Instructed SLA - Eun Sung Park

TEFLIN TEACHER DEVELOPMENT SERIES
Series Editors: Willy A Renandya & Nur Hayati
TEFLIN Teacher Development Series contains short practical resource booklets

for English language teachers in Asia published by TEFLIN (The Association for
the Teaching of English as a Foreign Language in Indonesia) through its
Publication Division. Titles in the series (2020) include:
Introducing Task-based Language Teaching by Rod Ellis

Evaluating, Adapting and Developing Materials for Learners of English as an
International Language by Brian Tomlinson
Cooperative Learning in Language Education by George M Jacobs & Willy A Renandya
Teaching Pragmatics in EFL Classrooms by Nguyen Thi Thuy Minh & Le Van Canh
Implementing a Text-based Approach in English Language Teaching by Helena Agustien
Inspirational Stories from English Language Classrooms edited by Flora Debora Floris &
Willy A Renandya
Feedback in L2 Writing Classrooms by Icy Lee
Instructed SLA: A Practical Guide for Teachers by Eun Sung Park
If you have any queries, please contact:

TEFLIN Publication Division
Email: publication.division@teflin.org
Copyright © 2020 by Eun Sung Park

All rights reserved
Publisher: TEFLIN Publication Division in collaboration with Bintang Sejahtera Press

c/o Jurusan Sastra Inggris, Fakultas Sastra, Universitas Negeri Malang
Jalan Semarang 5 Malang, East Java, Indonesia, 65145
http://www.journal.teflin.org
ISBN: 978-602-1150-40-5
First published 2020

Cover Designer: Himawan Prakosa
Formatting: Ibnuz Zaki
INSTRUCTED SLA:
A PRACTICAL GUIDE FOR TEACHERS
Eun Sung Park

Sogang University, Seoul, Korea
TEFLIN Teacher Development Series

published by
TEFLIN Publication Division
a
Teacher Development Series
I
t is a great pleasure for TEFLIN to publish this Teacher Development
Series, a series which provides useful and affordable resources for English
language teachers and teacher educators in Asia. The booklets in the
series cover various topics pertaining to ELT and are written by experts in
the field. Teachers and teacher educators will enjoy reading the series as the
booklets are written in a friendly and accessible style.
Throughout more than sixty years of TEFLIN, we have shown our full
commitment towards teacher training and education and teacher professional
development in the field of ELT by means of various programs. We have
organized conferences and academic forums for English language teachers both
nationally and internationally, and collaborated with different organizations to
provide support for teachers in developing their professionalism, such as, by
giving scholarships to attend conferences and conducting teacher training.
Through the TEFLIN Publication Division, we have published volumes of the

TEFLIN Journal, a peer-reviewed journal indexed in Scopus and fully accredited
with an “A” rating by the Indonesian Ministry of Research and Higher Education.
The journal contains both research and concept papers in the field of ELT. This
TEFLIN Teacher Development Series is another project of the division and is yet
another form of our commitment to giving continued support to the
development of English language teaching in Indonesia and in the wider region.
This year we are aiming to launch five books of the series, and are committed to
publishing more titles in the following years to support teachers’ sustainable
professional development.
Instructed SLA: A Practical Guide for Teachers ii

a
We are indebted to Dr. Willy A Renandya for sharing with us his brilliant ideas
and for giving his utmost effort and lending his expertise to this project. Without
his capacity and networking, this project would not be possible. We also
gratefully thank all the experts who have contributed to the series. Their
contribution is invaluable.
We hope this series will serve its purpose, to empower English teachers and
facilitate their professional development through quality and accessible
resources.
Joko Nurkamto Yazid Basthomi
President of TEFLIN Coordinator of TEFLIN Publication Division
Instructed SLA: A Practical Guide for Teachers iii

’
T
he TEFLIN Teacher Development Series is a series of short practical
resource booklets for English language teachers in Asia as part of a
collaborative project with the Publication Division of TEFLIN (The
Association for the Teaching of English as a Foreign Language in
Indonesia). The booklets (or modules) are intended to be used by teachers (both
pre-service and in-service) and teacher educators as a learning resource and as
the basis for organizing workshops, in-service courses and various other
purposes of teaching and learning and teacher professional development.
The booklets in the Series are written in an accessible and teacher-friendly style
and cover both principles and techniques and include different topics relevant to
ELT and teacher professional development. Each booklet contains practical ways
for teachers to apply new ideas in their own teaching as well as reflective tasks
that provide opportunities for the users to reflect on their own classroom
practices.
For the second batch of the series, we have had a great honor and pleasure to
work with experts in various areas of ELT. One of them is Eun Sung Park, a
prolific scholar in the field, who generously shares her knowledge and expertise
in the area of second language acquisition in this book. The book covers key SLA
concepts relevant to L2 instruction and learning, and is written in a very clear
and accessible language. It will certainly help readers to see the link between
SLA theories and classroom teaching.
Again, we extend our utmost gratitude to Prof. Eun Sung Park as well as other
experts who have contributed to the Series for their kindness and generosity in
sharing their knowledge and expertise and helping make this project happen.
We are committed to publishing more quality booklets in the coming years in
Instructed SLA: A Practical Guide for Teachers iv

a
the coming years in order to meet the needs of English teachers and teacher
educators in Asia. We hope to collaborate with many more experts in various
areas of ELT and bring out booklets that are affordable and beneficial for the
development of ELT and teacher professionalism particularly in the Asian region.
Willy A Renandya
Nur Hayati
Instructed SLA: A Practical Guide for Teachers v

a
This book is written for language teachers and student-teachers who want to
know more about instructed second language acquisition – a topic concerned
with how to maximize the benefits of second language instruction. One may
wonder, why should teachers study second language acquisition? The answer is
simple. The more teachers know about how students learn a second language,
the better they can decide what instructional efforts are worth their time and
what techniques and strategies work best for different teaching/learning
contexts. In other words, a basic knowledge of how language acquisition occurs
is fundamental to one’s education and training as a language teacher.
Second language acquisition (SLA) is a necessary component in all respectable
language teacher education programs and Teaching English to Students of Other
Languages (TESOL) graduate programs worldwide. Unfortunately, however, most
textbooks on SLA – even introductory ones – tend to be quite dense and
technical, often covering research-related issues that may not always be
relevant for teachers. What the majority of language teachers need is a concise
and readable text that focuses on those aspects of SLA which are directly
concerned with instruction and learning – that is, instructed second language
acquisition.
This book provides an introductory course on instructed second language
acquisition. I have written this book with the aim of familiarizing teachers with
the key concepts of instructed SLA so that they may be equipped with relevant
knowledge and practical tips which can be readily applied to their own teaching
environments. This book assumes no background knowledge, and is written in
an accessible, teacher-friendly manner. Any technical terms used in the field are
printed in bold and defined in a glossary provided at the back of the book. I
hope teachers find the contents in this book pertinent and useful.
Eun Sung Park

Sogang University
Seoul, Korea
Instructed SLA: A Practical Guide for Teachers vi

TABLE OF CONTENTS
Foreword from the Publisher ........................................................................ ii

Series Editors’ Preface ............................................................................................ iv
Author’s Preface ..................................................................................................... vi
Table of Contents .................................................................................................. vii
CHAPTER ONE • Introduction ................................................................................ 1

CHAPTER TWO • Key Concepts in Instructed SLA.................................................. 6
CHAPTER THREE • Focus on Form ....................................................................... 15
CHAPTER FOUR • Input-Based Techniques .......................................................... 23
CHAPTER FIVE • Output-Based Techniques ......................................................... 35
CHAPTER SIX • Interaction-Based Techniques ..................................................... 46
CHAPTER SEVEN• Considerations for Successful L2 Instruction ......................... 57
Glossary ................................................................................................................ 64
References ............................................................................................................ 70
Instructed SLA: A Practical Guide for Teachers vii

Do you know anyone who is a monolingual speaker of only his or her first
language (L1)? Personally, I know of no friends or colleagues who speak just
their mother tongue. The only truly monolingual person I have known is my
grandmother who passed away more than 25 years ago. She spoke only Korean,
and never learned any other languages. Being a monolingual speaker of one’s
native tongue was quite common in her day. Nowadays, however, it is very
difficult to find a monolingual speaker of just one language. Some scholars even
suggest that monolingualism is unusual and unnatural in this day and age. As a
second language teacher, I suspect that you speak at least two (or perhaps
more) languages, and that the majority of the people around you have studied
at least one or two languages other than their L1. This means that most people
have directly experienced the processes of SLA in some way. Having gone
through the experience yourself, you might be surprised to find that you know
more about SLA than you might think you do. In this chapter, I introduce what
second language acquisition is, and what instructed SLA (ISLA) is within the
broader discipline of SLA.
Reflection
Think about each of the three words that make up the term Second
Language Acquisition.
In your opinion, what is meant by the words “second,” “language,” and
“acquisition?”
Instructed SLA: A Practical Guide for Teachers 1

a
What is Second Language Acquisition?

As an academic discipline, SLA is concerned with explaining how people acquire
additional languages after the acquisition of their mother tongue—that is, the
learning of a second language (L2), third language (L3), and so forth. Thus, the
word “second” in second language acquisition encompasses all the languages
learned beyond the acquisition of one’s first language. This means that SLA is
not language specific. The principles of SLA can be applied to the acquisition of
English, Korean, Tamil, Bahasa Indonesia, or any other natural language spoken
around the globe today. Additionally, SLA is not context specific. It encompasses
L2 learning in a variety of linguistic and learning contexts.
What do we mean by different kinds of learning contexts? We can easily think of

two contexts where L2 learning can take place – a naturalistic (i.e., informal or
uninstructed) environment versus an instructed (i.e., formal or tutored)
environment. The former is concerned with learning that takes place in informal
situations, outside of the classroom. For example, uninstructed learning occurs
when a family moves to the U.S., and their teenage daughter learns English by
playing with her peers or by working part-time at a local grocery store. This type
of context, where the L2 is spoken in the immediate environment, is known as a
second language learning context. L2 learning can also take place in more formal
environments, such as in a language classroom, where there is some systematic
attempt to alter the learner’s L2 learning process (i.e., instructed L2 acquisition).
An example of this would be Indonesian students learning L2-English at a
university in Padang. This is typically referred to as a foreign language learning
context or one in which the target language or the L2 is not the predominant
language spoken in the community. Note that even within a second or foreign
language learning context, L2 learning can happen both inside and outside the
classroom, depending on whether the learner decides to learn the L2 by
enrolling in a language class or by taking private lessons; or the learner learns
the L2 by interacting with native speakers of the target language, or by surfing
the Internet to access various information from different sources. Most people
learn second languages through both naturalistic and instructed experiences.
For teachers and practitioners engaged in TESOL, we often make a distinction

between English as a Second Language (ESL) and English as a Foreign Language
(EFL). This distinction is useful because the type and amount of exposure to L2

a
input and the kinds of learning processes that take place in the two
environments can be quite different. For example, ESL learners are surrounded
by ambient target language input which they encounter on a daily basis. This
means that they have access to ample authentic input outside of the classroom.
This environment provides them with additional exposure and opportunities to
use the L2 which provides authentic practice that can result in incidental
learning of the L2 (i.e., unplanned learning or picking up the L2 unintentionally).
On the other hand, EFL learners often do not have access to additional input or
opportunities to use the L2 outside of the classroom, which means that their
learning opportunities will most likely be limited to classroom instruction.
As noted, SLA embraces L2 learning in a variety of contexts and examines the

processes and mechanisms that are at work while learning an additional
language. Some of the fundamental issues in SLA pertain to the what and the
how of the learner’s developing L2 system (i.e., interlanguage), and the different
learner-internal factors (e.g., a learner’s L1, proficiency level, motivation, or
aptitude) and learner-external factors (e.g., type of input or instructional
context) that affect L2 learning. Below are some of the key questions that SLA
attempts to answer:
• How do learners create their interlanguage (L2 grammar)?

• What does a learner’s interlanguage look like?
• What do learners learn? Under what context?
• How fast and how well do learners learn under different learning contexts?
These are just a few of the many questions involved in the study of SLA. Indeed,
SLA is concerned with the creation and nature of the learner’s L2 system, how
the learner’s L2 develops under different conditions, and how different learner-
internal factors and learner-external (or environmental) factors promote or
impede the learning process. Thus, the scope of SLA is wide, and the field of SLA
is regarded as an interdisciplinary area that draws on a range of disciplines such
as linguistics, psychology, sociology, and education, to name just a few.
Reflection
1. Did you learn English in an ESL or EFL environment? In an instructed or a
naturalistic setting? Share your experience with your classmates.

a
2. Compare and contrast the two learning contexts below. What are the
advantages and disadvantages of each context?
a. ESL versus EFL environment
b. (b) Instructed versus naturalistic setting
What is Instructed Second Language Acquisition

(ISLA)?
Now that we have an idea of what SLA is, let’s turn to the focus of this book,
instructed SLA (ISLA). ISLA is a subfield within the larger discipline of SLA. It
primarily attempts to address the following two questions:
• Is instruction beneficial for SLA?

• If so, how can the benefits of L2 instruction be maximized?
Notice that both questions contain the word “instruction.” Due to this emphasis,
ISLA is used to refer to aspects of SLA that pertain to the L2 classroom and
instruction. Perhaps it might come as a surprise to some of you that the first
question regarding the benefits of L2 instruction even needs to be asked at all.
This question was raised because there was a period in the early 1980s, when
advocates of purely meaning-based language teaching approaches (i.e., those
methods that simulate child first language acquisition by focusing solely on
meaningful communication) downplayed the role of L2 instruction. However,
research findings have since provided strong evidence that L2 instruction is not
only beneficial but also necessary in SLA. Currently, the primary concern in ISLA
pertains to the second question: How can we maximize the benefits of L2
instruction?
Clearly, the underlying assumption in ISLA is that it is possible to enhance L2

learning with the help of instruction and other pedagogical interventions. In this
respect, ISLA’s primary concern is with instructed learning in a formal
environment. In fact, the manipulation of the learning environment and learning
processes to enhance student learning is the defining feature of ISLA, which
separates it from uninstructed or naturalistic L2 acquisition (Loewen & Sato,
2017). ISLA research to date has shown that benefits of formal instruction can
be bolstered by manipulating various aspects of L2 learning such as L2 input, L2

a
processing, and L2 learning contexts. The what and the how of these aspects
will be revisited and elaborated on in subsequent chapters.
Reflection
Before we tackle some of the important issues of ISLA, it is helpful to reflect
on your own experience as a language learner. Think about your L2-learning
experience and write a short L2-learning autobiography of how you learned
your second language. Try to address the following questions in your L2-
learning autobiography:
1. What languages have you learned besides your L1?
2. Why and when did you start learning the L2? What motivated you to
learn the L2?
3. Did you learn the L2 in a naturalistic or an instructed setting, or both? In
what ways was the experience helpful (or unhelpful)?
4. Are there any strategies that you used to learn and improve your L2?
What are they? In what ways did those strategies help to develop your
L2 skills?
5. What kinds of classroom activities or tasks did you find helpful in
improving your L2?
6. How successful were you in your attempt to learn the L2? What are
some of the factors that made it successful or unsuccessful?
Summary
In this chapter, I have defined what instructed second language acquisition is
within the broader scope of SLA. As noted, ISLA is a subdomain of SLA that is
concerned with L2 instruction and learning, which entails the systematic
manipulation of the L2 learning environment and the L2 learning processes. In
Chapters 2 and 3, some of the key concepts of ISLA and an overview of various
L2 teaching approaches – including “focus on form,” which is the current
approach to teaching L2 grammar – are introduced. In subsequent chapters
(Chapters 4, 5, and 6), the key concepts mentioned in Chapter 2 are further
elaborated with reference to some of the widely used focus-on-form techniques
that teachers can easily incorporate in their own classrooms.

In this chapter, some of the key concepts and hypotheses directly relevant to
ISLA are introduced. You may already be familiar with some of the ideas, but you
may also find others to be quite foreign and difficult to grasp at first. Please rest
assured that there is no need to fully understand all the ideas and hypotheses
introduced here. The important terms and concepts are recycled and elaborated
on throughout the book, and you will have ample opportunity to review and
deepen your understanding of various concepts.
Input
Input refers to any stretch of the target language that a learner is exposed to,
whether in the written or aural form. In first language acquisition, children
receive a vast amount of input from the moment they are born (e.g., “Hi
sweetie. Are you hungry?” or “Where is dada?”), as they are constantly
exposed to language input in communicative contexts. The same may be
applied to an L2 learner who is immersed in the L2 environment. For example,
individuals learning ESL in the U.S. are constantly exposed to English, making it
possible for them to receive a large amount of meaningful, communicative
input on a daily basis. EFL learners in a foreign language learning context
receive L2 input as well, but this input is typically qualitatively and
quantitatively different from those immersed in an ESL environment. The input
that EFL learners receive is most likely from formal learning contexts such as
schools or language institutes. Thus, the type of input they receive may be
comprised of teacher talk such as “Open your books to page 27,” or “Please get
into groups of three,” as well as materials presented in course books. Of course,
there may be other sources of input such as watching films, surfing on the
a
internet, or interacting with the teacher and other students using the L2. The
teacher talk that EFL learners receive in the classroom as well as the input they
encounter through films or the internet all constitute input. Input can be
regarded as fuel for a car or an airplane. Without fuel, cars and airplanes
cannot function. Likewise, without input, there can be no language acquisition,
for it is the data from which learners develop their L2 grammar.
Intake
As noted, input is a necessary component of both L1 and L2 acquisition, but
how do learners make sense of all the input that they receive? Just because a
learner is exposed to L2 input does not mean that he or she will automatically
acquire it. If this were the case, the process of language learning would be
much easier, and we would all be speaking several languages by now. As Corder
(1967) noted, input is what is available to the learner. Learners filter input so
that only a subset of it gets processed further, and this subset of input is known
as intake. It is intake that can be further assimilated and become part of the
learner’s developing L2 system, or interlanguage. While Corder’s input-intake
distinction is important and useful, it still remains unclear how learners derive
intake from input. Therefore, the central question in ISLA is how to help
learners derive maximum intake from the input that they receive. It goes
without saying that the more intake that can be derived from input, the better
the acquisition will be for the learner. To this end, a number of hypotheses have
been proposed to explain the link between input, intake, and acquisition.
Comprehensible Input
An initial attempt to explain the link between input and acquisition was made by
Krashen (1982; 1985) in his Monitor Model, in which he posited five hypotheses
about SLA. The five hypotheses comprise the acquisition-learning hypothesis,
the natural order hypothesis, the monitor hypothesis, the input hypothesis, and
the affective filter hypothesis (see Krashen, 1982, for details).
Most relevant here is the input hypothesis, which claimed that in order for L2
acquisition to proceed, learners must be exposed to comprehensible input –
input which contains language structures that are a little beyond the learners’
current level (also known as i+1). Krashen (1982; 1985) argued that
comprehensible input was a necessary and sufficient condition for SLA, and that

a
learners acquire an L2 by understanding and unconsciously soaking up this

comprehensible input – a process that Krashen termed acquisition. When a
learner acquires an L2 in this way, he or she can then use the acquired
knowledge in spontaneous production. Krashen contrasted acquired knowledge
with learned knowledge, which is the type of knowledge gained by learning an
L2 by means of formal instruction. He further proposed that learned knowledge
can only serve as a monitor that edits or checks the accuracy or grammaticality
of the learner’s output. Krashen is correct to point out that SLA cannot take
place without sufficient exposure to comprehensible input and that
comprehensible input is the driving force behind L2 acquisition. However, his
position that learned knowledge can only be used to “monitor” one’s own
output has been contended by other ISLA researchers – an issue we will return
to at the end of this chapter.
Reflection
1. Comprehensible input plays an important role in promoting learners’ L2
acquisition. What can you do to make L2 input more comprehensible for
your students?
2. It has been suggested that the more intake that is derived from input,
the better the acquisition will be for the learner; however, it is not yet
clear how learners derive intake from input. In your opinion, what kinds
of input or what aspects of input are most likely to be processed as
intake by learners?
3. In his more recent work, Krashen discusses the importance of
“comprehensible and compelling input” in terms of literacy development
for young learners in bilingual settings (see Krashen, Lee, & Lao, 2017).
Can you guess what kinds of input Krashen et al. recommend for young
learners? Explain why.
Noticing
What comes to your mind when you hear the word noticing? What does it
mean to notice something? The idea of noticing as an important construct and
process necessary for L2 learning was first proposed by Schmidt (1990) in his
noticing hypothesis. According to the noticing hypothesis, L2 learners must
consciously attend to the language form in the input in order to process it as
intake. Schmidt initially introduced the idea of noticing in Schmidt and Frota

a
(1986), a diary study of his own acquisition of Brazilian Portuguese during a few
months stay in Brazil. While documenting his own L2 learning experience,
Schmidt found that he learned language forms better when he had consciously
noticed the form, and that those noticed features were the ones that were
processed at a deeper level which he eventually incorporated in his production.
Based on his own observations, Schmidt (1990) proposed that noticing is what
mediates the input-to-intake process and that learners need to consciously
notice certain aspects of the L2 input in order to process them as intake. Note
that Schmidt’s position that noticing is necessary for L2 development stands in
contrast to Krashen’s (1985) notion of “acquisition,” in which L2 development is
viewed strictly as an unconscious process (as opposed to “noticing” which
entails conscious attention). While it is likely that Krashen’s notion of
comprehensible input constitutes a good candidate for learners’ intake
derivation, the input-to-intake processes conceptualized by Krashen and
Schmidt are starkly different. Currently, it is widely accepted that noticing or
some type of attention is an essential step in L2 learning (see Chapter 4, 5 and
6, for different ways of promoting learner noticing).
Output
Output refers to a learner’s oral or written production. However, just because a
learner has uttered something in the L2 does not necessarily mean that he or
she can produce output in the technical sense of the term. This is because it is
possible for a learner to repeat verbatim what a teacher says or give answers to
a mechanical drill as a memorized chunk. This kind of mechanical repetition
does not qualify as output. Rather, it is merely regarded as a “language-like
behavior.” Output occurs when a learner produces something meaningful from
his or her own developing L2 system.
Input and output are both important aspects of L2 acquisition; however, the
roles that these constructs play in SLA have been disputed among researchers.
Krashen has argued that language acquisition is mainly driven by
comprehensible input and has further contended that learner output is merely a
result of acquisition. By the late-1980s, however, it was becoming clear that
while comprehensible input is important and necessary, it is not sufficient for
SLA.

a
The importance of output was initially underscored by Swain (1985) in her work
with French immersion schools in Canada. In immersion schools, all the
“content” matter, such as biology, chemistry, math, and so forth, is taught
entirely in the L2. This means that students in immersion programs generally
have prolonged exposure to abundant comprehensible input and generally
command a high level of L2 French. Swain found that these French immersion
students typically end up with excellent comprehension skills, but their
productive skills often lack in accuracy especially in respect to certain aspects of
L2 grammar. Based on her findings, Swain (1985; 1995) argued that learners
need to be provided with opportunities for pushed output, which encourages
them to modify their output in an attempt to make it more comprehensible to
their interlocutor(s) (this is also known as “comprehensible output”). Swain
contended that while comprehensible input is indeed necessary and important,
output also plays an important role in inducing learners to realize what they
need to learn about the L2 and in helping them to pay attention to the means of
expression needed to successfully convey their intended meaning. This
culminated in the output hypothesis, which will be revisited in Chapter 5.
Interaction
We often hear about the importance of classroom interaction especially in
relation to communicative language classrooms. Since the early 1980s, words
such as interactive, meaningful, and communicative have been popular
buzzwords used to describe and advertise various English language programs
and course books. The importance of interaction in L2 acquisition has been
recognized since the early 1980s, but it was Long (1983) who initially brought it
to the spotlight. Recognizing the importance of comprehensible input, Long
argued that input can be made comprehensible during interaction as learners
negotiate for meaning. He later expanded on the benefits of interaction in his
interaction hypothesis, which proposed that learners learn best during
interaction in which input is typically modified and tailored to meet the learner’s
communicative needs through a negotiation of meaning (Long, 1996).
Negotiation refers to a type of interaction in which the participant’s attention is

focused on resolving a communication problem. Thus, negotiation is typically
initiated by a comprehension issue or communication breakdown that needs to
be resolved. When communication breaks down during an interaction, the

a
speakers strive to make their meaning more comprehensible to each other

through moves aimed at making sense of the interlocutor’s intended meaning.
This occurs through various conversational adjustments which include
clarification requests, which signal non-comprehension (e.g., Excuse me? What
do you mean?); confirmation checks, which signal that the listener is unsure
whether he or she has understood the message correctly (e.g., Did you say X?
You mean X, right?), or comprehension checks, which are used when the
speaker is not sure whether or not the other interlocutor has understood what
he or she has said (e.g., Do you understand what I mean? Do you understand
X?). Example 2.1 illustrates how input is negotiated and made more
comprehensible through conversational adjustments.
Example 2.1 Conversational adjustments (adapted from Gass & Varonis, 1994, p.
296)
1 Jane : All right now, above the sun place the squirrel.
2 He’s right on top of the sun.
3 Hiroshi : What is … the word? (clarification request)
4 Jane : OK. The sun.
5 Hiroshi : Yeah, sun, but
6 Jane : Do you know what the sun is? (comprehension check)
7 Hiroshi : Yeah, of course. Wh-what’s the (clarification request)
8 Jane : Squirrel. Do you know what a squirrel is? (comprehension check)
9 Hiroshi : No.
10 Jane : OK, you’ve seen them running around on campus.
11 They’re little furry animals.
12 They’re short and brown and they eat nuts like crazy.
In Example 2.1, Jane, a native speaker of English, and Hiroshi, a non-native

speaker, work on a communicative task (i.e., a picture description task). Hiroshi
signals non-understanding by asking clarification questions (What is…the word?
[Line 3]; Wh-what’s the… [Line 7]). Jane realizes that Hiroshi is having trouble
understanding something and uses comprehension checks to see if he
understands what she meant by squirrel (Do you know what a squirrel is? [Line
8]). When Hiroshi answers that he does not know, Jane explains what it is. When
the interlocutors work through messages in this way, they are engaging in a
negotiation of meaning. As illustrated, an important benefit of interactional
adjustment is that it generates learner-contingent input which is provided at the
exact moment when the learner needs (and therefore is intently seeking) some

a
type of explanation or clarification. This “moment” is particularly crucial because

the interactional modification happens exactly when the learner is ready to
benefit from it.
Types of Knowledge and Interface Positions

Much of SLA involves the creation of an implicit linguistic system that operates
outside of the learner’s awareness. In first language acquisition, children
typically acquire their L1 in a naturalistic environment surrounded by ambient
meaningful input. The outcome or the endpoint of one’s first language
acquisition is the complete mastery of one’s L1, or complete ultimate
attainment; and the type of knowledge we naturally end up with in L1
acquisition is an implicit knowledge of our L1. With implicit knowledge, we are
unable to explain or articulate what we know. For example, native speakers of
English intuitively know when a sentence is wrong or ungrammatical. However,
if we ask the native speaker why the sentence is ungrammatical, the answer we
normally get is “I’m not sure. It just doesn’t sound right.” This illustrates that our
L1 knowledge is implicit, procedural, and easily accessible for rapid
comprehension and production, but that it is also difficult to explain and
verbalize what we know. Implicit knowledge can be contrasted with explicit
knowledge (or knowledge that we know consciously), which is also known as
declarative knowledge or “knowing about language.” Learners can verbalize this
type of knowledge in the form of an L2 rule or a description of an L2 usage. Note
that just because one knows an L2 rule does not mean that one can access it
rapidly in communicative interaction. This is why many linguists who are well-
informed about the rules and structures of some language(s) (exotic or
otherwise) are not able to use those language(s) for communication. Simply put,
knowing about a language (i.e., explicit knowledge) does not automatically
translate to an ability to use the language spontaneously for communicative
purposes.
Given that it is implicit knowledge that enables learners to communicate

fluently, most SLA researchers maintain that competence in an L2 is primarily a
matter of developing implicit knowledge. However, for most learners (especially
in EFL contexts), English is typically learned under explicit, formal conditions:
learners learn the rules; they then practice the rules and try to use them
productively. This means that many EFL students develop an explicit knowledge

a
of the L2. A related question that naturally follows is whether explicit knowledge
gained through instruction can lead to the development of the implicit
knowledge essential for spontaneous L2 use. In fact, this question has generated
a lot of debate among SLA researchers, giving rise to the so-called “interface
positions,” which essentially capture the interaction (or lack thereof) between
explicit and implicit knowledge. There are three distinct positions as to whether
and to what degree the two types of knowledge interact with one another. Table
2.1 summarizes the three positions.
Table 2.1 Different interface positions

Non-interface Explicit knowledge and implicit knowledge are distinct,
position and explicit knowledge cannot be converted into implicit
knowledge.
Weak interface Explicit knowledge can facilitate the development of
position implicit knowledge via processes such as noticing.
Strong interface Explicit knowledge can be converted into implicit
position knowledge via focused practice.
As seen in Table 2.1, those supporting the non-interface position believe that
explicit and implicit knowledge are two separate systems and that explicit
knowledge cannot be converted into implicit knowledge. This position is
perhaps most strongly associated with Krashen who argued that there is no
interface between learned knowledge (explicit knowledge) and acquired
knowledge (implicit knowledge). In opposition to this view is the strong interface
position which posits that explicit or declarative knowledge can be converted
into implicit knowledge through ample practice. Researchers like DeKeyser
(1998) is a strong advocate of this position. Finally, those supporting the weak
interface position (e.g., Ellis, 1993; Long, 1991) believe that explicit knowledge
makes it easier for learners to attend to and/or notice the L2 forms, which
facilitates the processes involved in developing implicit knowledge. Despite the
discrepancies between researchers regarding the issue of interface, it is widely
agreed that implicit knowledge is what enables learners to communicate in the
L2, and that the goal of L2 instruction is to help learners develop their implicit
knowledge.
As can be expected, the varying interface positions differ in regard to the

importance each assigns to explicit knowledge, which ultimately leads to
different recommendations about how to incorporate grammar teaching in the

a
L2 classroom. Those who advocate the non-interface position believe that

grammar teaching has no or minimum impact on a learner’s L2 acquisition, and
consequently, they do not support the teaching of grammar. On the other hand,
advocates of the strong interface position believe that explicit knowledge can be
converted to implicit knowledge through focused practice, and thus support
explicit grammar instruction and practice (DeKeyser, 1998). Last but not least,
proponents of the weak interface position believe that grammar instruction is
useful, but that it should be incorporated within a communicative framework.
This position is especially advocated by practitioners who believe that grammar
instruction can facilitate the development of learners’ implicit knowledge.
Reflection
1. Think of an L2 rule that you learned formally in a classroom. Were you
able to use it communicatively while interacting in the L2? What does
your experience suggest about the interface between the two types of
knowledge?
2. The three interface positions (non-interface, strong interface, and weak
interface) take very different approaches to the teaching of grammar.
Think of a classroom activity or task that would most likely be favored by
the advocates of each position. Explain your choice of task for each
position.
Non-interface Weak interface Strong interface
Description of task
Reason
3. Which position best reflects your L2 teaching practices? Explain why.
Summary
In this chapter, we have studied some key concepts in ISLA including the
importance of comprehensible input and the role noticing plays in converting
input into intake. We have also considered varying positions on the issue of
whether explicit L2 knowledge can become and/or lead to implicit knowledge as
well as the approach to grammar teaching each position recommends. Not
surprisingly, most ISLA researchers advocate either the strong or the weak
interface positions, as both recognize the importance of noticing and conscious
reflection in L2 learning. This is addressed in detail in the next chapter.

In this chapter, I briefly survey different approaches to L2 teaching that have
dominated the field of L2 instruction and introduce the current approach to
teaching L2 grammar – i.e., focus on form.
Focus on Forms versus Focus on Meaning

Traditionally, L2 teaching was equated with grammar teaching; thus, a major
issue in ISLA pertains to how to incorporate grammar instruction in the L2
classroom. In recounting the history of L2 instruction, Long (1991) identified
three approaches to L2 teaching: focus on forms, focus on meaning, and focus
on form. Each approach differs in the way grammar is viewed and incorporated
in the classroom.
Let’s reflect back on your own experiences in learning an L2. Do you remember
how you learned English as a second or a foreign language? Did you start by
learning the copular verb to be and then moving on to the progressive -ing, then
the third person singular verb agreement -s, and so on? Or, perhaps you have
studied Latin in college, and you learned it by first studying simple grammar and
then moving on to the more complex constructions. If so, you have experienced
the focus on forms approach, or the traditional L2-teaching approach. This
approach assumes that language consists of a series of grammatical forms that
should be acquired sequentially and additively. It therefore focuses on teaching
isolated grammatical forms in a decontextualized manner. The assumption is
that learners will be able to integrate the isolated forms for communicative
purposes. Examples of focus on forms include the Grammar Translation Method
(GTM) which was a popular language teaching method during the 16th century
and continued to be widely practiced until the 19th century. In this method,

a
students are expected to have a thorough knowledge of grammatical rules and

to be able to translate texts from the L2 to the L1 and vice versa. Another
example of focus on forms is the Audiolingual Method (ALM), which was born
out of two major theories that were influential in the 1950s: behaviorist
psychology and structural linguistics. Structural linguistics views language as a
set of hierarchical units and focuses on investigating linguistic units such as
sounds, words, clauses, and so forth. It puts a strong emphasis on grammatical
structures which is reflected in the ALM, where grammar is prioritized over
vocabulary and accuracy over fluency. Under behaviorism, all learning is viewed
as a result of habit formation, and habits are believed to be formed through a
process of memorization, repetition, and reinforcement. Thus, the goal of ALM
is to develop the same L2 habits that native speakers have via stimulus-response
techniques involving repetition and pattern drills. Both GTM and ALM
emphasize the importance of teaching discrete grammar rules.
By the late 1970s, it was becoming clear that the focus on forms approach was
not effective in enabling learners to communicate in the L2. This gave rise to a
purely communicative approach in which the teaching of grammar was
considered undesirable. Teachers were led to believe that grammar instruction
was old-fashioned and best avoided. This trend was further fueled by
researchers like Krashen (1982; 1985), who claimed that teaching grammar had
little or no impact on learners’ L2 development and advocated the type of
instruction which focuses on exposing learners to a lot of meaningful input. This
type of teaching approach is known as focus on meaning. It is based on the
assumption that learners learn a language inductively and arrive at its
underlying grammar simply by being exposed to lots of meaningful L2 input. The
Natural Approach (an L2 teaching method that mirrors child language acquisition
by emphasizing communication and meaningful input) and the French
immersion programs are classic examples of the focus on meaning approach.
Focus on meaning emphasizes purely meaning-based activities with no attention
being paid to linguistic forms.
Focus on meaning enjoyed a considerable popularity with its emphasis on

meaningful input and on teaching “content” rather than language itself.
However, there were some drawbacks to this approach. Findings from French
immersion programs in Canada, where students study all of their content
courses (e.g., math, history, and science) in the L2 and thus receive several years

a
of meaningful input in their classrooms, have shown that these students still
struggled with certain aspects of grammar. More specifically, these students
possessed excellent receptive skills (listening and reading), but their productive
skills (speaking and writing) were lacking in grammatical accuracy in terms of
gender agreement and absence of tense markers, among other issues. The
problems observed in their production may be attributed to the fact that the
focus on meaning approach failed to induce learners to notice certain
grammatical aspects which do not hinder the transmission of meaning, even
when produced inaccurately. Of course, producing inaccurate forms may not be
an issue especially if meaning has been successfully communicated. The
problem is that learners may be misled into thinking that their output is
accurate, which could result in the fossilization of those inaccurate forms. In
addition, such meaning-based classrooms did not offer students sufficient
opportunities to produce output and/or receive corrective feedback on their L2
production. By the late 1980s, it was becoming increasingly clear that learners
needed not only meaningful input but also opportunities to produce output,
which can prompt them to consciously recognize some of their linguistic
problems (this is further elaborated in Chapter 5).
Focus on meaning enjoyed a lot of popularity in the 1980s. However, the

limitations of this approach in French immersion programs, coupled with the
increasing emphasis on the importance of learner noticing in L2 learning have
led to a reconsideration of the importance of grammar instruction.
Reflection
1. Do you have experience learning an L2 via the Grammar Translation
Method or the Audiolingual Method? If so, what was your experience
like? In what ways was the teaching method effective?
2. Do you have experience learning an L2 in a purely communicative way
such as in an immersion program? If so, what was your experience like?
In what ways was this method effective?
3. In your opinion, what are some potential benefits and pitfalls of (a) a
focus on forms approach and (b) a focus on meaning approach?

a
Focus on Form
The third L2 teaching approach, focus on form, may look a lot like focus on forms
at first glance, but the presence or absence of the “s” in the word “form” (formS
vs. form) makes a world of difference. The term focus on form was first
introduced by Long (1991) in response to the inadequacy of the traditional
grammar-based approaches (i.e., focus on forms) and dissatisfaction with purely
communicative approaches (i.e., focus on meaning). Focus on form attempts to
address the shortcomings of both approaches by drawing learners’ attention to
linguistic forms in the context of meaningful communication. Thus, it requires
learners to be engaged in a meaning-based activity before attending to forms.
The assumption is that it is possible to incorporate some type of focus on form
without interfering with meaningful communication. Typical examples of focus-
on-form instruction include Task-Based Language Teaching (TBLT) and Content-
Based Instruction ([CBI]; note, however, that CBI which focuses purely on
“content” or subject matter can be regarded as focus on meaning).
The current consensus among ISLA researchers is that some type of focus on
form is beneficial, but grammar should not be the focus of L2 classes as is the
case in traditional L2 teaching pedagogy. Table 3.1 summarizes the three
approaches.
Table 3 Focus on forms, focus on meaning, and focus on form

Focus on forms Focus on meaning Focus on form
• L2 learning is a • L2 acquisition happens • It is motivated by the
process of gradual incidentally or interaction and
accumulation of implicitly from noticing hypotheses.
parts of the L2 exposure to • The focus is on the
until the whole L2 comprehensible individual learner:
structure has been samples of L2 input. Which forms should
built up. • People learn an L2 be targeted and when
• The L2 is divided best, not by treating it are determined by the
up into linguistic as an object, but by learner rather than
units which are experiencing it in the the teacher.
presented in an course of • The focus on linguistic
order determined communication. features is mostly
by linguistic • The emphasis is on the reactive but it can also
difficulty. provision of sufficient be proactive/planned

a
Focus on forms Focus on meaning Focus on form

• At any one time, positive evidence of in light of learners’
the learner is what is possible in the needs.
exposed to L2. • It often involves an
deliberately • The language teacher’s occasional shift of
limited samples of primary role is to attention to linguistic
language. facilitate the unfolding form, initiated by the
• The learner’s role of the learner’s teacher or students,
is to synthesize the internal syllabus (i. e., triggered by problems
pieces for use in the learner’s own in communication.
communication. learning agenda)
rather than trying to
impose the teacher’s
external syllabus.
To summarize, the field of L2 teaching and ISLA has shifted from a grammar-only
focus on forms approach to a meaning-only focus on meaning, then to a focus
on form approach. Focus on form compensates for the weakness of the previous
two approaches in that it caters to both meaning and form. In addition, as seen
in Table 3.1, focus on form also places an emphasis on learner needs and
respecting the learner’s internal syllabus (i.e., the learner’s own internal agenda
for learning), rather than imposing the teacher’s external syllabus on the
students, as is the case in focus on forms. This will be further addressed in
Chapter 7.
Reflection
1. Check all the language teaching methods you have experienced or are
familiar with:
The Grammar Translation Method
The Audiolingual Method
The Silent Way
The Natural Approach
Direct Method
Total Physical Response (TPR)
Communicative Language Teaching
Any other methods? ________________

a
2. Categorize the language teaching methods above according to the three

L2 teaching approaches: focus on forms, focus on meaning, and focus on
form. Provide reasons for your categorization.
Types of Focus on Form

Ever since Long (1991) introduced the term, focus on form has been widely
advocated in ISLA (see Doughty & Williams, 1998; Ellis, 2001; Han, Park &
Combs, 2008; Nassaji & Fotos, 2011). However, the term has been
conceptualized differently over time. In Long’s original definition of focus on
form, he makes it clear that the shift in attention is triggered by a problem of
some kind, such as an error that the learner has made or other anticipated
problems in either comprehension or production:
Focus on form . . . overtly draws students’ attention to linguistic elements as they

arise incidentally in lessons whose overriding focus is on meaning or communication.
(Long, 1991, pp. 45-46)
It is evident in the above definition that Long initially conceptualized focus on

form as a reaction to a learner’s grammatical problems. His notion of focus on
form is therefore limited to an incidental or reactive focus on form, which
usually takes the form of a teacher’s feedback in response to a learner’s errors.
However, the term focus on form has since been extended to accommodate a
much broader perspective, whereby it is not restricted to just incidental
reactions to learner problems. In the current, reconceptualized use of the term,
focus on form can occur both incidentally (i.e., reactive focus on form) and
proactively (i.e., proactive focus on form). The latter type of focus on form can
be achieved by addressing specific linguistic forms as pre-selected by the
teacher in anticipation of students’ linguistic problems with certain grammatical
structures (Doughty & Williams, 1998). Ellis (2001) has made a similar distinction
between incidental focus on form and planned focus on form. In both types of
focus on form, attention to form occurs while the learner’s primary focus is on
meaning. The difference lies in the fact that planned focus on form involves
prior planning and pre-selection of the target forms (similar to proactive focus
on form), whereas incidental focus on form is unplanned and does not involve
pre-selection of target forms (i.e., reactive focus on form). Given that planned
focus on form involves pre-selection of the target forms, it is usually intensive

a
(i.e., it focuses intensively on one or two target forms). On the other hand,
incidental focus on form is extensive in that it occurs in response to a variety of
linguistic forms, thereby targeting many different forms as the needs arise. Note
that the broader notion of focus on form (e.g., Doughty & Williams, 1998) is
currently used in most ISLA literature, which is also adopted in this book. The
current conceptualization of focus on form is also referred to as form-focused
instruction (FFI) by several ISLA researchers (e.g., Ellis, 2001; Nassaji & Fotos,
2011).
Focus on form may be achieved via a number of techniques in which the

learner’s attention can be attracted implicitly and unobtrusively (i.e., not
interfering with the communication of meaning). This constitutes an implicit
type of focus on form which minimizes interruption to the communication of
meaning and avoids the use of metalinguistic discussion (i.e., talking about
grammar or language use). It is also possible, and sometimes necessary, to
direct the learners’ attention more explicitly or in a more obtrusive way by
explaining grammar rules or by having students actively search for the rules. This
constitutes an explicit type of focus on form. The different types of focus-on-
form techniques can be arranged on a continuum based on the degrees of
implicitness/explicitness, as presented in Figure 3.1.
Figure 3.1 Degree of explicitness of focus-on-form techniques (adapted from

Doughty & Williams, 1998, p. 258)
Implicit (unobtrusive) <-----------------------------> Explicit (obtrusive)
Input flood X
Input enhancement X
Negotiation X
Recast X
Dictogloss X
Text reconstruction X
Reformulation X
Consciousness raising tasks X
Processing instruction X
Note. The focus-on-form techniques presented above are discussed in the
next chapter.
As seen in Figure 3.1, those at the implicit end are the unobtrusive techniques
that do not interfere with meaningful communication compared to those at the

a
more explicit end, which are more obtrusive and which can interfere with
meaningful communication. The focus-on-form techniques in Figure 3.1 are
further addressed and elaborated in subsequent chapters.
Reflection
1. How do you usually help direct your students’ attention to certain
linguistic forms?
2. Figure 3.1 introduces some focus-on-form techniques that are covered in
the remaining chapters. Are you familiar with any of these techniques?
Which ones are you familiar with? In what context?
Summary
In this chapter, we have surveyed different options in L2 teaching and have
taken a closer look at focus on form, the current approach to teaching L2
grammar. The benefit of focus on form is the wide range of techniques that can
be employed to encourage students to notice the target structures. The
remainder of this book introduces different focus-on-form techniques which
are of direct relevance to teachers and which can be easily implemented in the
L2 classroom.

Focus-on-form techniques can be classified as being either input-based or
output-based. In input-based techniques, teachers use reading or listening
materials to draw the learners’ attention to certain grammatical features.
Conversely, output-based techniques make use of the learners’ own output to
draw their attention to the target forms. In this chapter, I introduce some input-
based focus-on-form techniques that attempt to direct the learners to notice
certain forms. This is important because not all features in L2 input are equally
noticeable to learners, and teachers can help learners notice certain aspects of
input which might otherwise be overlooked. One way of raising the noticeability
of L2 input is by increasing its perceptual salience. This can be done via input
flood or input enhancement techniques.
Input Flood
As the name suggests, input flood is a focus-on-form technique in which the
teacher provides the learners with many examples of the target form (i.e.,
“flooding” the input with the target linguistic form[s]). The assumption is that
frequent exposure to the target form will make it more salient, and thereby
draw the learners’ attention to it. An additional benefit of input flood is that it
provides the learners with ample exposure to the target form in a meaningful
context. Since the input flood technique does not involve explicit teaching and
does not interfere with learners’ comprehension of meaning, it constitutes an
implicit focus-on-form technique.
So how does one create an input flood task? First and foremost, it is important
to select an appropriate input. Any reading or listening material that contains
many instances of one specific linguistic structure can be a candidate for input

a
flood. Alternatively, a text which includes many instances of the target form can
be created by the teacher. An example is shown in Example 4.1.
Example 4.1
Annisa gets up at 7 a.m. and takes a shower. She takes about 15 minutes in
the shower. She dries her hair and puts on her makeup. She tries on
different outfits before finally deciding what she wants to wear. She gets
dressed and walks downstairs to the kitchen. She makes some coffee and
prepares a sandwich for lunch. She packs the coffee and sandwich in her
bag. She leaves her place around 8 a.m. She gets to work around 9 a.m.
What is the targeted form in the reading? To the teacher, it should be quite
obvious that the target form is the third-person singular verb agreement, which
appears frequently in the text. However, this might not be as obvious for the
students (this issue is further addressed in Chapter 7).
As I did with the reading material in Example 4.1, the teacher can create an
original input flood text, or he/she may choose an appropriate passage from a
course book. It is also possible to use samples of authentic input such as popular
songs, poems, or excerpts from books. In fact, songs are a good candidate for
input flood since many songs naturally lend themselves to the use of a particular
linguistic form. A good example is a song called “Tom’s Diner.” The lyrics of this
song describe the various scenes and people the singer encounters at a diner
near a train station. Portions of the lyrics are provided in Example 4.2.
Example 4.2
Tom’s Diner (by Suzanne Vega)[1]
I am sitting in the morning at the diner on the corner. I am waiting at the

counter for the man to pour the coffee. And he pours it only halfway and
before I even argue, he is looking out the window at somebody coming in.
“It is always nice to see you,” says the man behind the counter to the
woman who has come in; she is shaking her umbrella. And I look the other
way as they are kissing their hello’s and I’m pretending not to see them and
instead I pour the milk.

a
I open up the paper. There’s a story of an actor who had died while he was
drinking, it was no one I had heard of. And I’m turning to the horoscope and
looking for the funnies when I’m feeling someone watching me, and so I
raise my head. . .
As seen in Example 4.2, the lyrics to “Tom’s Diner” are full of naturally-occurring
instances of the present progressive tense (e.g., I am sitting; I am waiting; he is
looking; she is shaking, etc.). There are two versions to the song: the original is
an a cappella version with only the vocal, and the more recent version is an
instrumental version with the same lyrics. The lyrics can be heard more clearly in
the a cappella version, which makes it appropriate for lower-level learners.
“Tom’s Diner” is just one song, but surely there are many other songs that can
be used for input flooding purposes. For example, the famous Christmas carol
Santa Clause is Coming to Town contains the chorus: “You’d better watch out,
you’d better not cry, you’d better not pout, I’m telling you why, Santa Clause is
coming to town….” Obviously, the chorus in this carol would be a good candidate
if the teacher wants to focus on “had better + VP (verb phrase)” as the target
form.
As seen in Examples 4.1 and 4.2, input flood can be provided in the written form
(by means of a reading passage) or in the aural form (through songs or other
listening materials).
Reflection
1. Revisit the lyrics to Tom’s Diner in Example 4.2, and discuss the following
questions with a partner:
a. Can you think of other linguistic features that may be targeted from
the lyrics of Tom’s Diner?
b. What are some other ways you can use the song Tom’s Diner in your
classroom?[2]
c. Do you think learners will notice the target linguistic forms more
easily in aural input or written input? Why or why not?
2. Can you think of any other songs or authentic materials that might be a
good candidate for input flood? Share with your peers.

a
When using the input flood technique, teachers should bear in mind that the
students may not always notice the use of the target form in the input. This is
sometimes the case for linguistic features which are not salient or have low
communicative value. It is also possible that merely increasing the frequency of
the target structure may not be noticeable enough for the learners. In that case,
another focus-on-form technique which is slightly more explicit than input flood
may be used, as shown below.
Input Enhancement
The term input enhancement [3] was first introduced by Sharwood Smith (1993).
It refers to those strategies that make certain linguistic forms perceptually
salient in order to make those forms more noticeable to learners. As with input
flood, input enhancement can be delivered in the aural mode or in the written
mode. In the written mode, it is often referred to as textual enhancement. It
involves highlighting (i.e., enhancing) the target forms or words by means of
various typographic techniques such as boldfacing, underlining, color coding, or
italicizing. With aural input, enhancement can be achieved by adding stress or
by repeating the target form.
Most ISLA research on input enhancement involves textual enhancement where

students are presented with a reading text in which the grammatical form that
the teacher has identified as problematic are “enhanced” using one or more of
the afore-mentioned strategies. The text can be created by the teacher, or it can
be adapted from an authentic text. A sample input with enhancement is shown
in Example 4.3.
Example 4.3
Sample textual enhancement

Annisa gets up at 7 a.m. and takes a shower. She takes about 15 minutes in
the shower. She dries her hair and puts on her makeup. She tries on different
outfits before finally deciding what she wants to wear. She gets dressed and
walks downstairs to the kitchen. She makes some coffee and prepares a
sandwich for lunch. She packs the coffee and sandwich in her bag. She
leaves her place around 8 a.m. She gets to work around 9 a.m.

a
You may have noticed that the input flood sample from Example 4.1 is repeated
in Example 4.3 with the target forms (the third person singular present tense)
enhanced. In other words, the target forms have been bold-faced in order to
make them more noticeable to the learners. Since there are different ways of
enhancing the target forms (e.g., italicizing, changing the font, etc.), teachers
need to carefully consider the best way to carry out the enhancement so that
the meaning or function associated with the form is presented in a clear
manner.
Nassaji and Fotos (2011) suggest the following steps when designing textually
enhanced texts.
Steps:
1. Select a particular grammar point that the students have trouble with.
2. Highlight that form in the text using one or two enhancement techniques
(e.g., boldfacing only or boldfacing + italicizing).
3. Limit the target feature to one linguistic form. Highlighting several different
forms can distract the learners’ attention and prevent them from making
accurate form-meaning connections.
4. Use comprehension strategies to keep the learners’ attention on the
meaning.
5. Refrain from providing any metalinguistic explanation.
As mentioned in Step 4, it is important that the students read the text for
meaning and that the teacher uses strategies that can keep the students’
attention on meaning. This can be achieved by using various post-reading
activities. For example, the teacher can ask students to read the text and then
discuss its content with their peers. Alternatively, they can complete a table or a
chart based on the information in the text. The attempt to focus the learners’
attention on meaning is also evident in Step 5 where teachers are discouraged
from providing any grammatical explanation about the target form. Another
important point to note is mentioned in Step 3. Teachers should target just one
linguistic structure per text since enhancing many different forms can have a
negative effect on the learner’s comprehension of meaning. Furthermore,
teachers should be selective in choosing the appropriate target form since
enhancing linguistic forms that are low in communicative value can interfere
with learners’ meaning comprehension (see Park & Nassif, 2014).

a
Reflection
1. What linguistic forms would be good candidates for textual
enhancement?
2. Park and Nassif (2014) caution that enhancing target forms that are low
in communicative value (like function words) can interfere with a
learner’s meaning comprehension. Why might this be the case? Can you
think of some linguistic forms (in any language) that might fit the
description?
3. The following passage is taken from the book The Secret Diary of Adrian
Mole, Aged 13¾ (Townsend, 1988, p. 11). As the title suggests, the book
is written in a diary style, by Adrian, a teenager who lives with his father
and mother and a family dog. He believes himself to be an intellectual
and pours out his worries and regrets in his diary. He makes the following
New Year’s resolutions in his diary:
I will help the blind across the road.
I will hang my trousers up.
I will put the sleeves back on my records.
I will not start smoking.
I will stop squeezing my spots.
I will be kind to the dog.
I will help the poor and ignorant.
...
...
How can teachers use the authentic text above to teach a grammar point?
Would you use input flood or textual enhancement (or any other
techniques)? Why or why not?
Processing Instruction
Processing instruction is a pedagogic technique that is based on VanPatten’s
(2004) input processing model. This model assumes that by understanding how
learners process input, we can devise effective instructional activities to help
learners process the target form(s). VanPatten proposed two main input
processing principles and several related subprinciples. Here, I focus on just the
first principle, the primacy of meaning principle, which I believe is most useful
for teachers. The primacy of meaning principle states that a learner cannot
process input for meaning and form at the same time. Given their limited

a
attentional capacity, learners tend to process input for meaning before they
process it for form. Thus, when learners hear L2 input, they naturally try to
understand the meaning conveyed in the input; consequently, they have no
attentional capacity left to pay attention to form. This also means that learners
tend to process more meaningful items (or items with higher communicative
value) before they process the less meaningful ones. For example, in the
sentence The girl is playing with a doll, learners are most likely to process the
“content words” (i.e., girl, playing, doll) before they process the other less
meaningful “function words” (i.e., the, is, with, a).
Example 4.4
Last night, we played basketball.
In Example 4.4, the words last night are content words that inform us that some
action has already taken place. Since these words are meaning-bearing, learners
are most likely to process them on their own (i.e., without any instructional
help). Can you spot any other clues in the sentence that can inform us that an
action has already taken place? If we look carefully, we can see that the verb
ending -ed in the verb played communicates that the event happened in the
past. When learners are given a sentence such as the one in Example 4.4, they
are most likely to process the phrase last night, but not the morphological
ending -ed, in played. Why is this the case? For one, last night is more
meaningful ([+semantic value]) than -ed ([-semantic value]). In addition, the
pastness encoded in played is already expressed by the content words last night,
which makes this information repetitive or redundant ([+redundancy]).
According to VanPatten (2004), a form’s communicative value is higher if it is

meaning-laden (i. e., [+semantic value]) and if the same meaning or function is
not encoded in the same utterance/sentence (i. e., [-redundancy]). In Example
4.4, the communicative value of -ed is diminished because the pastness is
already encoded in last night. According to the input processing model, the
redundant grammatical marker tends not to get processed by learners because
learners can easily extract the same information from the content words, last
night. This idea is borne out in the literature in that consistently redundant
grammatical items are known to take the longest for learners to acquire (e.g.,
Gass & Selinker, 2008).

a
So what does this all mean in terms of L2 teaching? It means that if a teacher
wants to increase the communicative value of -ed to encourage learners to
process the past tense marker, the teacher can “structure” the input and revise
the sentence in Example 4.4: Last night we played basketball to We played
basketball. In this way, the past tense marker -ed in played is no longer
redundant ([-redundancy]), which will force the learners to process the
morphological marker.
Now that we have learned about learners’ input processing strategies, we are
ready to talk about processing instruction, a pedagogic technique informed by
learners’ input processing strategies. Processing instruction uses structured
input activities that help learners to process the input in a certain way. For
example, we saw earlier that the idea of pastness can be encoded by a temporal
adverb (last night) and by a morphological form (-ed). Drawing on the primacy
of meaning principle, we know that learners are more likely to process the
content words (“last night”) and that they might not process the past tense
marker “-ed.” In order to help learners process the past tense marker, we can
create a structured input activity, such as that found in Example 4.5.
Example 4.5 (adapted from Wong, 2005, p. 70)
Instructions to students
You will hear sentences that describe what John did yesterday, or what he
will do tomorrow. Listen carefully to the verbs in order to determine
whether the action happened yesterday or will happen tomorrow.
Teacher’s script
John…
1. Talked to his mother.
2. Walked his dog in the park.
3. Will call his friend Ted.
4. Played basketball with friends.
5. Will practice for the school play.
As seen in Example 4.5, the input has been structured so that learners have to
pay attention to the verb forms (e.g., talked, walked, will call, played, will
practice) in order to determine whether the action already happened or will
happen in the future. Potential content words that provide information about
when an action took place or will take place (e.g., last night, tomorrow,

a
yesterday) have been removed deliberately to ensure that learners rely on the
morphological forms to successfully complete the task. Unlike techniques such
as input flood or textual enhancement, processing instruction informs the
learners what to pay attention to and why they must change their processing
strategies.
Reflection
1. VanPatten’s input processing principles are deemed to be applicable to all

learners, regardless of their L1. Is there an input processing strategy/
principle that your students tend to employ by default? Is the strategy
applicable to all learners or only to those who share the same L1? Why or
why not?
2. Another input processing principle proposed by VanPatten (2004), known
as the sentence location principle, predicts that learners tend to process
items in the sentence-initial position before those in the final and medial
position. Let’s suppose that your students are having trouble with
prepositions, and you want them to notice and process certain
prepositions (e.g., on the table, in New York, at the restaurant). Drawing
on the sentence location principle, can you think of some structured input
activities that could help your students to process the target preposition?
Consciousness-Raising Tasks
A consciousness-raising task is another input-based focus-on-form technique
that is frequently used in L2 classrooms. As the word “consciousness” in the
name suggests, this task constitutes an explicit technique whose aim is to raise
the learner’s awareness of certain grammatical rules. Ellis (1997) describes it as
a “pedagogic activity where the learners are provided with L2 data in some form
and required to perform some operation on or with it, the purpose of which is
to arrive at an explicit understanding of some linguistic property or properties of
the target language” (p. 160). Thus, in a consciousness-raising task, learners are
not given explicit information about the L2. Instead, they are provided with
input that will allow them to understand the grammatical rule underlying the
target form. In this sense, a consciousness-raising task can be regarded as a type

a
of discovery task that provides learners with data that they can use to work out
the grammar rules for themselves.
A sample consciousness-raising task focusing on the indefinite article is shown in

Example 4.6. Students are paired up, and each receives a list of sample
sentences, each of which contains the target form. Some sentences are
grammatical, while others are ungrammatical, with these being explicitly marked
on the handout. The students’ job is to compare the correct and incorrect
sentences with their partner by reading the sentences as many times as
necessary. They work together and decide, on the basis of correct and incorrect
sentences, which form should be used and when. The outcome of the task is to
formulate the rule governing the target form. Sample worksheets for a
consciousness-raising task targeting the indefinite article (a or an) are provided
in Example 4.6.
Example 4.6 (adapted from Wong, 2005, p. 81)
Student A
1a. There is an apple on the table. ( )
1b. There is a apple on the table. ()
2a. Mary is wearing a hat. ( )
2b. Mary is wearing an hat. ()
3a. An elephant is crossing the street. ( )
3b. A elephant is crossing the street. ()
...
Student B
1a. There is a cat on the street. ( )
1b. There is an cat on the street. ()
2a. John is eating an orange. ( )
2b. John is eating a orange. ()
3a. Do you have a pencil I can borrow? ( )
3b. Do you have an pencil I can borrow? ()
...
Note: Correct sentences are marked with a ( ), and incorrect sentences are
marked with an ().
A consciousness-raising task works best with a linguistic form that can be

directly contrasted and that has a clear rule. When used correctly, these tasks

a
help learners pay attention to grammatical forms that they may otherwise miss
on their own. This technique is especially effective in situations where explicit
knowledge about a grammatical form may be desired. Note that in this type of
task, learners are provided with information about what is possible or
grammatical in the L2 (also known as positive evidence) as well as what is not
possible or ungrammatical in the L2 (also known as negative evidence).
Furthermore, since it is the learners who figure out the rules themselves, they
are able to retain them better, and the fact that they discovered the rules
themselves may help them to continue noticing the target forms on their own.
Reflection
We have learned four input-based (proactive) focus-on-form techniques:

input flood, input enhancement, processing instruction, and a
consciousness-raising task. Answer the following questions about the four
techniques:
1. Which focus-on-form technique(s) are you familiar with? In what
context?
2. Which technique is the most implicit (unobtrusive) and most explicit
(obtrusive)? Explain why.
3. Which technique would work best with a reading lesson? Explain why.
4. Which technique contains a type of information gap? Explain your
answer.
5. Which technique would not work in your own teaching environment?
Explain your answer.
Summary
In this chapter, we have learned some input-based focus-on-form techniques
that teachers can easily implement in their classrooms. Note that all of the
input-based techniques constitute a proactive focus-on-form technique since it
is the teacher who pre-selects the target form(s). It is also important to keep in
mind that some input-based techniques such as input flood and input
enhancement may be too implicit to successfully draw the learners’ attention to
the targeted grammatical features. In this case, a more explicit focus-on-form
technique (e.g., output-based techniques, covered in the next chapter) could be
used in conjunction with implicit techniques.

a
Notes
1. The lyrics are from:
https://web.archive.org/web/20110718052102/http://www.vega.net/rusted
pipe/toms_diner.htm
2. One possibility is to use an output-based technique in conjunction with the
input flood. For example, after the input flood task, the teacher can ask the
students to go out to a coffee shop, a park, a playground, etc., and describe
the scenes there (i.e., what is happening at the site, what people are doing,
etc.). The observation and the writing can be done after class as homework.
The teacher can collect the assignments and follow up with other output-
based tasks which are introduced in Chapter 5.
3. Here, the term input enhancement is used to encompass both textual and
aural enhancement (e.g., Doughty & Williams, 1998; Han, Park & Combs,
2008). In some SLA literature, the term input enhancement is used as an
umbrella term to refer to various ways of increasing the salience of target
forms, including input flood, structured input tasks, and consciousness
raising tasks, among others (e.g., Wong, 2005).

In this chapter, I introduce some important principles of the output hypothesis
and pertinent output-based techniques that use the learners’ own production to
help them focus on form. As mentioned in Chapter 2, the importance of output
was underscored by Swain (1985; 1995) who argued that while input is
important, output also has an important role to play in the development of a
learner’s L2 competence.
When Swain (1985) initially proposed the output hypothesis, she emphasized
the role of modified output which a learner produces in response to an
interlocutor’s feedback. Swain pointed out that when a learner is pushed to
produce output, the learner modifies his or her output to make it more
comprehensible to the interlocutor. Swain later identified three functions of
output in SLA: (1) noticing function, (2) hypothesis-testing function, and (3)
metalinguistic or reflective function (Swain, 1995). The noticing function occurs
when L2 learners, who are engaged in producing output, such as speaking and
writing, become aware of the fact that they do not have the means to say what
they want to say (i.e., noticing the hole), or they become aware of the fact that
what they say is different from what their interlocutors say (i.e., noticing the
gap). In other words, upon producing output, learners become aware of holes or
gaps in their interlanguage (for example, when the listener signals
incomprehension), which subsequently pushes them to search for alternative
ways to express meaning. Thus, learners’ own output prompts them to become
aware of their own linguistic deficiencies and raises their awareness of what
they need to learn about their L2. The second function of output is the
hypothesis testing function. Here, learners may hypothesize about, but not be
sure of, how to say something. Output provides them with opportunities to test
their hypotheses, look for an interlocutor’s reaction and receive feedback. Based

a
on the interlocutor’s feedback, learners can modify their output to make it more
comprehensible to the interlocutor; alternatively, learners can also confirm their
hypotheses upon successful communication. The third function of output is its
metalinguistic function – that is, promoting learners’ awareness of their own
language use. Producing output encourages learners to consciously reflect upon
language, thinking about what to say and how to say it. Such reflective use of
language mediates L2 development by helping learners gain control over their
language use and internalize their linguistic knowledge.
Output plays a number of other roles in language acquisition in addition to the

three functions mentioned above. Other important benefits of output are
summarized below (adapted from Nassaji & Fotos, 2011):
• Output generates better input. When learners speak while interacting with
an interlocutor, they have opportunities for meaning negotiation, which
consequently leads to input that is more fine-tuned to their proficiency level.
• Output promotes syntactic processing. When learners listen or read, they

simply need to grasp the gist of the message, but when they speak or write,
they also need to pay close attention to how the meaning is expressed and
encoded.
• Output facilitates automatization of existing knowledge. The development of

automaticity requires ample opportunities for practicing the target form.
Output provides learners with such practice.
Reflection
1. How important was output in your own attempt to learn an L2? Based
on your experience, what is the role of output in L2 learning?
2. You probably have some students who are shy and timid about speaking
out in class. How can teachers encourage these students to speak out
more?
3. Most Korean students who have taken several years of English classes in
junior high and high school are quite good at receptive skills like listening
and reading but relatively poor at productive skills like speaking and
writing. Can you think of potential explanations for their poor productive
skills?

a
Now let’s look at some output-based focus-on-form techniques. Most output-

based techniques supported by ISLA research involve collaborative writing tasks.
These tasks are typically designed to push learners to produce output and to
consciously reflect on and discuss their language use with their peers.
Dictogloss
Dictogloss is an output task that encourages learners to work together and
produce language collaboratively by reconstructing a text that has been
presented to them orally. In a dictogloss, the teacher reads a short text at a
normal pace (i.e., the dictation or dicto part of dictogloss), while the students jot
down any key words or phrases as they listen to the text (i.e., the gloss part of
dictogloss). Students then work in small groups to reproduce the text in order to
make it as close to the original as possible.
A sample text that I often use with my students is shown in Example 5.1.
Example 5.1 (adapted from Azar & Hagen, 2009, p. 486)
Ink has been used for writing and drawing throughout history. No one knows
when the first ink was developed. The ancient Egyptians and Chinese made
ink from various natural substances, such as berries and tree bark. Through
the centuries, thousands of different formulas have been developed for ink.
Most ink today is made from synthetic chemicals.
Having prepared a text like the one shown in Example 5.1, the following steps
can be taken for a dictogloss task.
Steps
1. Choose or prepare an appropriate text for the target students.
2. Read the text twice to the students at a normal speed. While the text is being
read, ask the students to jot down any important information.
3. Have students get into small groups of three or four. Ask each group to pool
their notes and work together to reconstruct a version of the original text.
Each group should produce its own reconstructed version, aiming at
grammatical accuracy and textual cohesion.

a
4. Ask each group to read out their reconstructed text. While listening, students
can compare their own reconstructed version with those of other groups.
You can also encourage your students to analyze and make corrections on
their versions.
5. Reread the original passage to the students. Students compare their own
production with the original text which can encourage learner noticing.
In Step 1, students, while listening to the teacher, jot down any words or phrases
that they think are important. Here, students typically jot down content words
like ink, writing, drawing, history, ancient Egyptians, and so forth. (Note that
they are not likely to jot down function words like for, the, or from). At this stage,
students are seeking to comprehend the passage, and are engaging in semantic
processing (i.e., top-down processing). In Steps 2 and 3, students compare their
notes and reconstruct the text in their own words, making it as close to the
original as possible. Here, learners are engaged in syntactic processing (i.e.,
bottom-up processing), in which they are constructing sentences by adding
grammar and function words to the content words that they have jotted down.
Note that at this stage, learners are induced to do the type of processing (i.e.,
syntactic processing) that they would not normally do on their own.
Most research on dictogloss and other types of collaborative output tasks have
analyzed recordings of learners’ interactions with the aim of uncovering their
language-related episodes (LREs) that are produced while collaborating on the
task. LREs are the aspects of interactions in which the learners talk about their
language use. Typical LREs involve learners questioning their language use,
deliberating about language choices, and giving and receiving feedback. Such
LREs are useful in examining whether and how the learners are reflecting on
language, a process which illustrates the reflective/metalinguistic function of
output (i.e., the third function of output). Some LREs that emerged from a
dictogloss task using the text in Example 5.1 are shown in Example 5.2.
Example 5.2
Sample LRE #1
S1: …writing and drawing…. through the history, right?
S2: I think throughout… it’s throughout the history.
S1: Yes, throughout the history…yeah, this is good, right?

a
S3: Throughout the history. Yes, this is better….. we need “the” or not?
Throughout the history or throughout history?
Sample LRE #2
S1: Most inks… most ink. Which one is correct? Most ink? Or most inkS?
Which one is correct?
S2: Most ink, I wrote most ink. But, but I don’t know. I think most ink
because we say most people.
S1: Ok… Most ink. Most ink….hmm… Most ink is? Or… most ink are? Which
one?
S2: Most ink…. Most people are, so most ink are….Most ink is… I’m not sure.
In the first LRE, the students deliberate about the correct word choice (through
vs. throughout). They then question the use of “the” in throughout the history.
In the second LRE, the students deliberate about the use of most inkS versus
most ink. They decide that most ink is the correct form, but they are further
baffled by the use of the be auxiliary (i.e., whether to use the singular or the
plural form as in most ink is or most ink are). Although the participants are
unable to resolve the problem in this LRE, it is clear that the act of producing
output helped them to think about appropriate lexical and grammatical forms –
something that learners are not naturally prone to do when they are merely
asked to read or listen to the text.
Using a dictogloss has a number of advantages as summarized below (adapted

from Nassaji & Fotos, 2011):
1. It encourages learners to pool their knowledge and learn from each other.
2. It requires learners to engage in discussions about the appropriate lexical and
grammatical forms, pushing them to reflect on their own L2 output and
engaging them in talking about language itself (as illustrated in Example 5.2).
3. It caters to both individuals and groups.
4. It strikes a balance between memory (i.e., learners recall the content of the
text from memory) and creativity (i.e., learners use their own linguistic
resources during reconstruction).

a
5. It caters to all four language skills (i.e., listening, reading, speaking, and
writing).
The text to be used for a dictogloss task can be an authentic text or something
that the teacher has constructed or modified to suit his or her students. It would
be helpful if the text contained several instances of a particular grammatical
form, thereby constituting a type of input flood. This could help draw the
learners’ attention to the target forms embedded in the text. A dictogloss can be
used with learners at all levels of L2 proficiency. For beginner level classes,
simple and short texts can be used. For more advanced classes, longer and more
linguistically sophisticated texts can be used. In all cases, the text should be
carefully chosen in terms of its content and complexity. A text that is long and
difficult may demand too much cognitive effort from the learners, which can
prevent them from successfully completing the task (this issue is further
addressed in Chapter 7). A text that is too easy may fail to push the learners to
produce output beyond their current interlanguage (Nassaji & Fotos, 2011).
Reflection
1. Which grammatical form(s) do your students find difficult or challenging?
2. Revisit the dictogloss passage in Example 5.1. Can you identify the
linguistic form targeted in the passage?
3. In small groups, decide on a grammatical feature to focus on and create
a short dictogloss with the target form embedded in the text.
Text Reconstruction
Another task motivated by the output hypothesis is a text reconstruction task.
This task is also a type of collaborative writing task, one similar to the dictogloss
in many ways. The main difference, in this case, is that learners are provided
with a written text rather than a listening passage. The steps involved in
conducting a text reconstruction task are as follows:
Steps
1. Choose a short text suitable for the target students.

a
2. Distribute the text to the students and have them read the text. Make sure
that they understand the text by having them complete some type of
comprehension tasks.
3. Collect the text from the students. Ask them to get into groups of three or
four.
4. Distribute another version of the text to each group. In this version, the
original text is modified so that all the function words have been removed
from the text, leaving just the content words.
5. The text, minus the function words, is provided to each group. Have students
collaborate to reconstruct the text by inserting appropriate function words,
inflectional morphemes, cohesive devices, and so forth, so as to create a
meaningful, coherent, and grammatically correct passage.
6. Distribute the original text to each group; have the students compare their
writing with the original text.
Example 5.2 shows a sample of the original text and a revised text (i.e., the text
minus the function words).
Example 5.2 (adapted from Wajnryb, 1990, p. 87).
Original text
A recent poll on the subject of fear asked people to respond to a list of eight
common phobias. The list included speed, heights, lifts, crowds, flying,
confined spaces, open spaces, and the dark. It excluded things like snakes
and spiders that are inherently dangerous. The poll revealed that many
more women than men admitted to experiencing fear. Before you
immediately jump to the conclusion that men are braver than women, you
should be warned that one explanation for the figures may be that men are
less inclined than women to confessing fear.
Instruction to students
Read the following text. You will find that it is missing important function
words like articles, prepositions, inflections, sentence connectors, etc. Work
with your group members to insert the missing words and make other
revisions to produce a meaningful and grammatically correct paragraph.

a
Revised text for students

Recent poll subject fear ask people respond list eight common phobias. List
include speed, heights, lifts, crowds, flying, confined spaces, open spaces,
dark. It exclude things snakes spiders inherently dangerous. Poll reveal many
more women men admit experience fear. Before you jump conclusion men
braver women, you be warn one explanation figures may be men be less
incline women confess fear.
What are some of the similarities and differences between a dictogloss and a
text reconstruction task? I have already mentioned that a different modality
(aural vs. written) is used to present the input. As you probably noticed, another
difference is that in text reconstruction, learners are provided with the content
words (as shown in Example 5.2), which they must put together by supplying the
missing grammar to form a coherent text. In a dictogloss, it is the students
themselves who must jot down important words or phrases, while the teacher
reads the text.
Reflection
1. Dictogloss and text reconstruction tasks share similar learning outcomes
and goals but differ in the fact that they use different modality to
present the input. In a dictogloss, learners are provided with aural input
as opposed to the written input that they receive in a text-reconstruction
task. Which task is more likely to generate LREs on language forms?
Explain why.
2. When would you use a dictogloss over a text reconstruction task or vice
versa? Explain why.
Reformulation
Reformulation is yet another output-based technique. For most writing
assignments, students are asked to write on a given topic; the teacher then
collects the assignments and provides some type of feedback or correction; the
draft with feedback is returned to the students who then revise the original
draft based on the teacher’s feedback. In a reformulation task, the teacher does
not provide feedback or corrections on the students’ writing in the traditional

a
sense. Instead, the teacher “reformulates” the student’s writing so that all the
ideas and content that the student has provided are preserved, but the writing
is revised to make it sound as natural and accurate as possible. Thus,
reformulation constitutes a teacher’s rewriting of a learner’s composition in
which the content in the original draft is maintained but any awkward
expressions and grammatical errors are removed (note that the term
reformulation is used differently in the context of oral, interactional feedback;
see Chapter 6 for details). The reformulated writing makes it possible for the
student to compare the model version with his or her own version. The steps of
a reformulation task are provided below.
Steps
1. Have students carry out a guided writing task. This can be done with a
picture prompt.
2. Ask students to get into pairs or groups of three and discuss a plan for the
writing including the overall structure and sequence of information (this step
may be optional).
3. Having discussed the plan, each student is asked to write a draft in class or at
home.
4. Collect the student’s writing. “Reformulate” each writing so that it reflects
target-like usage while preserving the original meaning.
5. Distribute the before version (written by the student) and the after version
(reformulated by the teacher) to each student.
6. Have students compare the two versions and discuss the differences, either
individually or in groups.
7. Ask students to revise their first draft.
In this task, the learners have already produced written output (Step 1). Having
gone through the writing process, they are more likely to notice certain words
and expressions in the reformulated version. This means that the learners will
naturally look for those features and expressions that they had found
problematic while writing their first draft. In this respect, the problems that they
encountered while producing output can trigger an analysis of the incoming
data (i.e., the reformulated text). In this respect, a reformulated or model text

a
enables learners to notice the features needed to express their intended

meaning; thus, it can serve as an alternate form of feedback for learners.
Text reformulation is a useful pedagogic tool that can be employed in teaching a

wide range of grammatical structures as well as lexical, discoursal, and
orthographic features. However, since each student’s writing needs to be
reformulated individually, it can put a burden on the teacher who has to revise
the writing for every student. An alternative is to provide a model text (a text
that the teacher or a proficient L2 user composed with the same prompt given
to the students) for all students, rather than providing a tailor-made version for
each individual. When using the same model text for all the students, the
teacher should make sure that the writing prompt is carefully controlled and
structured in order to elicit the use of certain vocabulary and target structures.
Reflection
1. Several functions of output have been introduced in this chapter. What
are some of the functions of output that can be triggered by (a)
dictogloss, (b) reconstruction, and (c) reformulation tasks?
2. Can you think of a situation where one output-based task might be
preferred over others? Fill out the chart below:
Preferred task For whom? In what context? Why?
(Type of class, students’ proficiency level,
target form, etc.)
Dictogloss
Text-
reconstruction
Reformulation
3. The text below is flooded with the hypothetical conditional. What type
of output-based focus-on-form technique would you use for this text?
Explain why.
Michael is a 40-year-old bachelor. When he was younger, he had had many
girlfriends who wanted to marry him, but he rejected them all. First, there
was Gena. She came from a rich family. If he had married her, he would have
lived in a bigger house. Then there was Julia. She was good at cooking. If he
had married her, he would have enjoyed a feast every night. Another girl
named Maria was from Italy. If he had married her, he would have gone to

a
live in Italy. Laura was a great conversationalist. If he had married her, he

would have had a lot of fun conversations with her. Last but not least, there
was Jane, who was a famous actress. If he had married her, he would have
met many celebrities. Michael often thinks about all these women and the
life he might have had, but he knows that a bachelor’s life is so much better.
If he had married any of them, he would have had many problems.
Summary
In this chapter, we have learned the different functions of output and some
output-based techniques. The techniques presented here make use of the
learners’ written output and encourage learner collaboration. Collaborative
writing tasks are an effective way to provide learners with the opportunities to
pool their linguistic resources and deliberate about their own and their
classmates’ language use as they attempt to create meaning. The role of output
in L2 learning should not be downplayed since it is through output that learners
become aware of the gaps and holes in their interlanguage, which in turn,
triggers them to look for relevant L2 data to fill in those gaps and holes.

In Chapter 5, we have examined only those tasks that involve the use of
learners’ written output. However, output also includes oral production that
occurs in an interactive context. An important function of oral interaction is that
it is subject to immediate feedback from the interlocutor on the
comprehensibility or grammaticality of the speaker’s utterance. In this chapter, I
introduce some important principles of the interaction hypothesis followed by
some focus-on-form techniques involving learners’ oral interaction.
As mentioned in Chapter 2, an important source of theoretical support for

interactional feedback in L2 acquisition comes from Long’s interaction
hypothesis. According to Long (1996),
[N]egotiation for meaning, and especially negotiation work that triggers interactional
adjustments by the NS [native speaker] or more competent interlocutor, facilitates
acquisition because it connects input, internal learner capacities, particularly
selective attention, and output in productive ways. (pp. 451–452)
As seen in the definition above, Long’s interaction hypothesis postulates that

interaction has positive effects on L2 learning and that these effects occur
through a process called negotiation of meaning (see Chapter 2), which
integrates the three important concepts of input, selective attention, and
output.
Interaction is considered important since various kinds of interactional

modifications occur during a negotiated interaction. Such modifications help
make the learner’s output more comprehensible to the interlocutor and allows
the learner to receive feedback on ill-formed or inappropriate utterances
through various types of interactional feedback. Since interactional feedback
occurs during a meaning-focused exchange, attention to form occurs at the

a
crucial moment when meaning is being processed, providing learners with

opportunities to connect form and meaning required for L2 development.
Types of Interactional Feedback

Generally speaking, interactional feedback can be divided into two broad
categories: input-providing and output-prompting feedback. Input-providing
feedback includes those types of feedback that rephrase a learner’s erroneous
utterance and that provide the learner with the correct form. This type of
feedback is also known as reformulation because the teacher or interlocutor
“reformulates” a learner’s non-targetlike forms, as in the case of recasts and
explicit correction. Output-prompting feedback, on the other hand, does not
provide learners with the correct form. Instead, they push the learner (either
directly or indirectly) to self-correct their ill-formed or inappropriate utterance.
Output-prompting feedback is also known as prompts since it “prompts” the
learners to produce modified output. These include clarification requests,
elicitation, metalinguistic feedback, and repetitions. Interactional feedback can
be provided in an extensive or intensive manner. Extensive feedback is feedback
that is provided on a wide range of target forms, which means that the teacher
provides feedback on all the errors that occur during the course of an
interaction. Intensive feedback is focused feedback that is provided to just those
errors involving the target form. For example, intensive feedback occurs when
the teacher recognizes that a student is having problems with the third-person
singular verb agreement and decides to provide corrective feedback only on
that specific form.
It should be noted that Long’s interaction hypothesis and the different types of
interactional feedback typically pertain to interactions between an L2 learner
and a native speaker or a more proficient L2 user. The type of interaction that
generally occurs in a learner-learner interaction (especially with lower
proficiency students) may be quite different, with fewer instances of
interactional feedback and more negotiation of meaning episodes (see Example
2.1).
Table 6.1 presents different types of interactional feedback strategies with

examples.

a
Table 6.1 Different types of interactional feedback

Input-providing feedback strategies
Recast Reformulating all or part of an erroneous utterance into the
correct form without changing its meaning.
S: Have you meet her brother?
T: Have you met her brother? (recast)
Explicit Providing the correct from with an explicit indication of
correction what is being corrected.
S: Have you meet her brother?
T: Come on, you are not gonna say “Have you meet.” It
should be “Have you met… Have you met her brother?”
(explicit correction)
Output-prompting feedback strategies
Elicitation Eliciting the correct form from the learner without providing
it.
S: She got catched by…..
T: She got……….. (elicitation)
S: caught.
Metalinguistic Providing metalinguistic information about the error.
feedback S: I have saw this car.
T: Please be careful when you say “have.” You need the past
participle here. (metalinguistic feedback)
Clarification Moves that inform the learner that his or her utterance is
requests either not understood or ill-formed (e.g., Sorry? Pardon me?
Excuse me?)
S: I like to study psychoLOGY.
T: Sorry? You like to study WHAT? (clarification request)
Repetition Repeating the learner’s erroneous utterance.
S: Oh, I’m so tired. I sleep for 2 hours only.
T: I sleep? (repetition)
As seen in Table 6.1, the correct forms are provided in recasts and explicit
correction, which makes them input-providing. In contrast, the other four
interactional feedback strategies encourage learners to make repairs by
prompting them to produce some type of modified output or uptake (i.e.,
learner’s immediate response to corrective feedback). Notice that recasts and
explicit correction not only provide the learner with the correct form (i.e.,
positive evidence) but also signal to the learner that his or her utterance is
deviant in some way, thereby providing them with negative evidence as well.

a
Reflection
1. What kind of interactional feedback do you usually give your students?
Why do you prefer to use that particular type of feedback over others?
2. Do your students make repairs or attempt to correct their non-target-like
forms when you give them corrective feedback? Based on your own
learning/teaching experience, what type of corrective feedback is most
likely to result in learner repair?
3. Should teachers provide different types of feedback on different error
types (e.g., vocabulary error, pronunciation error, morphosyntactic
error)? Why or why not?
What was your response to Question #1 above? If you are curious to know what
kind of interactional feedback is most widely used in L2 classrooms across
different instructional settings, ISLA research can provide some helpful insights.
Research on interaction and feedback has shown that recasts are the most
widely used type of feedback in communicative language classrooms. Why
might this be the case? This may be explained by the implicit nature of recasts
which provides the learner with the correct reformulation of his or her
erroneous utterance without interfering with the flow of communication.
However, the downside is that the implicit nature of recasts can also pose a
problem, as learners may miss the corrective intention that is inherent in
recasts. Consider the example shown in 6.2.
Example 6.2
S: I am English studying.
T: You are studying English. (recast)
S: Yes. (uptake; no repair)
In the example above, the student made an error, and the teacher provided a
recast by reformulating the learner’s ill-formed utterance into the correct form.
Although the teacher actually meant to correct the student’s error, the student
perceived it as a confirmation of meaning, rather than a correction, as illustrated
in his response (“Yes”) which constitutes an uptake with no repair. As illustrated
in this example, classroom discourse can be quite confusing in terms of real
“meaning” exchanges and “teaching” exchanges. In other words, learners can

a
miss the point by perceiving recasts as a genuine exchange of meaning rather

than a “teaching” exchange.
You may recall from Chapter 3 that focus-on-form techniques vary in their
degrees of implicitness/explicitness (see Figure 3.1). Similarly, interactional
feedback strategies can also vary on a scale of implicitness/explicitness
depending on whether a learner’s attention is overtly drawn to linguistic form(s)
and the extent to which these strategies interfere with meaning communication.
A regular recast is typically considered to be implicit as opposed to a
metalinguistic correction, which is considered to be the most explicit.
Reflection
Arrange the six interactional feedback techniques from Table 6.1 on the
diagram below, ranging from the most implicit to the most explicit. Compare
your answer with a partner.
Implicit --------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Explicit
Recast Metalinguistic feedback
Now, let’s turn to some relevant research findings on the utility of different
types of interactional feedback. ISLA research during the past three decades has
provided valuable insights on feedback that can inform teachers’ feedback
practices. In particular, findings have indicated that less proficient learners
generally benefit more from explicit feedback strategies that clearly identify the
nature and type of the error (e.g., metalinguistic correction), while more
proficient learners may benefit from implicit feedback types, such as recasting.
In addition, some findings have suggested that short recasts with only one
change may be more effective than recasts with multiple changes due to the
learner’s limited attentional capacity (e.g., Philp, 2003). Findings have also
suggested that teachers should refrain from correcting every error in the
classroom (extensive feedback), which may discourage learners and inhibit their
willingness to communicate. Instead, teachers should opt to target only a few
errors that have been the focus of recent instruction. For example, if learners
have recently received instruction on the third-person singular agreement, it
would make sense to provide intensive feedback (this is also known as focused
feedback) on errors containing that form.

a
Reflection
A lot of ISLA research has been conducted on interactional feedback. Below
are some statements about interactional feedback strategies based on SLA
research findings. Read the statements below and decide whether each
statement is true or false. Compare your answers with a partner and provide
the reasons for your choice.
What do you think? (True or False?)
1. Implicit feedback strategies such as recasting and clarification requests

are more likely to be noticed and incorporated by learners than explicit
feedback strategies such as metalinguistic correction and explicit
correction.
2. Recasts on pronunciation errors (i.e., phonological recasts) are more
likely to be noticed than recasts aimed at morphosyntactic errors (i.e.,
morphosyntactic recasts [e.g., She play with me-> She plays with me]).
3. Recasts delivered with rising intonation (i.e., interrogative recasts) are
more likely to be noticed as corrective feedback than recasts delivered
with falling intonation (i.e., declarative recasts).
4. Feedback directed in a concentrated fashion at one specific grammatical
structure (i.e., intensive feedback) is more effective than feedback
directed at whatever errors learners make (i.e., extensive feedback).
5. A learner is more likely to notice feedback that is directed at him/herself
than feedback that is directed at another learner.
6. A recast with only one change (i.e., simple recast) is more likely to be
noticed than one with multiple changes (i.e., complex recast).
Now that we have reviewed the importance of interaction and feedback, let’s
now take a look at some tasks than can generate negotiation of meaning and
interactional feedback.
Information Gap
Information gap tasks are arguably one of the most popular tasks in
communicative L2 classrooms. As the name information gap suggests, the gap

a
refers to information that one person has, but others do not. This gap creates
the need for learners to communicate and cooperate with the other member(s)
in their attempt to fill in the missing information.
An information gap task may allow for a one- or two-way exchange of

information. In a one-way information gap task, one learner has all the
information which he or she must transfer to others. A two-way information gap
is typically a pair work in which each learner holds different pieces of
information. The task is designed so that learners need to ask each other
questions to obtain the information that the other person has. Thus, using
information gap tasks in the classroom is a good way of promoting meaningful
interaction and facilitating L2 development. The following examples of one-way
and two-way information gap tasks illustrate how such tasks generate
negotiation of meaning as well as negotiation of form episodes.
Draw My Room
This is a one-way information gap task where one student has all the
information and is responsible for conveying that information to his or her
partner. The partner has to listen carefully and negotiate for meaning and form
in order to successfully complete the task. In the Draw my room task, the
teacher asks one student (Student A) to describe his or her room by explaining
how his or her furniture is arranged in the room. The other student (Student B)
listens and follows the partner’s directions carefully in order to successfully draw
Student A’s room. In addition, Student B needs to assume the role of an active
listener and make clarification requests, confirmation checks, and other
conversational moves whenever something is not clear. I tried this activity with
my students and recorded their interaction. The exchange in Example 6.2 is
extracted from one of the recordings.
Example 6.2
A: At the… at the root, root, uh at the root of my bed, there is…

B: At the leg of my bed. (recast)
A: Oh, at the leg of my bed. (uptake + repair)
As seen in Example 6.2, Student A is not entirely sure about the expression at
the root of my bed which he utters with some hesitation. Student B, a native

a
speaker of English (note that this was a TESOL Methodology class for
undergraduate students in which about 20% of the students were native
speakers of English), corrects the expression with a recast, by reformulating
Student A’s “root of my bed” to “leg of my bed.” Student A immediately notices
the recast and successfully repairs his utterance. Note that when a learner
makes a successful repair, it is a good indication that he or she has noticed the
gap between his or her utterance and the interlocutor’s utterance. Another
example is shown in 6.3.
Example 6.3
A: Its color is gray.

B: Gray? What what is gray? I’m not … (clarification request)
A: The color…you don’t know gray? (comprehension check)
B: I don’t know. . .
A: Like … silver color but there is no shine (modified output)
like the color of a … an elephant
In Example 6.3, Student B signals that he does not understand gray by asking a
clarification request (What is gray?). Student A checks B’s comprehension (You
don’t know gray?), and then modifies her output in order to make it more
comprehensible for Student B (Like …. silver color but there is no shine; like the
color of a … an elephant).
As can be seen, a one-way information gap can be a useful tool in the classroom.
The task encourages authentic communication, as people in the real world
frequently communicate with each other to get some information they do not
possess. It is also easy to implement since it is often the case that students in a
class do not know one another very well, which allows for gaps that they can
look for. Having students draw their partner’s room with furniture arrangements
(as shown in Example 6.2) or having them draw their partner’s family tree can
generate negotiation of meaning which requires the interlocutor to listen
carefully for details in order to obtain the required information.
Spot the Differences

A two-way information gap task, such as the Spot the differences task, is usually
more structured than a one-way information gap. In this task, students are

a
divided into A-B pairs, and each student is given a picture and told that the two
pictures are similar but contains a certain number of differences. Without
looking at each other’s picture, students must ask questions and try to spot as
many differences as possible between the two pictures. Again, the primary focus
is on communication because the learners have to describe their pictures as
closely as possible to find the differences. There is a gap because A cannot see
B’s picture, which makes for an authentic communication. A sample task is
shown in Example 6.4.
Example 6.4
Try to find the differences between Picture A and Picture B in Example 6.4
yourself (there are at least 10 differences). Spotting the differences while
looking at both pictures simultaneously may not be that difficult, but finding the
differences based just on a partner’s oral descriptions can be quite challenging.
This type of task is close-ended and precision-oriented, requiring close attention
to detail in order for the participants to accurately exchange information about
the similarities and differences between the two pictures. It therefore sets up an
optimal condition that requires the participants to be clear and accurate in
conveying the information they have. As learners repeat and rephrase
utterances to make sure that their information is accurate and understood, they
also draw attention to the forms that encode these meanings.
There are other forms of two-way information gap activities including tasks
where the pair needs to cooperate to fill out a chart or complete a timetable in
order to obtain necessary information from each other. The basic principle
underlying this type of task is to create a meaningful context for learners to
exchange information.

a
Group Decision Task

Group decision tasks are activities that encourage learners to collaborate in
solving a problem or reaching a decision. Since there is no right or wrong
solution, this type of task is more open-ended than the information gap tasks
introduced earlier. The point is that learners need to provide and fine-tune their
opinions to reach a consensus. Some of the popular group decision tasks involve
making decisions about which five items to put in a time capsule, which ten
items to bring on a spaceship with limited storage, who gets the heart among
several candidates who need a heart transplant, among many others. A sample
group decision task, What items do I take? is presented in Example 6.5.
Example 6.5
What items do I take? (Adapted from Rooks, 1998, p. 83).

You are a 26-year-old political prisoner who has been sentenced to spend
the remainder of your life on an uninhabited island. The island is 5,000 miles
from any land, and the chances of escaping are extremely small because of
strong ocean currents. Fortunately, the island has a moderate climate with
lush vegetation, so food is not a problem. Your government has allowed you
to take 10 items to the island. The government will provide you with a
portable solar generator if you want to take electrical devices. The only
restrictions are that you may not select a person to accompany you, and you
may not take any means of transportation to the island. Decide in your
groups what articles you would take and provide a reason for each item.
Here are some possible items. You can feel free to choose other items that
are not on the list.
• A compass • A mirror • A refrigerator

• An article of • A cooking pan • An axe
clothing • A book • A gun/ammunition
• A frying pan • A horse • A fishing pole
• A hammer • A smartphone • Sunglasses
• A flashlight • A computer
• Scissors • A knife

a
Reflection
1. Between information gap and group decision tasks, which task is more
likely to generate different kinds of interactional feedback? Explain why.
2. The types of interaction that occur in information gap and group
decision tasks are likely to be qualitatively different. How might they
differ in terms of different negotiation moves and/or interactional
feedback? (See Examples 2.1 & 6.1 for ideas).
3. Can you think of other tasks that can promote negotiated interaction
among pairs or groups?
Summary
In this chapter, we have learned how interactional feedback facilitates L2
acquisition. As seen, input-providing feedback such as recasts and explicit
correction can provide the learners with the target-like forms, whereas output-
providing feedback such as elicitation and clarification requests can encourage
learners to modify their output. Interactional feedback is especially important
since the feedback is learner-contingent and reactive (i.e., in response to
learners’ needs). Findings have shown that among the different types of
interactional feedback, recasts are the most widely used type in L2 classrooms.
Although it has been suggested that learners may not always perceive the
corrective intention in recasts (i.e., negative evidence), teachers should not be
too concerned since learners can always benefit from the provision of positive
evidence (i.e., the correct forms provided by recasts).

a
So far, we have covered why focus on form is beneficial and how teachers might
implement focus on form in their own classrooms. As any experienced teachers
would attest, students do not always learn what we teach them, and merely
implementing these techniques in the classroom may not necessarily result in
learning on the part of the student. There are some considerations that teachers
should keep in mind in order to draw out the maximum benefits from their
instruction. In this chapter, I introduce some potential factors that need to be
considered when implementing different kinds of focus-on-form techniques.
Learner Readiness
One important factor that every teacher should consider is learners’ readiness
with regard to the target form. Early SLA research has shown that learners
master grammatical structures in a relatively fixed and universal order as they
pass through a series of stages in several areas of morphology and syntax (e.g.,
question formation, negation, among others). This gave rise to the belief that
there are universal developmental sequences that learners naturally tend to
follow. What this means is that if the learners are not developmentally ready to
process and acquire the target forms, it will be difficult to achieve a successful
focus on form (Pienemann, 1989; Lightbown & Spada, 2013). In this respect,
some researchers (e.g., Corder, 1967) have emphasized the importance of
recognizing and respecting the learner’s internal syllabus, arguing that learners
have their own internal agenda for learning, which may be quite different from
the teacher’s external syllabus. The implication is that for L2 instruction to be
effective, the teacher’s external or instructional syllabus should ideally “match”

a
the learner’s internal syllabus. A successful focus-on-form technique is most

likely to occur when the learner is ready to process the target form – that is,
when the target form echoes the learning agenda on the learner’s internal
syllabus.
Applying the concept of learner readiness to the classroom can be quite tricky
since each individual is at his or her own unique developmental stage; some
students may be ready to acquire a certain form while others may not be ready.
Unfortunately, there is no formula to determine where each learner is regarding
his or her readiness. However, since teachers interact with their students on a
regular basis and make it their business to scrutinize their oral and written
production, teachers are the ones who can best decide which forms need to be
targeted for their students. If there is a problematic form that the majority of
learners are ready to learn, some type of proactive focus-on-form techniques
can be used to draw their attention to that issue. In this way, teachers can teach
at a level appropriate for the majority of their students. In the case of reactive
focus on form, which involves providing feedback to individual students,
teachers need not worry as much about learner readiness. The mere fact that a
learner tried to produce a certain form suggests that he or she has some prior
knowledge of the target form and is more or less ready to learn that form. Given
that there is a relatively predictable path of L2 interlanguage development,
teachers should be mindful of where their students are in terms of their
developmental readiness.
Reflection
1. What are some sources you can draw on to gauge your students’
developmental readiness for a specific linguistic form?
2. The following table shows the developmental sequence of negation that
all learners go through in acquiring the English negation formation. Do
you think this type of information can influence (or modify) your
approach to teaching the English negation? In what way?
Developmental sequence of negation (Lightbown & Spada, 2013)
Stage Description Sample language
Stage 1 No+verb: “No” or “not” is placed No book; Not have
before the verb. money
Stage 2 Don’t+verb: “Don’t” is used but not I don’t can drive; I

a
marked for person, number or tense. don’t swim; she don’t

like it.
Stage 3 Auxiliary+negation: Negative element I can’t play; He don’t
is positioned after auxiliary verbs. understand; She was
not happy.
Stage 4 Analyzed “don’t” and She doesn’t
auxiliary+negative: “Do” is marked for understand.
number and tense, but the auxiliary They didn’t ate there.
and the verb may also be marked for I didn’t went to school.
person, number and tense.
Nature of the Target Form

ISLA research has repeatedly shown that not all forms and structures are equally
conducive to instruction. Therefore, when selecting a focus-on-form technique,
it is helpful to consider the nature of the target form. As can be seen in Chapter
4, some linguistic forms are inherently salient and, therefore, more noticeable
(and more readily processed) than others. What makes some forms more salient
than others? Some of the key contributing factors are summarized below:
• Perceptual salience: A linguistic form may be more salient because it is

perceptually salient. Perceptual salience has to do with the effect caused by
the physical attribute of the target structure. For example, perceptual
salience may be due to input frequency, novelty (e.g., extra-long or odd-
looking words), or position in a sentence; items in the sentence-initial or final
position being more salient than those in the sentence-medial position (see
Park, 2011, for other proposed factors).
• Communicative value or meaningfulness: A form may be more salient because

it carries more communicative value. Items that carry more meaning, such as
content words ([+semantic value]), tend to be processed before the less
meaningful items, such as function words or items whose meaning or
function may be repeated in some way ([+redundancy]).
• Form-meaning relationship: This has to do with whether or not the target

form has a distinct meaning or function that corresponds to it. If there is a
clear meaning or function associated with the target form, it has a
transparent form-meaning relationship. For example, the plural marker -s in
English has a clear corresponding function since -s expresses plurality (car vs.

a
cars). However, some modal auxiliaries, such as may, do not have a

transparent form-meaning relationship since may can express possibility
(e.g., It may rain tomorrow) as well as the idea of giving permission (e.g., You
may leave now) depending on the context in which it is used.
Why is the afore-mentioned information important? This type of information is

useful because different focus-on-form techniques work differently for different
target forms. Researchers (e.g., Wong, 2005) have suggested that focus-on-form
techniques that are more implicit in nature, such as input flood or textual
enhancement, will be more effective with forms that have a transparent form-
meaning relationship. Otherwise, learners may not be able to comprehend the
meaning that the form encodes, even if they do notice the form. As Wong
(2005) suggests, for forms with a less transparent form-meaning relationship,
teachers should opt for more explicit techniques such as structured input or
consciousness-raising tasks, which are more likely to push learners to make the
correct form-meaning connections. In a consciousness-raising task, for example,
learners are led to formulate the rules that underlie the use of a particular
structure. In this sense, they are induced to make the correct form-meaning
connections (Wong, 2005).
Reflection
1. Can you think of any linguistic forms (in English or any other languages
that you know) that are perceptually salient? What makes them salient?
2. Can you think of some linguistic forms that have a clear form-meaning
relationship? Explain with examples.
Learners’ Attentional/Processing Capacity

For any type of focus-on-form technique to be effective, teachers need to keep
in mind that a learner is only capable of processing a certain amount of
information at a time and that instruction is more likely to be successful under
the conditions in which a learner’s processing ability is freed up to focus on
form. How can teachers help the students in this respect? This may be done by
using tasks that students are familiar with. If the students are familiar with the
task that they are working on (i.e., task familiarity), it is more likely that they can
focus on form. Another common technique is to have students repeat the same

a
task (i.e., task repetition). When a task involving reading or listening, is repeated,
students are more likely to focus on form the second time around. It is also
possible to control the topic dealt with in the task so that it is something that
students are familiar with (i.e., topic familiarity). When learners are provided
with input on a familiar topic or content, their form processing is facilitated.
In a related manner, a simple way to lessen the cognitive demand on a learner’s

processing capacity is to help them process the input for meaning before they
process it for form. As we have learned from the input processing model (see
Chapter 4), learners have a natural tendency to process input for meaning
before they process it for form. Keeping this in mind, teachers should direct
their students to focus on meaning the first time around. After the students
have understood the meaning, it is easier for them to focus on form the second
time around. This is especially useful for input flood or input enhancement
tasks. If learners need to struggle with extracting the meaning from the text,
they will not be able to notice the flooded structures no matter how frequently
the target form may appear in the input. The same goes for textual
enhancement techniques; if the text is too difficult, learners will exhaust their
attention trying to extract the meaning, which makes it difficult for them to
focus on the enhanced forms. In such cases, teachers should first have the
students read the text for its meaning (without any enhancements) and then
have them read the same text with enhancements to help their students focus
on the enhanced forms. In this way, students have already read the text and
understood its meaning, which can afford them leeway to focus on form.
Individual Differences
Students differ in how they approach input and learning tasks and in how they
gather and interact with L2 information. As teachers, we know that some
students take a lot of notes in class, while others do not take notes at all. Some
students are willing to jump right into conversation whereas others remain
reluctant to jump into conversation unless they have sufficiently rehearsed what
they want to say. As teachers, we marvel at certain students who seem to learn
an L2 effortlessly, and we feel dismayed at others who always seem to be
struggling. These learner differences are real and clear in SLA and are subsumed
under the topic of individual differences. Some of the individual differences that
have been known to influence L2 learning include age, personality, motivation,

a
and aptitude, among others. While it is beyond the scope of this book to discuss
these individual differences, it is important for teachers to know that these
differences do exist and influence learners’ L2 learning processes and outcomes.
Most of the individual differences mentioned above (e.g., age, personality, or
aptitude) cannot be changed or altered by teachers, which means that teachers
should accept that these differences do exist and try to match their instruction
to their students’ aptitudes, personalities, and so forth. One thing that teachers
can do something about is helping learners enhance their motivation. It has
been suggested that when learners have a positive attitude toward the
language, the L2 class, the teacher, or the task that they are working on, it
motivates them to do better. Fostering a cheerful and collaborative atmosphere,
using pedagogic tasks that are matched to the students’ level, and using
materials that contain relevant, authentic materials that are matched to their
interests can help learners develop favorable attitudes toward classroom tasks
and L2 learning in general. This can promote learner motivation, which in turn
can positively influence the students’ learning experience. Showing energy and
enthusiasm, making the course personal and relevant to the students are also
some other ways in which teachers can increase their students’ motivation.
Summary
In this chapter, we have covered a number of learner-internal factors (e.g.,
learner readiness, processing constraints, individual differences) and learner-
external factors (e.g., nature of the target form) that need to be considered
when implementing focus-on-form techniques. While all of the factors
addressed in the chapter are important, the first and foremost consideration in
successful focus on form and L2 instruction in general is putting the learners’
needs and their internal learning agenda to the fore. This entails that teachers
make the time and effort to get to know their students’ backgrounds, concerns
and expectations in order to best cater to their needs. As Corder (1967) noted
more than 50 years ago, learning is enhanced when there is a harmonious
match between a learner’s internal syllabus and the teacher’s instructional
syllabus. This still remains a timeless piece of wisdom that all teachers should
bear in mind.

Further Readings
Cook, V. (2008). Second language learning and teaching. Hodder Education.
Doughty, C. & Williams, J. (Eds). (1998). Focus on form in classroom second
language acquisition. Cambridge University Press.
Ellis, R. (2005). Principles of instructed language learning. System, 33(2), 209-
224.
Lightbown, S. (2000). Classroom SLA research and second language teaching.
Applied Linguistics, 21(4), 431-462.
Loewen, S. (2015). Introduction to instructed second language acquisition.
Routledge.
Nassaji, H. & Fotos, S. (2011). Teaching grammar in second language
classrooms: Integrating form-focused instruction in communicative context.
Routledge.
Park, E. S. (2008). Tapping into learners’ internal salience: Insights from an
implicit focus on form study. English Teaching, 63(2), 139-166.
Wong, W. (2005). Input enhancement: From theory and research to the
classroom. McGraw-Hill.

a
Acquisition Krashen’s term for the subconscious processes

involved in creating an implicit knowledge of the
L2, similar to the process which accounts for
children’s L1 acquisition.
Audiolingual Method An L2 teaching method based on behaviorist
psychology and structural linguistics which was
widely used in the 1950s and 1960s. This method
places a strong emphasis on memorization,
repetition, and pattern drills.
Authentic input Language used by native speakers for some real
communicative purpose (as opposed to language
or input that has been modified for teaching
purposes).
Behaviorism A psychological theory applied to language
learning popular in the 1950s. Behaviorism posits
that learning is the result of habit formation.
Comprehensible input A term introduced by Krashen to refer to
meaningful input that a learner understands which
contains structures that are a little bit beyond the
learner’s current level.
Consciousness raising task A focus-on-form technique that involves
presenting L2 learners with both correct and
incorrect forms of the target form in order to help
them discover the rule underlying the target form.
Developmental sequences A series of stages that all learners go through when
acquiring a certain grammatical feature (e.g.,
negation, and interrogatives, among other
features).
Dictogloss A focus-on-form technique in which the teacher
reads a passage to L2 learners. Learners take notes
and then work in groups to reconstruct the
passage.

a
EFL The term EFL is used when L2 learning of English

takes place in a country or context in which English
is not used in the immediate environment (e.g.,
Indonesia, Korea, Spain, among other countries).
ESL The term ESL is used when L2 learning of English
takes place in a country or context in which English
is used in the immediate environment (e.g.,
English-speaking countries like Canada, Australia,
and the U.S.).
Explicit knowledge Conscious knowledge of rules that learners
develop under explicit conditions; learners are able
to articulate this type of knowledge.
Focus on form A term coined by Long (1991) to initially refer to
pedagogical techniques that draw learners’
attention to form within a meaningful context.
Focus on forms The L2 teaching approach that focuses on the
teaching of discrete linguistic forms with no regard
for meaning.
Fossilization A stabilized state where a learner’s interlanguage
stops and the nontarget forms stop developing
despite abundant input and instruction.
Grammar Translation The traditional language teaching method in which
Method the focus is on the analysis of grammar and
translation of texts from the learners’ L1 to L2 and
vice versa. This method was popular until the
1950s.
Implicit knowledge Knowledge that learners are not consciously aware
of; learners are unable to verbalize this type of
knowledge.
Incidental learning Unplanned or accidental learning that occurs while
a learner is focusing on something else.
Input flood A focus-on-form technique in which the teacher
presents the learners with a text or listening
passage which contains multiple instances of the
target form.
Input enhancement A deliberate attempt to make certain features of L2
input more salient in order to attract learners’

a
attention to those forms.

Input Any sample of the L2 the learners are exposed to.
Input hypothesis A key hypothesis of Krashen’s Monitor Model
which states that for L2 acquisition to proceed,
learners must be exposed to comprehensible input
(i.e., L2 input that is slightly more advanced than
their current level).
Input-providing feedback A type of feedback that provides the correct form;
such as explicit correction and recasts. This is also
known as “reformulation.”
Intake A subset of input that has been filtered by the
learner for further processing.
Interlanguage The systematic L2 knowledge that learners have at
any given point during their L2 development.
Interaction hypothesis The hypothesis that modifications and
collaborative efforts which take place during
interaction facilitate L2 acquisition
Interactional feedback Oral corrective feedback that learners receive
implicitly or explicitly during negotiated
interaction.
Internal syllabus This term was introduced by Corder (1967) to refer
to the “learner-generated sequence” or the
learner’s own built-in agenda for learning. This is
also known as the learner’s built-in syllabus.
Learning Krashen’s term for the conscious process of
creating rules of L2 grammar via instruction. This
contrasts with acquisition which is an unconscious
process.
Monitor Conscious knowledge of L2 that is a product of
learning which is available for editing or checking
the accuracy of the learner’s own output.
Monitor Model An approach to SLA introduced by Krashen that
emphasizes the role of comprehensible input as a
driving factor in L2 acquisition.

a
Natural Approach An L2 teaching method that mirrors child language

acquisition. It focuses on providing abundant
meaningful input to learners with no grammar
instruction.
Negative evidence Language data or input that indicates what is
considered ungrammatical in the target language.
Corrective feedback is a type of negative evidence.
Negotiation of form A type of interaction in which L2 learners negotiate
to work toward the correct form.
Negotiation of meaning A type of interaction in which L2 learners and their
interlocutors attempt to resolve a communication
breakdown. During negotiated interaction, learners
negotiate meaning through conversational
adjustments.
Noticing hypothesis This hypothesis was proposed by Schmidt, who
asserted that noticing is necessary for converting
input into intake and for subsequent L2 learning.
Noticing the gap This occurs when a learner discovers that his or her
output is different from the target-like form (i.e.,
the learner notices the gap between his/her non-
target-like form and the interlocutor’s target-like
form).
Noticing the hole This occurs when a learner realizes that he or she
does not have the means to say what he/she wants
to say (i.e., the learner notices the hole in his/her
interlanguage).
Output The language that a learner produces in speech or
in writing.
Output hypothesis Swain proposed this hypothesis and argued that
output serves an important role in SLA in that it
promotes noticing and gives learners a chance to
test their hypotheses and reflect on their language
use.
Output-prompting Feedback strategies that encourage learners to
feedback produce repair (e.g., elicitation, clarification
request, metalinguistic feedback, and repetition).
These are also known as “prompts.”

a
Perceptual salience This refers to the effect caused by concrete

physical attributes of a certain linguistic structure.
Positive evidence Language data or input that indicates what is
possible or grammatical in the target language.
Processing instruction A type of focus on form that is informed by
VanPatten’s (2004) input processing model. It
attempts to modify learners’ processing strategies
to derive optimal intake.
Prompts Feedback strategies that prompt learners to
produce repair (e.g., elicitation, clarification
request, repetition, and metalinguistic feedback).
These are also known as “output-prompting
feedback.”
Recast An implicit corrective feedback in which the
teacher reformulates the learner’s incorrect
utterance without changing its core meaning.
Reformulation (in oral Another term for input-providing feedback (e.g.,
interaction) recasts or explicit correction).
Reformulation (in written Having the teacher reformulate a learner’s writing
output) by preserving all the ideas and content but making
it sound as natural as possible by removing
awkward or inappropriate expressions and
grammatical errors.
Repair When a learner modifies (i.e., repairs) his or her
non-target like utterance in response to the
interlocutor’s feedback.
Structured input The type of input used in processing instruction;
structured input pushes the learners to process
the L2 input in a certain way.
Teacher talk The specialized talk that teachers use in the
classroom.
Textual enhancement A focus-on-form technique which involves
highlighting of grammatical forms in a written text
to make those forms more salient to learners.
Ultimate attainment The endpoint of language acquisition – i.e., the L2
learning that a learner attains once the learning
process has ceased and the L2 system has been

a
stabilized. L2 acquisition typically results in

incomplete attainment, as opposed to L1
acquisition which results in complete attainment.
Uptake A learner’s immediate response to corrective
feedback. Uptake can range from a simple
acknowledgment of feedback (e.g., “yes”) to a
successful or unsuccessful repair.

a
References
Azar, B. & Hagen, S. (2009). Basic English grammar. Pearson Education.
Corder, P. (1967). The significance of learners’ errors. International Review of
Applied Linguistics, 5, 161-169.
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 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 University Press.
Ellis, R. (1993). Second language acquisition and the structural syllabus. TESOL
Quarterly, 27(1), 91-113.
Ellis, R. (1997). SLA research and language teaching. Oxford University Press.
Ellis, R. (2001). Investigating form-focused instruction. In R. Ellis (Ed.). Form-
focused instruction and second language learning (pp.1-46). Blackwell
Publishers.
Gass, S. & Selinker, L. (2008): Second language acquisition: An introductory
course. Routledge.
Gass, S. & Varonis, E. (1994). Input, interaction, and second language
production. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 16(3), 283-302.
Han, Z., Park, E. S., & Combs, C. (2008). Textual enhancement of input: Issues
and possibilities. Applied Linguistics, 29(4), 597-618.
Krashen, S. (1982). Principles and practice in second language acquisition.
Pergamon.
Krashen, S. (1985). The input hypothesis. Longman.
Krashen, S., Lee, S-Y., & Lao, C. (2017). Comprehensible and compelling: The
causes and effects of free vocabulary reading. Libraries Unlimited.
Lightbown, P. & Spada, N. (2013). How languages are learned. Oxford University
Press.

a
Loewen, S. (2015). Introduction to instructed second language acquisition.

Routledge.
Loewen, S. & Sato, M. (2017). Instructed second language acquisition (ISLA): An
overview. in S. Loewen & M. Sato (Eds.). The Routledge handbook of
instructed second language acquisition (pp. 1-12). Routledge.
Long, M. (1983). Does second language instruction make a difference? A review
of research. TESOL Quarterly, 17(3), 359-382.
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 perspectives (pp. 39-52). John Benjamins.
Long, M. (1996). The role of the linguistic environment in second language
acquisition. In W. Richie & T. Bhatia (Eds.). Handbook of second language
acquisition (pp. 413-468). Academic Press.
Nassaji, H. & Fotos, S. (2011). Teaching grammar in second language
classrooms: Integrating form-focused instruction in communicative context.
Routledge.
Park, E. S. (2011). Learner-generated noticing of L2 written input: What do
learners notice and why? Language Learning, 61(1), 146-186.
Park, E. S. & Nassif, L. (2014). Textual enhancement of two L2 Arabic forms: a
classroom-based study. Language Awareness, 23(4), 334-352.
Philp, J. (2003). Constraints on “noticing the gap”: Nonnative speakers’ noticing
of recasts in NS-NNS interaction. Studies in Second Language Acquisition,
25(1), 99–126.
Pienemann, M. (1989). Is language teachable? Psycholinguistic experiments and
hypotheses. Applied Linguistics, 10(1), 52-79.
Rooks, G. (1988). The non-stop discussion workbook. Heinle & Heinle Publishers.
Schmidt, R. (1990). The role of consciousness in language learning. Applied
Linguistics, 11(2), 129-158.
Schmidt, R. & Frota, S. (1986). Developing basic conversational ability in a
second language. A case study of an adult learner of Portuguese. In R. Day
(Ed.). Talking to learn: Conversation in second language acquisition (pp 237-
326). Newbury House.

a
Sharwood-Smith, M. (1993). Input enhancement in instructed SLA: Theoretical

bases. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 15(2), 165-179.
Swain, M. (1985). Communicative competence: Some roles of comprehensible
input and comprehensible output in its development. In S. Gass & C. Madden
(Eds.). Input in second language acquisition (pp. 235-253). Newbury House.
Swain, M. (1995). Three functions of output in second language learning. In G.
Cook & B. Seidlhofer, B. (Eds.). Principle and practice in applied linguistics (pp.
125-144). Oxford University Press.
Townsend, S. (1988). The secret diary of Adrian Mole, aged 13¾. Methuen.
VanPatten, B. (2004). Processing instruction: Theory, research, and commentary.
Lawrence Earlbaum Associates.
Wajnryb. R. (1990). Grammar dictation. Oxford University Press.
Wong, W. (2005). Input enhancement: From theory and research to the
classroom. McGraw-Hill.

Instructed SLA - Eun Sung Park

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

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

Instructed SLA - Eun Sung Park

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

TEFLIN TEACHER DEVELOPMENT SERIES

Series Editors: Willy A Renandya & Nur Hayati

TEFLIN Teacher Development Series contains short practical resource booklets

Introducing Task-based Language Teaching by Rod Ellis

If you have any queries, please contact:

Copyright © 2020 by Eun Sung Park

Publisher: TEFLIN Publication Division in collaboration with Bintang Sejahtera Press

First published 2020

Eun Sung Park

TEFLIN Teacher Development Series

Through the TEFLIN Publication Division, we have published volumes of the

Instructed SLA: A Practical Guide for Teachers ii

Joko Nurkamto Yazid Basthomi

President of TEFLIN Coordinator of TEFLIN Publication Division

Instructed SLA: A Practical Guide for Teachers iii

Instructed SLA: A Practical Guide for Teachers iv

Instructed SLA: A Practical Guide for Teachers v

Eun Sung Park

Instructed SLA: A Practical Guide for Teachers vi

Foreword from the Publisher ........................................................................ ii

CHAPTER ONE • Introduction ................................................................................ 1

Instructed SLA: A Practical Guide for Teachers vii

Instructed SLA: A Practical Guide for Teachers 1

What is Second Language Acquisition?

What do we mean by different kinds of learning contexts? We can easily think of

For teachers and practitioners engaged in TESOL, we often make a distinction

Instructed SLA: A Practical Guide for Teachers 2

As noted, SLA embraces L2 learning in a variety of contexts and examines the

• How do learners create their interlanguage (L2 grammar)?

Instructed SLA: A Practical Guide for Teachers 3

What is Instructed Second Language Acquisition

• Is instruction beneficial for SLA?

Clearly, the underlying assumption in ISLA is that it is possible to enhance L2

Instructed SLA: A Practical Guide for Teachers 4

Instructed SLA: A Practical Guide for Teachers 5

Instructed SLA: A Practical Guide for Teachers 7

learners acquire an L2 by understanding and unconsciously soaking up this

Instructed SLA: A Practical Guide for Teachers 8

Instructed SLA: A Practical Guide for Teachers 9

Negotiation refers to a type of interaction in which the participant’s attention is

Instructed SLA: A Practical Guide for Teachers 10

speakers strive to make their meaning more comprehensible to each other

In Example 2.1, Jane, a native speaker of English, and Hiroshi, a non-native

Instructed SLA: A Practical Guide for Teachers 11

type of explanation or clarification. This “moment” is particularly crucial because

Types of Knowledge and Interface Positions

Given that it is implicit knowledge that enables learners to communicate

Instructed SLA: A Practical Guide for Teachers 12

Table 2.1 Different interface positions

As can be expected, the varying interface positions differ in regard to the

Instructed SLA: A Practical Guide for Teachers 13

L2 classroom. Those who advocate the non-interface position believe that

Instructed SLA: A Practical Guide for Teachers 14

Focus on Forms versus Focus on Meaning

Instructed SLA: A Practical Guide for Teachers 15

students are expected to have a thorough knowledge of grammatical rules and

Focus on meaning enjoyed a considerable popularity with its emphasis on

Instructed SLA: A Practical Guide for Teachers 16

Focus on meaning enjoyed a lot of popularity in the 1980s. However, the

Instructed SLA: A Practical Guide for Teachers 17

Table 3 Focus on forms, focus on meaning, and focus on form

Instructed SLA: A Practical Guide for Teachers 18

Focus on forms Focus on meaning Focus on form