1.1 What Is This Element About?

This Element will analyse and describe the role, nature, and effects of focus on form in second language acquisition theory and research. Focus on form is a term which has been sometimes used to express different meanings. Reference Long, de Bot, Ginsberg and KramschLong (1991) made a clear distinction between ‘focus on form’ and ‘focus on forms’ in language instruction. Focus on forms is a term used to describe a type of pedagogical intervention that focuses on the explicit teaching of specific linguistic forms (one at the time) in a target language (e.g. discrete-point grammar presentation and practice). Focus on form can be described as involving a focus on meaning and a focus on form. During focus on form, L2 learners’ attention is being focused on specific linguistic properties of the target language in the course of a communicative activity. More broadly ‘focus on form’ can be described as any pedagogical intervention aiming at drawing L2 learners’ attention to the linguistic properties of a language through exposure to meaningful input. In this Element, research, theory, and pedagogy related to different types of ‘focus on form’ will be presented and discussed. Implications of research on ‘focus on form’ will be highlighted at the end of this Element. However, before we begin, a general definition of the nature and role of language and instruction is needed.

1.2 What Is the Nature of Language?

There is a considerable debate over the nature and design of the internal mechanisms that create our so-called internal language system (so-called mental representation). There are two competing accounts (domain-general and language-specific) on the nature of language in the field, as highlighted by Reference KeatingKeating (2018). One account about the nature of language argues that language is like any other complex mental tasks such as reading, playing chess, and in general solving problems. Like any other complex mental phenomena, it is learned via the same domain-general mechanisms that enable us to learn how to program a computer or solve difficult puzzles. A second account instead, contends that language is special and it is not learned in the same way as other complex mental phenomenon. Their claim is that humans are hardwired to learn language and have cognitive mechanisms specifically designed to deal with language. These are separate mechanisms from the domain-general one.

Regardless of scholars’ approach to language, there is a general agreement that language is complex, abstract, and implicit. Each human being creates an internal language system we call language, no matter whether it is a first, second or third language. This abstract and complex system is also implicit in nature, as we know we have language in our heads, but we do not really know what the contents of this language system are.

Language can be described as multi-componential as it comprises of a lexicon, syntax, phonology, and other systems (Reference VanPattenVanPatten, 2016). Much of the grammatical information is stored in lexical entries with embedded features. What every speaker/knower of language creates in the mind/brain is an implicit, abstract representation of language. What we observe as ‘language’ is the result of a complex interaction of principles, constraints, and interfaces that yield utterances/sentences.

Language is implicit in nature and abstract as its features are difficult to describe with exact words. It includes what it is allowed (e.g. Do you know how to get to the centre?), but it also includes what it is not allowed in a specific language (e.g. Know how to get to the centre?). Language does not consist of rules in the classic sense as argued by Reference VanPattenVanPatten (2010). However, as argued by Reference VanPatten and BenatiVanPatten and Benati (2010), a good deal of second language acquisition research talks about the learning of rules and the testing of rules (e.g. learning the passive rule, learning rules for the subjunctive, etc.). The surface phenomena we talk about as ‘rules’ are real, but what exists in the mental representation are not these rules. What language learners have in their heads are not rules but an abstract system consisting of features and operations plus operations on how those operation can happen.

Language as mental representation is characterized by principles that are universal. These principles constrain the development of language. For example, all languages have a basic structural feature called ‘phrase’. This basic feature consists of two elements: head and compliment. Depending on the specific language, we can have ‘head first’ or ‘head final’. English is head first (head + compliment) whereas Japanese is head final (compliment + head) for instance. These abstract notions interact with input language. In addition, language learners possess a complex network of form–meaning connections which evolves and expands establishing lexical and formal relationships as they are exposed to more meaningful and comprehensible input. Language learners have a vast interconnected network of words which encode both meaning and grammatical information. Connections develop in our head not through practice, but through consistent exposure to input. Language is processed and acquired not through pedagogical rules (shorthand ways to describe things that are generally not describable) but through exposure to meaningful input (language that contains a message and L2 learners must attend to the input to process meaning). There is also an important distinction to make between language as mental representation (the internal, abstract, and implicit language system) and language as skill (the accuracy and fluency in language use). Skill can be defined as the ability to use language in real time (speaking, writing, listening and reading), and it involves the intersection of accuracy and fluency (speed in using the target language) (Reference DeKeyser, VanPatten and WilliamsDeKeyser, 2015). Language learners normally acquire skills by participating in skill-based activities. Accuracy refers to how language learners can produce language error-free. Fluency instead, refers to how (speed and confidence) language learners can perform an activity (Reference Housen and KuikenHousen and Kuiken, 2009).

1.3 Does Instruction Make a Difference?

This was the question originally raised in Reference LongLong’s (1983) seminal paper. Since then, the debate about the role of instruction has focused on whether instruction makes a difference in the acquisition of morphosyntactic properties. Contemporary theories (see Reference VanPatten and BenatiVanPatten and Benati, 2010) have also addressed this question by taking different positions around the nature, role, and effects of instruction, particularly in relation to language as representation.

An overall review of the main contemporary theories and current empirical research on the role of instruction in second language acquisition has led to the following conclusions:

• Instruction does not alter the route of acquisition (i.e. acquisition orders and developmental sequences). There are no empirical studies showing that instruction alters the order/sequence of acquisition (Reference Pienemann, Lenzing, VanPatten and WilliamsPienemann and Lenzing, 2015);

• Instruction as input manipulation can facilitate language processing. Input manipulation refers to how language can be restructured so that L2 learners can be exposed to grammatical properties of a target language;

• Instruction may have some beneficial effects – for example, developing procedural knowledge (how to do something in a language) or facilitating noticing and awareness – on second language acquisition. Awareness can be defined as learners’ degree of consciousness in learning a language. Noticing refers to the ability for L2 learners to notice certain linguistic elements in the input.

The effects of instruction are limited and constrained by natural orders of acquisition and by L2 learners’ readiness to acquire a particular structure (Reference Pienemann, Lenzing, VanPatten and WilliamsPienemann and Lenzing, 2015). If, as it seems to be the case, there are no effects on instruction on the route of acquisition, what about its possible effects on the rate of acquisition? Can instruction facilitate and speed-up acquisition of the formal properties of a target language?

The effects of a number of different instructional treatments (e.g. incidental focus on form, input enhancement, processing instruction, interactional and corrective feedback, output, and collaborative tasks) have been investigated. Overall, the main findings from the empirical research conducted seem to point to two main positions: (i) instruction has a limited and constrained role; and (ii) instruction might have some possible beneficial effects, not on the route but on the rate of acquisition. However, several key questions (Reference VanPatten, Smith and BenatiVanPatten, Smith and Benati, 2019) have been raised about how the possible effects of instruction are measured in second language research. Does the research on the effects of instruction measure explicit knowledge or implicit knowledge? In other words, the question is whether empirical research on the effects of instruction measure knowledge about language (i.e. textbook rules) or language as a mental representation.

Very often, the effectiveness of a particular instructional treatment has been measured using explicit knowledge tests. These kinds of tests normal measure knowledge and use of rules that we find in textbooks, teacher explanations, and online sites.

Current research on the effects of instruction has mainly focused on measuring its immediate effects using various designs (Reference VanPatten, Smith and BenatiVanPatten, Smith and Benati, 2019). It is not clear that instruction on formal features of language speeds up the rate of acquisition. However, there is some evidence that instruction as input manipulation can facilitate language processing (Reference VanPatten, Smith and BenatiVanPatten, Smith and Benati, 2019). In addition, instruction may have some beneficial effects (e.g. developing procedural knowledge, facilitating noticing and awareness) on second language acquisition. Despite this, there is no enough evidence to demonstrate long-terms effects for instruction. Meta-analysis studies point to positive short-term effects for instruction on grammatical properties of language (Go et al., 2015; Reference Kang, Sok and HanKang, Sok and ZhaoHong, 2019; Reference Norris and OrtegaNorris and Ortega, 2000: Reference Spada and TomitaSpada and Tomita, 2010) indicate that there is a possible short-term effect of instruction on L2 learners’ rate of acquisition. However, the results from these meta-analysis studies need to be taken with caution for two main reasons:

• The effects of instruction measured on the rate of acquisition is mostly about the development of explicit knowledge;

• Measurements in research on the effects of instruction make use of tests that exclusively measure explicit knowledge.

One key question that needs to be addressed is therefore: Does instruction foster implicit knowledge?

1.4 Does Instruction Foster Implicit Knowledge?

There is agreement in second language acquisition that there are two different types of linguistic knowledge: explicit knowledge and implicit knowledge. Reference KrashenKrashen (1982) distinguished between a learning system (explicit) and an acquiring system (implicit). The existence of a difference between implicit and explicit language knowledge is confirmed by brain science. Reference ParadisParadis (2004) sustains that explicit knowledge (conscious awareness of language data) is qualitatively different from implicit knowledge (unconscious set of computational procedures). According to Reference ParadisParadis (2004), explicit rules in grammar do not correspond to the internal and implicit mental representations our mind/brain relies on for language development.

Explicit knowledge of language is defined as conscious knowledge. It is often verbalizable knowledge about language such as ‘to talk about something in the past, add -ed sound to the end of the verb such as play versus played’. Implicit knowledge is defined as unconscious knowledge and it is not verbalizable. It is the ability to understand or supply talked and not talk in contexts that require the past tense in English, and to do so without a conscious effort to retrieve the form.

In traditional instruction, language teachers instruct learners about something, L2 learners practice it, and then the teachers assess them using a paper-and-pencil test. There are two problems with this type instruction aiming at developing explicit knowledge: (i) it does not correspond to the way language develops in the mind/brain; (ii) it does not correspond to the way learners process information.

Language acquisition is about the development of implicit knowledge. As highlighted Reference VanPatten, Rothman, Benati, Laval and ArcheVanPatten and Rothman (2014), language as mental representation is too abstract and complex to be taught and learned explicitly. In short, language is not the rules and paradigms that appear on textbook pages. Explicit rules and paradigm lists cannot become the abstract and complex system because the two things are completely different. This implication stems from the fact that there is no internal mechanism (at least no strong evidence for one) that can convert explicit textbook rules into implicit mental representation (Reference VanPattenVanPatten, 2016).

Instruction has an effect on fostering explicit knowledge, at least in the short-term. Reference DeKeyser, VanPatten and WilliamsDeKeyser (2015) argues that practice in which learners deliberately focus their attention on particular forms might help the development of a skill. Practice of the kind used in traditional instruction does little to foster the development of mental representation and might help the development of a learning-like behaviour. Reference VanPatten and BenatiVanPatten and Benati (2010: 31) have argued that ‘L2 learners clearly create linguistic systems in an organized way that seem[s] little affected by external forces such as instruction and correction’.

The acquisition of the grammatical properties of a target language is mainly implicit. L2 learners create an abstract system (mental representation) similar to the way in which L1 learners do. Therefore, instruction should be devised in a way that, on one hand, enhances the grammatical features in the input, and on the other hand, provides L2 learners with opportunities to focus on meaning. Scholars in second language acquisition have agreed that L2 learners must be exposed to input and that input must be comprehensible and meaning-bearing in order to facilitate language development. Language that learners hear and see in communicative contexts forms the data on which the internal mechanisms operate. The only effective way to facilitate language development (implicit knowledge) is the provision of good quality input.

This view about language and language development (too abstract and complex to teach and learn explicitly) has clearly profound consequences for how we implement instruction in the language classroom. Explicit rules and paradigm lists can’t become the abstract and complex language system because the two things are completely different. As previously stated, this implication stems from the fact that there is no internal mechanism that can convert explicit textbook rules into our implicit mental representation system. Most textbooks and many teachers continue to treat language like any other subject matter. However, what winds up in the human mind has no resemblance to anything on textbook pages or what teachers say.

The main question is: How do we then provide effective instruction?

1.5 What Are the Main Takeaways?

Let’s briefly review some basic facts about language, language acquisition, and language instruction presented in this introduction. These facts will be key in our discussion on the role and effects of focus on form.

• Language is abstract and complex and should not be taught and learned explicitly. There are no known and proved mechanisms that turn explicit ‘rules’ into the abstract and complex mental representation we call ‘language’.

• There is a qualitative difference between explicit and implicit knowledge of language.

• Acquisition is stage-like and ordered. In the acquisition of any structure there are stages that all learners go through regardless of their L1. There is no evidence that stages can be skipped or orders can be altered. Language instruction might therefore have a constrained and limited role.

• Instruction might help L2 learners to develop a good level of attainment particularly if opportunities to natural exposure are given.

• Instruction has a facilitative role when it is used for linguistic features, which are not too distant from the learner’s current level of language development. It might have a facilitative role in helping L2 learners to pay selective attention to form and form–meaning connections in the input.

• Although, the route of acquisition cannot be altered, instruction might in certain conditions speed up the rate of acquisition and develop greater language proficiency. What are the conditions that might facilitate the speed in which languages are learned? A first condition is that L2 learners must be exposed to sufficient input. A second condition is that L2 learners must be developmentally ready for instruction to be effective. A third condition is that instruction must take into consideration how L2 learners process input.

• For the research on the effects of instruction to advance, it needs to consider ways in which to assess implicit knowledge along with a consideration of what implicit knowledge actually is.

2.1 What Is the Nature of Focus on Form?

Despite the current debate about the role of explicit instruction, scholars (Reference VanPattenVanPatten, 2016) concur that implicit knowledge is acquired unconsciously. Therefore, for instruction to have a beneficial role, it must consider how people acquire languages and process information in the mind/brain. This means for instance, that instruction should consider the use of pedagogical interventions that create conditions where L2 learners are exposed to the language (forms) while focusing on meaning. It must also consider the key role that input plays in the acquisition of a language. Within this context, focus on form is a type of instruction that draws L2 learners’ attention to linguistic elements of the target language while the main focus is on meaning or communication.

Reference Long, de Bot, Ginsberg and KramschLong (1991) makes a clear distinction between two types of instructional pedagogical intervention: ‘focus on form’ and ‘focus on forms’. Focus on forms refers to a type of instructional intervention that isolates specific linguistic forms, and teaches them one at the time. In the case of traditional instruction, for example, the instruction is often characterized by paradigmatic explanations of specific linguistic forms or structures, followed by pattern practice and substitution/transformation drills practice. The term focus on form is instead characterized by pedagogical interventions which essentially provide L2 learners with a combination of focus on form and focus on meaning. Reference Long, de Bot, Ginsberg and KramschLong (1991) describes focus on form as a language teaching approach which should aim at drawing L2 learner’s attention to a particular form incidentally during exposure to language. Reference Long, Robinson, Doughty and WilliamsLong and Robinson (1998: 23) further defined focus on form ‘as an occasional shift of attention to linguistic code features – by the teacher and/or one or more students – triggered by perceived problems with comprehension or production’. More recently, Reference LongLong (2015: 317) has described focus on form as a pedagogical procedure that ‘involves reactive use of a wide variety of pedagogic procedures to draw learners’ attention to linguistic problems in context, as they arise during communication’. As explained by Reference EllisEllis (2016), focus on form has become a set of pedagogical interventions designed to draw L2 learners’ attention to a linguistic form in a communicative context. The focus on form can be either pre-planned focusing on a particular form or it can be incidental as L2 learners engage in meaning-based activities. During a focus-on-form intervention the linguistic elements are dealt with either intensively (systematically) or extensively (incidentally), but the primary focus always lies on communication.

Reference Doughty and WilliamsDoughty and Williams (1998) and subsequently Reference Ranta, Lyster, Garrett and CotsRanta and Lyster (2017: 43) have described two types of focus on form: proactive or reactive. Proactive would involve planned instruction (e.g. textual enhancement, processing instruction) designed to enable L2 learners to notice and eventually use the specific target feature. Reactive occurs in response to L2 learners’ production and interaction with another interlocutor and includes corrective feedback as well as other attempts to draw learners’ attention to the target language.

2.2 What Are the Main Types of Focus on Form?

2.3 How Are the Effects of Focus on Form Measured?

This section will review the main empirical research measuring the effects of focus-on-form types. Overall, experimental studies on the effects of different types of focus on form have used the same pre- and post-test methodological design (Reference Benati, Schwieter, Schwieter and BenatiBenati and Schwieter, 2019). In these studies, if L2 learners perform better after instruction, researchers tend to conclude that instruction makes a difference.

In several of the focus-on-form studies conducted to measure instruction, however, there is often a clear bias towards the teaching of explicit knowledge and testing explicit rules through offline tests. There is certainly the need to carry out more research on the effects of focus on form which measure implicit knowledge. This kind of research would also need to adopt psycholinguistics and neurolinguistics research tools which better capture online processing and brain/mind activities to measure implicit knowledge (online tests).

Benati (2020b) has conducted a study to explore the effects of a type of focus on form called structured input on the acquisition of English causative passive forms using online measurements (eye-tracking). The study asked two main questions: (i) What are the effects of structured input and traditional instruction on accuracy when measured by an eye-tracking picture selection task? (ii) Would possible difference in accuracy between structured input and traditional instruction be accompanied by changes in eye-movement patterns? To provide answers to these two questions, one eye-tracking study was carried out. A pre- and post-training design was adopted and subjects were divided into two groups which received two different instructional treatments (structured input vs. traditional instruction). Participants (fifty-two adult learners with Chinese as first language) were assessed through a picture selection eye-tracking task to measure accuracy and eye-movement patterns while they were processing auditory sentences. Results of the eye-tracking task indicated that the structured input group achieved significantly higher accuracy scores compared to the group receiving traditional instruction. The main findings from the study revealed that structured input training causes a change in learners’ eye-movement patterns. This study is an example of a focus-on-form study adopting a more appropriate implicit knowledge measurement of the effects of instruction on the acquisition of a formal property of the target language.

2.4 What Are the Key Points to Remember?

• There is a clear distinction between focus on ‘form’ and focus on ‘forms’. Focus on form can be described as any deliberate attempts to draw L2 learners’ attention to a particular form in a meaningful context.

• We can distinguish between proactive or reactive type of focus on form.

• Input enhancement is an input-based focus on form that might facilitate L2 learners to notice grammatical forms in the input.

• Processing instruction is an input-based focus on form that might facilitate L2 learners to make form–meaning connections.

• Consciousness-raising tasks might facilitate L2 learners to notice grammatical forms in the input.

• Corrective feedback might facilitate L2 learners to notice forms in the input.

• Collaborative output might facilitate L2 learners to produce output, to promote negotiation of form and at the same time develop learners’ linguistic skills.

• Too much of the research is biased towards the testing of explicit knowledge. We need to rethink how we measure the effects of instruction on implicit knowledge, using online testing procedures, for example.

3.1 What Are the Effects of Input Flood?

Input flood is an implicit and input-based type of focus on form consisting in flooding the input language with a particular linguistic feature with the goal of enhancing the changes for L2 learners to notice and process that feature. The empirical research into the offline and online effects of input flood has mainly been conducted to address the following:

3.2 What Are the Effects of Textual Enhancement?

Textual enhancement is type of focus on form that enhances the saliency of input in written or oral texts with a view to facilitating L2 learners’ noticing of targeted forms and thereby enhancing their acquisition. As previously said, textual enhancement makes use of typographical cues (e.g. embolding, italicizing, underlining, colouring, enlarging the font size, etc.) to draw learners’ attention to particular forms in a text. From a theoretical point of view, Reference Schmidt and SchmidtSchmidt’s (1995) noticing hypothesis underpins research on textual enhancement. Reference Schmidt and SchmidtSchmidt (1995: 20) posits that noticing is an essential component of the learning process.

Researchers have used textual enhancements under a variety of conditions and with a variety of intentions. The empirical research into the offline and online effects of textual enhancement has mainly been conducted to address the following:

1. (a) Offline effects of textual enhancement compared to explicit instruction

2. (b) Offline effects of textual enhancement compared to other input enhancement types of focus on form

3. (c) Online effects of textual enhancement compared to other input enhancement types of focus on form

3.3 What Are the Effects of Processing Instruction?

Offline effects of processing instruction have been widely investigated (Reference BenatiBenati, 2019; Reference Benati and LeeBenati and Lee, 2015; Reference Benati, Schwieter, Tanja and HahnBenati and Schwieter, 2017; Reference LeeLee, 2015) using a variety of languages (e.g. Arabic, French, German, Greek, Italian, Japanese, Russian, Spanish), linguistic features (e.g. word order, clitic pronouns, passive and causative constructions, tense markers, aspectual markers, mood with expression of doubt), populations (groups and individuals from eight different L1s) and contexts. To measure the offline effects of processing instruction and compare it to other pedagogical interventions, two methodological designs have been used: pre-test and post-test (immediate and delayed) experimental design; and the so-called trials-to-criterion design. The latter is a methodological design used to examine the possible effects of the treatment itself (number of trials needed for learners to correctly process sentences) and L2 learners’ reaction times in sentence responses.

The empirical research into the offline effects of processing instruction has mainly been conducted to address the following:

1. (a) Offline effects of processing instruction compared to other pedagogical interventions

2. (b) Offline effects of processing instruction at discourse level

3. (c) Offline durative effects of processing instruction

4. (d) Offline secondary effects of processing instruction

5. (e) Offline effects of structured input activities

6. (f) Online effects of structured input and processing instruction

3.4 What Are the Effects of Corrective and Interactional Feedback?

Corrective feedback (constitutes a reactive type of focus on form that occurs in both the negotiation of meaning and of form) involves (see the following example with key components) a number of different strategies that can be classified in terms of whether they are implicit/explicit and input-providing/output-prompting strategies. Research on corrective feedback is presented making a distinction between reformulations and prompts.

1. (a) Teacher: What did you do on the weekend?

2. (b) Student: We went to a fieldtrip. Trigger

3. (c) Teacher: Oh, you went on a fieldtrip. Feedback

4. (d) Student: Yeah, went on a fieldtrip. Uptake

A substantial body of research has investigated the role corrective feedback. The empirical research into the offline and online effects of corrective feedback has mainly been conducted to address the following:

1. (a) Studies supporting a positive role for recasts

2. (b) Studies showing a limited role for recasts

3. (c) Studies showing positive effects of prompts as a type of corrective feedback.

3.5 What Are the Effects of Output and Collaborative Focus on Form Tasks?

3.6 What Are the Main Takeaways?

1. – Input flood might be effective in increasing L2 learners’ explicit knowledge particularly when it is compared to explicit instruction. However, in terms of implicit knowledge, the studies investigating possible effects of input flood on implicit knowledge did not show any significant effects. The effectiveness of input flood might be related to factors such as the length of the treatment and the nature of the linguistic feature. Input flood might increase the chances that L2 learners might initially notice a specific target form in the input language they are exposed to, but noticing is not fully guaranteed.

2. – Input enhancement’s main purpose is to draw L2 learners’ attention to a specific form by increasing its visual saliency using typographical devices (e.g. increased size, different font, underlining, or embolding). The main purpose of this type of focus on form is to manipulate input to increase the chances for L2 learners to notice and then acquire the form incidentally. Overall, the empirical findings are mixed, indicating some positive effects on the learning of the forms under investigation. However, different researchers have come to different conclusions on the efficacy of input enhancement. A number of factors might constrain the effects of input enhancement on the acquisition of grammar: proficiency level, developmental stage and degree of readiness of the learner, type of linguistic feature chosen, and intensity of the treatment. It is important for findings on input enhancement and its role in awareness and attention to be confirmed in online studies employing a more fine-grained measure (i.e. eye tracking). Even if product-level tests fail to highlight new knowledge, eye movements measured at the process level in different studies show the effectiveness of textual enhancement in terms of amount of attention paid to target items.

3. – Processing instruction and, in particular, structured input activities are used to facilitate form–meaning connections among L2 learners. Processing instruction is an effective type of focus on form. Learners with different first languages (L1s) and backgrounds make consistent gains in interpretation and production tests at sentence- and discourse-level. The effects of processing instruction are consistent, durative, and measurable for different languages and processing problems. L2 learners who receive training in one type of processing strategy for one specific form transfer the use of that strategy to other forms without further instruction. Processing instruction and/or structured input alters the strategies that L2 learners use to process input in real time. Structured input activities have a measurable effect on L2 learners’ moment-by-moment processing of input. This new line of enquiry (online testing) is currently limited to a few empirical studies, one principle, a few target structures, four languages, and two online methods (self-paced tests and eye-tracking). This line of research (online) in processing instruction is very much in its infancy: It needs to be expanded to include a wider variety of input processing principles, L2s, target forms and structures, and online methods.

4. – Corrective feedback has been classified either as reformulation or as prompt type. There is a large database measuring the effects of corrective feedback. Overall, the results indicate the following: (i) feedback might be more effective by using additional intonational prompts; (ii) feedback is more effective when targeting a single linguistic feature at a time; (iii) the effects of feedback may not be immediate but gradual; (iv) it is useful to correct the same error on different occasions so that L2 learners can have enough exposure to the correct form; (v) not all grammar forms and structures respond equally to instruction and corrective feedback; (vi) L2 learners may notice lexical errors more effectively than morphosyntactic errors; (vii) feedback with uptake is more effective than feedback with no uptake; (viii) the acquisition of some grammatical structures may follow developmental sequences, meaning learners learn when they are developmentally ready; and (ix) for corrective feedback to be effective, teachers should match the feedback with learners’ developmental stages.

5. – Consciousness-raising tasks require L2 learners to work collaboratively to complete a grammatical analysis of some kind which is either deductive or inductive in nature. The database is very small; however, this collaborative focus-on-form task is certainly effective in leading to interaction among L2 learners. Consciousness raising is better than traditional instruction and is an effective structured type of focus on form in developing explicit knowledge about a target form.

6. – Dictogloss is effective at developing language skills and at promoting interaction and learning explicit grammatical rules. Dictogloss is an effective text-reconstruction type of task.

7. – Structured output-based tasks seem to be effective when followed by structured input activities in helping L2 learners to make appropriate form–meaning connections at the interpretation level (both sentence and discourse) and produce sentences and discourse containing accurate forms.

4.1 What Are the Main Theoretical Implications?

Since Reference LongLong’s (1983) original paper on whether or not instruction makes a difference, empirical research and contemporary theories in second language acquisition have investigated and debated the role and nature of instruction. Overall, research findings seem to indicate that instruction on formal features of language does not affect order and sequence in language development. However, instruction on formal features of language might speed up the rate of acquisition under certain conditions. There are important factors (e.g. quality of input, type of focus on form) that might affect the effects of instruction and speed up acquisition of certain forms. We also need to consider the nature of language and the qualitative difference between explicit and implicit knowledge. Explicit rules cannot be equated to language which is an abstract, unconscious, and complex system. Language as mental representation is too abstract and complex to be taught and learnt explicitly. Mental representation bears no resemblance to what is traditionally taught and practiced. It builds up over time due to consistent and constant exposure to input data and interaction with universal properties of the language.

There is broad agreement among scholars in second language acquisition about the existence of two qualitatively different types of language knowledge: explicit/learned and implicit/acquired knowledge. There is also broad agreement that language acquisition is mainly implicit – meaning L2 learners can’t articulate what is the content of language as mental representation – and in addition that grammatical rules found in textbooks, for example, do not constitute the basis for how language develops in learner’s heads.

Explicit and implicit knowledge are qualitatively different. Explicit grammar rules might describe the language, but they do not correspond to the implicit representations the brain relies on for language development. To create an internal language system, L2 learners process streams of speech (Reference VanPatten, Smith and BenatiVanPatten, Smith and Benati, 2019) and internal mechanisms build on this data to create an implicit system. While the priority of implicit over explicit knowledge is widely acknowledged, there is less agreement in relation to how it is achieved. The debate involves one central issue: can explicit knowledge influence the development of implicit knowledge? Some researchers believe that explicit knowledge can affect the development of the implicit system in some way. However, the mechanisms responsible for how these two systems might connect are not clear and the research measuring the effects of explicit instruction is biased towards the testing explicit knowledge.

From some of the studies reviewed in this Element measuring the effects of instruction (focus on form) we can certainly conclude that explicit learning affects the development of explicit knowledge. The points made here are fundamental in regard to the effectiveness of formal classroom instruction. Essentially, if explicit knowledge of rules cannot turn into the desired implicit knowledge, then traditional grammar instruction (focus on forms) is probably not an effective use of limited classroom time.

The main goal of language teaching should be the learner’s acquisition of implicit knowledge as highlighted by Reference LongLong (2017). Therefore, the key question is: Does focus on form or a particular type of focus on form facilitate and influence the development of implicit knowledge?

As reviewed in this Element, there is a large database of studies measuring the role and effects of focus on form on second language acquisition. The studies reviewed in this Element have generally the following methodological characteristics:

1. – They use a short-term research design measuring the effects of focus on form over a short period (immediately or after few weeks);

2. – They take place in a classroom with whole groups of students or in laboratories where participants receive individual treatment via computer-mediated instruction;

3. – They normally use a standard pre-/post-test design.

Overall the findings from research on focus on form indicate some beneficial effects for focus on form on the learning (mainly explicit) of the formal properties of the languages investigated. The main findings of processing instruction research also highlight the beneficial effects of this type of focus on form in helping learners to make appropriate form–meaning connections. Meta-analyses (e.g. Go et al., 2015; Reference Norris and OrtegaNorris and Ortega, 2000; Reference Spada and TomitaSpada and Tomita, 2010) on the role and effects of instruction have overall concluded that instruction makes a difference. However, as pointed out by VanPatten, Smith, and Reference BenatiBenati (2019: 118) a number of questions need to be addressed before we can be sure of these positive findings.

• What is it that the researcher is measuring? What does it mean to ‘know’ something? In particular, does the research on the effects of instruction measure explicit knowledge or implicit knowledge?

• What kind of task can be used to measure what learners know and how do we know it is a valid measurement?

• If we are looking at what learners can do after treatment, the same questions apply about what is measured and how it is measured.

• What is the nature of the treatment? What is it trying to affect? Does the treatment attempt to affect explicit knowledge or implicit knowledge (or something else)?

• How does the treatment reflect what we know about acquisition more generally and what does the researcher believe he or she is ‘altering’ in the learner? That is, what underlying ‘processes’ does the instruction attempt to affect?

Most of the studies in Reference Norris and OrtegaNorris and Ortega’s (2000) meta-analysis, for example, used tests that mainly measured explicit knowledge. Measurements of implicit knowledge and in-depth language processing should be adopted by research measuring the effects of focus on form. There is a clear and overwhelming bias towards testing explicit knowledge in the research on the effects of focus on form. For now, the best conclusion about research on the effects of focus on form is this: instruction clearly helps explicit knowledge, at least in the short run. It is still not yet clear what it does, if anything, for implicit knowledge.

4.2 What Are the Main Pedagogical Implications?

Considering that language is complex, implicit and abstract, instruction should not consist of explanation of rules (paradigms) followed by mechanical practice (Reference BenatiBenati, 2020). Traditional practice (focus on forms) might help to develop a language-like behaviour (skill) but it not responsible for language development (mental representation of language). Therefore, instruction should be less about the teaching of rules and more about exposure to form. There are types of ‘focus on form’ reviewed in this Element that can, in certain cases and conditions, enhance and speed up the way certain things are learned and can be an effective way to incorporate a focus on form component within an overall communicative approach to language pedagogy.

Focus on form comes in a variety of ways. Instructors are free to explore what pedagogical interventions might be a suitable and effective focus on form in the communicative language classroom. In their approach to focus on form, instructors should consider the following general guidelines:

1. – Ensure that L2 learners are exposed to language input that is manipulated (comprehensible and meaningful) so to facilitate language processing;

2. – Encourage L2 learners to make accurate form–meaning mappings;

3. – A focus on form should approach should consider both a focus on form and a focus on meaning at the same time;

4. – Input-based focus on form (e.g. textual enhancement, structured input) should perhaps precede out-based pedagogical interventions such as structured output tasks;

5. – Use a variety of focus on form types as one size does not fit all.

4.3 What Are the Main Avenues for Future Research on Focus on Form?

Classroom research investigating the effects of instruction is biased towards the testing of explicit knowledge. Future research would need to consider the following:

1. (i) The nature and characteristics of implicit knowledge and how it can be measured;

2. (ii) The use of appropriate pedagogical interventions (e.g. input and processing-based) that can have an effect on L2 learners’ implicit knowledge system.

There is an overwhelming bias towards testing explicit knowledge in the research on the effects of instruction. The main finding of this research is that instruction makes a difference in traditional pencil-and-paper tests. Researchers must begin to measure implicit knowledge. Practitioners must ensure they foster the development of language in L2 learners and are not simply aiming at fostering a learning-like behaviour in L2 learners. Language instructors must use pedagogical interventions that facilitate language processing and the development of implicit knowledge.

Classroom research investigating the effects of instruction, must consider the use of online measurements. These methodological tools (self-paced listening and reading, eye-tracking, ERPs) might offer us the possibility of more fine-grained information and analysis about moment-by-moment sentence comprehension and can be a reliable measurement of implicit knowledge.

In terms of theory and research on language development, a clear distinction needs to be made between mental representation and skill in language development. Language is an implicit, abstract, and complex system and language development is input and input-processing dependent. At the same time, output processing is ordered and stage-like constrained. Therefore, any consideration in relation to the role of instruction in second language acquisition should account for these facts (Reference Schwieter and BenatiSchwieter and Benati, 2019).

The research on focus on form has provided mixed results and the results of the research are not always clear. One of the problems with the research is the way scholars have been measuring outcomes of the pedagogical intervention under investigation. As previously argued, there is a certain bias towards explicit testing and tapping of explicit knowledge in the research on focus on form. Current empirical research on the effects of different types of focus on form clearly indicates that an element of instruction might be beneficial for language development. Traditional types of ‘focus on forms’ have been replaced by pedagogical interventions which present one form at a time in meaningful contexts designed to promote L2 learner noticing and processing of meaning–form connections. Some of the main conditions for acquisition of a grammatical form are: (a) noticing of target forms; (b) repeated meaningful exposure to input containing the form: (c) opportunities to make form–meaning connections; and (d) because the acquisition of grammar properties is affected by internal processing constraints and language development sequences, spontaneous and accurate production cannot be instantaneous and will naturally require time. Because of how language grows in the mind and communication develops over time, a meaningful approach to focus on form (one that moves from input to output) might facilitate the rate of acquisition.