclusive focus on either one (Lightbown & Spada, 2013).
A major challenge facing CLT is how best to include grammar within it. Most
of the work on this issue has examined whether different types of grammar
instruction (explicit or implicit) are more effective than others (Spada, 2011).
Another way to explore the role of grammar within CLT is in relation to its tim-
ing, that is, whether it is provided before, during, or after communicative practice.
Spada and Lightbown (2008) distinguish between two types of instruction, referred
to as isolated and integrated form-focused instruction (FFI). The former refers to
instruction in which attention to language form (e.g., grammar) is always provided
separately from communicative practice; the latter refers to instruction in which
attention to form is always combined within communicative practice. In research
to explore different dimensions of isolated and integrated FFI, Spada and her
research group have carried out classroom studies to investigate the effects of iso-
lated and integrated FFI on L2 learning (Spada, Jessop, Tomita, Suzuki, & Valeo,
2014), as well as studies to examine the different preferences that teachers and
learners might have for isolated and integrated FFI.
In this chapter, we report on research that has explored the preferences that
English as a second language (ESL) and English as a foreign language (EFL) teach-
ers and learners have for isolated and integrated FFI. In the first, large-scale study
we compared teacher and learner preferences based on their responses to a series
of statements in a self-report questionnaire. This project is referred to as the
“Questionnaire Study.” In the second, small-scale study we asked teachers and
learners to participate in an experiment in which they were asked to teach and
learn a specific grammatical feature in English using materials and techniques that
reflected isolated and integrated FFI. The participants experienced both types of
instruction over four hours (i.e., two hours each), and immediately after each ses-
sion they were asked to provide feedback as to whether they had a preference for
one type over the other. This project is referred to as the “Feedback Study.” We
were motivated to carry out both studies knowing that asking teachers and learners
to respond to questionnaire items about isolated and integrated FFI in the abstract
is quite different from asking them to directly experience the two types of
180 Nina Spada and Marília dos Santos Lima
instruction and then reflect on whether they had a preference for one over the
other. We wondered whether we would obtain different findings from the two
studies given previous observations, for example, that teachers’ beliefs do not neces-
sarily correspond to their actual practice (Borg, 1999). The specific research ques-
tions motivating the current research were the following:
1. Do ESL and EFL teachers and learners have a preference for isolated or inte-
grated FFI as measured in a self-report questionnaire study?
2. Do ESL and EFL teachers and learners have a preference for isolated or inte-
grated FFI as measured by experience with both approaches in a feedback study?
3. Are the preferences of ESL and EFL teachers and learners the same (or differ-
ent) in the questionnaire and feedback studies?
Teacher and Learner Beliefs About Grammar Instruction

A good deal of the research investigating teacher and learner beliefs about gram-
mar teaching has focused on the value of explicit grammatical instruction and the
role of corrective feedback. The findings vary and point to the important role of
context and other factors, such as previous language learning experience, that have
an impact on preferences. For example, in one study ESL learners expressed views
about grammar instruction and corrective feedback that were less positive than
those of learners of foreign languages (Loewen et al., 2009). In other studies of
exclusively EFL learners, the results from two groups also differed, with learners in
Turkey placing a greater value on grammar study than learners in Korea (Horwitz,
1999). Other research investigating whether teachers and learners of foreign lan-
guages share similar views about grammar instruction and corrective feedback
reveals that learners expressed stronger and more positive views about the need for
both than did their teachers (Schulz, 1996).
While extensive research has been done to investigate the type of grammatical ins-
truction, little research has investigated questions about the timing of grammatical
instruction even though the importance of doing so has been raised in the literature
(e.g., Doughty & Williams, 1998; Ellis, 2006; Lightbown, 1998). Apart from our own
research, only four studies have explored the question of whether teachers and learn-
ers believe that there may be optimal times to focus on grammar within the instruc-
tional sequence. In two separate studies including ESL and EFL teachers, a strong
preference was observed for teaching grammar by integrating it within other skills
and for using meaning-based activities rather than decontextualized presentation of
grammar (Borg & Burns, 2008; Burgess & Etherington, 2002). In a study with EFL
and ESL learners in Iran, Songhori (2012) administered earlier versions of the teacher
and learner questionnaires that we developed for isolated and integrated FFI (Spada,
Barkaoui, Peters, So, & Valeo, 2009; Valeo & Spada, in press). The results also indicated
that both teachers and learners had a strong preference for integrating grammar
instruction within communicative practice over isolated grammar activities. Using
the same learner questionnaire developed by Spada et al. (2009), similar findings were
reported for EFL learners in Turkey, who preferred integrated to isolated FFI. They
also indicated in follow-up interviews that integrated FFI motivated them to learn
and helped them transfer grammatical knowledge to communication (Elgun-
Gunduz, Akcan, & Bayyurt, 2012). In the two studies that we have carried out to
investigate preferences for isolated and integrated FFI, both teachers and students
from ESL and EFL contexts participated. These studies are described below.
The Questionnaire Study

The Questionnaire Study was designed to investigate whether English language
teachers and learners had a preference for integrated or isolated FFI and to what
extent any differences might be related to whether they were teaching or learning
in an ESL or EFL context. To compare teacher and learner preferences, question-
naires were administered to a combined total of 100 EFL/ESL teachers and
469 adult EFL/ESL learners. There were 53 EFL teachers from Brazil and 47 ESL
teachers from Canada. The ESL learners included 294 in Canada studying in either
university or community-based ESL programs and 175 EFL learners in Brazil
studying English at the university level or in private language schools. All groups
completed questionnaires containing statements that reflected isolated and inte-
grated FFI as conceptualized in Spada and Lightbown (2008). For example, the
teachers were asked to indicate on a five-point scale the degree to which they
agreed or disagreed with statements such as: I prefer teaching grammar as part of meaning-
based activities (integrated FFI) and I prefer lessons that teach grammar separately from
communication (isolated FFI). Similarly, learners were asked to indicate their degree
of agreement or disagreement with the following statements: I prefer to learn grammar
as I work on different skills and activities (integrated FFI) and I find it easier to learn gram-
mar when the instructor teaches it by itself (isolated FFI). There were 22 items on the
ESL and EFL teacher questionnaire (11 isolated and 11 integrated). There were
20 items on the ESL learner questionnaire (10 isolated and 10 integrated) and
26 items on the EFL learner questionnaire (13 isolated and 13 integrated). The
reason for this discrepancy is that the ESL learner questionnaire was developed first,
and by the time the EFL learner data were collected a year or so later, we had devel-
oped more items. At the end of the teacher and learner questionnaires there was an
open-ended question that invited them to add any comments they wished to make.
After extensive piloting it was decided to administer the questionnaires in English
except for the EFL learners, whose questionnaire was translated into Portuguese.
Quantitative Results
After the data were collected, they were examined to determine the reliability and
validity of the questionnaires as research tools. This process included factor analysis
to explore whether the items were valid measures of the isolated and integrated
constructs. Items that were judged to be unreliable and not valid were deleted and
excluded from further analysis (see Spada et al., 2009, and Valeo and Spada, in press,
for detailed descriptions of the validation testing for the questionnaires). The results
indicated that 11 out of the original 22 items on the ESL and EFL teacher question-
naire were reliable and valid measures of the isolated and integrated constructs. For
the learner questionnaires, 14 out of 20 original items on the ESL questionnaire and
24 out of 26 on the EFL questionnaire were found to be consistent and valid mea-
sures of the constructs. (See Appendices A and B for a list of the items that measure
the isolated and integrated constructs on the teacher and learner questionnaires.)
Table 11.1 and Figure 11.1 present the results for teachers’ and learners’
responses to the questionnaire items. They indicate that teachers expressed a
TABLE 11.1 Teacher and Learner Responses to Questionnaires: Descriptive Statistics
Group Item Type M SD
ESL teachers (n = 47) Integrated 4.12 0.42

Isolated 2.41 0.70
EFL teachers (n = 53) Integrated 3.89 0.59
Isolated 2.19 0.53
ESL learners (n = 294) Integrated 4.03 0.60
Isolated 3.83 0.63
ESL learners (n = 175) Integrated 3.90 0.64
Isolated 2.62 0.70
4.5
4.0
3.5
3.0
2.5
Integrated
2.0 Isolated
1.5
1.0
0.5
0.0
ESL Teachers EFL Teachers ESL Learners EFL Learners
FIGURE 11.1 Means for ESL/EFL teachers’ and learners’ responses to questionnaires
preference for integrated over isolated FFI, and a paired-samples t-test indicated
that this was a statistically significant difference for both the ESL teachers, t(46) =
13.081, p < .01, and the EFL teachers, t(52) = 14.896, p < .01. Compared with
the EFL teachers, the ESL teachers expressed a stronger preference for integrated
FFI and a repeated measures ANOVA indicated that this was also a statistically
significant difference, F(1,98) = 4.833, p = .030, partial 2 = 0.47. Regarding the
learner responses, they also expressed a preference for integrated over isolated FFI,
and this was statistically significant for both ESL learners, t(286) = 4.181, p < .01,
d = 0.247, and EFL learners, t(174) = 15.425, p < .01, d = 1.166. In addition, the
ESL learners responded more positively to the isolated items on the questionnaire
than the EFL learners, and a repeated measures ANOVA confirmed that this was
also a statistically significant difference, F(1,460) = 63.023, p = .000, partial 2 =
0.245. Thus, the overall results indicate a preference for integrated FFI over isolated
FFI and show that both groups (teachers and students) in both contexts (ESL and
EFL) shared this preference. There is evidence, however, that teachers and learners
also valued isolated FFI. This positive orientation toward FFI was particularly the
case with the ESL learners. An analysis of the teacher and learner responses to the
open-ended question at the end of the questionnaire highlights some of the quali-
fications that both groups offered for their choices, pointing to a more nuanced
and complex picture of their preferences for integrated and isolated FFI. Some of
these data are summarized below. (See Valeo and Spada, in press, for a more detailed
description of the quantitative and qualitative data.)
Qualitative Results
Data from the comments that teachers and learners made in response to the open-
ended question provided an opportunity for the participants to elaborate, explain,
and qualify their responses to the isolated and integrated items. Most of the teach-
ers provided comments that supported their overall preference for integrated or
isolated FFI. This was the case with both the ESL and EFL instructors. For exam-
ple, one ESL teacher emphasized her preference for integrated FFI in her comment,
“Students learn grammar much better when they can relate it to a specific meaning
or use in context.” Another emphasized her support for isolated FFI in her com-
ment that “. . . grammar points should be taught and understood first and then
applied during meaning-based activities.” Although fewer EFL teachers provided
comments compared with ESL teachers, overall there were no substantive differ-
ences in the content of their comments that would distinguish them in any signifi-
cant way. As we expected, teachers in both groups reported that deciding between
integrated and isolated FFI depended on several factors and that it was not a clear-
cut choice between one and the other. Some of the factors included the profi-
ciency level of students, the type of course (e.g., writing versus speaking), the type
of learner, and the type of language feature. For example, one ESL teacher indi-
cated that if the language feature was complex, it should be taught using isolated
FFI first. Another EFL teacher emphasized the importance of teaching in ways that
were compatible with individual learning styles, needs, and preferences. Interest-
ingly, a few teachers in both groups commented on how the process of completing
the questionnaire served as an important consciousness-raising activity and stimu-
lated them to reflect more on the timing of grammar instruction in their pedagogi-
cal practice.
Similar to the teacher data, most of the comments provided by learners served
to highlight their preference for isolated or integrated FFI as indicated in their
responses to the individual items on the questionnaire. So, for example, one ESL
student wrote in support of his preference for integrated FFI, “I don’t think only
grammar practice is a good way to learn English. . . . I can learn more when I study
grammar while speaking at the same time.” An EFL student in support of isolated
FFI wrote, “I think grammar should be taught before communicative activities
because it facilitates understanding.” Also similar to the teacher data, there were
fewer comments provided by learners in the EFL context compared with the ESL
setting. Nonetheless, their overall comments were quite similar, pointing to such
factors as proficiency level and learners’ goals and styles playing a role in decisions
about preferences for isolated and integrated FFI.
The Feedback Study

The Feedback Study was designed to investigate whether ESL and EFL teachers
and learners had a preference for isolated or integrated FFI. Research subjects
were asked to participate in four hours of instruction in which two hours were
spent using integrated FFI materials and two hours using isolated FFI materials.
The order of presentation was counterbalanced; that is, half of the teachers taught
the isolated FFI package first, and the other half taught the integrated FFI pack-
age first.
The participants included 8 ESL teachers and 102 adult students distributed
across four different classes in university or community-based ESL programs in
Canada. Five EFL teachers and 63 adult students across five classes at the university
or in private language schools participated in Brazil. In the end, a total of 139 stu-
dents (62 EFL and 77 ESL) attended both instructional sessions and responded to all
items in the post-questionnaires. The ESL students came from different L1 back-
grounds with large numbers of students from Spanish (n = 20), Chinese (n = 17),
and Korean (n = 14) L1 backgrounds. Most Brazilian learners’ L1 was Portuguese,
and only three reported having Spanish as their mother tongue. Both ESL and EFL
teachers had many years of teaching experience with primarily adult learners of
English.
The target language feature to be taught within the instructional materials was
the passive voice in English. The passive construction was selected as the target
feature because it was identified as one of the most difficult features for the stu-
dents to learn based on a survey of 15 ESL teachers in an earlier phase of the
research. To teach the passive voice the teachers were given two sets of instruc-
tional packages, one with material that was designed to reflect integrated FFI and
the other with instructional activities that reflected isolated FFI. Each package
consisted of a lesson overview, a lesson plan with detailed instructions, an instruc-
tor’s log for feedback on the instructional packages, the material to be distributed
to the students (activity sheets and a post-instruction questionnaire), and an
instructor’s post-questionnaire to be completed after the lesson. In the integrated
FFI materials, the learners’ attention was consistently drawn to the passive within
the context of communicative practice, as in the example below, taken from the
lesson plan:
Section 1: Article
Part A: Pre-reading discussion
Time: 10 min
1. Put the title “Can lies be good medicine?” on the board. Tell students
it is the title of an article they will be reading. Ask students:
• “ What do you think this article is about?”
Elicit a few responses and then move on.
2. Put the following questions on the board and ask the students to discuss
them in pairs:
• When you are talking to a doctor, do you expect to be told the truth? Why?
Why not?
• Can you think of any situations in which a doctor should lie?
• Are there some patients who should not be told the truth?
3. Take up the discussion with the class by inviting responses from three
or four students. Let the others know they will have a chance to share
their opinions later.
Part B: Reading text
Time: 20 min
1. Tell the students they will be reading an article about the topic they just
discussed and distribute the handout: “Can lies be good medicine?”
2. Tell the students they will have five to seven minutes to read it silently.
When they have finished reading, clarify any vocabulary difficulties.
3. Ask the students to begin to complete the comprehension questions
based on the reading passage.
4. Wait about two to three minutes and then direct the students’ attention
to the target feature by asking them:
• What do you notice about the verbs that are underlined in the text?
• What is this form called?
5. Elicit responses and then give the following explanation.
• All the verbs that are underlined have two parts: the verb “to be” and a
past form which is called a past participle. They are in the passive voice.
6. Look at one or two examples of the passive forms in the text and contrast
them with active forms. Do not take more than one or two minutes.
7. Ask them to continue completing the comprehension questions.
In the isolated FFI materials, the learners were taught about the passive voice sepa-
rately from communicative practice, as illustrated below:
Section 1: Grammar Focus
Part A: Introduction
Time: 10 min
1. Elicit recent news stories and put them on the board. Accept sentences
in any tense. If students offer only active sentences, add sentences like
the ones below in the passive as examples.
• Two tourists were kidnapped in Mexico last week.
• The leader of the opposition in Lebanon was assassinated.
2. Focus on the passive sentences and ask students:
• What verb is common to these sentences?
Try to elicit the response that the verb to be is common to all the
sentences.
3. Tell students this is the passive form in English. Look at the passive
sentences on the board and write down the same sentences in the active
voice. Explain how the passive works and contrast with active forms.
Ask students to generate a few more contrastive pairs.
Part B: Reading text
Time: 15 min
4. Ask students to read the passage “Medicine—It’s not all the same.”
Tell the students they will have five to seven minutes to read it silently.
When they have finished, clarify any vocabulary difficulties.
5. Ask the students to begin to complete the comprehension questions

based on the reading passage. (Do not focus any attention on the passive
forms or any other forms in the passage.)
Immediately after the lessons, teachers and students were asked to complete a
feedback questionnaire (see Appendix C) in which they had to circle a number
from 1 (Strongly disagree) to 5 (Strongly agree) indicating their opinions and
preferences regarding the lesson taught/learned. It was also possible to collect
interview data from the EFL teachers but unfortunately not with the ESL teachers
or any of the learners. The analysis of the feedback questionnaire data revealed a
clear preference for integrated over isolated FFI for the EFL teachers and learners,
while a slight preference for isolated over integrated FFI was observed for the ESL
teachers and learners. As noted above, while there was an overall preference for
the integrated approach across groups, the ESL learners (not teachers) in the
Questionnaire Study also were more positive toward the isolated approach than
others. An explanation for this finding may be that in the ESL context, where
there are considerable opportunities for exposure to and communicative interac-
tion in English outside the classroom, students may value the opportunity to focus
on form in a more isolated manner in the classroom to more finely tune their
accuracy and proficiency levels. A possible explanation for the finding that both
ESL teachers and learners had a slight preference for the isolated FFI materials in
the Feedback Study may be related to an unexpected finding that emerged from
an in-depth analysis of the instructional materials subsequent to the study. This
analysis revealed that there were more opportunities for output-based practice in
the isolated FFI materials compared with the integrated materials. This imbalance
in the two packages of materials makes it difficult to know whether the differ-
ences are related to the isolated/integrated constructs or to other features of the
materials.
As noted above, interview data were collected with the five Brazilian teachers,
who found the experience enriching and who were happy to offer their opinions
on both instructional approaches. Space limitations do not permit a detailed dis-
cussion of these findings, but below are three excerpts indicating teachers’ prefer-
ences for integrated FFI, for isolated FFI, and for both.
• I try to be very communicative and bring the students tasks which will
involve them in interesting activities. They learn grammar naturally within
the tasks. (Preference for integrated FFI)
• When I was studying English at school, I really needed grammatical explana-
tions. They made me feel I was learning the language. That’s why I give them
a lot of grammatical exercises. (Preference for isolated FFI)
• My experience shows there are all sorts of learners and learner needs. I usually
ask my students what kind of approach they would like to have to make them
happy. If they are not happy they won’t learn. (Preference for both)
Summary and Conclusions

In response to the first research question (i.e., Do ESL and EFL teachers and learners
have a preference for isolated or integrated FFI as measured in a self-report questionnaire
study?), the quantitative results indicate that both teachers and learners in EFL and
ESL contexts expressed a clear preference for integrated over isolated FFI. This
preference does not mean that teachers and learners did not value isolated FFI. On
the contrary, both the quantitative and qualitative data provide evidence that learn-
ers’ and teachers’ preferences for one type of instruction over the other are influ-
enced by several factors, such as the proficiency level of learners, the type of
language feature taught, and individual learning styles and preferences (Valeo &
Spada, in press).
With regard to the second research question (i.e., Do ESL and EFL teachers and
learners have a preference for isolated or integrated FFI as measured by experience with both
approaches in a feedback study?), differences between groups were observed. That is, while
the EFL participants indicated a clear preference for integrated FFI, the ESL participants
showed a slight preference for isolated FFI. Other differences in the design of the
instructional materials, however, might have accounted for this preference for isolated
FFI and exaggerated differences between the two groups. The small number of teach-
ers in the Feedback Study is also a concern, suggesting that further research be done
with a larger group of teachers or groups who are in different contexts and with iso-
lated and integrated FFI materials that are comparable in all other respects except
the timing of attention to form. Nonetheless, the overall findings from both studies are
more similar than different, leading us to tentatively respond in the affirmative to
the third research question (i.e., Are the preferences of ESL and EFL teachers and learners
the same (or different) in the questionnaire and feedback studies?).
In conclusion, both teachers and learners in the ESL and EFL context indicated
a preference for integrated FFI, but this preference does not mean they were
unaware of the merits of isolated FFI. Both approaches to drawing learners’ atten-
tion to grammar were considered useful, and decisions about when to use one or
the other were contingent on several factors including proficiency level, target
language feature, learners’ goals, and teachers’ objectives.
APPENDIX A
Isolated and Integrated Items on Teacher
Questionnaire
ESL/EFL Teacher Questionnaire Items

Integrated items are italicized.
1. Participating in meaning-based activities that include attention to grammar is the best

way for students to develop their grammatical knowledge.
2. I prefer teaching grammar as part of meaning-based activities.
3. When students learn grammar in a meaning-based context, they will be able to success-
fully express their meaning.
4. Students learn grammar more successfully if it is presented within context.
5. Doing exercises that focus exclusively on individual structures is the best way
for students to develop their grammatical knowledge.
6. Grammar is best taught through exercises that focus on individual structures.
7. Teaching grammar in a meaning-based context is my preferred way to teach.
8. Doing exercises that focus on individual structures is the best way to learn to
use English more accurately.
9. Grammar should be taught separately from communicative activities.
10. Doing meaning-based activities that include attention to grammar is the best way to
learn to use English more accurately.
11. Grammar is best taught through activities that focus on meaning.
Note: This list includes only those items judged to be reliable and valid after
factor analytic and reliability testing. For a complete list of the items on the teacher
questionnaire see Valeo and Spada (in press).
APPENDIX B
Isolated and Integrated Items on EFL and
ESL Learner Questionnaires
EFL Learner Questionnaire Items

1. Grammar should be taught during communicative activities.

2. I like to study grammar before I use it.
3. I like learning grammar by communicating.
4. I can learn grammar during reading or speaking activities.
5. I like lessons that focus only on teaching grammar.
6. I like grammar teaching before, not during, communicative activities.
7. My grammar improves when I do communicative activities.
8. I find it hard to learn grammar by reading or listening.
9. I like activities that focus on grammar and communication at the same time.
10. My English will improve if I study grammar separately from communicative
activities.
11. I find it helpful when the instructor teaches grammar while we read a text.
12. I like studying grammar rules first and then doing communicative activities.
13. I can learn grammar while reading or listening to a passage.
14. I like the teacher to correct my mistakes while I am doing communicative activities.
15. I like learning grammar separately from communicative activities.
16. I like grammar teaching during communicative activities.
17. Doing grammar exercises is the best way to use English accurately.
18. I like to learn grammar as I work on different skills and activities.
19. Grammar should be taught separately from communicative activities.
20. Before reading an article, I like to study the grammar used in it.
21. I like communicative activities that include grammar instruction.
22. I find it helpful to study grammar separately from communicative activities.
23. I like learning grammar during speaking, writing, listening, or reading activities.
24. I like grammar teaching after, not during, communicative activities.
ESL Learner Questionnaire Items

1. I like to know exactly which grammar point I am studying.

2. I find it easier to learn grammar when the instructor teaches it by itself.
3. I like learning grammar by seeing the explanation and doing practice exercises.
4. I like learning grammar by using language.

5. I can learn grammar during reading or speaking activities.
6. I like lessons that focus only on teaching grammar.
7. Doing grammar exercises is the best way to learn to use English more accurately.
8. I prefer to learn grammar as I work on different skills and activities.
9. I find it helpful when the instructor teaches grammar while we read a text.
10. I can learn grammar while reading or listening to a passage.
11. I believe my English will improve quickly if I study and practice grammar.
12. I like learning grammar during speaking, writing, listening, or reading activities.
13. Doing communicative activities is the best way to learn to use English more accurately.
14. I find it helpful to learn a grammar point before I read it in a text.
Note: These lists include only those items judged to be reliable and valid after
factor analytic and reliability testing. For a complete list of the items on the learner
questionnaires see Valeo and Spada (in press).
APPENDIX C
Student and Teacher Post-
questionnaire Data
Student Post-questionnaire Data
1. I clearly understand how to use passives after this lesson.
2. a. ISO: I was able to pay attention to the grammar instruction because it was
the only focus of the lesson.
b. INT: I was able to pay attention to the grammar instruction while I was
also thinking about the topic in this lesson.
3. I received enough instruction on the passives in this lesson.
4. I had enough opportunity to practice passives in this lesson.
5. I am confident that I can use passives in my writing after this lesson.
6. I am confident that I can use passives in speaking after this lesson.
7. I enjoyed the way grammar was taught in this lesson.
Teacher Post-questionnaire
1. I believe my students clearly understand how to use passives after this lesson.
2. a. ISO: I believe my students were able to pay attention to the grammar
instruction because it was the only focus of the lesson.
b. INT: I believe my students were able to pay attention to the grammar
instruction while thinking about the topic in this lesson.
3. I believe my students received enough instruction on the passives in this lesson.
4. I believe my students had enough opportunity to practice passives in this lesson.
5. I am confident that my students can use passives in their writing after this lesson.
6. I am confident that my students can use passives in their speaking after this lesson.
7. I enjoyed teaching passives in this way.
References
Borg, S. (1999). The use of grammatical terminology in the second language classroom: A
quality study of teachers’ practices and cognitions. Applied Linguistics, 20(1), 95–124.
Borg, S., & Burns, A. (2008). Integrating grammar in adult TESOL classrooms. Applied
Linguistics, 29(3), 456–482.
Burgess, J., & Etherington, S. (2002). Focus on grammatical form: Explicit or implicit?
System, 30(4), 433–458.
Doughty, C., & Williams, J. (1998). Pedagogical choices in focus on form. In C. Doughty
& J. Williams (Eds.), Focus on form in classroom second language acquisition (pp. 197–261).
Elgun-Gunduz, Z., Akcan, S., & Bayyurt, Y. (2012). Isolated form-focused instruction and
integrated form-focused instruction in primary school English classrooms in Turkey.
Language, Culture and Curriculum, 25(2), 157–171.
Ellis, R. (2006). Current issues in the teaching of grammar: An SLA perspective. TESOL
Quarterly, 40(1), 83–107.
Horwitz, E. K. (1999). Cultural and situational influences on foreign language learners’
beliefs about language learning: A review of BALLI studies. System, 27(4), 557–576.
Howatt, A. (1984). A history of English language teaching. Oxford, UK: Oxford University
Press.
Hymes, D. (1972). On communicative competence. In J. B. Pride & J. Holmes (Eds.), Socio-
linguistics: Selected readings (pp. 269–293). Harmondsworth, UK: Penguin.
Krashen, S. (1982). Principles and practice in second language acquisition. Oxford, UK:
Pergamon.
Larsen-Freeman, D., & Anderson, M. (2011). Techniques and principles in language teaching
(3rd ed.). Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.
Lightbown, P. M. (1998). The importance of timing in focus on form. In C. Doughty & J.
Williams (Eds.), Focus on form in classroom second language acquisition (pp. 177–196). Cam-
Lightbown, P. M., & Spada, N. (2013). How languages are learned (4th ed.). Oxford, UK:
Loewen, S., Li, S., Fei, F., Thompson, A., Nakatsukasas, K., Ahn, S., & Chen, X. (2009).
Second language learners’ beliefs about grammar instruction and error correction. Mod-
ern Language Journal, 93(1), 91–104.
Munby, J. (1978). Communicative syllabus design. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
Schulz, R. (1996). Focus on form in the foreign language classroom: Learners’ and teachers’ views
on error correction and the role of grammar. Foreign Language Annals, 29(3), 343–364.
Songhori, M. H. (2012). Exploring the congruence between teachers’ and students’ prefer-
ences for form-focused instruction: Isolated or integrated? Asian EFL Journal Professional
Teaching Articles, 61, 4–23.
research. Language Teaching, 44(2), 225–236.
Spada, N., Barkaoui, K., Peters, C., So, M., & Valeo, A. (2009). Developing a questionnaire
to measure learners’ preferences for isolated and integrated form-focused instruction.
System, 37(1), 70–81.
Spada, N., Jessop, L., Tomita, Y., Suzuki, W., & Valeo, A. (2014). Isolated and integrated
form-focused instruction: Effects on different types of L2 knowledge. Language Teaching
Research, 18(4), 453–473.
Spada, N., & Lightbown, P. M. (2008). Form-focused instruction: Isolated or integrated?
Valeo, A., & Spada, N. (in press). Is there a better time to focus on form? Teacher and learner
views. To appear in TESOL Quarterly.
Widdowson, H. G. (1978). Teaching language as communication. Oxford, UK: Oxford Univer-
sity Press.
Wilkins, D. (1976). Notional syllabuses. Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.
12
FORM-FOCUSED APPROACHES
TO LEARNING, TEACHING, AND
RESEARCHING GRAMMAR
Rod Ellis
All form-focused language instruction involves an attempt to intervene in the

process of learning a second language (L2) and in this respect differs from untu-
tored L2 acquisition. Instruction as intervention is of two basic kinds—direct and
indirect. Direct intervention involves providing learners with explicit information
about the target of the instruction usually together with opportunities to practice
the target (i.e., explicit instruction). It invites intentional language learning on the
part of the learner. Indirect intervention involves setting up L2 learning opportu-
nities without specifying what the linguistic target of the instruction is (i.e., implicit
instruction). In other words, there is no explicit teaching of the target feature,
although there are opportunities to engage in its use. Table 12.1 provides a detailed
specification of the two types of form-focused instruction (FFI).
Explicit instruction and implicit instruction view the role of grammar
instruction in the development of L2 knowledge differently. These approaches
are known as the interface positions, and they are based on the presumed strength
of the relationship between implicit and explicit knowledge in L2 learning (Ellis,
1994). Implicit knowledge is the intuitive, automatized knowledge needed to
participate effectively in communication. Explicit knowledge is the metalinguis-
tic knowledge that learners can draw on when they have time for controlled
processing. According to the strong interface position, explicit knowledge is
transformed into implicit knowledge through practice. The weak interface posi-
tion views explicit knowledge as not directly transformable into implicit knowl-
edge but as facilitating the processes responsible for its development. Both of
these positions, which are considered later in this chapter, lend support to explicit
instruction but do so in different ways. In contrast, the non-interface position
views explicit and implicit knowledge as disassociated, with different processes
involved in the development of these two types of knowledge. This position
Form-Focused Approaches 195
TABLE 12.1 Implicit and Explicit Form-Focused Instruction
Implicit FFI Explicit FFI
* Attracts attention to target form * Directs attention to target form

* Is delivered spontaneously (e.g., in an * Is predetermined and planned (e.g., as the main
otherwise communication-oriented focus and goal of a teaching activity)
activity) * Is obtrusive (interruption of communicative
* Is unobtrusive (minimal interruption meaning)
of communication of meaning) * Presents target forms in isolation
* Presents target forms in context * Uses metalinguistic terminology (e.g., rule
* Makes no use of metalanguage explanation)
* Encourages free use of the target form * Typically also involves controlled practice of
the target form
Source: Adapted with permission from “Investigating Instructed Second Language Acquisition,” by
A. Housen and M. Pierrard (p. 10). In A. Housen and M. Pierrard (Eds.), Investigations in Instructed
Second Language Acquisition, 2005, Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. © 2005 by Mouton de Gruyter.
favors implicit instruction, which aims to set up the communicative conditions

for the development of implicit knowledge. It should be noted, however, that
both explicit and implicit instruction have as their goal the acquisition of implicit
knowledge.
In this chapter, I will first examine explicit instruction and then implicit instruc-
tion. In the conclusion, I will briefly consider the relative effectiveness of direct
(explicit) and indirect (implicit) intervention in grammar learning.
Explicit Grammar Instruction

Explicit instruction takes a number of different forms, derived from different theo-
retical assumptions concerning the role of explicit information in instruction and
the different kinds of practice activities that are incorporated. Table 12.2 outlines
instructional approaches within deductive and inductive explicit instruction along
with the interface positions they assume and the theories that support them. These
approaches will be discussed in detail in the following sections.
In deductive instruction learners are provided with metalinguistic information
about the target of the instruction. This information can be included in the pre-
sentation or practice stages of a lesson, and the practice activities can involve pro-
duction or comprehension of the target language feature. Deductive instruction
also differs from inductive instruction in terms of the nature of the explicit infor-
mation provided. Generally the explicit information is drawn from a pedagogical
grammar (i.e., it is simplified), but in some instances it consists of “scientific con-
cepts” (i.e., very detailed linguistic descriptions of grammatical features). In induc-
tive instruction no metalinguistic information is provided. For example, in
inductive consciousness-raising instruction, learners complete a series of tasks that
guide them to an understanding of the target feature but without practicing it.
196 Rod Ellis
TABLE 12.2 Features of Types of Explicit Instruction
Type of Explicit Instructional Approaches Interface Theoretical Basis

Instruction Position
Deductive Pedagogical grammar and Strong Skill-Learning Theory

production practice (as in (DeKeyser, 1998)
presentation-practice-production)
Deductive Integrated instruction (i.e., explicit Strong Transfer Appropriate
explanation provided during Processing (Lightbown,
communicative practice) 2008)
Deductive Concept-based instruction Strong Sociocultural Theory
(involving presentation of “scientific (Lantolf & Thorne, 2006)
concepts” and production practice)
Deductive Comprehension-based instruction Strong Input Processing Theory
(as in Input Processing) (VanPatten, 1996)
Inductive Pattern practice (as in the Strong Behaviorism (habit
Audiolingual Method) formation)
Inductive Consciousness-raising instruction Weak Theory of Instructed
(involving consciousness-raising Language Learning (Ellis,
tasks) 1994)
I will now discuss each these instructional approaches, their theoretical bases, and
the research that has investigated them.
Presentation-Practice-Production Instruction
Presentation-practice-production (PPP) is the approach typically promoted in
teacher guides (e.g., Scrivener, 2005; Ur, 1996). It is supported by Skill-Learning
Theory, which claims that language learning is like any other kind of learning. The
starting point is declarative knowledge (i.e., explicit knowledge of specific linguis-
tic forms), which is then proceduralized through practice until eventually it
becomes automatic. The acquisition of linguistic forms is conceptualized as involv-
ing a shift from controlled to automatic processing. The role of instruction is to
provide learners with explicit knowledge of a target feature and facilitate the
cognitive changes needed for automatic processing. DeKeyser (1998) pointed out
that for full automatization to happen, learners need to practice the target feature
in real communication (i.e., in communicative grammar tasks).
PPP therefore assumes a strong interface between explicit and implicit knowl-
edge although, as DeKeyser (2003) pointed out, the end result may not be “true”
implicit knowledge but rather speeded-up declarative knowledge, which he argued
is functionally equivalent. The extent to which this process takes place is disputed
by some researchers (e.g., Hulstijn, 2002; Paradis, 2009) who claim that there are
limits to the automatization of explicit knowledge and that it can never be equiva-
lent to implicit knowledge.
The test of PPP is whether it results in the learners’ ability to communicate

freely using the language feature targeted by instruction. That is, it is necessary to
show that the instruction results not just in improved accuracy in controlled pro-
duction (e.g., in discrete point tests) but also in free production (i.e., in tasks that
elicit spontaneous communication). I will consider two studies that satisfied this
criterion.
Harley (1989) investigated the effects of explicit instruction that included com-
municative practice activities on the acquisition of two French verb tenses (passé
composé and imparfait) by 319 Grade 6 students in a French immersion program in
Canada. The learners who received the instruction, which lasted several weeks,
outperformed those in the control group on all post-instruction measures of learn-
ing, including those derived from an oral interview.
Housen, Pierrard, and Vandaele (2006) investigated the effects of PPP on 69
Dutch-speaking learners of L2 French (14–15 years old) on two target structures—
a simple one (negation) and a complex one (passive). After four weeks of instruc-
tion involving controlled and free practice activities (e.g., sentence-transformation
exercises and answering semi-open questions), the learners were tested by means
of oral questions about pictures and objects, which they had to answer instantly.
There was no difference between the experimental and control groups in the
absolute number of tokens of the target structures produced in both immediate
and delayed posttests, but the experimental group significantly outperformed the
control group in accuracy of production at both testing times.
These two studies indicate that explicit instruction together with communica-
tive practice leads to gains over time and to statistically significant differences
between experimental and control groups. One might conclude, therefore, that
instruction that combines explicit presentation with communicative practice can
contribute to the development of implicit knowledge or, at least, automatized
declarative knowledge. However, there are some caveats. The studies demonstrated
that explicit instruction helps learners achieve greater accuracy in the use of lin-
guistic forms they had already begun to acquire. One might ask whether such
instruction is also effective in helping learners acquire completely new linguistic
features. A second caveat is that the studies are typically product-based and do not
tell us how the instruction facilitated learning. For example, they provide no infor-
mation about whether the learners received corrective feedback. As we will see
later, corrective feedback plays an important role in L2 development.
Integrated Explicit Instruction

Whereas PPP takes as its starting point the presentation of explicit information
about the target structure, integrated explicit instruction embeds explicit explana-
tion into communicative practice activities. Thus, the difference rests in when the
explicit information is provided. The theoretical basis for integrated explicit
instruction lies in the Transfer Appropriate Processing Hypothesis, which claims
198 Rod Ellis
that “we can better remember what we have learned if the cognitive processes that
are active during learning are similar to those that are active during retrieval”
(Lightbown, 2008, p. 27). It follows that explicit information will be more effective
if it is provided while learners are communicating as they are more likely to
remember it and be able to access it in a subsequent communication.
Spada, Jessop, Tomita, Suzuki, and Valeo (2014) reported on a study that com-
pared isolated and integrated explicit instruction. Instruction in both conditions
drew on the same topics (e.g., medical practices and famous places) and provided
learners with explicit information about the target structure (i.e., English passive).
In the isolated instruction condition, the target structure was first explained to the
learners, who then engaged in communicative/content-based activities without
any further explicit focus on the passive. In the integrated instruction condition,
the theme was introduced focusing purely on content. Then, the learners per-
formed the communicative activities, during which the teacher provided quick
explanations of the passive and offered corrective feedback. Learning was assessed
by means of a written error-correction test and a picture-cued oral production
task. Both types of instruction proved effective, and there were no significant
group differences. However, the group receiving isolated instruction gained higher
scores for passive on the error-correction test, while the integrated instruction
group did better on the oral production task. The relative effects of isolated and
integrated instruction warrant further investigation, but both appear to be effec-
tive. As we will see later, integrated instruction bears some resemblance to implicit
instruction.
Concept-based Instruction
Concept-based instruction draws on Sociocultural Theory, which emphasizes the
importance of developing conceptually organized grammatical knowledge by
means of explicit descriptions of grammatical features that explain the link between
form and semantic/functional concepts. Such descriptions are seen as important
mediational tools. In concept-based instruction, units provide a material instantia-
tion of the target concepts (grammatical features like the passive in particular
genres) and require learners to verbalize concept-based explanations to foster a full
understanding and internalization of the concepts.
In a study on concept-based instruction, Neguerala and Lantolf (2006) drew on
Gal’perin’s (1989) proposal for systemic functional instruction. The results of their
study with university-level students of Spanish as a foreign language (focused on
the preterite and imperfect tenses) suggest that concept-based instruction is effec-
tive. However, the beneficial effects of the instruction were more clearly evident
in students’ written work, which allows for monitoring using explicit knowledge,
than in their oral production, which more likely draws on implicit knowledge.
Thus, the study does not convincingly show that concept-based explicit instruc-
tion resulted in implicit knowledge of the target features. Also, the study was not
comparative in design, so we cannot conclude that giving learners scientific

descriptions is more effective than giving them simplified pedagogical rules. It
should also be noted that the study, like other studies of concept-based instruction,
involved university-level students of foreign languages. It is not clear how suitable
this type of instruction is for other kinds of learners (e.g., young beginner learners
or non-academic adult learners with low language analytical abilities).
Comprehension-based Instruction
So far this discussion has focused on the effects of explicit explanation in combina-
tion with production-based practice activities, reflecting the way in which explicit
instruction is generally implemented. However, some theories of L2 acquisition
emphasize the importance of input in learning (e.g., Krashen, 1982; VanPatten,
2007). Thus, we can ask whether metalinguistic explanations followed instead by
comprehension-based activities, where learners are induced to process the meaning
of the target features in the input, lead to learning and, in fact, whether it is more
effective than production-based instruction.
Shintani, Li, and Ellis (2013) reported on a meta-analysis of studies that com-
pared the effects of comprehension-based and production-based instruction on L2
learning. Out of the 35 studies included in the analysis, 29 involved explicit
instruction (i.e., the researchers included an explicit presentation of the target
structure catering to intentional language learning). All of these studies measured
the effects of instruction using tests of both receptive and productive knowledge.
The results showed that both types of instruction benefited both receptive and
productive knowledge of the target features. Comprehension-based instruction
was more effective than production-based instruction for the acquisition of recep-
tive knowledge but only in the immediate tests (i.e., the advantage was not sus-
tained over time). The opposite was the case for production-based instruction. It
was more effective than comprehension-based instruction for productive knowl-
edge in the delayed tests, but there was no difference in the immediate tests. In
general, then, there was no clear evidence to support the superiority of either type
of instruction.
Comprehension-based instruction has been investigated most thoroughly in a
series of studies involving input-based Processing Instruction. VanPatten (1996)
proposed that because of their limited processing capacity, learners have difficulty
attending to grammatical forms in the input and resort to a number of default
processing strategies, which he captured in a set of Processing Principles such as
the following:
• Learners prefer processing lexical items to grammatical items (for example,

morphological markings) for semantic information.
• Learners tend to process the first noun or pronoun they encounter in a sen-
tence as the subject/agent.
200 Rod Ellis
Because the problem faced by learners relates to perception (i.e., attending to

grammatical features in input), VanPatten (1996) proposed “a type of grammar
instruction whose purpose is to affect the ways in which learners attend to input
data” (p. 2). This approach is called Processing Instruction, and it consists of three
components: (1) explicit explanation of the target structure, (2) explicit strategy
training to enable learners to overcome the default processing strategy, and
(3) structured input activities. Of these three components, structured input is the
most important, and in some versions it is the only component.
VanPatten hypothesized that Processing Instruction would be more effective
than traditional production practice (i.e., practice involving text-manipulation
activities). VanPatten and Cadierno (1993) compared the effects of two instruc-
tional treatments with students in a university-level Spanish course, one directed at
manipulating learners’ output through production practice and the other aimed at
changing the way the learners perceived and processed input. Those learners who
received input processing practice relating to Spanish word order rules and the use
of clitic pronouns performed better in comprehension tests than those who
received production practice involving both controlled and meaningful activities.
The input processing group also performed at the same level as the production
practice group in a production test. This study, then, suggests that Processing
Instruction is superior in some ways to traditional production practice.
A key issue, investigated in later studies, was whether it was necessary to include
explicit explanation of the target structure (i.e., whether structured input by itself
might suffice). The results of these studies are mixed. VanPatten and Oikennon
(1996) concluded that structured input was more important than explicit informa-
tion for acquisition. However, other studies have shown that explicit information
plays an important role at least for some grammatical structures. Fernández (2008),
for example, reported that providing explicit information made no difference
when the grammatical target was object-verb-subject word order in Spanish, but
it did make a difference for another grammatical feature, the subjunctive. Fernán-
dez concluded that explicit information may be helpful when the target structure
is redundant and, therefore, less salient in the input.
Shintani (2015) carried out a meta-analysis of 42 comparative research experi-
ments involving Processing Instruction. Her general finding was that Processing
Instruction was superior to production-based instruction in the receptive tests, but
there were no significant differences between the two types of instruction in the
productive tests. However, production-based instruction was superior when both
groups received the same explicit information. In other words, explicit informa-
tion proved of greater importance in production-based instruction. Shintani sug-
gested this was because the explicit information helped learners attend more
closely to the target structures in the production activities but was less needed in
structured input activities.
Three limitations of these studies should be noted. First, relatively few gram-
matical structures have been investigated to date. Second, as Shintani noted, the
effects of Processing Instruction on both receptive and productive knowledge

atrophy over time. Shintani interpreted this result as showing that the knowledge
resulting from Processing Instruction was of the explicit rather than implicit
kind as explicit knowledge is more likely to decay than implicit knowledge.
Third, very few of the studies included measures of learning based on free oral
production.
Although Processing Instruction is clearly effective in developing both recep-
tive and productive grammatical knowledge, there is no convincing evidence that
it is more effective than production-based instruction or that it assists in the devel-
opment of implicit knowledge. However, there is sufficient evidence to suggest
that structured input activities are a useful addition to the battery of instructional
devices for teaching grammar. As Ellis (2002a) points out, many published gram-
mar teaching materials make little use of such activities.
Pattern Practice
To this point, explicit instruction of the deductive kind has been the focus, although
some of the input processing studies involved inductive instruction (i.e., there was
no explicit explanation of the target structures). I turn now to studies that exam-
ined inductive instruction involving production through pattern practice. Pattern
practice is closely associated with the Audiolingual Method, which is based on
behaviorist theories of learning and views L2 learning as like any other kind of
learning. It involves developing habits by systematically engaging learners in drills
of various kinds (e.g., repetition, substitution, and transformation). Drills present
learners with carefully controlled stimuli, and mimicry and memorization of these
stimuli play a major role in pattern practice.
The effectiveness of pattern practice was investigated in a number of large-scale
studies that compared it with deductive methods involving explicit presentation.
The best of these studies was the Gothenberg Project (Levin, 1972). In this project,
different groups of learners engaged in pattern practice either with (deductive) or
without (inductive) grammatical explanations. No significant differences between
the inductive and deductive groups of learners were found. In fact, very little
learning occurred in either. In the case of an older group of high school students,
however, a clearer advantage was found for the deductive instruction. Also, older
learners benefited most from the deductive method.
Pattern practice, even when accompanied by explicit explanation, appears to
contribute little to L2 learning. In fact, sometimes it can even have a deleterious
effect on learning by interfering with natural acquisition processes and causing
learners to overuse the structure they have practiced intensively (Lightbown,
1983). There is also a strong theoretical reason for doubting the effectiveness of
pattern practice. The Transfer Appropriate Processing Hypothesis predicts that a
direct relationship between the type of practice and the kind of learning that takes
place. Pattern practice positions learners as responders to controlled stimuli and,
202 Rod Ellis
thus, is unlikely to prepare them to participate in spontaneous face-to-face com-

munication where they will need to initiate as well as respond.
Consciousness-raising Instruction
The types of explicit instruction we have examined so far involve consciousness-
raising in the sense that they aim, either deductively or inductively, to make learners
aware of the properties of the target of the instruction. However, in a series of pub-
lications (e.g., Ellis, 1991, 1993, 2012), I have used the term “consciousness-raising
instruction” to refer to instruction based on tasks designed to help learners to con-
struct their own explicit rules about structural features. This type of explicit instruc-
tion differs from other types in that it does not include any practice activities.
Consciousness-raising instruction is predicated on a weak interface position.
This position claims that (1) implicit and explicit knowledge are neurolinguisti-
cally distinct (Paradis, 2009), making the transformation of explicit into implicit
knowledge impossible; and (2) explicit knowledge of linguistic features can facili-
tate the processes involved in the development of implicit knowledge (e.g., notic-
ing and noticing the gap). Therefore, instruction should focus on the development
of explicit rather than implicit knowledge and leave learners to develop implicit
knowledge in their own time. Nevertheless, equipping learners with explicit knowl-
edge can assist them in the subsequent and natural development of implicit
knowledge.
Consciousness-raising tasks aim to help learners construct an explicit represen-
tation of a target feature. Such tasks consist of data illustrating the use of the target
feature and require one or more operations (e.g., identification of the feature and
rule formation) that guide learners in analyzing the data to enable them to arrive
at explicit representations. They do not require production of the feature or prac-
tice in input processing. The focus is entirely on representation.
A number of studies have investigated consciousness-raising tasks. Eckerth
(2008) studied university-level learners of German who completed two tasks, a text
reconstruction task and a text repair task, designed to develop learners’ explicit
knowledge of a number of grammatical features. The learners worked in pairs
completing tasks that required them to attend to the ways in which grammatical
form, meaning, function, and context were interrelated. Eckerth reported signifi-
cant gains in explicit knowledge between a pretest and an immediate posttest and
also between the immediate and delayed posttests.
The weak interface position requires demonstrating that the explicit knowledge
gained from performing consciousness-raising tasks facilitates the processes
involved in the subsequent development of implicit knowledge. Fotos (1993) asked
Japanese college students to perform a series of consciousness-raising tasks. Then,
several weeks later, students completed dictation exercises that included exemplars
of the structures targeted in the tasks. Immediately after finishing a dictation, they
were asked to underline any bit of language they had paid special attention to
during the dictation. Fotos reported that they frequently underlined the target
structures. This study suggests that the explicit knowledge gained from perform-
ing a consciousness-raising task helps learners to notice the target structure in
subsequent input.
Corrective Feedback
Corrective feedback is an important element in all the forms of explicit instruction
we have examined. The nature of the feedback differs in comprehension-based
and production-based instruction. In the former it simply indicates whether learn-
ers have succeeded in processing the target feature correctly in the input. In the
latter it enables learners to see if they produced the target structure correctly and
sometimes provides them with the correct form.
There is little mention of feedback in many of the studies that have investigated
Processing Instruction (see Marsden, 2006; Toth, 2006). Potentially the timing of
the feedback is significant. It can be provided within a structured input activity
(i.e., immediately after learners have responded to an input stimulus) or at the end
of the activity (i.e., when the teacher informs the learners of the correct answers).
The former is perhaps more likely to assist input processing as learners can use the
feedback they receive on one item to adjust their response to a following item in
a structured input activity. To the best of my knowledge, no study has investigated
the comparative effects of providing feedback in these different ways in Processing
Instruction.
Corrective feedback on learners’ production can be input-providing (i.e., it
provides the correct form) or output-prompting (i.e., it prompts learners to pro-
duce the correct form). It can also be implicit (i.e., the corrective force is not
readily apparent) or explicit (i.e., the corrective force is quite clear). There is now
an enormous amount of research that has investigated these different types of cor-
rective feedback. (For a review, see Sheen & Ellis, 2011.) Overall, explicit corrective
feedback, such as explicit correction or metalinguistic explanation, has been shown
to be more effective than implicit feedback, such as recasts or clarification requests.
Also, output-prompting feedback (e.g., elicitation) is more effective than input-
providing feedback (e.g., recasts).
In most explicit grammar teaching, the aim is to prevent errors from occurring.
Tomasello and Herron (1988), however, investigated what they called the “down
the garden path” approach. This approach involved deliberately eliciting errors in
learners’ production in mechanical exercises and then correcting them explicitly.
They found this type of production practice more effective than simply providing
learners with explanations of the target structures.
It is tempting to conclude that corrective feedback is the single most important
factor in explicit instruction. It promotes attention to form, helps learners to carry
out a cognitive comparison between their deviant utterances and the correct target
language, and pushes them to produce the correct form. In terms of Sociocultural
204 Rod Ellis
Theory, it serves as one of the principal ways in which teachers can support learn-
ers in the zone of proximal development (Aljaafreh & Lantolf, 1994), a term for the
difference between what learners can do without help and what they can do with
help from other peers or teachers (Vygotsky, 1978).
Discussion
Explicit instruction is the principal way of teaching grammar. For many teachers,
grammar teaching necessarily involves the explicit teaching of pre-selected gram-
matical features. It is important that teachers are aware of the different types of
explicit instruction reviewed above, the theoretical foundations of the different
types, and the limitations of each type.
There is still much research that is needed. We need to know whether some gram-
matical structures are more amenable to explicit instruction than others, whether
explicit explanation is best provided before or during practice activities, whether
pedagogical grammar is adequate as a basis for explicit explanation or whether “sci-
entific concepts” are needed, whether a combination of comprehension-based and
production-based instruction is more effective than either by itself, and whether and
in what ways the explicit knowledge learners gain from consciousness-raising tasks
aids the processes involved in subsequent implicit learning.
Implicit Grammar Instruction

Implicit instruction needs to be distinguished from implicit learning (i.e., the
learning that takes place without any conscious awareness). There is, however,
disagreement among researchers as to whether learning can occur without some
level of awareness. Implicit instruction does not assume that the learning that
occurs is of the implicit kind. Indeed, a major feature of most types of implicit
instruction is that learners attend, albeit unobtrusively, to linguistic form and that this
is necessary for acquisition to occur. For this reason implicit instruction is best
defined as instruction aimed at facilitating incidental acquisition (i.e., the picking up
of linguistic features when learners are not making deliberate efforts to learn
them). When learners learn incidentally, they may well pay conscious attention to
specific target features; and this noticing (i.e., conscious attention to linguistic exem-
plars in the input) may be needed for learning to take place (Schmidt, 2001).
Implicit instruction, however, does not aim at metalinguistic understanding of
target features and in this respect differs most clearly from explicit instruction.
Theoretical Issues in Implicit Instruction

The rationale for implicit instruction draws on a number of theoretical perspec-
tives in second language acquisition (SLA). First, it assumes that incidental acquisi-
tion is possible and learners do not need to be made consciously aware of the target
of instruction. As Housen and Pierrard (2005) put it, the instruction is designed
and implemented to “attract attention to the target form” (p. 10). Second, it has
been argued that incidental acquisition is the main way in which learners develop
high levels of implicit knowledge in an L2. Krashen (1982) pointed out that there
are limits to how much learners can deliberatively learn (i.e., develop explicit
knowledge) and that they need opportunities to acquire (i.e., develop implicit
knowledge).
The key theoretical construct that informs implicit instruction is focus on form
(Long, 1991), the attention to linguistic form that occurs while learners are pri-
marily focused on meaning. Thus, implicit instruction aims not only to expose
learners to the target language in meaningful ways but to do so in ways that will
induce incidental attention to linguistic forms. This focus can be achieved, for
example, by modifying input and interaction to make specific target forms salient
to learners, such as through the negotiation of meaning and form that occurs when
speakers work to resolve a communication or linguistic problem. In implicit
instruction there is no prior explicit presentation of the instructional targets, and
focus on form serves as the sole means of drawing attention to form during a com-
municative activity.
Types of Implicit Instruction

The various types of implicit instruction are shown schematically in Figure 12.1.
A general distinction can be made between memorizing sentences and meaning-
centered instruction. Research based on the former involves asking participants to
memorize a set of sentences that exemplify particular syntactic structures and then
assessing whether they can determine whether new sentences containing the same
structures are grammatical or ungrammatical. Implicit learning is said to have
taken place if the participants are able to judge the grammaticality of the new
sentences correctly but are unable to report how they made their judgments. This
No focus on predetermined grammatical

forms
Memorizing
sentences (e.g., extensive reading)
Implicit instruction
Meaning-centered
instruction
Focus on form Text

enhancement
(i.e., focus on
predetermined
grammatical forms) Task-based
teaching
FIGURE 12.1 Types of implicit instruction

206 Rod Ellis
approach has been used in some SLA studies (e.g., Robinson, 1996), but it has not
influenced language pedagogy.
Implicit instruction in language pedagogy is meaning-centered. That is, it
involves engaging learners in the comprehension and production of the L2 for
communicative purposes, and attention to form is incidental. Of the two broad
types of meaning-centered instruction, I will consider only the implicit grammar
instruction that focuses on particular forms, which can be achieved through text
enhancement and through task-based teaching. In both cases the instructional
activities require primary attention to meaning, but they also invite peripheral or
periodic attention to linguistic form.
Text Enhancement
Text enhancement can occur through flooding the input with exemplars of a
specific feature and through highlighting a specific form through intonation in
oral input or by bolding, italicizing, or paraphrasing it in written input. In both
cases the aim is to induce selective attention (i.e., noticing) of predetermined lin-
guistic forms. Research exploring the effects of text enhancement has addressed
two issues: whether text enhancement facilitates the noticing of grammatical fea-
tures and whether text enhancement facilitates their acquisition.
Several studies have investigated the effect of input enhancement on noticing.
In a study by Shook (1999), learners of L2 Spanish were exposed to written input
under three conditions. The results suggest a trade-off between comprehension
and noticing. If learners focus on the top-down processing required for effective
comprehension, less noticing of the target features occurs, while the opposite is
true if learners engage in bottom-up processing and attend to the enhanced items
in the text.
Text enhancement does result in noticing, but overall its effect is quite small
(Lee & Huang, 2008). It is likely to have a stronger effect on those grammatical
features that are important for understanding the meaning of the input. The rela-
tive effectiveness of different kinds of input enhancement (e.g., input flooding
versus highlighting) on noticing is not yet established. As Han, Park, and Combs
(2008) noted, “There are numerous methodological idiosyncrasies characterizing
the individual studies” (p. 600), such as the number of times a specific feature is
highlighted and the number of texts involved.
If noticing is a prerequisite for acquisition, one might expect that text enhance-
ment will have only a limited effect on acquisition. This hypothesis was confirmed
by Lee and Huang’s (2008) meta-analysis, which examined 20 studies that had
investigated the effects of typographical enhancement and input flooding on L2
acquisition as measured by both immediate and delayed posttests conducted after
the exposure. The overall effect size was quite small and in delayed posttests was
even smaller. The main limitation of text enhancement is that although it may help
learners to see what is grammatically possible in the target language, it does not
help them to eradicate an erroneous rule, especially if the rule corresponds to a

rule in the native language (Trahey & White, 1993).
Task-Based Language Teaching (TBLT)

The primary way of conducting implicit instruction is by asking learners to per-
form a task that has been designed to encourage attention to some specific gram-
matical form. A task is an instructional activity that satisfies four criteria: (1) it
requires a primary focus on meaning, (2) there is some kind of gap (e.g., an infor-
mation gap that motivates the learners to communicate), (3) learners use their own
linguistic resources to perform the task, and (4) there is a communicative outcome
(Ellis, 2003). A task can be unfocused (i.e., not designed to provide practice of a
specific grammatical feature) or focused. In the latter, the task is designed to create
opportunities for learners to comprehend or produce a predetermined grammati-
cal form. For example, a task that involves reporting an accident provides a natural
context for the use of the past tense. Implicit grammar instruction involves the use
of focused tasks, which can be input-based or output-based.
In an input-based task, learners are presented with L2 input (oral or written),
which they need to comprehend in order to achieve the outcome of the task. Thus,
an input-based task does not require production on the part of the learner. How-
ever, learners are not prevented from speaking and, in fact, often do when they fail
to comprehend. Input-based tasks are based on the assumption that learners will
pick up new linguistic forms through exposure to the input providing that (1) they
are able to comprehend the input and (2) they notice the target forms.
Many of the input-based studies have involved “listen and do” tasks. Shintani
and Ellis (2010) investigated this kind of task. The learners were six-year-old
Japanese children with no prior knowledge of English. The input-based tasks
consisted of teacher commands that required the learners to identify objects on
picture cards and to take the cards to either a supermarket or a zoo, represented
by friezes on the classroom walls. The same tasks were repeated nine times over
a five-week period. The commands were designed to expose the learners inci-
dentally to plural -s. Although the tasks were input-based, they inevitably led to
interaction as the learners struggled to understand the teacher’s commands.
Results of tests that measured learners’ receptive and productive knowledge of
plural -s showed that the learners were all successful in acquiring receptive knowl-
edge of the form. The explanation for this phenomenon is that the tasks created
a functional need for them to process this feature (i.e., they could succeed in the
task only if they were able to distinguish singular and plural nouns in the teacher’s
commands). However, except for a few of the learners, they did not produce the
plural nouns while performing the tasks or demonstrate any ability to produce
plural nouns in the tests.
This study suggests that input-based tasks have their limitations and may be best
suited to teaching beginning-level learners or, perhaps, to introducing an entirely
208 Rod Ellis
new grammatical structure to more proficient learners. Input-based tasks can initi-
ate the process of acquiring a grammatical feature by creating a functional need
for learners to attend to it and by helping them to create a form-meaning map-
ping. However, such tasks are perhaps not likely to result in productive ability. To
develop productive ability, learners may need to engage in output-based tasks. Also,
input-based tasks may be effective only for introducing meaning-bearing features
such as plural -s. They cannot create a functional need for learners to attend to
redundant features such as copula be or third person -s.
Output-based tasks cater more fully to acquisition in several ways. Like
input-based tasks they can expose learners to exemplars of a grammatical fea-
ture. But they also provide opportunities for learners to produce the target
feature. When learners either avoid the use of the target feature or produce it
incorrectly, the teacher can use various strategies (e.g., corrective feedback) to
encourage them to produce it. In other words, the interactions that arise in the
performance of an output-based task create opportunities for the focus on form
deemed necessary for incidental acquisition. There is a now a rich literature
dealing with focused output-based tasks. For reasons of space, I will consider
only two studies here.
Doughty and Varela’s (1998) study took place in two science classes with 34
intermediate ESL students in a middle school in the United States. The task
involved preparing oral and written reports of simple science experiments, which
required the use of past tense verbs, the focus of the study. During the oral report-
ing phase of the study, the learners received corrective recasts whenever they pro-
duced an utterance with an error in the use of a past verb form. The corrective
recasts consisted of an initial prompt (in this case a repetition of the learner’s
erroneous utterance) followed by a recast if the learner failed to self-correct. Both
oral and written measures demonstrated significant and large gains from pretest to
the immediate posttest in the use of past tense verb forms. In contrast, there was
little evidence of any change in a control group, which did not receive the correc-
tive feedback. The gains in the experimental group were maintained in the oral
delayed posttest, but the effects of the feedback were less evident in the delayed
written test.
Samuda (2001) was concerned with how teachers can work with tasks “to
guide learners towards the types of language processing believed to support L2
development” (p. 120). She used a task designed to provide learners with com-
municative opportunities for using and learning epistemic modals (e.g., might
and must). Learners were first told the contents of a mystery person’s pocket and
asked to work in groups to speculate about the person’s possible identity. How-
ever, the students failed to use the target modal forms in this activity. She then
attempted to shift the students’ focus from meaning to form by interweaving the
target forms into the interaction mainly in recasts. However, the students still
failed to use the target structures. She then resorted to a brief direct explanation
of the target feature. At this point the students started to try to use the target
forms, and she corrected them when necessary. Samuda’s study was not experi-
mental, but she did provide some evidence to suggest that the task resulted in
acquisition of the target feature. In this lesson, the primary focus was on
meaning, but the teacher provided explicit information to guide students to the
use of the target feature in a way similar to Spada et al.’s (2014) integrated
instruction.
Discussion
There is now clear evidence that implicit instruction can result in the incidental
acquisition of grammar. However, the research points to a number of constraints
on its effectiveness. First, instruction is more likely to be effective if it targets
grammatical features that are meaning-bearing. There must be a functional need
to process the target feature, and this requirement is met in implicit instruction
only when the grammatical features contribute to meaning. Second, mere expo-
sure to the grammatical targets in input, even if these are meaning-bearing, has
limited effect. Instruction that draws learners’ attention to the targets (as in
focused tasks) is more likely to have an effect on the acquisition of grammar than
instruction that simply exposes them to the targets (as in text enhancement).
This effect is best achieved when the instruction involves ways of focusing on
form while learners are interacting. Third, an explicit focus on form may some-
times be needed. Fourth, implicit instruction that involves learners in producing
the target structures while they are engaged in a task may be needed to ensure
acquisition of productive knowledge. Input-based tasks can help learners along
the path of acquiring a completely new structure by developing receptive
knowledge.
Conclusion
Implicit instruction has been subjected to a number of critiques, in particular
from teacher educators who espouse the need for explicit instruction (e.g., Swan,
2005). This belief about the importance of explicit instruction raises the ques-
tion as to the relative effectiveness of explicit and implicit instruction. Is Swan
right in claiming that explicit instruction and the intentional learning it fosters
are more effective than implicit instruction and the incidental acquisition it
encourages?
One way to address this question is by a meta-analytic comparison of the two
broad types of instruction. Norris and Ortega (2000) reported a clear advantage
for explicit instruction in their meta-analysis of 29 studies involving implicit treat-
ments and 69 with explicit treatments. In fact, they considered this result the single
trustworthy finding regarding the effect of FFI. Spada and Tomita’s (2010) meta-
analysis also compared the effectiveness of the two types of instruction. They
reported that both types were effective for both simple and complex grammatical
210 Rod Ellis
features and that this fact was evident whether learning was measured in controlled
or free language production. In a narrative review of instructed L2 vocabulary
learning, Schmitt (2008) concluded:
Although research has demonstrated that valuable learning can accrue from
incidental exposure, intentional vocabulary learning (i.e., when the specific
goal is to learn vocabulary, usually with an explicit focus) almost always leads
to greater and faster gains, with a better chance of retention and of reaching
productive levels of mastery.
(p. 341)
Thus, it would seem that for both grammar and vocabulary explicit instruction is
superior.
However, it is not quite as simple as that. For a start, both explicit and implicit
instruction can take many different forms. As we have seen, not all forms of
explicit instruction are equally successful, especially when learning is measured in
free production. Also, little is currently known about the role that individual dif-
ference factors such as language aptitude and age play in the efficacy of the two
types of instruction. It would seem quite possible that learners vary in their ability
to benefit from implicit and explicit instruction. Analytically minded older learn-
ers may do better with explicit instruction, but functionally minded younger
learners may gain more from implicit instruction.
There is also a bigger issue. The general advantage for explicit instruction is
evident in studies where instruction was directed at learning specific grammatical
features. But there is more to learning a language than acquiring grammar. Learn-
ers need to also develop interactional competence (i.e., the ability to utilize their
linguistic resources in communicative routines). Thus, to establish the relative con-
tributions of explicit and implicit instruction, it is necessary to investigate not just
which type of instruction is superior in helping learners acquire isolated gram-
matical elements but also the relative effects of the two types of instruction on L2
development more generally and, in particular, on learners’ ability to engage con-
fidently and easily in the use of the L2 in domains that are important to them.
Arguably, implicit instruction, which adopts a more holistic view of L2 proficiency,
creates opportunities for experiencing language under real-life conditions and,
therefore, assists the development of not just grammatical features but also interac-
tional competence. In other words, implicit instruction may be better equipped to
foster L2 development overall.
However, there is no need for teachers to make a choice between explicit and
implicit forms of grammar instruction. Both are effective. A language curriculum
that includes both explicit and implicit instructional components, not necessarily
interlocked, is perhaps most likely to ensure that the instruction results in balanced
L2 development (see Ellis, 2002b).
References
Aljaafreh, A., & Lantolf, J. (1994). Negative feedback as regulation and second language
learning in the Zone of Proximal Development. Modern Language Journal, 78, 465–83.
DeKeyser, R. (1998). Beyond focus on form: Cognitive perspectives on learning and practicing
second language grammar. In C. Doughty & J. Williams (Eds.), Focus on form in classroom
second language acquisition (pp. 42–63). Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
DeKeyser, R. (2003). Implicit and explicit learning. In C. Doughty & M. Long (Eds.),
Handbook of second language acquisition (pp. 313–348). Malden, MA: Blackwell.
Doughty, C., & Varela, E. (1998). Communicative focus-on-form. In C. Doughty &
J. Williams (Eds.), Focus-on-form in classroom second language acquisition (pp. 114–138).
Eckerth, J. (2008). Task-based learner interaction: Investigating learning opportunities,
learning processes, and learning outcomes. In J. Eckerth (Ed.), Task-based language learn-
ing and teaching: Theoretical, methodological, and pedagogical perspectives (pp. 89–118). Frank-
furt am Main, Germany: Peter Lang.
Ellis, R. (1991). Grammar teaching—practice or consciousness-raising. In R. Ellis (Ed.),
Second language acquisition and second language pedagogy (pp. 232–241). Clevedon, UK:
Multilingual Matters.
Ellis, R. (1993). Second language acquisition and the structural syllabus. TESOL Quarterly,
27, 91–113.
Ellis, R. (1994). A theory of instructed second language acquisition. In N. Ellis (Ed.), Implicit
and explicit learning of languages (pp. 79–114). San Diego, CA: Academic Press.
Ellis, R. (2002a). Methodological options in grammar teaching materials. In E. Hinkel & S.
Fotos (Eds.), New perspectives on grammar teaching in second language classrooms (pp. 155–179).
Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
Ellis, R. (2002b). The place of grammar instruction in the second/foreign language curricu-
lum. In E. Hinkel & S. Fotos (Eds.), New perspectives on grammar teaching in second language
classrooms (pp. 17–34). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
Ellis, R. (2012). Language teaching research and language pedagogy . Malden, MA:
Wiley-Blackwell.
Fernández, C. (2008). Re-examining the role of explicit information in processing instruc-
tion. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 30, 277–305.
Fotos, S. (1993). Consciousness-raising and noticing through focus-on-form: Grammar task
performance vs. formal instruction. Applied Linguistics, 14, 385–407.
Gal’perin, P. (1989). Organization of mental activity and the effectiveness of learning. Soviet
Psychology, 27(3), 65–82.
Han, Z., Park, E., & Combs, C. (2008). Textual enhancement of input: Issues and possibili-
ties. Applied Linguistics, 19, 597–618.
Harley, B. (1989). Functional grammar in French immersion: A classroom experiment.
Applied Linguistics, 19, 331–359.
Housen, A., & Pierrard, M. (2005). Investigating instructed second language acquisition. In
A. Housen & M. Pierrard (Eds.), Investigations in instructed second language acquisition
(pp. 1–27). Berlin, Germany: Mouton de Gruyter.
Housen, A., Pierrard, M., & Vandaele, S. (2006). Structure complexity and the efficacy of
explicit grammar instruction. In A. Housen & M. Pierrard (Eds.), Investigations in
instructed second language acquisition (pp. 199–234). Berlin, Germany: Mouton de Gruyter.
212 Rod Ellis
Hulstijn, J. (2002). Towards a unified account of the representation, processing and acquisi-
tion of second language knowledge. Second Language Research, 18, 193–223.
Krashen, S. (1982). Principles and practice in second language acquisition. Oxford, UK: Pergamon.
Lantolf, J., & Thorne, S. (2006). Sociocultural theory and the genesis of second language develop-
ment. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Lee, S., & Huang, H. (2008). Visual input enhancement and grammar learning: A meta-
analytic review. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 30, 307–331.
Levin, L. (1972). Comparative studies in foreign-language teaching. Goteborg Studies in Educa-
tional Sciences 9. Stockholm, Sweden: Almqvist & Wiksell.
Lightbown, P. (1983). Exploring relationships between developmental and instructional
sequences in L2 acquisition. In H. Seliger & M. Long (Eds.), Classroom-oriented research
in second language acquisition (pp. 217–243). Rowley, MA: Newbury House.
Lightbown, P. (2008). Transfer appropriate processing as a model for classroom second
language acquisition. In Z. Han (Ed.), Understanding second language process (pp. 27–44).
Clevedon, UK: Multilingual Matters.
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 perspec-
tive (pp. 39–52). Amsterdam, the Netherlands: John Benjamins.
Marsden, E. (2006). Exploring input processing in the classroom: An experimental com-
parison of processing instruction and enriched input. Language Learning, 56, 507–566.
Neguerela, E., & Lantolf, J. (2006). Concept-based instruction and the acquisition of L2
Spanish. In R. Salaberry & B. Lafford (Eds.), The art of teaching Spanish: Second language
acquisition from research to praxis (pp. 79–102). Washington, DC: Georgetown Univer-
sity Press.
Paradis, M. (2009). Declarative and procedural determinants of second languages. Amsterdam, the
Netherlands: John Benjamins.
Robinson, P. (1996). Learning simple and complex rules under implicit, incidental rule-search
conditions, and instructed conditions. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 18, 27–67.
Samuda, V. (2001). Guiding relationships between form and meaning during task perfor-
mance: The role of the teacher. In M. Bygate, P. Skehan, & M. Swain (Eds.), Researching
pedagogic tasks: Second language learning, teaching and testing (pp. 119–140). Harlow, UK:
Longman.
Schmitt, N. (2008). Review article: Instructed second language vocabulary learning. Lan-
guage Teaching Research, 12(3), 329–363.
Scrivener, J. (2005). Learning teaching: A guidebook for English language teachers. Oxford, UK:
MacMillan Education.
Sheen, Y., & Ellis, R. (2011). Corrective feedback in language teaching. In E. Hinkel (Ed.),
Handbook of research in second language teaching and learning (Vol. 2, pp. 593–610). New
York, NY: Routledge.
Shintani, N. (2015). The effectiveness of processing instruction and production-based
instruction on L2 grammar acquisition: A meta-analysis. Applied Linguistics, advance
access published November 27, 2014, doi:10.1093/applin/amu067
Shintani, N., & Ellis, R. (2010). The incidental acquisition of English plural -s by Japanese
children in comprehension-based lessons: A process-product study. Studies in Second
Language Acquisition, 32, 607–637.
Shintani, N., Li, S., & Ellis, R. (2013). Comprehension-based versus production-based
instruction: A meta-analysis of comparative studies. Language Learning, 63, 296–329.
Shook, D. (1999). What foreign language reading recalls reveal about the input-to-intake
phenomenon. Applied Language Learning, 10, 39–76.
Spada, N., Jessop, L., Tomita, Y., Suzuki, W., & Valeo, A. (2014). Isolated and Integrated
form-focused instruction: Effects on different types of L2 knowledge. Language Teaching
Research, 18(4), 453–473.
Spada, N., & Tomita, Y. (2010). Interactions between type of instruction and type of lan-
guage feature: A meta-analysis. Language Learning, 60, 263–308.
Swan, M. (2005). Legislation by hypothesis: The case of task-based instruction. Applied
Linguistics, 26(3), 376–401.
Tomasello, M., & Herron, C. (1988). Down the garden path: Inducing and correcting over-
generalization errors in the foreign language classroom. Applied Psycholinguistics,
9, 237–246.
Toth, P. (2006). Processing instruction and a role for output in second language acquisition.
Language Learning, 56, 319–385.
Trahey, M., & White, L. (1993). Positive evidence and preemption in the second language
classroom. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 5, 181–204.
Ur, P. (1996). A course in language teaching: Practice and theory. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge
University Press.
VanPatten, B. (1996). Input processing and grammar instruction in second language acquisition.
Norwood, NJ: Ablex.
VanPatten, B. (2007). Input processing in adult second language acquisition. In B. VanPatten &
J. Williams (Eds.), Theories in second language acquisition: An introduction (pp. 115–136). Mah-
wah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
VanPatten, B., & Cadierno, T. (1993). SLA as input processing: A role for instruction. Studies
in Second Language Acquisition, 15, 225–243.
VanPatten, B., & Oikennon, S. (1996). Explanation vs. structured input in processing
instruction. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 18, 495–510.
Vygotsky, L. (1978). Mind in society: The development of higher psychological processes. Cam-
bridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
EPILOGUE
Kathleen M. Bailey
I am pleased to write the epilogue for this volume. It is a particular honor because
at the time of this writing, I serve as the volunteer President and Chair of the Board
of Trustees of TIRF—The International Research Foundation for English Lan-
guage Education. The foundation benefited greatly from the support of Betty
Azar, to whom this book is dedicated. Her contributions to TIRF supported many
of the studies published in this volume, and her commitment to the effective
teaching of English grammar is well known internationally.
The role of an epilogue is to provide some closure to a book like this one and
to suggest future directions for research. In attempting these tasks, I will first discuss
what I see as major cross-cutting themes in the studies presented here. I will then
consider some issues that merit further attention in my opinion.
Cross-Cutting Themes
Many of these chapters refer to the changing view of grammar in language teach-
ing. Celce-Murcia’s overview (Chapter 1) provides readers with a broad historical
perspective, but other authors also deal with this theme. In Chapter 3, Hondo
reviews the shifting role of grammar with the advent of communicative language
teaching. Spada and Lima, in Chapter 11, discuss the importance of grammar and
the different ways in which it has been viewed in the grammar-translation
approach, the Audiolingual Method, and communicative language teaching. In
Chapter 7, Liu and Jiang discuss the broadening view of grammar—from one that
focused primarily on morphology and syntax to discourse-based and lexicogram-
matical issues—a topic also addressed by McCarthy in Chapter 6 and Folse in
Chapter 8. The history discussion by Folse leads us naturally to potential uses of
corpora for examining the connection of grammar and vocabulary.
216 Kathleen M. Bailey
Another issue that arises in these chapters is second language (L2) learners’ use
of the target language, including grammar, outside the classroom. In Chapter 6,
McCarthy points out that teachers should “present a syllabus that . . . exposes
students to language [including lexicogrammatical features] that they will use in
both spoken and written English in the real world outside of the classroom.” In
Chapter 8, Folse addresses two research questions about grammar that are firmly
grounded in real-world uses of language—the most common verbs used in the
present progressive tense and the regular past tense. It is clear that authors in this
volume are concerned not about grammar for grammar’s sake but about helping
teachers and learners understand grammar to be able to teach it and use it
effectively.
The connection between grammar and corrective feedback to language learn-
ers also arises in several chapters. For instance, in her historical overview of gram-
mar teaching in the first chapter, Celce-Murcia reminds us that with the
Audiolingual Method teachers tried to “ensure [grammatical] accuracy and pre-
vent learner errors.” In Chapter 2, Valeo notes that teachers can provide feedback
on grammar “either implicitly by rephrasing an incorrect phrase from the learner
or explicitly by pointing out that the learner has made a mistake and explaining
why.” In Valeo’s research, students in the form-focused group received feedback as
the teacher explicitly noted their errors. Hondo (Chapter 3), on the other hand,
describes an explicit but delayed approach to corrective feedback that “could
potentially avoid overtly calling attention to learner errors.” As a language teacher
and teacher educator, I found much food for thought in the findings of these stud-
ies, since error treatment has been a focus of classroom research since the mid-
1970s (see, e.g., Allwright, 1975; Fanselow, 1977).
The importance of the teaching and learning context arises repeatedly when it
comes to the teaching of grammar. For example, McCarthy (Chapter 6) asks, “Are
the learners’ aims and needs mainly oriented toward academic, professional, or
vocational writing in formal contexts?” If so, lessons for them would cover differ-
ent grammar points than would those lessons for learners whose needs are primar-
ily for informal language use. Context is an explicitly stated element of the first
research question addressed by Liu and Jiang in Chapter 7. These authors provide
examples from math and science lessons. They found that students in an ESL
context were significantly more positive about the benefits of using corpora than
were students in an EFL context.
We should note, however, that context can be interpreted either broadly (as in
EFL vs. ESL contexts) or more narrowly. For instance, in Chapter 10, the EFL and
ESL teachers surveyed by Burns and Borg saw context as being either textual or
communicative—that is, residing in the written text of a certain reading or in a
given lesson activity. The context discussed in Chapter 9 by Duff, Ferreira, and
Zappa-Hollman is that of content-based curricula as opposed to strictly language-
based curricula. The context explored in Tomita’s case study (Chapter 4) was that
of small group interaction among Japanese learners of English. That interaction
Epilogue 217
took place in activities that were considered to be either form-focused or mean-

ing-focused. These gradations in our understanding of context are important to
incorporate in future studies.
The timing and sequence of grammar instruction are other issues that arise in
several chapters. As Ellis notes in Chapter 12, traditionally grammar was taught
first in the lesson plan and isolated from the practice activities that typically fol-
lowed. This presentation-practice-production (PPP) sequence is an approach that
has often been recommended to teachers. However, there are different ways of
thinking about the timing of grammar teaching within the instructional sequence.
In Chapter 11, Spada and Lima state that “while extensive research has been done
to investigate the type of grammatical instruction, little research has investigated
questions about the timing of grammatical instruction even though the importance
of doing so has been raised in the literature.” These authors examined teachers’ and
learners’ opinions about the timing of grammar teaching within the instructional
sequence. Valeo’s study investigated the integration of grammar in content-based
language teaching (Chapter 2), and Burns and Borg explored teachers’ views on
integrating grammar in communicative language instruction. Another perspective
on timing is Park’s study investigating the availability of time for planning versus
no planning time before a task-based interactive activity (Chapter 5).
I was pleased to see the international nature of the data in these explorations of
the role of grammar in second and foreign language teaching. In the ESL contexts
investigated herein, there was substantial diversity in the learners’ first languages
(L1s). For instance, the learners in Valeo’s study (Chapter 2) represented 18 differ-
ent L1 backgrounds. Three chapters are based on data collected from learners in
both ESL and EFL contexts. Liu and Jiang (Chapter 7) gathered data from univer-
sity students in China and the United States. Burns and Borg (Chapter 10) sur-
veyed teachers (in roughly equal numbers) from Australia and New Zealand,
Europe, and Asia. Spada and Lima (Chapter 11) collected data from learners in
Canada and Brazil. Other authors dealt with learners in Korea (Chapter 5 by Park)
and Japan (Chapter 3 by Hondo and Chapter 4 by Tomita). The original call for
proposals in TIRF’s Priority Research grants program solicited investigations that
would involve partnerships between researchers in institutions in more than one
country, ideally involving at least one partner in a non-English-dominant country,
and those partnerships are reflected in some of the chapters here.
TIRF has also encouraged methodological diversity, which is another charac-
teristic of these chapters that struck me as valuable. There are three primarily
quantitative studies: (1) Valeo’s investigation of the effects of explicit grammatical
instruction on both content learning and language learning (Chapter 2), (2) Hon-
do’s study of the timing of form-focused instruction (Chapter 3), and (3) Park’s
study about the effects of planning and pretask instructions (Chapter 5). Tomita’s
research used the detailed transcription conventions of conversational analysis. Still
other chapters combined quantitative and qualitative analyses (Chapter 7 by Liu
and Jiang and Chapter 11 by Spada and Lima). Three chapters are largely literature
reviews rather than empirical studies: Celce-Murcia’s historical overview of gram-

mar instruction (Chapter 1), the discussion of functional grammar by Duff and her
colleagues (Chapter 9), and the chapter by Ellis about six different approaches to
teaching grammar (Chapter 12).
Remaining Issues
It is noteworthy that all of the chapters based on data collected from language
learners involved post-secondary students or other adult learners. Data from young
children and secondary school students are not featured in this volume. Perhaps
this focus on adult learners is because instruction in the earlier years does not usu-
ally focus on grammar. It may also be due to the fact that TIRF had a different
research priority that solicited proposals about age as a factor in language learning,
to which researchers investigating child language acquisition could submit their
work. As Ellis points out in his discussion of concept-based instruction in Chapter 12,
“It is not clear how suitable this type of instruction is for other kinds of learners
(e.g., young beginner learners or non-academic adult learners with low language
analytical abilities).” Some readers may raise this question with regard to these stud-
ies: are the results generalizable to language learners of different ages? However,
returning to the importance of context, the procedures investigated in these chap-
ters are designed for specific target audiences, and most are not intended to be used
with young children.
Another issue that is not addressed at any length in this volume is learning style.
This topic has received a fair amount of attention from researchers in the past.
(See, for example, studies by Cohen, 2003, and Oxford, 2003.) In the discussion of
her findings, Park notes that “learner variables such as . . . learning style might
have also made it difficult to measure planning effects” (Chapter 5). Her comment
made me wonder whether learners with particular learning styles or varying apti-
tudes for language learning benefit more from explicit grammar teaching than
implicit teaching, or from more deductive than inductive approaches.
The possible influence of these studies on teaching is another interesting issue.
One concern is how best to share the findings with teachers. I am not advocating
a return to what Wallace (1991) referred to as the applied science model, a transmission-
based approach to teacher education in which “the fi ndings of scientifi c
knowledge and experimentation are conveyed to the [teacher] trainee by those
who are experts in the relevant areas” (p. 9). Rather, I hope that teachers and pre-
service teachers reading this book will find ideas that are applicable to their own
current or future teaching situations. For example, the studies in this volume pres-
ent a variety of instructional choices for teachers. Should instruction be deductive
or inductive? Implicit or explicit? Of the six types of instruction discussed by Ellis
in Chapter 12, which ones are appropriate for various types of learners? In plan-
ning their lessons, syllabi, and curricula, teachers must consider at least the needs,
Epilogue 219
ages, proficiency levels, purposes, and contexts (e.g., second vs. foreign language
environments) of their own students.
Materials development is another practical concern. Four chapters—those by
Celce-Murcia, McCarthy, Folse, and Duff et al.—address this issue directly. Text-
books, workbooks, and web-based materials, usually (but not always) delivered
with support from tutors or teachers, are the main conduits by which learners can
access information about grammar. I hope that the findings of these studies will
be effectively used in materials development and lesson planning.
Concluding Observations
In terms of TIRF’s main goals, a key purpose of this research publication is to dis-
seminate research. (See the Preface to this volume for an overview of TIRF’s goals.)
However, by co-publishing this volume of research with Routledge/Taylor &
Francis, TIRF is able to further influence future directions in the field by stimulat-
ing new research and influencing classroom practice. Each chapter in this book
suggests further avenues of inquiry, and, in addition, most of the authors also offer
practical, pedagogical implications for their research—implications that are rele-
vant for teachers, curriculum designers, and materials developers.
As a resource for those who may be interested in conducting original research
or in reading other studies that have been done on the issues addressed in this book,
TIRF maintains a collection of reference lists on issues of current importance in
language learning, language teaching, and applied linguistics. These lists are stored
as free, downloadable Word documents that can be accessed at http://www.tir
fonline.org /resources/references. Several reference lists are available on topics
related to the issues covered in this volume, including the role of age in language
learning, corrective feedback in L2 writing and speech, form-focused instruction,
and language awareness, as well as grammar and grammar instruction. There are
also reference lists on relevant research methods: case studies, conversational analy-
sis, discourse analysis, questionnaires and surveys, and corpora in language learning
and teaching.
It is my hope that this volume will honor Betty Azar as well as stimulate further
research and inform teachers who work with grammar issues. These studies offer
a great deal of solid information that may provide guidance for teachers, teacher
educators, researchers, and policy makers. However, many questions of both theo-
retical and practical importance remain, suggesting topics for future research.
References
Allwright, R. L. (1975). Problems in the study of the language teacher’s treatment of learn-
ing error. In M. K. Burt & H. C. Dulay (Eds.), On TESOL ’75: New directions in second
language learning, teaching and bilingual education (pp. 96–109). Washington, DC: TESOL.
Cohen, A. (2003). The learners’ sides of foreign language learning: Where do styles, strate-
gies, and tasks meet? International Review of Applied Linguistics in Language Teaching, 41(4),
279–292.
Fanselow, J. (1977). The treatment of learner error in oral work. Foreign Language Annals,
10(5), 583–593.
Oxford, R. (2003). Language learning styles and strategies. Concepts and relationships.
International Review of Applied Linguistics in Language Teaching, 41(4), 271–278.
Wallace, M. J. (1991). Training foreign language teachers: A reflective approach. Cambridge, UK:
ABOUT THE CONTRIBUTORS
Kathleen M. Bailey is a professor of applied linguistics in the Master of Arts in

the TESOL-TFL Program at the Monterey Institute of International Studies and
President of The International Research Foundation for English Language Edu-
cation (TIRF).
Simon Borg is a visiting professor at the University of Leeds in the School of Educa-
tion. He has been involved in TESOL for over 25 years, working as a teacher educator,
lecturer, researcher, and consultant. His key research interest in TESOL is in language
teacher cognition, the study of what teachers know, think, believe, and do.
Anne Burns is a professor of TESOL at the University of New South Wales, Sydney,
and a professor emerita in language education at Aston University, Birmingham. She
is also an honorary professor at the University of Sydney. Her interests are in action
research in language education, language teacher beliefs and cognition, and applica-
tions of genre theory to language teaching.
Marianne Celce-Murcia is a professor emerita of applied linguistics at the University

of California, Los Angeles, where she trained ESL teachers and mentored MA and
PhD students in applied linguistics for 30 years. Her areas of interest include language
pedagogy, English grammar and discourse analysis, and teaching of American English
pronunciation.
Donna Christian is a senior fellow with the Center for Applied Linguistics in Wash-
ington, DC. Her interests focus on language diversity in education, particularly dual
language education, second language teaching, and policy. She is an associate editor of
the journal Language for Language and Public Policy articles and serves on the Board
222 About the Contributors
of Trustees of The International Research Foundation for English Language Educa-

tion (TIRF).
MaryAnn Christison is a professor in the Department of Linguistics and the Urban

Institute for Teacher Education at the University of Utah in Salt Lake City, Utah,
where she teaches courses at both the graduate and undergraduate levels. She is a
co-author of three volumes in the series What English Language Teachers Need to Know
and serves on the Board of Trustees of The International Research Foundation for
English Language Education (TIRF).
Joanne Dresner taught and directed programs in English language teaching in Spain
and the United States before joining Pearson as an editor in 1980. She led Pearson’s
global American English business for over 30 years. Joanne earned a BA and MA
from the University of Michigan.
Patricia A. Duff is a professor of language and literacy education at the University of

British Columbia and co-director of the Centre for Research in Chinese Language
and Literacy Education. Her scholarly interests include language socialization across
bilingual and multilingual settings and issues in the teaching and learning of languages.
She is a past trustee of The International Research Foundation for English Language
Education (TIRF).
Rod Ellis is a professor in the Department of Applied Language Studies and Linguis-
tics, University of Auckland; a professor at Anaheim University; and a visiting profes-
sor at Shanghai International Studies University. His published work focuses on
second language acquisition, language teaching, and teacher education. He has also
published several English language textbooks.
Alfredo A. Ferreira is a PhD candidate in the Language and Literacy Education

Department at the University of British Columbia. His dissertation research examines
the multifunctional role of nominalization in the second language writing of graduate
students.
Keith S. Folse is a professor of TESOL at the University of Central Florida, where he

teaches in the undergraduate, graduate, and PhD programs. He is the author of
60 textbooks, including Keys to Teaching Grammar to English Language Learners (Uni-
versity of Michigan, 2009) and Great Writing (National Geographic, 2014).
Junko Hondo pursued her education on three continents: in Japan, in the United
States, and in the United Kingdom, where she completed her PhD in linguistics at
Lancaster University. She is a lecturer in educational linguistics at the Graduate School
of Education, University of Pennsylvania. Her interests include cognitive processes in
About the Contributors 223
second language acquisition, bilingualism, multilingualism, task-based language teach-

ing, online language education, and modalities and multimodality.
Ping Jiang is Professor and Chair of the English Department at Nanchang University
in Jiangxi, China. She received her PhD in linguistics from Shanghai International
Studies University. Her research and publications focus on contrastive linguistics, zero
anaphora resolution, translation, and foreign language acquisition and teaching. She
has authored many publications on these issues, including books and journal articles.
Marília dos Santos Lima is a professor in the Applied Linguistics Program at Uni-
versidade do Vale do Rio dos Sinos, Brazil, where she teaches courses in foreign lan-
guage acquisition, grammar teaching, and materials development. Her research focuses
on foreign language teacher education.
Dilin Liu is a professor and the coordinator of applied linguistics/TESOL in the

English Department at the University of Alabama. He received his PhD in English
from Oklahoma State University. His main research interests include the learning/
teaching of lexis and grammar, especially corpus-based descriptions and learning/
teaching of lexicogrammar. He has published widely on the topic, including books
and many articles in international journals.
Michael J. McCarthy is a professor emeritus of applied linguistics at the University of

Nottingham, United Kingdom. He is the author of many titles of interest to teachers,
including Spoken Language and Applied Linguistics, and is well known as an expert on
the teaching and learning of vocabulary. He is co-author of two corpus-informed
publications, Touchstone and Cambridge Grammar of English.
Sujung Park is an assistant professor in the Department of English at Hanyang Cyber

University in Seoul, Korea, where she teaches courses online in practical English and
TESOL. Her current research interests include second language (L2) writing and the
effects of corrective feedback on L2 learning.
Nina Spada is a professor in the Language and Literacies Education Program at the
Ontario Institute for Studies in Education (OISE), University of Toronto, where she
teaches courses in second language (L2) acquisition, research methods, and the role of
instruction in L2 learning. Her classroom research focuses on the effects of different
types of instruction on L2 learning.
Yasuyo Tomita is teaching Japanese as a sessional lecturer at the Department of East

Asian Studies at the University of Toronto. She received a PhD from OISE/University
of Toronto. Her research interests include form-focused instruction, second language
acquisition, classroom research, and learner investment.
224 About the Contributors
Antonella Valeo is an assistant professor at York University in Toronto, where she

teaches ESL and applied linguistics to undergraduate and graduate students. Her
research examines issues related to second language acquisition, including focus on
form and the teaching of language for specific purposes, as well as language teacher
development.
Sandra Zappa-Hollman is an assistant professor of TESL (in the Department of

Language and Literacy Education) and Academic English Program Director at Van-
tage College at the University of British Columbia, a new credit-bearing program
integrating language and content instruction for international undergraduate stu-
dents. She has also worked as TESL/modern languages teacher trainer for many years.
AUTHOR INDEX
Achugar, M. 150, 152 Brinton, D. M. 21

Akcan, S. 181 Brisk, M. E. 143, 152
Alexopoulou, T. 99 Brumfit, C. J. 34, 45
Aljaafreh, A. 144, 204 Burger, S. 22, 29
Allwright, R. L. 34, 216 Burgess, J. 160, 180
Alvarez Torres, M. J. 36 Burns, A. 159–76, 176n, 180
Anderson, M. 178 Buttery, P. 89
Andrews, S. 160, 171, 172 Byrd, P. 141
Arteagoitia, I. 22 Byrnes, H. 140, 141, 142, 150
Ascher, A. 89, 93
Asher, J. 6 Cacoullos, R. 131
Aston, G. 104 Cadierno, T. 200
Atkinson, D. 35 Caines, A. 89
Azar, B. S. 14, 87, 93, 95, 97, 120, 124, 132 Cameron, L. 35
Canale, M. 8, 12
Babbie, E. 161 Candlin, C. N. 34
Bailey, K. M. 215–19 Capel, A. 88
Barkaoui, K. 180 Carter, R. A. 88, 92, 131
Basturkmen, H. 68, 71, 79, 80 Celce-Murcia, M. 3–15, 35, 38, 45, 103,
Batstone, R. 23, 80 144, 159
Bayyurt, Y. 181 Charleson, K. 148
Beretta, A. 34 Chien, F. 114
Berglund, Y. 131 Chomsky, N. 6, 7
Biber, D. 10, 11, 99, 104, 131, 142 Chretien, M. 22
Blair, R. J. 53 Christie, F. 11, 140, 141, 145
Bley-Vroman, R. 46 Clarke, D. 90
Bloomfield, L. 6 Cobb, T. 121
Bloor, M. 142, 153 Coffin, C. 140, 143, 153
Bloor, T. 142, 153 Cohen, A. D. 12, 218
Borg, S. 159–76, 176n, 180 Collentine, J. 23
Bourdieu, P. 52 Combs, C. 206
Breen, M. P. 34 Comenius, J. A. 4
226 Author Index
Conrad, S. 10, 103, 104, 119, 132, 142 Fortune, A. 75

Courchêne, R. 22, 29 Foster, P. 22, 67, 68, 69, 70, 72, 73, 80,
Cox, B. 152 81, 82n1
Coxhead, A. 123, 126, 129 Fotos, S. 9, 45, 103, 141, 202
Crandall, J. 21 Francis, G. 104
Crookes, G. 67, 68, 69, 70 Freed, B. F. 23
Cummins, J. 21, 64 Fridman, B. 22
Frodesen, J. M. 13, 14
Dalton-Puffer, C. 28 Frota, S. 71, 81
Danielo, F. 143
Dare, B. 150 Gal’perin, P. 198
Davies, A. 34 Gardner, D. 124
Davies, M. 10, 90, 100n1, 124 Gass, S. 36
Davison, C. 142 Gebhard, M. 142, 151
de Oliveira, L. 142 Genesee, F. 21, 22, 29
De Rosa, M. 153 Gibbons, P. 141, 152
De Silva, J. 143 Gonzalez, M. 131
DeKeyser, R. M. 196 Gopher, D. 35
Derewianka, B. 11, 140, 141, 143, 145, Grabe, W. 28
150–55 Grace, E. 148
Descartes, R. 4 Gray, B. 99, 142
Doherty, J. 29 Greer, D. L. 51
Donohue, J. P. 143, 153 Grim, F. 22
Dörnyei, Z. 161 Gui, S. 123
dos Santos Lima, M. 178–91
Doughty, C. 9, 22, 28, 52, 159, 172, 180, Hagen, S. A. 14, 87, 93, 95, 97
208 Halliday, M. A. K. 7, 11, 12, 99, 103, 141,
Droga, L. 143 142, 145, 148
Duff, P. A. 7, 45, 55, 139–53 Han, Z. 23, 206
Hancioglu, N. 122, 123
Eckerth, J. 202 Harley, B. 197
Egeth, H. E. 36 Harris, B. 131
Eisenstein-Ebsworth, M. 160, 171, 172 Hasan, R. 12, 103, 142
Eldridge, J. 122, 123 Heaton, J. 72
Elgun-Gunduz, Z. 181 Herron, C. 203
Ellis, N. C. 28, 36, 39, 124 Hillocks, G. Jr. 150
Ellis, R. 9, 22, 23, 45, 52, 68, 69, 70–3, Hinkel, E. 95, 97, 103, 141
79, 80, 81, 90, 103, 142, 159, 172, 180, Holten, C. 13, 14
194–210 Hondo, J. 34–46
Enright, K. A. 150 Horwitz, E. K. 180
Etherington, S. 160, 180 Housen, A. 195, 197, 205
Howatt, A. P. R. 6, 35, 47, 178, 179
Fang, Z. 152 Huang, H. 206
Fanselow, J. 216 Hudson, R. 150
Farley, A. P. 36 Hughes, R. 103
Feez, S. 143 Hulstijn, J. 67, 196
Fernández, C. 200 Hulstijn, W. 67
Ferreira, A. A. 139–53 Humphrey, S. 143
Finegan, E. 10, 104 Hunston, S. 104
Firth, A. 23 Hyland, K. 141, 142
Firth, J. R. 7 Hymes, D. 7, 178
Flowerdew, J. 104
Folse, K. S. 119–32 James, C. 34
Fontaine, L. 142, 153 Jensen, L. 14
Author Index 227
Jessop, L. 179, 198 Macken-Horarik, M. 151, 152

Jiang, P. 103–15, 119, 122 Mackey, A. 52
Jimenez, J. 151 Mangels, J. A. 36
Johansson, S. 10, 104 Manning, E. 104
Johns, A. M. 13 Marasco, J. 13
Johns, T. 104 Mark, G. 92
Johnson, K. 34, 45 Marsden, E. 203
Jones, P. 140, 143, 150, 152 Martin, J. 148, 151
Martin, J. R. 141, 142, 143, 148
Kachru, B. B. 11 Martinez, R. 124
Kanno, Y. 51, 53 Mason, A. 147, 148
Kasper, L. F. 21 Master, P. 103
Kaufman, D. 21 Matsumura, M. 51
Kellerman, E. 68 Matthiessen, C. M. I. M. 11, 142, 144, 148
Kelly, L. G. 3, 4 Maxim, H. H. 140
Kibler, A. 151 Maynard, C. 124
Klee, C. A. 22 McCarten, J. 92, 98, 99
Knapp, P. 141 McCarthy, M. J. 11, 12, 87–99, 103, 131
Krashen, S. D. 6, 9, 28, 120, 179, 199, 205 McKay, S. L. 13
Krueger, M. 21 McLaughlin, B. 68
Kuo, C. 114 McPhee, S. 146
Kusano Hubbell, K. 51 Meara, P. 87, 121
Kwon, E. Y. 87 Mehnert, U. 67, 68, 69, 70
Mendis, D. 124
LaBerge, D. 36 Met, M. 22, 29
Labov, W. 98 Milton, J. 88, 89
Lambert, W. E. 12 Min, Y.-K. 122
Lantolf, J. P. 9, 29, 35, 144, 196, 198, 204 Mitchell, R. 159
Lapkin, S. 71, 72, 75 Mochizuki, N. 45
Larimer, R. 10 Mohan, B. 142, 152
Larsen-Freeman, D. 7, 8, 12, 13, 35, 38, Moore, N. 144
45–8, 103, 104, 141, 144, 178 Morrow, K. 34
Leaver, B. L. 21, 121 Munby, J. 178
Lee, S. 206 Musumeci, D. 22
Leech, G. 10, 104 Myhill, D. 150
Leeman, J. 22
Leeser, M. 71, 79, 80, 82n2 Nassaji, H. 45
Leow, R. P. 36 Neguerela, E. 198
Leung, C. 142 Neisser, U. 6
Levin, L. 201 Neufeld, S. 122, 123
Lewis, M. 122 Nicholas, H. 22
Li, S. 199 Nobre, A. C. 35
Liang, M. 123 Norris, J. M. 22, 35, 50, 140, 209
Lightbown, P. M. 22, 52, 68, 141, 179, 180, North, S. 153
181, 196, 198, 201 Norton Peirce, B. 50, 52
Little, D. 159 Norton, B. 51, 52, 53
Liu, D. 103–15, 119, 122, 124 Nunan, D. 13
Liu, X. 99
Llurda, E. 115 O’Hallaron, C. 11
Loewen, S. 68, 71, 79, 180 O’Keeffe, A. 11, 12, 88, 91, 92
Long, M. H. 45, 46, 52, 71, 73, 81, 205 Oikennon, S. 200
Loschky, L. 46 Olshtain, E. 12, 103, 159
Love, K. 143, 151 Ortega, L. 22, 35, 45, 50, 67–70, 80,
Lyster, R. 22, 28 81, 209
228 Author Index
Oteíza, T. 150 Shintani, N. 199, 200, 207

Oxford, R. 218 Shook, D. 206
Simpson, R. 124
Palmer, H. E. 34 Simpson-Vlach, R. 124
Paradis, M. 196, 202 Sinclair, J. M. 88, 103, 104, 119
Paribakht, T. 22, 29 Skehan, P. 9, 21, 22, 35, 67–70, 72, 73, 80,
Park, E. 206 81, 82n1
Park, S. 67–81 Skinner, B. F. 6
Patton, M. Q. 162 Slater, T. 152
Pavlenko, A. 53 Smith, V. 144
Peters, C. 180 Snow, M. A. 12, 21, 22, 29
Pica, T. 22, 79 So, M. 180
Piedra, A. 151 Sokolik, M. 14
Pienemann, M. 46 Songhori, M. H. 180
Pierrard, M. 195, 197, 205 Spada, N. 22 46, 50, 52, 53, 141, 178–93,
Ploetz, K. 5 198, 209
Poehner, M. E. 29 Spolsky, B. 51
Polio, C. 22 Stern, E. 36
Porter, D. 34 Stevens, V. 104
Postovsky, V. A. 6 Stoller, F. L. 21, 28
Prabhu, N. S. 34, 35, 45 Stryker, S. B. 21
Prator, C. H. 5, 6 Suzuki, W. 179, 198
Price, D. 13 Swain, M. 7, 8, 12, 22, 67, 71, 72, 73, 75,
80, 81
Ranta, L. 22 Swan, M. 209
Raymond, P. 22, 29 Szmrecsanyi, B. 131
Ready, D. 23
Reilly, N. 131 Tajima, M. 68, 69, 70
Repath-Martos, L. 14 Takahashi, T. 51
Reppen, R. 104, 131, 142 Tedick, D. J. 22
Richards, J. C. 35, 89, 93 Ten Have, P. 56, 61, 65
Ricoeur, P. 72 Terrell, T. D. 6, 120
Robinson, P. 22, 46, 81, 206 Thorne, S. L. 9, 196
Römer, U. 119 Thorp, D. 75
Rose, D. 141, 142, 143, 148 Tomasello, M. 203
Ryan, F. 21 Tomita, Y. 50–64, 179, 198, 209
Ryan, S. 63 Torlakson, T. 151
Toth, P. D. 22, 203
Salamoura, A. 99 Trahey, M. 207
Samuda, V. 35, 208 Truscott, J. 120
Sandiford, H. 92, 98, 99 Tucker, G. R. 12
Sandy, C. 89, 93 Turgut, G. 143
Sangarun, J. 67, 70
Saslow, J. 89, 93 Unsworth, L. 141, 142, 151
Schiffrin, D. 97 Ur, P. 196
Schleicher, L. 10
Schleppegrell, M. J. 11, 14, 142, 144, 145, Valdés, G. 151
147, 149, 150, 152, 153 Valeo, A. 21–30, 179, 180, 182, 183,
Schmidt, R. W. 9, 21, 36, 71, 81, 204 188, 189, 191, 198
Schmitt, N. 124, 210 Vandaele, S. 197
Schulz, R. A. 160, 171, 180 VanPatten, B. 22, 71, 79, 80, 196,
Schweers, C. W. 160, 171, 172 199, 200
Scrivener, J. 196 Varela, E. 52, 208
Sheen, Y. 23, 203 Vygotsky, L. 9, 10, 204
Author Index 229
Wagner, J. 23 Wilkins, D. A. 7, 12, 34, 121

Walker, J. 131 Willett, J. 151
Wallace, M. J. 218 Williams, G. 150
Walqui, A. 151 Williams, J. 9, 22, 67, 68, 71, 73, 75, 79,
Walsh, S. 90 159, 172, 180
Wang, C. C. 114 Winitz, H. 6
Wang, L. 123
Waring, R. 87 Yang, H. 123
Watkins, M. 141 Yannakoudakis, H. 99
Wei, N. 123 Yantis, S. 36
Wen, Q. 123 Yoshimura, F. 71, 79
Wendel, J. 67, 68, 69, 70, 72 Young, R. F. 55
Wesche, M. B. 21, 23 Yuan, F. 69
White, J. 52
White, L. 207 Zappa-Hollman, S. 139–53
Wible, D. 114 Zisselsberger, M. 152
Widdowson, H. G. 34 46, 179 Zwiers, J. 153
Wigglesworth, G. 70 Zyzik, E. 22
SUBJECT INDEX
abstractions 145 Chinese-Speaking Learners of English

academic formulaic sequences 124 Corpus 123
academic language 11 Chomsky, Noam 6–7
academic literacy 148; see also English for Chungdahm English Learner Corpus 123,
academic purposes (EAP) 148 133
academic success, and grammatical Classroom Discourses and Teaching
complexity 99 English Language Learners 152
Academic Word List (AWL) 123–4, 126–7, COBUILD Bank of English 123, 33
129, 133 COCA see Corpus of Contemporary
American Council on the Teaching of American English (COCA)
Foreign Languages (ACTFL) proficiency cognitive neuroscience 36
guidelines 37 cognitive psychology 6
animator, speaker as 55, 57–9, 63 Cohesion in English (Halliday & Hasan) 12
ANOVA (repeated measures analysis of Colling Birmingham University
variance) 26–8, 73, 76, 112 International Language Database
anthropology, linguistic 7 (COBUILD) 123, 133
attention: preparatory 36; voluntary control collocations 119, 121, 122, 124, 132
of 35–6 Comenius, Jan Amos 4
attentional processing 44–5 Common Core State Standards (CCSS)
Audiolingual Method 6–7, 178, 201 for English Language Arts and
Australia, English language education in Literacy 151
151–2 Common European Framework of
Australian Curriculum: English 151 Reference (CEFR) 88
authentic materials 8, 10–11 Communicational Teaching Project 34
author, speaker as 55, 57 communicative ability 168–9; see also
Azar, Betty 14, 120, 215, 219 communicative competence
Communicative Approach see
British National Corpus (BNC) 90, 92, 94, Communicative Language Teaching
95, 105, 123, 133 communicative competence 7–8, 12, 51,
British National Corpus Baby (BNC 178, 210; four components of 8, 12; in
Baby) 105, 107 Japan 51; see also communicative ability
Brown Corpus 133 Communicative Language Teaching (CLT)
Building Academic Language (Zwiers) 153 34–5, 50, 179; and grammar instruction
Subject Index 231
7–9; strong vs. weak versions 179; and different grammatical forms for
the use of authentic materials 10; and familiar functions and meanings
variations in grammar 11 96–7; and grammatical forms with
communicative tasks, attention to grammar new or extended meanings 95–6; and
during 79–80 grammatical structures for the “long
competence: communicative 7–8, 12, 51, grass” 94–5; the grammatical syllabus
178, 210; discourse 8, 12; grammatical 8, 89–90; and grammar as discourse
12, 35, 36; interactional 210; linguistic 7, 97–8; and low-frequency grammatical
8, 12; sociolinguistic/sociocultural 8, 12 structures 91–4; motivation for 87–8;
Complexity Theory 35 questions to be addressed 91; research
comprehension-based grammar instruction design 90–1
6, 199–201 corpus searches: for frequency of verb use
concept-based grammar instruction 198–9 127–31; modeling of 114
consciousness-raising instruction 202–3 corpus-based language teaching 7
content areas, teaching functional grammar Council of Europe 90
in 150–1 curriculum development 8; alternative
content-based language teaching 7, 12–13, models of 12–14
22, 29 curriculum, attention to vocabulary
context(s): academic 123, 142–5, 150, in 122
152; assessment 99–100; content-based
classroom 28; discipline-specific 11; de Sauzé, Émile 5
discourse 103; in EFL and ESL classes decontextualization 34, 150, 152, 180
64, 104–5, 110–11, 115, 126, 181, Descartes, René 4
183–4, 187–8, 216–17; for focus on Direct Method of grammar instruction 5
form 80; of grammar and grammatical discourse competence 8, 12
forms 107, 131, 142–4, 150, 166, 202; discourse-based language teaching 7, 103
importance of 107, 180, 216; L2 11; in
L2 writing courses 13; of language use EAP see English for Academic Purposes
34; lexical 88, 107; occupational 11, educational policy, application of
21, 28, 30, 45; role of 180; SFL model functional grammar to 151–3
of language in 143; sociolinguistic 23, embeddedness 159; see also integration of
45, 103; of target structures 9; teaching grammar
grammar in 12, 14, 34–5, 39, 45, 46, 50, English, varieties of 11
103, 124, 139, 166–9, 172, 183, 202, 216; English as a foreign language (EFL) classes
variables in 143, 216–17; of vocabulary 110–12, 113–15, 122, 126, 132, 171; and
107, 110; see also teaching English context 216; in Japan 51–3
grammar in context English as a foreign language (EFL)
corpora 8, 10–11; access to 108; attitudes learners see learners
toward use of 109–12; instructors’ English as a foreign language (EFL)
attitudes toward 112–13; use of in teachers see teachers
language instruction 10, 123, 215; English as a second language (ESL)
website addresses for 133 classes 24, 105, 110–11, 113–15,
corpus analysis, in grammar teaching 104 125, 132, 171, 208, 217; and context
corpus linguistics, role of 119, 123–4 216; grammar textbooks 121; role of
Corpus of Contemporary American vocabulary in 119
English (COCA) 10, 90, 92, 93, 95, 123, English as a second language (ESL) learners
126–7, 131, 133 see learners
corpus research: challenges of 108–9; English as a second language (ESL)
factors influencing learning 110–13; teachers see teachers
general attitudes toward 109–10; group English for Academic Purposes (EAP)
114–15; positive effects of 106–8 139–40, 144–6, 148; teaching functional
corpus research and advanced-level grammar in 150–1
grammar instruction: and academic English for specific purposes 13; see also
success 99; conclusion 99–100; and English for Academic Purposes (EAP)
232 Subject Index
English language learners (ELLs) 139–40, form-focused instruction (FFI) 21–3, 219;
150–1; in K-12 classrooms 152–3; defined 52; isolated vs. integrated 179,
see also learners 181–8; and learner investment 52–3
English language learning: effect of form-focused instruction, teacher and
grammatical instruction on content learner preferences for: Feedback Study
learning 27–28; effect of grammatical 179–80, 184–7; learner questionnaires
instruction on language learning 26–7; 190–1; motivation for research 178–80;
implications and future directions 153; Questionnaire Study 179, 181–4;
see also grammar instruction; grammar quantitative results 181–3; qualitative
instruction by type; language learning results 183–4; research questions 180;
English language teaching (ELT) 14, student and teacher post-questionnaire
139, 141; place of grammar in 14–15; data 192; summary and conclusions
see also grammar instruction; grammar 188; teacher and learner beliefs about
instruction by type grammar instruction 180–1; teacher
English to speakers of other languages questionnaire 189
(ESOL) 87 form-focused instruction and learner
English Vocabulary Profile 88 investment 50; analysis of findings
epistemic modals 208 55; conclusion 64; data collection
explicit instruction, discussion and instruments/tools 54–5; data collection
conclusions 209–10 procedures 53–4; discursive practices of
eye contact 55, 57, 60, 61, 63 FF activities 56–9; discursive practices
during MF activities 59–62; discussion
facial expressions 55 62–4; instructional treatment 54;
feedback: corrective 22, 28, 179, 180, participants 53; research questions 53
203–4, 216, 219; from students 170–1; form-focused instruction in occupation-
instructional 141; linguistic and non- specific programs 29; data collection
linguistic 63; studies on 36, 45 measures 25; discussion 28–9; effect
Field, in Systemic Functional Linguistics 143 on language learning 26–7; effect on
Firthian Linguistics 7 content learning 27–8; instructional
focus on form 9, 14, 45, 52, 141; and design 24–5; participants 24; research
implicit instruction 209; role of context 23–4
instructions in 68, 70–2; see also pretask forms: grammatical vs. lexical 71–2, 79–80;
instructions and planning, and focus grammatical vs. morphosyntactic 75–9;
on form see also focus on formS; form-focused
focus-on-formS 8–9, 52 instruction (FFI)
form, integrating with meaning 159 fossilization 9
form-focused (FF) activities 50, 56–9, 62–4 French Port Royal grammars 4
form-focused approaches to learning, function 142
teaching, and researching grammar
194–5; comprehension-based genre 143
instruction 6, 199–201; concept-based gestures 55, 57, 61, 63
instruction 198–9; conclusion 209–10; Gothenberg Project 201
consciousness-raising instruction Gouin, Francois 5
202–3; discussion 204, 209; effect on grammar: accuracy in 144; in context
L2 development 50; explicit grammar 166; critical understanding of 107–8;
instruction 195–6; implicit grammar decontextualization of 152, 180;
instruction 204–7; pattern practice deriving from texts 166; differing views
201–2; presentation-practice-production of the role of 179; as discourse 97–8;
instruction 35, 45, 159, 172–3, 196–7, functional 141–5, 150–1; and the L2
217; integrated explicit instruction writing course 13; in language learning
197–8; text enhancement 206–7; task- 144; and logic 5; new conceptualizations
based language teaching (TBLT) 13, of 8; as preparation for skills work
34–5, 45, 207–9; see also feedback, 167; presenting through texts 166;
corrective reactive focus on 168; and skills
Subject Index 233
165–6; relationship with vocabulary (CLT); English language learning;

122–3; after skills work 167; and syllabus English language teaching
writing 90; three dimensions of 7–8; grammar instruction, corpus-based
variations in 11 lexicogrammatical approach: analysis
grammar checklist 13–14 of findings 106–13; context and
Grammar Connection: Structure through participants 105; conclusion 115; data
Content (Celce-Murcia & Sokolik) 14 collection procedures 105–6; limitations
grammar instruction: and academic of the study 113; motivation for research
language 11; and alternative models 103–4; pedagogical implications 113–15;
of curriculum development 12–14; post-study questionnaire 105–6, 116–17;
and authentic materials 8, 10–11; qualitative analysis 106–9; quantitative
changing contexts of 140–1; changing analysis 109–13; research questions
views of 215; in context 34; corpus 104–5
analysis in 104; discourse-based 7, grammar integration, student and teacher
103; and educational policy 151–3; preference for 180–1
and focus on forms 8–9, 52; and the grammar syllabus: advanced-level 99–100;
four skills 165–71; in L2 teaching beginning-level 87; prioritization
178; and language corpora 8, 10–11; of grammar features in 89; student-
as precursor to practice 35; pretest/ generated 13
posttest approach 25; and program grammar work, task-driven 167
development 151–3; questions for grammatical competence 8, 12, 35, 36
study of TESOL classrooms 160; recent grammatical complexity, and academic
history on 120–1; reference lists 219; success 99
Reform Movement 5; teacher and grammatical features 149
learner beliefs about 163–4, 171–3, grammatical forms: with new or extended
180–2; and teacher education 151–3; meanings 95–6; target 71
text enhancement 206–7; textbooks grammatical metaphor (GM) 145–8, 153
for 153; timing and sequence of 180–1, grammatical structures: case for exclusion
197–8, 217; toward a more functional of 94–5; different forms for familiar
orientation 140–1; see also English functions and meanings 96–7; low-
language learning; English language frequency 91–4
teaching (ELT); teaching grammar in Greek instruction 3
context
grammar instruction by type: cognitive Hagen, Stacy 14
approach 6; comprehension-based
6, 199–201; concept-based 198–9; ideational functions 149
consciousness-raising 202–3; content- idioms 124, 130
based 7, 12–13, 22, 29; corrective immersion education 7, 12, 197
feedback 203–4; deductive vs. inductive implicit instruction: discussion and
3–5, 6, 104, 171, 195–6; Direct Method conclusions 209–10; theoretical
5; discourse-based approach 14; explicit perspectives of 204–5; types of 205–6
195–6; explicit vs. implicit 3–5, 7, information density 145–6, 148
22, 179, 204, 209–10; form-focused instructed SLA 45–6
vs. meaning-focused 24; functional instruction see grammar instruction;
approaches to 152–3; grammar-based 29; grammar instruction by type; implicit
grammar-translation approach 5, 178; instruction; teaching English grammar
implicit 204–7; integrated explicit 197– in context
8; isolated vs. integrated 198; meaning integration of grammar 141, 153, 163,
centered 206; Natural Approach 5, 6; 165–73, 179, 185–6, 217; use of corpora
pattern practice 201–2; planned vs. in 120; teachers’ conceptions of 160,
incidental 22; presentation-practice- 172–3; three options for 159
production (PPP) 196–7; task-based intensive English programs (IEPs) 122
language teaching (TBLT) 207–9; see interactional competence 210
also Communicative Language Teaching inter-language (IL) development 68
234 Subject Index
International Phonetics Association (IPA) 5 linguistic competence 7, 8, 12

interpersonal functions 149 linguistics, systemic functional (SFL) 11,
141–3, 150–1, 153
knowledge: experiential and conceptual listening comprehension 6
143; explicit vs. implicit 161, 194–8, literacy, academic 148
201–5; functional 144; grammatical 27,
90, 142, 144, 145, 181, 189, 198, 201; materials development 219
language and content 21, 24, 25, 27, 150, meaning 142; integrating with form 159
178; lexicogrammatical 121; occupation- meaning-focused (MF) activities 50, 59–64
specific 28; productive 199, 201, 207, memorization 4, 6, 178, 201
209; receptive 199, 207, 209; of teachers metalanguage 144–5, 150, 152, 178
151–3 metaphor, grammatical (GM) 145–8, 153
Michigan Corpus of Academic Spoken
Lancaster-Oslo-Bergen (LOB) Corpus English (MICASE) 123, 133
123, 133 Mika, case study 55–6
language: academic 11; awareness of 219; mimicry 6
in context 143; discipline-specific 22; as mnemonic devices 4
social practice 152; subsystems of 143; modality 153
task-related use of 141; technical 149; mode, variables in 143
variations in 11 modeling, of corpus searches 114
language corpora see corpora monologues, task-based 72
language instruction see grammar morphemes 87, 141
instruction; grammar instruction by morphology 4, 7, 73, 75, 215
type; grammar instruction, corpus-based
lexicogrammatical approach narrative task, picture-based 72–3, 79
language learning: cognitive dimensions of Natural Approach 6
35; sociolinguistic context of 23; see also neuroscience, cognitive 36
English language learning nominalization 99, 153; forms of 146; and
language programs: inclusion of content in grammatical metaphor 145–8
21; occupation-specific 21–3 North American English Corpus of
language teachers see teachers Contemporary American English
language-related episodes (LREs) 71, 73, (COCA) 90, 92, 93, 95
75, 79; by instruction types and planning noticing 206
opportunity 76–7; morphosyntactic nouns: as grammatical metaphor 145; noun
75–8 phrases 99, 146, 148, 152; plural 207; as
Latin instruction 3–4 subject/agent 199; subjunctive forms
learners: engagement of 23; form-focused following 89, 93–4, 99; uncountable 92
instruction preferences of 180–3,
187–8; goals of 23 investment of 50, occupation-specific language programs
52–3; motivation of 23, 29; use of target 21–3
language outside of classroom by 216; official hearer, speaker as 55, 57, 59
variables among 80–1; see also English opportunity of use 89
Language Learners (ELLs); form- oral communication, Japanese students’
focused instruction, teacher and learner resistance to 51–3
preference for; form-focused instruction oral production tasks (OPT) 25
and learner investment Oral-Situational Approach 6
learning styles 218 Oxford English Corpus (OEC) 133
lexical forms 71
lexicogrammar 88, 103–4, 153 Palmer, Harold 34
lexicogrammatical approach, positive participles, as adjectives 131
effects of 106–8 passive voice 184–5, 198
lexicogrammatical patterns and forms pattern practice 201–2
107, 141 pedagogy 4, 21, 44–5, 93, 206; L2 45;
linguistic anthropology 7 SFL-based 151
Subject Index 235
phone messages, planning 68–9 instruction in occupation-specific

phrasal expressions 124 programs; form-focused instruction,
pidgins 9 teacher and learner preferences for;
planning: effect on fluency 68–9; effect on grammar instruction, corpus-based
focus on form 70; and L2 acquisition lexicogrammatical approach; pretask
81; on-line vs. off-line 69; and pretask instructions and planning, and focus
instructions 78; teacher-led, solitary, on form; teaching English grammar in
and group-based 70; see also pretask context; TESOL classroom grammar
instructions and planning, and focus on integration; vocabulary lists, corpus-
form based
Ploetz, Karl 5
present progressive tense 120, 126, scaffolding 9, 150
130, 132 search activities: corpus 114, 127–31;
presentation-practice-production (PPP) deductive vs. inductive 114
approach 35, 45, 159, 172–3, 196–7, 217 second language acquisition (SLA) 34,
pretask instructions and planning, 35; and grammar instruction 159–60;
and focus on form: discussion and research 52; Sociocultural Approaches to
conclusions 78–81; method of study 35; theoretical perspectives 173, 204–5;
72–4; motivations for study 67–8; two types of grammar in 124–5
previous research 68–72; study analysis second-language (L2) learners see learners
75–6; study design 73; study participants semantics 151
72; study procedure 73–4; study results simple past tense 120, 126, 131
76–8, study tasks 72–3 situated expectations 149
pretask phase, and attention to form 71–2 Skill-Learning Theory 196
The Principle of Language Study (Palmer) 35 social desirability bias 160
processing, attentional 44–5 socialization of readers 149
Processing Instruction 199–201 Sociocultural Approaches to SLA 35
program development, and functional sociocultural awareness 13
grammar 151–3 Sociocultural Theory (SCT) 8, 9–10, 198,
project-based language teaching 13 203–4
psychology, cognitive 6 sociolinguistic/sociocultural competence
8, 12
question formation 141 speaker roles 55, 57–9, 61, 63
questionnaire, for lexicogrammatical study Statistical Package for the Social Sciences
105–6, 116–17 (SPSS) 41, 162
strategic competence 8
ratified participant, speaker as 55, 57, 59, students: affect of 170; communicative
61, 63 ability of 168–9; feedback from 170–1;
reader socialization 149 learning styles of 218; perceived progress
recasts 76, 141, 203, 208 of 169–70
Reform Movement of grammar instruction subjunctive form 89, 93
5, 6 syllabus see grammar syllabus
register 142–3, 152; variables in 143 syntax 4, 7, 151
relative clauses 141 systemic functional instruction 198
repeated measures analysis of variance systemic functional linguistics (SFL) 11,
(ANOVA) 26–8, 73, 76, 112 141–3, 153; SFL-informed instruction
research: on functional approaches to 150–1
grammar instruction 153; future 219;
on interaction 36; qualitative 150; on task-based language teaching (TBLT) 13,
second language acquisition 52; on 34–5, 45, 207–9
second language vocabulary 119–20; on teacher education, and functional grammar
teaching English grammar in context 151–3
34–6; see also form-focused instruction teachers: beliefs and practices of 160,
and learner investment; form-focused 163–4, 171–3; cognition of 159–60,
236 Subject Index
163–4; form-focused instruction 3Ps-based approach see presentation-

preferences 179–84, 187–8; instructional practice-production (PPP) approach
decision-making of 159–60, 171–3 Transfer Appropriate Learning
Teachers of English to Speakers of Other Hypothesis 201
Languages see TESOL classroom Transfer Appropriate Processing
grammar integration Hypothesis 197–8
teaching: content-based 7, 12–13, 22, 29;
corpus-based 7; discourse-based 7, 103; United States: Common Core State
English language (ELT) 14–15, 139, 141; Standards (CCSS) in 151; English
metalinguistic 178; project-based 13; language education in 151–2
see also grammar instruction; pedagogy;
teaching English grammar in context verbs: epistemic modals 208; most frequently
Teaching English as a Second Language used 127–9; passive voice 184–5, 198;
(TESL) 152 phrasal 124; present progressive tense 120,
Teaching English as Communication 136, 130, 132; simple past tense of regular
Project 34 120, 126, 131; subjunctive form 89, 93;
teaching English grammar in context: types of 149
conclusion 48; discussion of study 44; vocabulary: content vs. grammar
experimental procedure 39–41; group 124–5; core 87–8; importance of in
analyses 42–4; implications of study 44; mastering English 121–3; relationship
L2 pedagogy 45; limitations of current with grammar 122–3; role of in ESL
study 45–6; motivation for research courses 119
34–6; pretest and posttest 41; research vocabulary lists, corpus-based 119–20;
methods 38; research participants 37–8; conclusion 132; data analysis and results
research question 37; research site 37; 127–9; data collection 126–7; discussion
target forms 38; task 38–9 and pedagogical implications 129–31;
technical language 149 role of corpus linguistics in identifying
tenor, variables in 143 lexicogrammar items 123–4; study
TESOL classroom grammar integration: questions 126; two types of vocabulary
data analysis 162–3; data collection 124–5
161–2; implications 171–3; motivation
for research 159–60; research questions weak interface position 202
160–1; results 163–71; survey web-based materials 219
questionnaire 174–5 wordlists 123–4
text enhancement 206–7 workbooks 219
textbooks 219 writing: improvement in 150; L2 13
textual functions 149 writing points 150
The International Research Foundation
for English Language Education (TIRF) zone of proximal development (ZPD)
215, 219 9–10, 204

TEACHING AND LEARNING ENGLISH GRAMMAR - Research Findings and Future Directions

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

You might also like

TEACHING AND LEARNING ENGLISH GRAMMAR - Research Findings and Future Directions

Uploaded by

Document Information

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

TEACHING AND LEARNING ENGLISH GRAMMAR - Research Findings and Future Directions

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

TEACHING AND LEARNING

An important contribution to the emerging body of research-based knowledge about Eng-

Bailey & Damerow, Eds.

Christison, Christian, Duff, & Spada, Eds.

For additional information on titles in the Global Research on Teaching and

A co-publication with The International Research Foundation

1 An Overview of Teaching Grammar in ELT 3

2 Focus on Form: Addressing Grammatical Accuracy

3 Teaching English Grammar in Context:

4 Form-Focused Instruction and Learner Investment:

5 The Inﬂuence of Pretask Instructions and

6 The Role of Corpus Research in the Design

7 Corpus-Based Lexicogrammatical Approach to Grammar

8 Creating Corpus-Based Vocabulary Lists for Two Verb

9 Putting (Functional) Grammar to Work in Content-Based

10 Integrating Grammar in Adult TESOL Classrooms 159

11 Teacher and Learner Preferences for Integrated and

12 Form-Focused Approaches to Learning, Teaching,

grammar. I learned what they needed to know by answering their questions”

Betty describes herself as a practitioner—a teacher and materials writer—as

Audience for the Book

Purpose of the Book

Organization of the Book

(e.g., prior to participation or during participation) affects task outcomes. Chap-

separating grammatical instruction from communicative practice and integrated

Research Practices in the Book

FIGURE 1.1 Taxonomy of approaches to teaching grammar

• use imitation instead of rules to teach a language;

In contrast, the followers of the French philosopher and mathematician René

• the medium of instruction is the students’ L1 (ﬁrst language);

Grammar in 20th- and 21st-Century Approaches

A growing dissatisfaction with the mechanical aspects of audiolingualism led to

The Role of Grammar in CLT

FORM: ’s or s’ and /s/ /z/ /əz/

1. Grammatical/linguistic competence. The ability to use all the language resources

New Conceptualizations of Grammar

Issues Concerning Focus on Form

Sociocultural Theory and Teaching Grammar

(ZPD) (Vygotsky, 1978)—a place of potential development where learners are

The Use of Authentic Materials and Language Corpora

Language Variation and Varieties of English

Systemic Functional Linguistics and Academic Language

Alternative Models of Curriculum Development

Focus on Form in Second

Motivation for the Research

1. What is the effect of FFI that includes explicit grammatical instruction on

Data Collection Procedures

Data Collection Measures

Effect on Language Learning

Test Group Pretest Posttest Delayed Posttest

performance that the FF group showed after instruction. However, when

Effect on Content Learning

TABLE 2.2 Mean Scores for Performance on Content

Pretest FF (n = 18) .44 .12

TABLE 2.3 Content Tests Group Comparison

Test T df Sig. (2-tailed) d

Pretest 0.42 38.00 .679 0.14

programs, it may be of beneﬁt to implement assessment that reﬂects a trajectory of

Lyster, R. (2004). Differential effects of prompts and recasts in form-focused instruction.

p < .01, *p < .001.

Must based on 3.540* 4.410* 2.750**

p < .01, *p < .001, ns = not signiﬁcant.