Hostname: page-component-77c78cf97d-kmjgn Total loading time: 0.001 Render date: 2026-04-24T12:58:29.336Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Research Timeline: Form-focused instruction and second language acquisition

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  07 December 2015

Hossein Nassaji
Hossein Nassaji*
Affiliation:
University of Victoria, Canadanassaji@uvic.ca
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

This article provides a timeline of research on form-focused instruction (FFI). Over the past 40 years, research on the role of instruction has undergone many changes. Much of the early research concentrated on determining whether formal instruction makes any difference in the development of learner language. This question was motivated in part by a theoretical discussion in the field of cognitive psychology over the role of explicit versus implicit learning, on the one hand, and a debate in the field of second language acquisition (SLA) over the role of naturalistic exposure versus formal instruction, on the other. In the early 1980s, for example, based on the notion that the processes involved in second language (L2) learning are similar to those in first language (L1) learning, Krashen (e.g., Krashen 1981, 1982, 1985) made a distinction between learning and acquisition and claimed that an L2 should be acquired through natural exposure not learned through formal instruction. Thus, he claimed that FFI has little beneficial effect on language acquisition. This position, which has also been known as a ‘zero position’ on instruction, was also taken by a number of other researchers who argued that L1 and L2 learning follow similar processes and that what L2 learners need in order to acquire a second language is naturalistic exposure to meaning-focused communication rather than formal instruction (Dulay & Burt 1974; Felix 1981; Prabhu 1987; Schwartz 1993; Zobl 1995).

Information

Type
Research Timeline
Information
Language Teaching , Volume 49 , Issue 1 , January 2016 , pp. 35 - 62
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 2015 

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.)

Article purchase

Temporarily unavailable

References

Dulay, H. & Burt, M. (1974). Natural sequences in child second language acquisition. Language Learning 24, 37–53.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ellis, R. (1985). Understanding second language acquisition. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Ellis, R. (1994). The study of second language acquisition. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Ellis, R. (2001). Introduction: Investigating form-focused instruction. Language Learning 51, 1–46.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Felix, S. (1981). The effect of formal instruction on second language acquisition. Language Learning 31, 87–112.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. Edinburgh, Scotland: Edinburgh University Press, 291–311.Google Scholar
Krashen, S. (1981). Second language acquisition and second language learning. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Krashen, S. (1982). Principles and practice in second language acquisition. New York: Pergamon Press.Google Scholar
Krashen, S. (1985). The input hypothesis: Issues and implications. Oxford: Pergamon Press.Google Scholar
Lapkin, S., Hart, D. & Swain, M. (1991). Early and middle French immersion programs – French-language outcomes. Canadian Modern Language Review–Revue Canadienne Des Langues Vivantes 48, 11–40.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Larsen-Freeman, D. & Long, M. H. (1991). An introduction to second language acquisition research. London: Longman.Google Scholar
Norris, J. M. & Ortega, L. (2000). Effectiveness of L2 instruction: A research synthesis and quantitative meta-analysis. Language Learning 50, 417–528.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Norris, J. M. & Ortega, L. (2001). Does type of instruction make a difference? Substantive findings from a meta-analytic review. Language Learning 51, 157–213.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Prabhu, N. S. (1987). Second language pedagogy. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Schmidt, R. (1993). Awareness and second language acquisition. Annual Review of Applied Linguistics 13, 206–226.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Schmidt, R. (1995). Consciousness and foreign language learning: A tutorial on the role of attention and awareness in language learning. In Schmidt, R. (ed.), Attention and awareness in foreign language learning. Honolulu, HI: University of Hawaii Press, 1–63.Google Scholar
Schmidt, R. & Frota, S. (1986). Developing basic conversational ability in a second language. A case study of an adult learner of Portuguese. In Day, R. (ed.), Talking to learn: Conversation in second language acquisition. Rowley, MA: Newbury House, 237–326.Google Scholar
Schwartz, B. (1993). On explicit and negative data effecting and affecting competence and linguistic behavior. Studies in Second Language Acquisition 15, 147‒163.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sharwood Smith, M. (1981). Consciousness-raising and second language acquisition theory. Applied Linguistics 2, 159–168.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Swain, M. (1985). Communicative competence: Some rules of comprehensible input and comprehensible output in its development. In Gass, S. & Madden, C. (eds.), Input in second language acquisition. Rowley, MA: Newbury House, 235–253.Google Scholar
Zobl, H. (1995). Converging evidence for the ‘acquisition-learning’ distinction. Applied Linguistics 16, 35–56.CrossRefGoogle Scholar