Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-gb8f7 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-22T22:32:58.723Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Focus-on-Form and Corrective Feedback in Communicative Language Teaching

Effects on Second Language Learning

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  07 November 2008

Patsy M. Lightbown  and
Nina Spada
Patsy M. Lightbown
Affiliation:
Concordia University
Nina Spada
Affiliation:
McGill University
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

The developing oral English of approximately 100 second language learners (four intact classes) was examined in this study. The learners were native speakers of French (aged 10–12 years) who had received a 5-month intensive ESL course in either grade 5 or grade 6 in elementary schools in Quebec. A large corpus of classroom observation data was also analyzed.

Substantial between-class differences were found in the accuracy with which students used such English structures as progressive -ing and adjective–noun order in noun phrases. There was some evidence that these differences (which were not correlated with performance on listening comprehension tests) were due to differences in teachers' form-focused instruction. These findings are discussed in terms of current competing views of the role of form-focused instruction in second language learning.

Type
Research Article
Information
Studies in Second Language Acquisition , Volume 12 , Issue 4 , December 1990 , pp. 429 - 448
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 1990

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

REFERENCES

Allen, P., Fröhlich, M., & Spada, N. (1984). The communicative orientation of second language teaching: An observation scheme. In Handscombe, J., Orem, R., & Taylor, B. (Eds.), On TESOL' 83 (pp. 231–252). Washington, DC: TESOL.Google Scholar
Allen, P., Swain, M., Harley, B., & Cummins, J. (1990). Aspects of classroom treatment: Toward a more comprehensive view of second language education. In Harley, B., Allen, P., Cummins, J., & Swain, M. (Eds.), The development of second language proficiency (pp. 57–81). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Beretta, A., & Davies, A. (1985). Evaluation of the Bangalore project. ELT Journal, 39, 121–127.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bley-Vroman, R. (1986). Hypothesis testing in second-language acquisition theory. Language Learning, 36, 353–376.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Fröhlich, M., Spada, N., & Allen, P. (1985). Differences in the communicative orientation of L2 classrooms. TESOL Quarterly, 19, 27–57.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gass, S., & Ard, J. (1984). The ontology of language universals. In Rutherford, W. (Ed.), Language universals and second language acquisition (pp. 33–68). Amsterdam: John Benjamins.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hammerly, H. (1987). The immersion approach: Litmus test of second-language acquisition through classroom communication. Modern Language Journal, 71, 395–401.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Harley, B. (1989). Functional grammar in French immersion: A classroom experiment. Applied Linguistics, 10, 331–359.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Harley, B., & Swain, M. (1984). The interlanguage of immersion students and its implications for second language teaching. In Davies, A., Criper, C., & Howatt, A. P. R. (Eds.), Interlanguage (pp. 291–311). Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press.Google Scholar
Higgs, T., & Clifford, R. (1982). The push toward communication. In Higgs, T. (Ed.), Curriculum, competence and the foreign language teacher (pp. 57–79). Skokie, IL: National Textbook Co.Google Scholar
Krashen, S. (1982). Principles and practice in second language acquisition. New York: Pergamon.Google Scholar
Krashen, S. (1984). Immersion: Why it works and what it has taught us. Language and Society, 12, 61–64.Google Scholar
Krashen, S., (1985). The input hypothesis: Issues and implications. New York: Longman.Google Scholar
Lightbown, P. M. (1983). Acquiring English L2 in Quebec classrooms. In Felix, S. & Wode, H. (Eds.), Language development at the crossroads (pp. 101–120). Tubingen: Gunter Narr.Google Scholar
Lightbown, P. M. (1983). Exploring relationships between developmental and instructional sequences in L2 acquisition. In Seliger, H. & Long, M. (Eds.), Classroom-oriented research in second language acquisition (pp. 217–243). Rowley, MA: Newbury House.Google Scholar
Lightbown, P. M. (1984). Input and acquisition in second language classrooms. TESL Canada Journal, 1, 55–67.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lightbown, P. M. (in press). What have we here? Some observations on the influence of instruction on L2 learning. In Phillipson, R., Kellerman, E., Selinker, L., Smith, M., & Swain, M. (Eds.), Foreign language pedagogy research: A commemorative volume for Claus Faerch. Clevedon: Multilingual matters.Google Scholar
Lightbown, P. M., & Spada, N. (1978). Performance on an oral communication task by francophone ESL learners. SPEAQ Journal, 2, 35–54.Google Scholar
Lightbown, P. M., & Spada, N. (1987). Learning English in intensive programs in Quebec schools (1986–87): Report on the first year of research. Montreal: Concordia University.Google Scholar
Long, M. (1988). Instructed interlanguage development. In Beebe, L. (Ed.) Issues in second language acquisition: Multiple perspectives (pp. 115–141). New York: Newbury House.Google Scholar
Martens, M. J. (1988). Recognition and production of pronouns by francophone learners of English as a second language. Unpublished master's thesis, Concordia University, Montreal.Google Scholar
Meisel, J., Clahsen, H., & Pienemann, M. (1981). On determining developmental stages in natural second language acquisition. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 3, 109–135.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Montgomery, C., & Eisenstein, M. (1985). Reality revisited: An experimental communicative course in ESL. TESOL Quarterly, 19, 317–334.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Paris, L. (1987). Some aspects of the second language development of children in intensive programs. Unpublished master's thesis, Concordia University, Montreal.Google Scholar
Pienemann, M. (1985). Learnability and syllabus construction. In Hyltenstam, K. & Pienemann, M. (Eds.), Modelling and assessing second language acquisition (pp. 23–75). Clevedon: Multilingual matters.Google Scholar
Pienemann, M. (1987). Determining the influence of instruction on L2 speech processing. Paper presented at the colloquium of the Scientific Commission on Second Language Acquisition at the Eighth AILA Congress, Sydney, Australia.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Pienemann, J., Johnston, M., & Brindley, G. (1988). Constructing an acquisition-based procedure for second language assessment. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 10, 217–243.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Prabhu, N. S. (1987). Second language pedagogy. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Rutherford, W. (1987). Second language grammar: Learning and teaching. London: Longman.Google Scholar
Rutherford, W. (1988). The meaning of grammatical consciousness-raising. World Englishes, 6, 209–216.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Rutherford, W., & Sharwood Smith, M. (Eds.). (1988). Grammar and second language teaching. New York: Newbury House.Google Scholar
Savignon, S. (1972). Communicative competence: An experiment in foreign-language teaching. Philadelphia: Center for Curriculum Development.Google Scholar
Schachter, J. (1982). Nutritional needs of language learners. In Clarke, M. & Handscombe, J. (Eds.), On TESOL '82: Pacific perspectives on language learning and teaching (pp. 175–189). Washington, DC: TESOL.Google Scholar
Spada, N. (1987). Relationships between instructional differences and learning outcomes: A process-product study of communicative language teaching. Applied Linguistics, 8, 137–161.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Spada, N. (1990). Observing classroom behaviours and learning outcomes in different second language programs. In Richards, J. & Nunan, D. (Eds.), Second language teacher education: Content and process. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Spada, N. (in press). A look at the research process in classroom observation: A case study. In Brumfit, C. & Mitchell, R. (Eds.), ELT Documents: Special issue on classroom centered research. London: Macmillan.Google Scholar
Spada, N., & Lightbown, P. M. (1989). Intensive ESL programs in Quebec primary schools. TESL Canada Journal, 7, 11–32.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Swain, M. (1985). Communicative competence: Some roles of comprehensible input and comprehensible output and its development. In Gass, S. & Madden, C. (Eds.), Input in second language acquisition (pp. 235–253). Rowley, MA: Newbury House.Google Scholar
Swain, M. (1989). Manipulating and complementing content teaching to maximize second language learning. TESL Canada Journal, 6, 68–83.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Tomasello, M., & Herron, C. (1988). Down the garden path: Inducing and correcting overgeneralization errors in the foreign language classroom. Applied Psycholinguistics, 9, 237–246.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Tomasello, M., & Herron, C. (1989). Feedback for language transfer errors: The garden path technique. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 11, 385–395.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
VanPatten, B. (1988). How juries get hung: Problems with the evidence for a focus on form in teaching. Language Learning, 38, 243–260.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
White, L. (1987). Against comprehensible input: The input hypothesis and the development of second-language competence. Applied Linguistics, 8, 95–110.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
White, L. (1989, August). Adverb placement in SLA: Some effects of consciousness raising. Paper presented at the Language Acquisition Research Symposium, Utrecht, Holland.Google Scholar
White, L. (1990). Implications of learnability theories for second language learning and teaching. In Halliday, M. A. K., Gibbons, J., & Nicholas, H. (Eds.), Learning, keeping and using language. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
White, L., Spada, N., Lightbown, P. M., & Ranta, L. (1990, March). Consciousness raising and syntactic accuracy in L2 acquisition. Paper presented at the Tenth Second Language Research Forum, University of Oregon, Eugene, OR.Google Scholar
Zobl, H. (1985). Grammars in search of input and intake. In Gass, S. & Madden, C. (Eds.), Input in second language acquisition (pp. 329–344). Rowley, MA: Newbury House.Google Scholar