English Language Teaching in its Social Context

186 MICHAEL H. LONGPavcsi’s study is a non-equivalent control groups design, so causal claims are precluded.There are also no data on whether or not the high school students were ever actually taughtrelative clauses, or if so, which ones. We know simply that they received something like agrammar-translation course. The findings are nonetheless suggestive of the kind of effectsa focus on form may have on ultimate SL attainment.Two other studies, furthermore, haveshown that structurally focused teaching of relative clause formation can accelerate learning,also that, at least as far down as level 4 (object of a preposition) in the hierarchy, instructionin a more marked structure will generalize hack up the implicational scale to less markedstructures (Gass 1982; Eckman et al. 1988; and see also Zobl 1985).SLA research findings like those briefly described here would seem to supporttwo conclusions. (1) Instruction built around afocus on forms is counter-productive.(2) Instruction which encourages a systematic, non-interferin&focus onform produces a fasterrate of learning and (probably) higher levels of ultimate SL attainment than instruction withno focus onform. If correct, this would make I+ focus on form] a desirable design featureof FL instruction. Programs cxist which have this feature, alternating in some principledway between a focus on meaning and a focus on form. (One example is task-based languageteaching. See Long 1985; Crookes and Long 1987; Long and Crookes 1989; Long, in press).Programs with a focus on form need to be compared in carefully controlled studies withprograms with a focus on forms and with (c.g. Natural Approach) programs with no overtfocus on form.Further researchTrue experiments are needed which compare rate of learning and ultimate level ofattainment after one of three programs:focus on forms, focus on form, and focus on communication.Preliminary research in this area has produced mixed results, two studics finding positiverelationships between the amount of class time given to a focus on forms and variousproficiency measures (McDonald, Stone andYates 1977, for ESL; Mitchell, Parkinson andJohnstone 198 1 , for French FL), and a third study of ESL (Spada 1986, 1987) finding nosuch effects. (For detailed review, see Chaudron 1988.) All three studies were comparisonsof intact groups which differed in degree of focus onforms, it should be noted. Research hasyet to be conducted comparing the unique program types.Studies of this kind should be true experiments, employing a pretcst/post-test controlgroup design, and should also include a proccss component to monitor implementation ofthe three distinct treatments. They should utilize multiple outcomc measures, some focusingon accuracy, some on communicative ability or fluency, thereby avoiding (supposed) bias infavour of one program or another. The post-tests should include immediate and delayedmeasures, since at least one study (Harley 1989) has found a short-term advantage forstudents receiving form-focused instruction disappeared (three months) later. Some of themeasures should further reflect known developmental sequences and patterns of variationin ILs, appropriate for the developmental stages of the subjects as revealed on the pretests.A distinction should be maintained between constructions which arc in principle learnablefrom positive instantiation in the input and constructions which in principle require negativeevidence. (For further details and desirable characteristics of such studies, see Long 1984,forthcoming; Larsen-Freeman and Long 1989.)Several additional issues need to be addressed, either as separate studies of thefcus onform design feature or as sub-parts of the basic study outlined above. Many interestingquestions remain unanswered, after all. It will be useful to ascertain which structures require