CHAPTER 10

The Role of Grammar and Error Correction in Teaching Languages to Young Learners

Hacer Hande UYSAL

Introduction

Grammar teaching is a very controversial area that has been subject to many discussions and empirical research in second language education field. Although it is often argued whether grammar should have a place in language classes, recent developments pointed out that “grammar cannot be discarded from foreign language pedagogy;” and form and meaning should not be exclusive, but complementary to each other (Saraceni, 2008, p. 165). Cameron (2001) also stated that learning grammar rules is often thought to be beyond children’s cognitive capacity; however, grammar “indeed has a place in children’s learning of language because it is closely tied into meaning and use of language, and is inter-connected with vocabu-lary” (p. 96).

In recent years, research and discussions on grammar teaching has mainly focused on three options in grammar teaching – “focus-on-formS,” “focus-on-meaning,” and “focus- on-form” (Long, 1991; 2000). Recent studies comparing the effectiveness of these approaches found that focus-on-form has a significant advantage over pure formS-or meaning-based instruction in terms of language acquisition, longer retention of forms, and more accu-rate language use for all age groups (Doughty & Williams, 1998; Norris and Ortega; 2000; 2001; Ellis, 2002a). However, in most EFL settings including

229

Turkey, English language classrooms are reported to be dominantly driven by traditional approaches to grammar, involving teacher-centered explicit grammar instruction, memorization of grammatical rules, and translation of forms into first language (Hinkel & Fotos, 2002; Kırkgöz, 2008 a,b), which reflects a “focus-on-formS approach.

Therefore, after a short review of research on grammar teaching and er-ror correction with young learners, the present chapter will provide practi-cal suggestions and sample activities on how to move from “focus-on-formS” to a more “focus-on-form” approach, and how to implement focus-on-form grammar instruction during oral communicative interaction, writ-ing, reading, and listening activities.

Theoretical Grounds of Grammar Instruction and Error Correction

How to teach grammar in the most effective way has been a central is-sue in discussions and research in second language education field (Ellis, 2006). While in the past years, the discussions on grammar teaching were mainly about the place of grammar within various language teaching me-thodologies such as grammar-translation vs. communicative language teaching; in recent years, the discussions have shifted their direction to-wards three major ways in grammar instruction –“focus-on-formS,” “focus-on-meaning,” and “focus-on-form” (Long, 1991; 2000; Burgess & Etherington, 2002).

Among these approaches to grammar instruction, “focus-on-formS” represents the traditional view of language teaching which is evident in grammar-translation, audio-lingual, direct, functional, and cognitive ap-proaches (Hinkel & Fotos, 2002). In formS-focused instruction, language is divided into isolated linguistic units and taught in a sequential manner from easy to difficult through explicit explanations of grammar rules and immediate correction of errors (Long, 2000). The typical sequence of classes is generally organized around three stages: “Presentation of a grammatical structure, its practice in controlled exercises, and the provision of opportu-nities to produce it freely—PPP” (Ellis, Bastürkmen & Loewen, 2002, p. 420). The underlying logic of this approach is that the explicit knowledge (e.g. knowledge about grammar rules) will turn into implicit knowledge (knowl-edge underlying the use of language) with enough practice (De Keyser,

230

1998). However, the traditional “focus on formS” approach has been se-verely criticized for dividing the language into small parts and teaching students these pieces in a linear manner. Such classes are often described as being teacher-centered ignoring student needs; using artificial classroom language thus boring; and as being limited in terms of exposure to the tar-get language, meaningful communication, and interaction which are essen-tial for language acquisition (Long, 2000; Lyster, 2004). In addition, studies found that the grammatical sequences followed in classes did not match learners’ internal developmental acquisition sequences; thus, despite all efforts, learners would not acquire the explicitly taught forms until they are developmentally ready (Pienemann, 1984). Larsen-Freeman (2003) also criticized such grammatical syllabuses asserting that the development of grammar in learner is “organic and holistic rather than linear and atom-istic” (p. 144).

These problems with the traditional focus-on-formS approach led lan-guage professionals to move to a more communicative and meaning-based instruction even sometimes completely excluding grammar from classroom activities especially in English as a second language (ESL) contexts. This “focus-on-meaning” approach was mainly informed by the communicative approaches of 70’s and 80’s based on especially Krashen & Terrel’s (1983) Natural Approach to L2 acquisition. This view refused any attempts of directly teaching of grammatical structures, explicit error correction, or even consciousness-raising since it was believed that second language ac-quisition is a natural unconscious process that can only occur through ex-posure to adequate amount of language or “comprehensible input” as in L1 acquisition (Krashen, 1982; Krashen & Terrel, 1983). According to this view, explicit knowledge about language and error correction was unnecessary and even harmful as learners eventually would subconsciously analyze the forms and deduce the rules from the language input themselves. Thus, this position claimed that there is no interaction between explicit and implicit knowledge; thus, conscious learning is different and cannot lead to lan-guage acquisition (Krashen, 1982; Larsen-Freeman, 2003).

However, studies conducted in Canadian immersion programs or con-tent-based ESL programs have offered considerable evidence that merely exposing students to a flood of language input through meaning-focused tasks and introducing grammar totally in naturalistic and implicit ways

231

without any attention to grammar or error correction resulted in fossiliza-tion and poor L2 grammar especially in oral and written production (Higgs and Clifford, 1982; White, 1987; Skehan, 1996; Doughty & Williams, 1998; Swain, 1985). Furthermore, it was suggested that some grammatical forms, especially that are in contrast with students’ first language, that are infre-quent in input, and that are irregular cannot be acquired simply through exposure alone, but some sort of intervention on these forms is necessary (White, 1987; Larsen-Freeman, 2003; Sheen, 2003). Also this approach was found further problematic and unrealistic in EFL contexts where classroom time and L2 communicative input in and out of classes are limited and students often need language not for real-life communicative purposes but to pass certain grammar and accuracy-based tests (Fotos, 1998; 2002).

Due to the continuous problems with pure meaning-focused and formS-focused approaches in terms of enabling learners to accurately use the lan-guage, this time language professionals started to seek ways to reconcile form with meaning. Recent trends, informed by Schmidt’s (1990; 1993) no-ticing and consciousness-raising theory and Swain’s (1985) output hy-pothesis, have suggested that some sort of noticing and consciousness-raising to target grammar structures and feedback on errors during mean-ingful communicative activities would contribute to better acquisition of second language (Long, 2000; Doughty & Williams, 1998; Ellis, 2002a). Such noticing or consciousness-raising was asserted to contribute to language acquisition in three ways: “learning will be faster, quantity produced will be greater, and contexts in which the rule can be applied will be extended” (Rutherford, 1987; p. 26). Therefore, a new approach –focus-on-form, which was broadly defined by Ellis as “any planned or incidental instructional activity that is intended to induce language learners to pay attention to linguistic forms,” (Ellis, 2001, pp. 1-2) was introduced to the field.

In focus-on-form instruction, it was particularly emphasized that atten-tion to forms is necessary not only in input (e.g. through attending to cer-tain structures in reading and listening activities), but also in output prac-tice (e.g. through feedback during writing or speaking activities). Swain (2005) suggested that pushed output leads learners to process language syntactically rather than semantically, as it would force learners to notice the gap between what they say and what they want to say; to construct hypotheses on the possible uses of language and test them in actual lan-

232

guage use; and restructure new versions of forms in light of the feedback they receive on the correctness of their hypotheses. Thus, this view sug-gested some degree of relationship between explicit knowledge and im-plicit learning especially during output practice (Lightbown, 1998; Ellis, 2005b). Larsen-Freeman (2003) also highlighted the importance of output practice on learning grammar and described this process as “grammaring” in which students are not memorizing explicit knowledge about grammar rules, but developing an ability to do something with grammar. Thus, Lar-sen-Freeman claimed that grammar should be treated as the fifth skill in language rather than as an area of knowledge (ibid, p. 13).

Focus-on-form instruction was divided into two as “planned focus-on-form” and “incidental focus-on-form” (Ellis, 2001), which were also called as “design” and “process method” respectively by Nassaji (1999). In both types, the primary focus should be on meaning rather than form, but the planned (proactive) focus-on-form involves attending to pre-selected forms either in input or output whereas incidental (reactive) focus-on-form in-volves attending to the problematic grammatical forms as they arise natu-rally during actual language use (Ellis, 2001). It was suggested that the planned focus-on-form has an advantage of providing repeated opportuni-ties of attention taking to frequently appearing forms in the input and pro-viding intensive practice with the same grammatical form, while the inci-dental focus-on-form offers an extensive treatment of multiple different types of forms in a random and unrepeated manner (Nassaji & Fotos, 2007). Nevertheless, some scholars such as Long (1991; 2000) and Larsen-Freeman (2003) supported only the incidental focus-on-form, stating that it is learner-centered driven by students’ needs and that it fits into learners’ internal syllabus as it occurs only when a communication problem arises.

Despite different views in terms of the effectiveness of each type of fo-cus-on-form instruction, research including children has provided evidence in favor of both planned and unplanned focus-on-form compared to other types of grammar approaches. In terms of planned focus-on-form, a meta-analysis of 49 studies by Norris and Ortega (2000, 2001) and 11 studies by Ellis (2002a) demonstrated that in general focus-on-form contributed to faster language acquisition, higher levels of accurate oral or written lan-guage production, and longer retention of forms when compared to pure meaning-focused implicit learning. Among the analyzed studies, four in-

233

volved young and young adult learners. Some other studies conducted in Canadian immersion and intensive language programs with children in grades 2, 4, and 5 also provided evidence that input enhancement and at-tention taking to certain grammatical features along with communicative language use had a positive effect on improvements in L2 proficiency (Spada & Lightbown, 1993; White et. al, 1991, Wright, 1996; Harley, 1998). A few studies, on the other hand, reported that incidental focus-on-form has more advantages over planned focus-on-form in terms of correct use of language (Loewen, 2005; Ellis, Bastürkmen & Loewen, 2001). In addition, it was found that focus-on-form during the actual language use (output prac-tice) rather than simply through input enhancement resulted in better ac-quisition of L2 (Izimu, 1999; 2002; Ellis, N., 2005; Song & Suh, 2008).

Another controversial issue with respect to grammar instruction has been the treatment of grammatical errors. The two main concerns regard-ing error correction have been whether feedback on errors should be pro-vided and what type of feedback would work best to elicit corrected forms. Finding answers to these questions is very critical, because when the errors are not corrected, it is likely that students will not be able to automatically correct their mistakes, thus may not learn from their mistakes; yet, if the errors are corrected, then communication can be interrupted and children can be discouraged to use and try out new forms (Doughty and Williams, 1998; Truscott, 1999). Truscott (1999) argued that error correction should not be used especially during oral performance, because first it is ineffec-tive and second it is too difficult to perform. Truscott maintained that it is an overwhelming task for teachers to detect real errors, to provide a clear correction that will be understood by the students, to be consistent in error correction, to adjust the type of feedback according to individual students, and to do all of these without interrupting the communicative focus. There-fore, Truscott favored the use of delayed correction by taking notes on common mistakes and presenting them later as a normal class activity.

Many studies, nevertheless, provided support for the use of feedback during output practice to help students “notice the gap between what they can do and what they are supposed to do.” However, the results of re-

234

search in terms of the effectiveness of feedback types1 were controversial. As for children, Mackey and Oliver (2002) suggested that feedback on er-rors could only succeed with children older than seven, but not with very young children. Mackey and Oliver’s (2002) study with ESL learner chil-dren (8-12) found that children improved on question formation after re-ceiving interactional feedback including negotiation of form (metalinguistic feedback and elicitation) and recasts similar to adult learners. Lyster and Ranta (1997) in their study conducted at primary level grade 4-5 ESL classes; however, found that among six different types of feedback ob-served in communicative classes, recast—the most commonly preferred method by teachers—was the least effective type of feedback with only 31% success rate in correct use of learners. Clarification requests, metalinguis-tic feedback and repetition were found to be more effective at eliciting stu-dent-generated repair more successfully (88%, 86%, 78% respectively), and elicitation was the most effective type that led to 100% success rate in cor-rect use. Lyster (2001, 2004) also found that elementary level students who received interactional feedback in the form of negotiation of form (clarifica-tion requests, repetition, metalinguistic, and elicitation) outperformed those who received only recasts or no feedback. Lyster (2001) claimed that because recasts are generally very ambiguous for especially young learn-ers, children cannot perceive recasts as indicators of their errors when they hear correct utterances. Negotiation of form, on the other hand, requires students to first notice and then change their wrong language use them-selves thus is more effective.

1 Lyster & Ranta (1997) distinguished six types of feedback used by teachers: 1. Explicit correction refers to clearly indicating that what student said was wrong and providing the correct form (no, you should say…, oh you mean….). 2. Recasts involve teachers’ repeating the phrase changing the error with the correct form 3. Clarification requests refers to asking students to repeat or reformulate their utterance (e.g. what do you mean…? Pardon me? ) 4. Metalinguistic feedback do not consist of providing the correct form, but contains comments, information, or questions related to some grammatical rule (e.g. Is it plural? Can you find your error? ) 5. Elicitation refers to either asking students to complete the utterance or asking questions to elicit the right form (e.g. how do we say it in English?) 6. Repetition refers to the repetition of error in isolation.

235

In summary, the findings of research with primary school children overall suggested that focus-on-form instruction was more effective in the accurate use and longer retention of grammar structures when compared to solely meaning-based or traditional formS-focused instruction. Espe-cially the use of L2 tasks requiring attention to formal features as part of the task demand was found both feasible and helpful with children (Harley, 1998) and perceptions of primary level EFL school children on focus-on-form tasks were found to be very positive (Shak & Gardner, 2008). In terms of error correction, feedback on errors during the actual use of language was suggested to be helpful for learners to become aware of gaps between their grammar use and the target grammar use, and children were found to be even more receptive to and affected more quickly by interac-tional feedback than adults (Mackey & Oliver, 2002). However, in terms of effectiveness of feedback types, the results are not conclusive. Still, instead of recasts, which were found to be very ambiguous for young learners, other forms of interactional feedback (e.g. elicitation, clarification requests) forcing students to recognize and correct their own language were reported to be more effective.

As a result, in the light of the aforementioned research results, it is evi-dent that students do not automatically pay attention to grammatical fea-tures during natural communication; thus, they need the guidance of teachers to help them attend to certain forms. Therefore, grammar instruc-tion seems to have a place in teaching English to young learners in primary classrooms. Cameron (2001) also suggests that grammar is not beyond children’s cognitive capacity and grammar definitely has a place in chil-dren’s learning of language because “it is closely tied into meaning and use of language, and is inter-connected with vocabulary” (p. 96). An early start to grammar instruction with children is further supported as a preventive measure to protect children from ambiguous classroom input and fossiliza-tion of incorrect forms (Harley, 1998, p. 161).

However, in most EFL classrooms around the world including Turkey, the problem is not the exclusion of grammar, but too much emphasis put on grammar as it was found that English is still taught through traditional methods such as explicit grammar instruction, memorization of grammati-cal rules, and translation of forms into first language in classes (Hinkel & Fotos, 2002; Kırkgöz, 2008a, b). When this is the case in practice, probably

236

influenced by the failure of the traditional grammar-based approaches in language teaching for years; the new Turkish curriculum reform and the new textbooks intended to realize a mainly meaning-based communicative approach. Although textbooks still follow a grammatical sequence, neither a focus-on-form approach to grammar nor any noticing/consciousness raising attempts can be observed. Moreover, the place of grammar during instruction and how teachers should deal with grammar is very obscure both in student and teachers’ books, giving the impression that students are expected to naturally acquire these forms through exposure and use. However, the wrong applications with grammar teaching in classrooms cannot be remedied by going to another extreme by completely excluding grammar instruction. Instead, the goal should be to move from “focus-on-formS” to a “focus-on-form” approach, which seems to be more realistic and practical in EFL classrooms characterized by crowded classes, limited classroom time, and inadequate exposure to language input and output practice. Next section will deal with how this could be realized.

When to focus-on-form?

The early stages of language acquisition are lexical rather than gram-matical; thus, at the beginning, students may be allowed to communicate through formulaic chunks of language with plenty of opportunities to in-teract in L2 (Ellis, 2002b, p. 23). However, once students start to know the words or chunks well, they will depend upon less on their cognitive capac-ity and their attention will be free for grammar (Cameron, 2001). In addi-tion, when various extensive language forms are presented and accumu-lated in students’ memory one after another, it will be harder and confus-ing for students to proceed with just the memorized chunks without any grammatical processing. For example, once the students start using the structure “I have got….and I haven’t got….” comfortably as a chunk, and as different other forms of the same structure such as “she has got…, she hasn’t got…, has she got…?” are introduced (as in “Time for English” 4th grade book, unit 5 and 7) , focusing on the form and helping students to understand the reasons for the change of the verb from have to has would prevent confusion and facilitate acquisition. At this stage, moving from lexis to grammar by focusing on areas causing problems and encouraging learners to break down and reconstruct previously learned chunks of lan-

237

guage and to make new sentences would be very helpful and necessary (Cameron, 2001; Ellis, 2002b).

Which forms to focus on?

As mentioned before, it was suggested that the grammatical forms, es-pecially those that are in contrast with students’ first language, that are infrequent and insignificant in input, and that are irregular cannot be ac-quired simply through exposure alone; thus, a focus on such forms is nec-essary (White, 1987; Larsen-Freeman, 2003; Sheen, 2003). As we think about specifically Turkish students learning English, grammar forms such as countables/ uncountables, use of some/any such as “an apple, some apples, some milk,” singular/plural forms such as “students vs. children,” there is/ there are, verb changes with third personal pronoun in the present tense such as “I drink vs. she drinks” as well as “they drink vs. everybody drinks”, “Do you like… vs. Does she like…;” different uses of verbs with noun vs. ger-und such as “ I like ice-cream vs. I like playing,” irregular past forms such as “I played vs. I went” are good candidates for focus-on-form instruction be-cause these forms are likely to cause problems for Turkish students; thus, they should not be left unattended.

As for the concern with which forms to focus while treating errors, teachers can follow a selective approach by giving feedback only to the forms that are at the target of that particular class and in a form-focused rather than a meaning-focused activity. For example, if the activity is aim-ing at using sentences on what students like doing such as “I like dancing” then when students say “I like dance,” this error should be corrected through some sort of interactive feedback while other mistakes can be ig-nored (please see the next section for more detailed discussion of how such interactive feedback could be provided).

How to do focus on form?

As discussed previously, there are two main ways of doing focus-on-form, which are the planned and unplanned focus-on-form. In the un-planned or reactive method, no grammatical structures are previously de-termined as the target of the lessons, but the lessons are completely driven

238

by students’ problems or errors and the teachers’ reactions to these errors, as they occur in the natural course of classroom activities. However, be-cause EFL teachers are often under imposition of an already established central curriculum and a certain grammar syllabus in the textbooks, a more planned focus-on-form involving attention to previously selected grammar structures seems to be more realistic and feasible in most EFL contexts. Thus, in this section, the suggestions and activities presented will be more in line with planned focus-on-form.

1. Guided noticing and consciousness-raising activities:

Suggested activity 1 (reading/ speaking or writing): In a reading text, the target grammar structures are highlighted, written in bold or under-lined to make them more salient while reading for meaning. First, the activ-ity should start with general comprehension activities totally based on meaning, but then the teacher should prompt noticing and then rule dis-covery. For example, the teacher asks students why have got is used with certain people, but has got is used with others without providing answers because encouraging children to see a pattern themselves and formulate a grammatical rule in their own words is of critical importance. If children construct their own knowledge of a grammatical structure, they are more likely to better understand and remember that rule (Gordon, 2006). At the end, there should be an opportunity for students to experiment with using the target structure in their own sentences through speaking or writing. To increase the frequency of the features used, the learners may be asked to use only certain forms such as “is there/are there” or “have got/has got.” This strategy was found to bring about a focus-on- form and consequently lead to noticing (Swain & Lapkin, 1995 in Nassaji, 1999).

Suggested activity 2 (Listening/problem solving/writing): Students lis-ten to a dialogue or a text first to comprehend and do activities on merely comprehension. Then, they listen to the text for the second or third time to identify the target grammar structure such as the simple present tense. The teacher asks the students to fill in the blanks in an activity in which the grammar parts are gapped to help students notice the target structure. Then, the students are given a further text containing incorrect usages of the target form (e.g. wrong verb forms such as “she study” instead of “she

239

studies”) and asked to find and correct these forms in groups as a problem solving activity (Ellis 2002b). Such learner judgment or discrimination of errors as part of a problem solving task is suggested to encourage con-sciousness raising (Rutherford, 1987). Then, the students are asked to use the structure in a short writing task.

Suggested activity 3 (listening/problem solving/writing): Students lis-ten to a short story that the teacher reads them and then they are asked to restructure and retell their version of the story using the target grammar. Then, the different versions of the story are compared to each other by di-recting students’ attention to differences between the language they used and the targeted language use to promote “noticing the gap.” Then the stories are analyzed in a whole class setting in terms of the use of certain grammar structures such as “does not + base form” (Shak and Gardner, 2008). This co-construction stage is central and a very helpful element of the story-based grammar lessons, especially if the rule discovery stage is treated as “puzzle” or “mystery” to raise children’s interest about finding out the pattern behind the language use (Gordon, 2006). Then students are asked to write a final version of the story using the target structure to mas-ter the grammatical form.

Suggested activity 4 (listening/grammar interpretation): Students listen to a text the teacher reads them, for example, about the things Bugs Bunny do routinely versus the things he is doing today. Students are given a table with two columns for everyday and today and they are asked to fill in the table with sentences the teacher reads such as “Bugs Bunny goes to school every day,” but “today he is playing football.” Then the uses of two differ-ent tenses are contrasted as a whole class activity to make distinctions be-tween routine events and non routine events (Cameron, 2001)

Everyday Today He goes to school He is playing football

He …. He… He…. He…. He… He…. He… He….

He… He….

240

Suggested activity 5 (Listening/grammar interpretation): Students listen to some sentences the teacher reads them including prepositions and they are asked to draw pictures as they listen to the directives. For example, “the ball is on the table, the ball is under the table, the ball is near the table…..” Then, the drawings and directives are compared to see whether students’ drawings are correct.

A similar task can be done by using TPR (Total Physical Response). For example, the teacher can give directives to students to practice the positive and negative forms of imperatives such as “stop talking, open the door, don’t sit, don’t look etc.” Such tasks in which the grammar is embedded in the task demand are suggested to be very useful with young learners (Har-ley, 1998).

Suggested activity 6 (speaking/ writing): Students are asked to prepare a list of survey questions to ask their friends on what they like. For exam-ple, “Do you like pizza?” and “Do you like football?” And then after they collect the answers they start to write the results in a report. For example, “two people like pizza, only Meltem likes pizza” etc. so that the students will have a chance to use different verb forms of the simple present tense in an extended situation. Such written activities help practice the grammatical forms better than the spoken activities as writing gives children more time to think so that they can chose the right form and correct their incorrect use by going back and forth in their writing (Cameron, 2001).

2. Error correction – enhancing “noticing the gap” through feedback:

In terms of error correction, teachers can choose to focus on errors both during and after the activities. In delayed feedback, teachers can take notes on a common mistake that students make during an activity so as not to disrupt the flow of communication or not to discourage students (espe-cially if the focus of the activity is mainly on meaning), and at the end of the class, the teacher can present a mini grammar lesson on these common and systematic mistakes (Nassaji, 1999; Gordon, 2006).

The teacher can also react to errors during the activity not by explicitly saying that it is wrong and providing the correct form, but in a conversa-tional manner similar to how people in natural communication would react by asking for confirmation, clarification and repetition to negotiate mean-

241

ing or to negotiate form (Ellis et al 2002; Nassaji, 1999). Research suggested that while performing meaningful activities, shifting focus momentarily from meaning to form could be useful to promote interlanguage restructur-ing (Nassaji and Fotos, 2007; Lightbown, 2000; Ellis et al 2001). However, teachers should keep in mind that the goal in providing feedback is not to immediately and completely eliminate errors, but to provide a focus-on-form to help students become aware of the formal, systematic or rule-based characteristics of language so that children will become more conscious about certain structures in their own oral and written output (Gordon, 2006, p. 23).

Here are some possible responses suggested by Thornbury (1999) that teachers might consider according to the needs and characteristics of their individual students in particular classroom situations:

Student error: “He has a long hair”

1. Teacher: “He has long hair” (recasting), the teacher simply repairs the error. This commonly used strategy is suggested to be simply ignored by children, so does not effect much change in children’s speech. To help stu-dents recognize their error, intonation with a stress on the error can be used.

2. Teacher: “He has…..?” The teacher is replaying the students’ utterance up to the point where the error occurred to isolate the error and to give a clue for self-correction.

3. Teacher: “He has a long hair?” Teacher repeats the mistake, but with a quizzical intonation.

4. Teacher: “I am sorry, I didn’t understand.” (or He what? Or Excuse me?) This technique is known as clarification request that occurs frequently in real conversations. That signals the learner that the message is unclear, suggesting that there might be a mistake in the form. Research suggests that when learners correct their utterance after clarification requests, their language tends to improve.

5. Teacher: “Oh, he has long hair, has he?” (reformulation) This correction by offering an expanded version of the child’s utterance is suggested to be similar to how parents correct their children. It is argued that such refor-

242

mulations help a temporary scaffold for the child’s developing language competence (Thornbury, 1999, pp.117-119).

Conclusion

In conclusion, there is strong theoretical evidence that “the teacher’s role in a communicative task should not be limited to that of communicative partner”, but “the teacher also needs to pay attention to form” (Ellis et al, 2002, p. 430). In order to enhance L2 acquisition and accurate language use, teachers should assist students through the language acquisition steps sug-gested by research such as noticing the form in the input (e.g by highlight-ing certain structures in a text), consciousness raising (e.g. by helping stu-dents to discover rules or if needed by explaining rules), noticing the gap in output practice (by pushing students to use the language and notice the gap between what was in input and what they produced through feed-back), accommodation, restructuring and experimentation (by encouraging students to try out and test various new uses of the structure in light of feedback which will also become new input for them later) (Richards, 2002; Ellis, N. 2007).

243

References:

Burgess, J. & Etherington, S. (2002). Focus on grammatical form: Explicit or implicit? System, 30, 433-458.

Cameron, L. (2001). Teaching languages to young learners. Cambridge: Cam-bridge University Press.

De Keyser, R. M. (1998). Beyond focus on form: Cognitive perspectives on learning and practicing second language grammar. In Doughty, C. & Williams, J. (Eds.), Focus on form in classroom second language acquisi-tion (pp. 42-63). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Doughty, C. & Williams, J. (1998). Pedagogical choices in focus on form. In C. Doughty & J. Williams (Eds.), Focus on form in classroom second lan-guage acquisition (pp. 197-261). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Ellis, R. (2001). Introduction: Investigating form-focused instruction. Lan-guage Learning, 51, 1-46.

Ellis, R. (2002a). Does form-focused instruction affect the acquisition of implicit knowledge? A review of the research. Studies in Second Lan-guage Acquisition, 24, 223-236.

Ellis, R. (2002b). The place of grammar instruction in the second/foreign language curriculum. In E. Hinkel and S. Fotos (Eds.), New perspec-tives on grammar teaching in second language classrooms (pp. 17-34). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.

Ellis, N. (2005). At the interface: The dynamic interactions of explicit and implicit language knowledge. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 27, 305-352.

Ellis, N. (2007). The weak interface, consciousness, and form-focused in-struction: Mind the doors. In S. Fotos & H. Nassaji (Eds.), Form-focused instruction and teacher education, Studies in honor of Rod Ellis (pp. 17-34). Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Ellis, R. (2005b). Instructed language learning and task based teaching. In E. Hinkel (Ed.), Handbook of research in second language teaching and learning (pp. 713-728). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

244

Ellis, R. (2006). Current issues in the teaching of grammar: An SLA perspec-tive. TESOL Quarterly, 40(1), 83-107.

Ellis, R., Baştürkmen, H. & Loewen, S. (2001). Learner uptake in communi-cative ESL lessons. Language Learning, 51(2), 281-318.

Ellis, R., Baştürkmen, H. & Loewen, S. (2002). Doing focus-on-form. System, 30, 419-432.

Fotos, S. (1998). Shifting the focus from forms to form in the EFL classroom. ELT Journal, 52(4), 301-307.

Fotos, S. (2002). Structure-based interactive tasks for the EFL grammar learner. In E.

Gordon, T. (2006). Teaching young children a second language. Santa Barbara, CA: Greenwood Publishing.

Hinkel & S. Fotos (Eds.), New perspectives on grammar teaching in second lan-guage classrooms (pp.135-154). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.

Harley, B. (1998). The role of focus-on-form tasks in promoting child L2 acquisition. In C. Doughty & J. Williams (Eds.), Focus on form in class-room second language acquisition (pp. 156-174). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Higgs, T. & Clifford, R. (1982). The push toward communication. In T. Higgs (Ed.), Curriculum, competence and the foreign language teacher (pp. 51-79). IL: National textbook Co.

Hinkel, E. & Fotos, S. (2002). From theory to practice: A teacher’s view. In E. Hinkel & S. Fotos (Eds.), New perspectives on grammar teaching in second language classrooms (pp.1-12). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.

Izumi, S., Bigelow, M., Fujiwara, M., & Fearnow, S. (1999). Testing the out-put hypothesis: Effects of output on noticing and second language acquisition. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 21, 421-452.

Izumi, S. (2002). Output, input enhancement and the noticing hypothesis: An experimental study on ESL relativization. Studies in Second Lan-guage Acquisition, 24, 541-577.

Kırkgöz, Y. (2008a). Curriculum innovation in Turkish primary education. Asia-Pacific Journal of Teacher Education, 36, 309-322

245

Kırkgöz, Y. (2008b). A case study of teachers’ implementation of curricu-lum innovation in English language teaching in Turkish primary education. Teaching and Teacher Education, 24, 1859-1875.

Krashen, S. (1982). Principles and practice in second language acquisition. New York: Pergamon Press.

Krashen, S. & Terrel, T. (1983). The natural approach: Language acquisition in the classroom. New York: Pergamon Press.

Larsen-Freeman, D. (2003). Teaching language: From grammar to grammaring. Boston, MA: Heinle & Heinle.

Lightbown, P. M. (1998). The importance of timing in focus on form. In C. Doughty & J. Williams (Eds.), Focus on form in classroom second lan-guage acquisition (pp.177-196). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Lightbown, P. M. (2000). Classroom SLA research and second language teaching. Applied Linguistics, 21(4), 431-462.

Loewen, S. (2005). Incidental focus on form and second language learning. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 27, 361-386.

Long, M. (1991). Focus on form: A design feature in language teaching me-thodology. In K. de Bot, R. Ginsberg, and C. Kramsch (Eds.), Foreign language research in cross-cultural perspective. Amsterdam: John Benja-mins.

Long, M. (2000). Focus on form in task-based language teaching. In R. Lambert and E. Shohamy (Eds.), Language policy and pedagogy: Essays in honor of A. Ronald Walton (pp. 179-191). Philadelphia: John Benja-mins.

Lyster, R. (2001). Negotiation of form, recasts, and explicit correction in relation to error types and learner repair in immersion classrooms. Language Learning, 51, 265-301.

Lyster, R. and Ranta, L. (1997). Corrective feedback and learner uptake: Negotiation of form in communicative classrooms. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 20, 37-66.

Lyster, R. (2004). Differential effects of prompts and recasts in form-focused instruction. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 26, 399-432.

246

Mackey, A. & Oliver, R. (2002). Interactional feedback and children’s L2 development. System 30(4), 459-477.

Nassaji, H. (1999). Towards integrating form-focused instruction and communicative interaction in the second language classroom: some pedagogical possibilities. The Canadian Modern Language Review, 55(3), 385-402.

Nassaji, H. & Fotos, S. (2007). Issues in form-focused instruction and teach-er education. In S. Fotos & H. Nassaji (Eds.), Form-focused instruction and teacher education, Studies in honor of Rod Ellis (pp. 7-15). Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Norris, J. M & Ortega, L. (2000). Effectiveness of L2 instruction: A research synthesis and quantitative meta-analysis. Language Learning, 50 (3), 417-528.

Norris, J. M. & Ortega, L. (2001). Does type of instruction make a differ-ence? Substantive findings from a meta-analytic review. Language Learning, 51, 157-213.

Pienemann, M. (1984). Psychological constraints on the teachability of lan-guages. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 6, 186-214.

Richards, J. C. (2002). Accuracy and fluency revisited. In E. Hinkel & S. Fotos (Eds.), New perspectives on grammar teaching in second language classrooms (pp. 35-50). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.

Rutherford, W. E. (1987). Second language grammar: Learning and teaching, NY: Longman, Pearson Education.

Saraceni, M. (2008). Meaningful form: Transitivity and intentionality. ELT Journal, 62 (2), 164-172.

Schmidt, R. (1990). The role of consciousness in second language learning. Applied Linguistics, 11, 129-158.

Schmidt, R. (1993). Awareness and second language acquisition. Annual Review of Applied Linguistics, 13, 206-226.

Shak, J. & Gardner, S. (2008). Young learner perspectives on four focus-on-form tasks. Language Teaching Research, 12(3), 387-408.

247

Sheen, R. (2003). Focus on form-a myth in the making? ELT Journal, 57(3), 225-233.

Skehan, P. (1996). A framework for the implementation of task-based in-struction. Applied Linguistics, 17, 38-62.

Song, M. & Suh, B. (2008). The effects of output task types on noticing and learning of the English past counterfactual condition. System, 36, 295-312.

Spada, N. & Lightbown, P. (1993). Instruction and the development of questions in the L2 classroom. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 15(2), 205-221.

Swain, M. (1985). Communicative competence: Some roles of comprehensible input and comprehensible output in its development. In S. Gass & C. Madden (Eds.), Input in second language acquisition (pp. 235-253). MA: Newbury House

Swain, M. (2005). The output hypothesis: theory and research. In E. Hinkel (Ed.), Handbook on research in second language teaching and learning (pp. 471-484). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

Swain, M. & Lapkin, S. (1995). Problems in output and cognitive processes they generate: A step towards second language learning. Applied Lin-guistics, 16(3), 371-391.

Thornbury, S. (1999). How to teach grammar. London: Longman, Pearson Education.

Truscott, J. (1999). What is wrong with oral grammar correction? The Cana-dian Modern Language Review, 55(4), 437-456.

White, L. (1987). Against comprehensible input. Applied Linguistics, 8(2), 95-110.

White, L., Spada, N., Lightbown, P., & Ranta, L. (1991). Input enhancement and L2 question formation. Applied Linguistics, 12(4), 416-432.

Wright, R. (1996). A study of the acquisition of verbs of motion by grade 4/5 early French immersion students. Canadian Modern Language Re-view, 53, 257-280.

248