Form-focused instruction and the development of second language proficiency

This study has contributed to the area of FFI research in a number of ways. First, counter to current thinking, this study has come to the conclusion that the value of explicit knowledge is limited. In an attempt to demonstrate the presence of an interface between explicit and implicit knowledge, no evidence of such an interface has been provided. In the experiment that was conducted, one group of students received explicit instruction in two grammar structures while another group received implicit instruction. In addition, a no-treatment control group was included. Having explicit knowledge of the target structures has not proved to be an advantage to L2 learners in that no differences in implicit knowledge were observed between the implicit and explicit treatment groups. Because the strong interface position supposes unconditional conversion of explicit knowledge into implicit knowledge, it is falsified by these outcomes. Indirect effects of explicit knowledge upon implicit knowledge cannot be ruled out; in fact, this study has found that explicit instruction effectively promoted implicit knowledge of the simple morphological target structure, if the L2 had a similar structure. The parallelism between the first and second language either simplifies the explicit knowledge to such an extent that monitoring becomes a possibility, or it allows for successful transfer to occur. No further interactions between instruction and grammatical progress were observed. This study also gives rise to reconsider earlier FFI findings. In part, this study was motivated by a bias in FFI research towards the use of decontextualized knowledge tests at the expense of tests assessing the ability to use grammatical knowledge in natural settings. The outcomes clearly suggest that measures assessing grammatical knowledge in isolated contexts cannot readily be taken as representative of the learner’s implicit grammatical knowledge. FFI findings need to be reconsidered according to how progress was measured. Given that the use of measures of natural language have been rare, replication studies will be welcome. For example, as this study has shown, but also pointed out by the DeKeyser (2003), there are surprisingly few studies that actually compared explicit and implicit types of instruction. Most FFI studies have laboured under the assumption that explicit types of FFI are necessary, and have moved on to investigate the effects of different kinds of instruction in interaction with numerous other variables. Such studies, too, need to be considered in the light of the kind of measures used. Unusual to FFI studies, even to those that have used measures of spontaneous language use, was the qualitatively oriented exploration of the free written response data. This analysis has proved to be quite rewarding, though. Perhaps the most important outcome was the clear differentiation in the ability to correctly use conditional and causal subordinate clauses. The finding suggests that language learners do not see the parallelism between the two manifestations of the structure, and they seem to learn each manifestation independently. On the basis of these findings, and in as far as possible, the analyses for subordination have been conducted separately for each type. These findings have also provided suggestions as to how to define structure complexity. Complexity might be directly related to the number of different manifestations a structure can appear in. Although it is not entirely clear what would constitute a single manifestation, it seems fair to conclude that syntactic structures generally have more than morphological structures. Thus, this explanation would explain why instruction has primarily been found to be effective with morphological structures. This study emphasizes that L2 research is in desperate need of longitudinal studies that investigate how L2 learners start to use their developing L2 knowledge. Not only would this inform theories of knowledge and representation, it is probably also an important precursor for the kind of study conducted here. If one wants to make claims about the effect of instruction on grammatical development, it is important to understand precisely how particular structures emerge in the L2 learner’s language. With simple frequency counts and with points of measurement that were quite far apart, this study has been able to uncover interesting features of learner language. Much can probably be learned if learner language is more systematically examined. This study underscores Doughty’s claim that: “the case for explicit instruction has been overstated.” (2003, p. 274). However, these results should not be taken to mean that second language learning can do without instruction, as the no interface position has often been interpreted. Although in this study the effects of instruction were not spectacular, it has been very clearly demonstrated the instruction is an important catalyst of learning (Larsen-Freeman & Long, 1991;Long, 1983). The purpose of instruction should be to intensify the input. The focus should be on meaningful interaction, but some explicit FFI would probably do more good than harm. Grammar instruction should not aim for the establishment of explicit knowledge. Rather, for grammar instruction to be optimally effective, it should be geared towards the provision of structures in realistic and functional settings, and teaching the structure in isolated contexts should be avoided. After all, the goal of second language grammar teaching is not conscious knowledge of grammar, but proficiency