CC BY-NC-ND
0Available online at www.sciencedirect.com
ScienceDirect
Procedía
Social and Behavioral Sciences
ELSEVIER Procedía - Social and Behavioral Sciences 98 (2014) 334 - 342
International Conference on Current Trends in ELT
Proactive/Reactive Focus on Form and Immediate/Delayed
Writing Production
Naeimeh Bakshiria *, Mojtaba Mohammadib
a ELT Department, North Tehran Branch, Islamic Azad University, Tehran, Iran bELTDepartment, Roudehen Branch, Islamic Azad University, Roudehen, Iran
Abstract
Over the past decades, grammar teaching has been one of the most contentious issues in English language teaching. The present study aimed to compare proactive and reactive focus on form (FoF) on grammar improvement of 25 Iranian EFL learners at upper-intermediate level of language proficiency with an age range of 17 to 27. In order to determine the efficacy of grammar instruction, learners were asked to write two compositions both at the end of the course and four months later. The results indicated that learners who received proactive FoF outperformed those who received reactive FoF in both immediate and delayed productions.
© 2014 The Authors. Published by Elsevier Ltd. This is an open access article under the CC BY-NC-ND license
(http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/3.0/).
Selection and peer-review under responsibility of Urmia University, Iran.
Keywords: Proactive; Reactive; Immediate and delayed writing production
1. Introduction
There have been unanimous disagreements about grammar instruction. Discussions on how to teach grammar indicated that grammar instruction is the essential issue in language instruction. Richards and Renandya (2002) believed that "in recent years, grammar teaching has regained its rightful place in language curriculum; people now agree that grammar is too important to be ignored, and without a good knowledge of grammar, learner's language development will be severely constrained" (p. 145). In the same line, Ellis (2005) warned that acquiring a language
* Corresponding author. Tel.: 989121942538; fax: 982133703707. E-mail addresses:n.bakshiri@gmail.com, m.mohammadi@riau.ac.ir
1877-0428 © 2014 The Authors. Published by Elsevier Ltd. This is an open access article under the CC BY-NC-ND license
(http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/3.0/).
Selection and peer-review under responsibility of Urmia University, Iran.
doi:10.1016/j.sbspro.2014.03.424
naturally without any form-focused instruction (FFI) would not allow adult L2 learners to achieve full target language competence, especially because there seem to be some linguistic properties that cannot be acquired without instruction and assistance. It has been also argued that "learners do not always acquire what they have been taught and that for grammar instruction to be effective it needs to take account of how learners develop their interlanguage" (Ellis, 2006, p. 86).
Spada (2010) claimed that "there is increasing evidence that instruction, including explicit FFI, can positively contribute to unanalyzed spontaneous production, its benefits not being restricted to controlled/analyzed L2 knowledge" (p. 9). Recently, FFI is considered more effective than the instruction that only focuses on meaning (Fotos & Nassaji, 2007).There are various taxonomies regarding grammar instruction; one of the most important ones is the distinction between focus on forms (FoFs) and focus on form (FoF). Ellis, Leowen, and Basturkmen (2006) explained that "focus on form is evident in the talk arising from communicative tasks in sequences where there is some kind of communication breakdown and in sequences where there is no communication problem but nevertheless the participants choose to engage in attention to form" (p. 135). Thus, a FoF approach is valid as long as it includes an opportunity for learners to practice behavior in communicative tasks (Ellis, 2006). Ellis (2006) mentioned that there is growing evidence that focus-on-form instruction facilitates acquisition, though it is not possible to prove the superiority of one over the other. Doughty and Williams (1998), in their extensive discussion of FoF, made a distinction between proactive and reactive focus on form. Both approaches seek to focus on language forms in a communicative context.
In Spada's review (2010) of research on FFI, she identified many studies which compared groups of learners with and without FFI. In these experiments, all groups did receive communicative instruction but some with exclusively meaning-based teaching and others with some attention to language forms. While Language teachers are encouraged to adopt the principles and procedures of FFI to bring saliency to the presented form in the class (e.g. Lyster, 1994; Mohammadi, 2009), there are still arguments regarding the application of FFI in class (e.g. White, 1998) and its short-term effectiveness (e.g. White, 1991). Moreover, any investigation of proactive and reactive focus on form, as new interpretations of FFI, seems to be necessary to shed light on the resilient problem of grammar teaching, especially in EFL settings like Iran. Arguably, there is a need to conduct some studies to discover what kinds of skills (focusing intensively on few problematic forms as communication problem occurring after the event or the teacher's planning to introduce a number of forms prior to the communicative event) teachers should be equipped with in order to be able to use the two approaches depending on the situation and delayed production of the learners.
Focus-On Form (FoF) vs. Focus-On forms (FoFs)
In FoF, learners are involved in meaning-based activities before any attention is paid to specific linguistic features during an otherwise meaning-focused classroom lesson. FoF consists of 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 (Long & Robinson, 1998). Ellis, Loewen, and Basturkmen (2006) speculated that FoF is the incidental attention to a form that occurs when learners experience problems of communication. Thus, a FoFs approach can also be valid if it can create the opportunity for learners to practice behavior in communicative tasks (Ellis, 2006). Long and Robinson (1998) stated that FoFs is characterized by a structural or synthetic approach to language where the primary focus of classroom activity is on language forms rather than on meaning whereas FoF consists of an occasional shift of attention to linguistic code features, by the teacher or one or more students. To support Long and Robinson (1998), Kappler and Rees (2003) mentioned that FoFs involves taking individual linguistic items out of context and isolating them for separate study as part of an a priori synthetic syllabus. They added that in a FoF approach it is a primary communicative need, identified as part of meaning-based interaction.
In contrast, Doughty and Williams (1998) indicated that FoF has an advantage over FoFs through demanding some extra cognitive processing as the result of the overriding focus on meaning or communication. In simple terms, they claimed that "learners' attention is drawn precisely to a linguistic feature as necessitated by a communicative demand" (p. 3).
1.1. Proactive FoF and instruction of grammar
Proactive form-focused instruction involves preplanned instruction designed to enable students to notice and to use target language features that might otherwise not be used or even noticed in classroom discourse (Lyster, 2007). Furthermore, Doughty and Williams (1998) claimed that "the proactive research involves making "an informed prediction or carrying out some observations to determine the learning problem in focus" (p. 208).
Long and Robinson (1998) believed that by taking this stance, there is no need to restrict focus on form to classroom learner errors which are pervasive, systematic, and remediable for learners at that particular stage of development, which is a burdensome selection process. Long (as cited in Lyster & Ranta, 2007) held that proactive form-focused instruction is especially useful for learners in communicative and content-based classrooms where learners might otherwise process the target language exclusively through content and meaning-based activities.
Doughty and Williams (1998) stated that:
Proactive focus on form is where the teacher chooses a form in advance to present to students in order to help them complete a communicative task. This can be done explicitly through formal instruction, while a less explicit focus might involve asking students to alter or manipulate a text that contains a target form. This differs from traditional grammar instruction as the grammar focus is not centered on a set of language structures imposed by the syllabus. Instead the choice of form is determined by the communicative needs of the learners. The choice of forms is also influenced by other factors such as individual learner differences, developmental language learning sequences, and L1 influences. (p. 198)
Doughty and Williams (as cited in Fotos & Nassaji, 2007) held that advanced planning in proactive FoF does not mean imposing learners externally with linguistic syllabus, rather, it requires the analysis of learners' needs in order to plan what he or she (the teacher) is supposed to teach in advance. Ranta and Lyster (2007) pointed out that learners in classroom benefit from extensive exposure to input that ranges from comprehensible input to enhanced input encompassing noticing activities designed to develop learners' language awareness of input features. Input-based approaches, however, need to be counterbalanced with opportunities for extensive use of the target language ranging from content-based tasks to practice activities which engage learners in activities to become better at the target structures (Dekeyser, 2000).
Ellis (as cited in Fotos & Nassaji, 2007) asserted that proactive FoF as a kind of intensive instruction can be induced in repeated opportunities for attention to preselected language forms, while incidental FoF results in extensive instruction in that a range of linguistic forms may be available for learners' attention.
1.2. Reactive FoF and instruction of grammar
Reactive FoF instruction enables learner to put into practice during purposeful interaction the target language knowledge they gain from proactive instructional activities (Lyster, 2007). Hence, he thinks, reactive form-focused instruction has to appear in the form of corrective feedback and any other attempt aimed at drawing learners' attention to language form during interaction. In other words, as Doughty and Williams (as cited in Fotos & Nassaji, 2007) explained, reactive FoF encompasses responses to communication problems occurring after the event. Baleghizadeh (2010) stated that reactive FoF is considered as a good source for negative evidence since it typically occurs when learners state some unacceptable form and the teacher tries to correct them or asks other students to correct him.
Furthermore, reactive FoF involves a responsive teaching intervention that involves occasional shifts in reaction to salient errors using devices to increase perceptual salience (Long & Robinson, 1998). Lyster (2004) compared the relative effects of the recasts and prompts on the acquisition of French gender. He noticed that both resulted in
learning but prompts seemed more facilitative. Thornbury (2004) found reactive teaching more effective than proactive teaching. He argued that it is easier to follow each learner's developmental trajectory by responding to their communicative errors rather than to preselecting the errors through pre-teaching. He then elaborates on a typical example of reactive FOF in which each learner asks their partner questions about their last weekend in five minutes and then spends five minutes writing a paragraph. The teacher then collects the texts and prepares a list of 15 to 20 sentences to focus on their tense and aspects. The next session, the learners will be asked to work in small groups or pairs to select well-formed sentences and correct the wrong ones.
As it can be seen, reactive focus on form is a treatment which deals more specifically with student output where the focus is on structures that students themselves have used, or have tried to use, during a communicative task (Mennim, 2003). In simpler terms, reactive instruction of grammar entails responding to communication problems of learners occurring after the event (Long & Robinson, 1998). Willis and Willis (2007, p. 121) put forth three major characteristics for reactive FoF:
• It helps prevent fossilization. Learners are alerted to the fact that they still have some way to go in mastering a given fact.
• If used sparingly it helps motivate learners. Almost all language learners expect and want correction. They see it as a necessary part of the teacher's role.
• It provides useful negative feedback. Sometimes negative feedback is the quickest and most efficient way of putting learners on the right track.
Lightbown (as cited in Lyster, 2007) pointed out that research in support of reactive FoF instruction shows that learners benefit most from a focus on form precisely at the moment when they have something to say and postponing a focus on language until a subsequent language lesson is not as effective.
1.3. Related studies in the field
Many studies have been conducted to examine the efficacy of alternatives of FoF. For instance, Hawkes (2012) investigated the effectiveness of having learners repeat tasks as a post-task activity to focus attention on form. The results showed that the participants appeared to turn their attention towards form in the practice, suggesting that this model of task repetition could be a useful option for teachers practicing task-based language teaching (TBLT) in their classrooms. Furthermore, Keyvanfar and Bakshiri (2011) claimed that proactive FoF was more effective on the grammar improvement of the participants when compared to reactive FoF especially for the learners at beginner level of language proficiency. The researchers strongly believed that in EFL settings like Iran with minimum amount of exposure, planned grammar instruction is a necessity.
Ellis, Basturkmen, and Loewen (2002), based on theoretical as well as empirical reasons, asserted that he teacher's role in a communicative task is twofold, acting as a communicative partner while paying attention to form when needed. Hyland (2003) examined the relationship between teacher written feedback and ESL students' revisions and writing development within an academic writing context. She considered three aspects of feedback and revision in a specific context; the extent to which teachers focused on form when they gave feedback. The results of Hyland's study showed that for all students more than half the feedback focused on form. Teachers are primarily interested in improving students' long-term language accuracy, and students think that repeated feedback would eventually help them note their errors and get rid of them.
In line with Hyland, Al-Surmi (2012) examined whether learners' noticing of morpho-syntactic recasts is influenced by recast type, and whether learners subsequently recognize their morpho-syntactic errors and the targetlike reformulations they receive during task-based interaction. . Results indicated that morpho-syntactic recasts during interaction led to more learners' subsequent recognition of such recasts. He claims that during interaction, a learner's working memory is loaded with the process of learning while in the delayed task their attention is directed to spot-the morpho-syntactic errors and they are not forced mentally to report. Also, results indicated that learners noticed 10% of morpho-syntactic recasts and there was no significant difference by recast type. In subsequent
recognition tasks, learners tended to recognize recast forms (i.e., target-like forms) more than their errors (i.e., nontarget forms).
Although many studies have been conducted in this field (e.g. Ellis, Basturkmen, &Loewen, 2002; Hawkes, 2012; Hyland, 2003) the dilemma still remains. Since, none of them introduces an optimal method for grammar teaching and some studies reveal benefits for FFI in the short term but not in the long term. The present study aimed to answer the following questions:
• Are reactive and proactive types of focus on form significantly different regarding their impacts on writing skill of Iranian EFL learners?
• Are reactive and proactive types of focus on form significantly different regarding their impacts on writing skill of Iranian EFL learners in long run?
2. Method
This study was a quasi-experimental one because random sampling was not feasible. The dependent variable of writing proficiency was measured through essay- type tests of writing and the independent variable was grammar instruction (under two conditions of proactive and reactive FoF) in two groups.
2.1. Participants
The participants of this study were 25 Iranian EFL learners studying at upper-intermediate level of a language school in Tehran, Iran. They attended their language course three times a week. They were adults and young adults with an age range of 17 to 27; nevertheless, the majority were in their late 19's. There were 12 participants (8 females and 4 males) in experimental group1and 13 participants (9 females and 4males) in experimental group2.It is important to mention that group 1 received reactive FoF and group2 proactive FoF.
2.2. Material
The American Cutting Edge book, Level 4, has 12 units with each four units covered in one semester; the last four units of this book were used for this study. The grammar points which are covered in this level were making predictions (will, won't, etc.), real/hypothetical possibilities with if, past perfect with time words (when, after, etc.), reported and directed speech, obligation and permission (can, must, have to, etc.), linking words (although, however, etc.), and finally past modal verbs (could have, should have, would have).The micro- and macro-level measurements of their writing ability were carried out to compare writing productions of the participants at the end of the semester and four months later. The reason was that we decided to determine the effectiveness of the FoF instruction in the short and long run. It's worth mentioning that the topics which were given to participants at micro- and macro-level measurement were related. The learners' writings were rated based on the Hyland'sanalytic scoring rubric (2003, p. 244).
2.3. Procedure
There were two classes at upper intermediate level, the classes were held in 22 sessions, 20 minutes of which were allocated to grammar instruction. It is to be mentioned that this period was automatically extended in the reactive group, meaning that problem shooting took longer than the preemptive covering of the predetermined grammatical structures of every session. To conduct this study, the last four units of American Cutting Edge level four were instructed in both groups, Group 1received grammar instruction reactively and Group 2 received it proactively. In order to measure the learners' grammatical knowledge as a baseline level, before the intervention, the learners were asked to write a composition on the same topic. The topic was" the best day in my life...."
In order to determine the efficacy of grammar instruction, the learners were also asked to write two compositions both at the end of the course and four months later. Two topics were selected according to topics which were discussed in the class time; the first topic for immediate production was"how I can change the way I look" and for delayed production was "my creasiest experience in a restaurant or a shopping mall'. All the papers were corrected in accordance with Hyland's analytic scoring rubric (2003). The teacher did not provide the students with the score; the scores were just used for statistical analysis [(31-40) excellent to very good, (21-30) good to average, (11-20) fair to poor, and (1-10) inadequate].
3. Results
Having collected and rated the writing performance from both classes, we have pursued the following phases in analyzing the whole data. To investigate the inter-rater consistency between the raters' marking, correlation coefficient was calculated between the scores by different raters in pretest, posttest, and delayed posttest. It is shown in Table 1 as follows:
Table 1. Inter-raterreliability
pretest posttest Delayed posttest
Pearson Correlation
Sig. (2-tailed) 0.92 0.98 0.97
The correlation coefficients between the scores by raters in pretest, posttest, and delayed posttestclearly indicate that any one of the ratings can be interchangeably used in our calculations.
The descriptive statistics of the data reveals that the mean scores of both classes, reactive and proactive FoF, were about the same (15.4 and 16.1 respectively) which indicates the homogeneity of the students regarding the dependant variable writing skill. The same comparison in the mean indices of posttests shows a rather considerable difference between them (29.4 and 35.4 respectively). This difference is quite noticeable in the mean scores of both groups in delayed posttest. The indices of skewedness and kurtosis of all the tests also prove that the scores are normally distributed so parametric test can be adopted for the analysis of the data. Descriptive statistics for the writing performances of the students in both classes are presented in Table 2.
Table 2. Descriptive statistics for the writing performance of both classes in pretests/posttests/delayed posttests
N Mean SD Variance Skewedness Kurtosis
Reactive pretest 12 15.4 4.1 17.1 0.29 -1.1
Proactive pretest 13 16.1 2.75 7.58 -0.43 1.14
Reactive posttest 12 29.5 7.15 51.2 0.07 -1.43
Proactive posttest 13 35.4 4.35 18.9 -0.5 -1.1
Reactive delayed posttest 12 25.3 7.58 57.5 0.6 -0.37
Proactive delayed posttest 13 35.5 4.05 16.4 -0.78 -0.84
The next statistical procedure was paired-sample t-test. It was conducted to evaluate the changes traced in the writing performance of each class as a result of the use of either FoF type. The results of the paired-samples t-test for the class with summarizing task are displayed in Table 3.
Naeimeh Bakshiri and Mojtaba Mohammadi /Procedia - Social and Behavioral Sciences 98 (2014) 334 - 342 Table 3. Paired-samples t-test for both classes with reactive and proactive FoF
Mean SD t df Sig. (2-tailed)
Reactive pretest 14.1 Reactive posttest
Pair 2
Reactive pretest 9.9 Reactive Delayed posttest Pair 3
Proactive pretest 19.3 Proactive posttest
Pair 4
Proactive pretest 19.3
Proactive Delayed posttest_
3.75 13.0 11 .000
4.75 7.22 11 .000
3.42 20.3 12 .000
3.9 17.9 12 .000
According to the above table, the probability value of the first pair, which refers to the class with reactive FoF, reveals that there is a significant difference between the writing performance of those students before and after doing the reactive procedure. In other words, reactive type of FoF for the students could significantly change their command of writing. Given the class with proactive FoF, however, the probability value shows that the difference between the students' performance in writing before and after performing the proactive procedure is quite significant. This means that using proactive FoF in the class could enhance their writing performance.
To answer the third question, Independent-samples t-test was adopted. This statistical operation was conducted to investigate whether participants with reactive FoF outperform those with proactive FoF in their writing performance. The results of the Independent-samples t-test analysis are summarized in Table 4.
Table 4. Independent sample t-test_
Levene's Test for
Equality of t-test for Equality of Means
Variances
Si t df Sig. Std. Error
ig. (2-tailed) Difference
Writing Equal variances 2.97 0.1 -2.51 23 0.02 2.35
assumed
Posttest
Equal variances not assumed
-2.46 17.88 0.024 2.4
Writing delayed Equal variances
posttest assumed 3.19 0 09 -4.21 23 0.000 2.4
Equal variances not -4.11 16.51 0.001 2.46
assumed
Since the significance level of Levene's test is larger than 0.05 in both tests, we can assume equal variance in the two groups and therefore the first lines in the table is relevant. Therefore, since the Sig. value of the first line, which is calculated as 0.02, is less than 0.05, it can be inferred that there is a significant difference in the mean scores of the students in both classes regarding their writing performance.
4. Discussion
The results of the statistical analyses revealed the answer to our research questions. Data analysis showed that both classes with reactive and proactive FoF can help improve the writing skill of the students. However, students who received the proactive FoF significantly outperformed the students in the other group which can underline the effectiveness of this type of FoF. The interesting point about the results is that the students in reactive FoF class could not present the same level of skill four months after the intervention finished. That is, proactive type of FoF is significantly more effective in improving writing skill among the students.
The first reason of outperformance of the group who received proactiveFoF could be the repeated opportunities for attention to the preselected grammar forms which were available for learners in the proactive groups. Since reactive focus on form involves a responsive teaching intervention in the form of occasional shifts to important errors (Long & Robinson, 1998), it inevitably becomes more time consuming, giving fewer opportunities to elaborate on key grammar points of the lesson, the learners had less production, hence, fewer errors to be reactively corrected.
In addition, the researchers clearly noticed that learners were not patient enough to allow the teacher to go over their few errors one by one. These could have put the reactive group at a disadvantage. In contrast, learners in proactive group were exposed to language more than the learners in reactive group and the teacher had more time for practicing grammar points.
Ellis, Leowen, and Basturkmen (2002) had a similar observation: their students' continuous questioning did not allow the teacher or other students to react to their errors through explicit correction or the use of metalanguage to draw attentions to the problematic structures. This could be due to the fact that they preferred to know the target form as soon as possible, so they asked repeated questions about their erroneous forms. As an example, in one of the sessions, the teacher tried to put the learners in a situation to ask questions using past perfect but two of the learners asked some questions about conditional sentences. Giving a brief explanation on conditional sentences limited the time that had to be spent on past perfect. Fortunately, in the reactive group, there was not continuous questioning and only rarely did the raising of one question led to another question.
The results of this study are in accordance with Keyvanfar and Bakshiri (2011) who demonstrated that learners who received proactive instruction of grammar performed significantly better than those who received reactive instruction of grammar. This study is in line with Hyland's (2003) study which indicated that for all students more than half the feedback focused on form. Teachers are primarily interested in improving students' long-term language accuracy and students think that repeated feedback would eventually help them note their errors and get rid of them.
5. Conclusion
Finally, the outperformance of the proactive learners may be related to the teacher's voluntary and/or involuntary attention to grammar forms which are not in the list of grammar forms that have to be treated in that very lesson, while in proactive class, it could help the teacher to review the mentioned grammar points. The researchers strongly believe that, despite the teacher's effort, reactive instruction of grammar may unintentionally have put them at a disadvantage by allowing them to simultaneously focus on a variety of forms which did not necessarily contribute to their performance on the final composition. In conclusion, the repeated opportunities for attention, preselecting grammar points, more exposure in EFL setting are the indispensible techniques in grammar instruction.
References
Al-Surmi, M. (2012). Learners' noticing of recasts of morpho-syntactic errors: Recast types and delayed recognition, System, 40,226-236.
Baleghizadeh, S. (2010). Focus on form in an EFL communicative classroom. ELT Journal, 53, 119-128.
Dekeyser, R. (2000). The robustness of critical period effects in second language acquisition. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 22, 499-533.
Doughty, C., & Williams, J. (1998). Focus on form in classroom language acquisition. UK: Cambridge University Press.
Ellis, N. C. (2005). At the interface: How explicit knowledge affects implicit language learning. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 27, 305352.
Ellis, R. (2006). Current issues in the teaching of grammar: An SLA perspective. TESOL Quarterly, 4(1), 83-170.
Ellis, R. (2006). The study of second language acquisition. New York: Oxford University Press.
Ellis, R., Loewen, S., & Basturkmen, H. (2006). Disentangling focus on form. A response to Sheen and O' Neill (2005). Applied Linguistics, 27(1), 135-141.
Ellis, R., Basturkmen, H., &Loewen, S. (2002). Doing focus-on-form. System, 30, 419-432.
Hawkes, M. J. (2012). Using task repetition to direct learner attention and focus on form, ELT Journal, 66, 327-336.
Hyland, F. (2003). Focusing on form: Student engagement with teacher feedback. System, 31, 217-230.
Hyland, K. (2003). Second language acquisition.UK: Cambridge University Press.
Keyvanfar, A., & Bakshiri, N. (2011). Time matters: Proactive vs. reactive FOF. I-managerELT, 2(1), 27-36.
Klapper, J., & Rees, J. (2003). Reviewing the case of explicit grammar instruction in the university foreign language learning context. Language Teaching Research, 7, 258-314.
Long, M., & Robinson, P. (1998). Focus on form: Theory, research and practice. In C. Doughty & J. Williams (Eds.), Focus on form in classroom language acquisition. UK: Cambridge University Press.
Lyster, R. (2007). Learning and teaching languages through content: A counterbalanced approach. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins.
Lyster, R. (2004). Research on form-focused instruction in immersion classrooms: Implications for theory and practice. French Language Studies, 14, 321-341.
Lyster, R. (1994). The effect of functional-analytic teaching on the aspect of French immersion students' sociolinguistics competence. Applied Linguistics, 15, 263-87.
Mennim, P. (2003). Rehearsed oral L2 output and reactive focus on form. ELT Journal, 57,130-138.
Mohammadi, M. (2009). Recast and metalinguistic feedback in teaching and learning L2 writing: A comparative study. The Journal of Asia TEFL, 6(3), 227-244.
Nassaji, H., & Fotos, S. (2007). Issues in form focus instruction and teacher's education. In S. Fotos & H. Nassaji (Eds.), Issues in form focused instruction and teacher's education: Studies in honor of Rod Ellis (pp.7-15). New York: Oxford University Press.
Thournbury, S. (2004). English teaching essential grammar. English Teaching Professionals, 30, 40-41.
Ranta, L., &Lyster, R. (2007). A cognitive approach to improving immersion students' oral language abilities: The awareness-practice feedback sequence. In R. DeKeyser (Ed.), Practice in a second language: Perspectives from applied linguistics and cognitive psychology (pp. 141-160). UK: Cambridge University Press.
Richards, J. C., & Renandya, W. A. (2002). Methodology in language teaching: An anthology of current practice. UK: Cambridge University Press.
Spada, N. (2010). Beyond form-focused instruction: Reflections on past, present, and future research. Paper presented at the Canadian Association for Applied Linguistics Conference, Ottawa, Ontario, Canada.
White, L. (1998). Getting learners' attention: A typological input enhancement study. In C. Doughty & J. Williams (Eds.), Focus on form in classroom second language acquisition. UK: Cambridge University Press.
White, L. (1991). Adverb placement in second language acquisition: Some effects of positive and negative evidence in the classroom. Second Language Research, 7, 133-61.
Willis, D., & Willis, J. (2007). Doing task-based teaching. New York: Oxford University Press.
