Text VII, for questions from 39 through 43.

Grammar-Based Teaching (GBT) vs.

Focus on Form (FonF)

1 Grammar teaching has received renewed attention in

academic circles since the late 1980s or early 1990s, when

the naturalist movement began to fade. This attention has

4 generally taken on the nomenclature of Focus on Form

(FonF), even though a focus on grammar includes a great

deal more than simply a focus on form. Form and meaning

7 are inseparable, especially in any worthwhile L2 grammar

instruction. Basically, FonF, in my understanding, seeks ways

of introducing grammar instruction into Communicative

10 Language Teaching (CLT), which is often content- or

task-based.

Both GBT and FonF mingle grammar and

13 communicative teaching, but approach the integration of

grammar into a curriculum differently. Generally speaking,

FonF seeks to integrate a grammar component into a CLT

16 curriculum. GBT seeks to integrate CLT into a structural

syllabus, usually in one class within a larger, varied

curriculum. Simply stated, the issue facing practitioners today

19 is whether to teach grammar separately but integrated with

CLT methods and materials as one component out of many in

a well-balanced program of second language instruction, or to

22 integrate grammar into a content- and/or task-focused

approach, either incidentally as opportunities arise (reactively)

or by a predetermined grammar syllabus (proactively).

25Though I have limited experience with FonF, I have

taught variations of it, most notably in some basal series and

in composition classes. For reactive teaching of grammar in

28 composition classes, I would excerpt common errors from the

students' writing and use them for a grammar-teaching

segment within the composition syllabus. However, it was not

31 difficult to notice that semester after semester students made

the same errors, so I decided it would be more efficient and

effective to prepare a grammar syllabus to integrate into the

34 writing syllabus in a systematic way.

I observed that students in my writing class who had

experienced grammar instruction had an advantage over

37 those students who had not. Students with a good grounding

in grammar needed only to be reminded that, for example,

they were trying to say "I was really bored" not "I was really

40 boring." Those without that grounding in grammar needed a

lot more teaching time in order to understand, just as one

example, the difference between –ing and –ed adjectives.

Betty Azar. Internet: <http://tesl-ej.org> (adapted).

Text VII, for questions from 39 through 43.

Grammar-Based Teaching (GBT) vs.

Focus on Form (FonF)

1 Grammar teaching has received renewed attention in

academic circles since the late 1980s or early 1990s, when

the naturalist movement began to fade. This attention has

4 generally taken on the nomenclature of Focus on Form

(FonF), even though a focus on grammar includes a great

deal more than simply a focus on form. Form and meaning

7 are inseparable, especially in any worthwhile L2 grammar

instruction. Basically, FonF, in my understanding, seeks ways

of introducing grammar instruction into Communicative

10 Language Teaching (CLT), which is often content- or

task-based.

Both GBT and FonF mingle grammar and

13 communicative teaching, but approach the integration of

grammar into a curriculum differently. Generally speaking,

FonF seeks to integrate a grammar component into a CLT

16 curriculum. GBT seeks to integrate CLT into a structural

syllabus, usually in one class within a larger, varied

curriculum. Simply stated, the issue facing practitioners today

19 is whether to teach grammar separately but integrated with

CLT methods and materials as one component out of many in

a well-balanced program of second language instruction, or to

22 integrate grammar into a content- and/or task-focused

approach, either incidentally as opportunities arise (reactively)

or by a predetermined grammar syllabus (proactively).

25Though I have limited experience with FonF, I have

taught variations of it, most notably in some basal series and

in composition classes. For reactive teaching of grammar in

28 composition classes, I would excerpt common errors from the

students' writing and use them for a grammar-teaching

segment within the composition syllabus. However, it was not

31 difficult to notice that semester after semester students made

the same errors, so I decided it would be more efficient and

effective to prepare a grammar syllabus to integrate into the

34 writing syllabus in a systematic way.

I observed that students in my writing class who had

experienced grammar instruction had an advantage over

37 those students who had not. Students with a good grounding

in grammar needed only to be reminded that, for example,

they were trying to say "I was really bored" not "I was really

40 boring." Those without that grounding in grammar needed a

lot more teaching time in order to understand, just as one

example, the difference between –ing and –ed adjectives.

Betty Azar. Internet: <http://tesl-ej.org> (adapted).

Text VII, for questions from 39 through 43.

Grammar-Based Teaching (GBT) vs.

Focus on Form (FonF)

1 Grammar teaching has received renewed attention in

academic circles since the late 1980s or early 1990s, when

the naturalist movement began to fade. This attention has

4 generally taken on the nomenclature of Focus on Form

(FonF), even though a focus on grammar includes a great

deal more than simply a focus on form. Form and meaning

7 are inseparable, especially in any worthwhile L2 grammar

instruction. Basically, FonF, in my understanding, seeks ways

of introducing grammar instruction into Communicative

10 Language Teaching (CLT), which is often content- or

task-based.

Both GBT and FonF mingle grammar and

13 communicative teaching, but approach the integration of

grammar into a curriculum differently. Generally speaking,

FonF seeks to integrate a grammar component into a CLT

16 curriculum. GBT seeks to integrate CLT into a structural

syllabus, usually in one class within a larger, varied

curriculum. Simply stated, the issue facing practitioners today

19 is whether to teach grammar separately but integrated with

CLT methods and materials as one component out of many in

a well-balanced program of second language instruction, or to

22 integrate grammar into a content- and/or task-focused

approach, either incidentally as opportunities arise (reactively)

or by a predetermined grammar syllabus (proactively).

25Though I have limited experience with FonF, I have

taught variations of it, most notably in some basal series and

in composition classes. For reactive teaching of grammar in

28 composition classes, I would excerpt common errors from the

students' writing and use them for a grammar-teaching

segment within the composition syllabus. However, it was not

31 difficult to notice that semester after semester students made

the same errors, so I decided it would be more efficient and

effective to prepare a grammar syllabus to integrate into the

34 writing syllabus in a systematic way.

I observed that students in my writing class who had

experienced grammar instruction had an advantage over

37 those students who had not. Students with a good grounding

in grammar needed only to be reminded that, for example,

they were trying to say "I was really bored" not "I was really

40 boring." Those without that grounding in grammar needed a

lot more teaching time in order to understand, just as one

example, the difference between –ing and –ed adjectives.

Betty Azar. Internet: <http://tesl-ej.org> (adapted).

Text VII, for questions from 39 through 43.

Grammar-Based Teaching (GBT) vs.

Focus on Form (FonF)

1 Grammar teaching has received renewed attention in

academic circles since the late 1980s or early 1990s, when

the naturalist movement began to fade. This attention has

4 generally taken on the nomenclature of Focus on Form

(FonF), even though a focus on grammar includes a great

deal more than simply a focus on form. Form and meaning

7 are inseparable, especially in any worthwhile L2 grammar

instruction. Basically, FonF, in my understanding, seeks ways

of introducing grammar instruction into Communicative

10 Language Teaching (CLT), which is often content- or

task-based.

Both GBT and FonF mingle grammar and

13 communicative teaching, but approach the integration of

grammar into a curriculum differently. Generally speaking,

FonF seeks to integrate a grammar component into a CLT

16 curriculum. GBT seeks to integrate CLT into a structural

syllabus, usually in one class within a larger, varied

curriculum. Simply stated, the issue facing practitioners today

19 is whether to teach grammar separately but integrated with

CLT methods and materials as one component out of many in

a well-balanced program of second language instruction, or to

22 integrate grammar into a content- and/or task-focused

approach, either incidentally as opportunities arise (reactively)

or by a predetermined grammar syllabus (proactively).

25Though I have limited experience with FonF, I have

taught variations of it, most notably in some basal series and

in composition classes. For reactive teaching of grammar in

28 composition classes, I would excerpt common errors from the

students' writing and use them for a grammar-teaching

segment within the composition syllabus. However, it was not

31 difficult to notice that semester after semester students made

the same errors, so I decided it would be more efficient and

effective to prepare a grammar syllabus to integrate into the

34 writing syllabus in a systematic way.

I observed that students in my writing class who had

experienced grammar instruction had an advantage over

37 those students who had not. Students with a good grounding

in grammar needed only to be reminded that, for example,

they were trying to say "I was really bored" not "I was really

40 boring." Those without that grounding in grammar needed a

lot more teaching time in order to understand, just as one

example, the difference between –ing and –ed adjectives.

Betty Azar. Internet: <http://tesl-ej.org> (adapted).

Text VII, for questions from 39 through 43.

Grammar-Based Teaching (GBT) vs.

Focus on Form (FonF)

1 Grammar teaching has received renewed attention in

academic circles since the late 1980s or early 1990s, when

the naturalist movement began to fade. This attention has

4 generally taken on the nomenclature of Focus on Form

(FonF), even though a focus on grammar includes a great

deal more than simply a focus on form. Form and meaning

7 are inseparable, especially in any worthwhile L2 grammar

instruction. Basically, FonF, in my understanding, seeks ways

of introducing grammar instruction into Communicative

10 Language Teaching (CLT), which is often content- or

task-based.

Both GBT and FonF mingle grammar and

13 communicative teaching, but approach the integration of

grammar into a curriculum differently. Generally speaking,

FonF seeks to integrate a grammar component into a CLT

16 curriculum. GBT seeks to integrate CLT into a structural

syllabus, usually in one class within a larger, varied

curriculum. Simply stated, the issue facing practitioners today

19 is whether to teach grammar separately but integrated with

CLT methods and materials as one component out of many in

a well-balanced program of second language instruction, or to

22 integrate grammar into a content- and/or task-focused

approach, either incidentally as opportunities arise (reactively)

or by a predetermined grammar syllabus (proactively).

25Though I have limited experience with FonF, I have

taught variations of it, most notably in some basal series and

in composition classes. For reactive teaching of grammar in

28 composition classes, I would excerpt common errors from the

students' writing and use them for a grammar-teaching

segment within the composition syllabus. However, it was not

31 difficult to notice that semester after semester students made

the same errors, so I decided it would be more efficient and

effective to prepare a grammar syllabus to integrate into the

34 writing syllabus in a systematic way.

I observed that students in my writing class who had

experienced grammar instruction had an advantage over

37 those students who had not. Students with a good grounding

in grammar needed only to be reminded that, for example,

they were trying to say "I was really bored" not "I was really

40 boring." Those without that grounding in grammar needed a

lot more teaching time in order to understand, just as one

example, the difference between –ing and –ed adjectives.

Betty Azar. Internet: <http://tesl-ej.org> (adapted).

Text VI, for questions from 34 through 38.

1 Popular tradition would have you believe that

children are effortless second language learners and far

superior to adults in their eventual success. On both counts,

4 some qualifications are in order.

First, children’s widespread success in acquiring

second languages belies a tremendous subconscious effort

7 devoted to the task. Children exercise a good deal of both

cognitive and effective effort in order to internalize both native

and second languages. The difference between children and

10 adults lies primarily in the contrast between the child’s

spontaneous, peripheral attention to language forms and the

adult’s overt, focal awareness of and attention to those forms.

13 Second, adults are not necessarily less successful in

their efforts. Studies have shown that adults, in fact, can be

superior in a number of aspects of acquisition. They can learn

16 and retain a larger vocabulary. They can utilize various

deductive and abstract processes to shortcut the learning of

grammatical and other linguistic concepts. And, in classroom

19 learning, their superior intellect usually helps them to learn

faster than a child. So, while children’s fluency and

naturalness are often the envy of adults struggling with

22 second language, the context of classroom instruction may

introduce some difficulties to children learning a second

language.

25 Third, the popular claim fails to differentiate very

young children (say, four- to six-year-olds) from

pre-pubescent children (twelve to thirteen) and the whole

28 range of ages in between. There are actually many instances

of six- to twelve-year-old children manifesting significant

difficulty in acquiring a second language for a multitude of

31 reasons. Ranking high on that list of reasons are a number of

complex personal, social, cultural, and political factors at play

in elementary school education.

34 Teaching ESL to school-age children, therefore, is

not merely a matter of setting them loose on a plethora of

authentic language tasks in the classroom. To successfully

37 teach children a second language requires specific skills and

intuitions that differ from those appropriate for adult teaching.

H. Douglas Brown. Teaching by Principles.

Longman, 2001, p. 87 (adapted).

Text VI, for questions from 34 through 38.

1 Popular tradition would have you believe that

children are effortless second language learners and far

superior to adults in their eventual success. On both counts,

4 some qualifications are in order.

First, children’s widespread success in acquiring

second languages belies a tremendous subconscious effort

7 devoted to the task. Children exercise a good deal of both

cognitive and effective effort in order to internalize both native

and second languages. The difference between children and

10 adults lies primarily in the contrast between the child’s

spontaneous, peripheral attention to language forms and the

adult’s overt, focal awareness of and attention to those forms.

13 Second, adults are not necessarily less successful in

their efforts. Studies have shown that adults, in fact, can be

superior in a number of aspects of acquisition. They can learn

16 and retain a larger vocabulary. They can utilize various

deductive and abstract processes to shortcut the learning of

grammatical and other linguistic concepts. And, in classroom

19 learning, their superior intellect usually helps them to learn

faster than a child. So, while children’s fluency and

naturalness are often the envy of adults struggling with

22 second language, the context of classroom instruction may

introduce some difficulties to children learning a second

language.

25 Third, the popular claim fails to differentiate very

young children (say, four- to six-year-olds) from

pre-pubescent children (twelve to thirteen) and the whole

28 range of ages in between. There are actually many instances

of six- to twelve-year-old children manifesting significant

difficulty in acquiring a second language for a multitude of

31 reasons. Ranking high on that list of reasons are a number of

complex personal, social, cultural, and political factors at play

in elementary school education.

34 Teaching ESL to school-age children, therefore, is

not merely a matter of setting them loose on a plethora of

authentic language tasks in the classroom. To successfully

37 teach children a second language requires specific skills and

intuitions that differ from those appropriate for adult teaching.

H. Douglas Brown. Teaching by Principles.

Longman, 2001, p. 87 (adapted).

Text VI, for questions from 34 through 38.

1 Popular tradition would have you believe that

children are effortless second language learners and far

superior to adults in their eventual success. On both counts,

4 some qualifications are in order.

First, children’s widespread success in acquiring

second languages belies a tremendous subconscious effort

7 devoted to the task. Children exercise a good deal of both

cognitive and effective effort in order to internalize both native

and second languages. The difference between children and

10 adults lies primarily in the contrast between the child’s

spontaneous, peripheral attention to language forms and the

adult’s overt, focal awareness of and attention to those forms.

13 Second, adults are not necessarily less successful in

their efforts. Studies have shown that adults, in fact, can be

superior in a number of aspects of acquisition. They can learn

16 and retain a larger vocabulary. They can utilize various

deductive and abstract processes to shortcut the learning of

grammatical and other linguistic concepts. And, in classroom

19 learning, their superior intellect usually helps them to learn

faster than a child. So, while children’s fluency and

naturalness are often the envy of adults struggling with

22 second language, the context of classroom instruction may

introduce some difficulties to children learning a second

language.

25 Third, the popular claim fails to differentiate very

young children (say, four- to six-year-olds) from

pre-pubescent children (twelve to thirteen) and the whole

28 range of ages in between. There are actually many instances

of six- to twelve-year-old children manifesting significant

difficulty in acquiring a second language for a multitude of

31 reasons. Ranking high on that list of reasons are a number of

complex personal, social, cultural, and political factors at play

in elementary school education.

34 Teaching ESL to school-age children, therefore, is

not merely a matter of setting them loose on a plethora of

authentic language tasks in the classroom. To successfully

37 teach children a second language requires specific skills and

intuitions that differ from those appropriate for adult teaching.

H. Douglas Brown. Teaching by Principles.

Longman, 2001, p. 87 (adapted).

Text VI, for questions from 34 through 38.

1 Popular tradition would have you believe that

children are effortless second language learners and far

superior to adults in their eventual success. On both counts,

4 some qualifications are in order.

First, children’s widespread success in acquiring

second languages belies a tremendous subconscious effort

7 devoted to the task. Children exercise a good deal of both

cognitive and effective effort in order to internalize both native

and second languages. The difference between children and

10 adults lies primarily in the contrast between the child’s

spontaneous, peripheral attention to language forms and the

adult’s overt, focal awareness of and attention to those forms.

13 Second, adults are not necessarily less successful in

their efforts. Studies have shown that adults, in fact, can be

superior in a number of aspects of acquisition. They can learn

16 and retain a larger vocabulary. They can utilize various

deductive and abstract processes to shortcut the learning of

grammatical and other linguistic concepts. And, in classroom

19 learning, their superior intellect usually helps them to learn

faster than a child. So, while children’s fluency and

naturalness are often the envy of adults struggling with

22 second language, the context of classroom instruction may

introduce some difficulties to children learning a second

language.

25 Third, the popular claim fails to differentiate very

young children (say, four- to six-year-olds) from

pre-pubescent children (twelve to thirteen) and the whole

28 range of ages in between. There are actually many instances

of six- to twelve-year-old children manifesting significant

difficulty in acquiring a second language for a multitude of

31 reasons. Ranking high on that list of reasons are a number of

complex personal, social, cultural, and political factors at play

in elementary school education.

34 Teaching ESL to school-age children, therefore, is

not merely a matter of setting them loose on a plethora of

authentic language tasks in the classroom. To successfully

37 teach children a second language requires specific skills and

intuitions that differ from those appropriate for adult teaching.

H. Douglas Brown. Teaching by Principles.

Longman, 2001, p. 87 (adapted).

Text VI, for questions from 34 through 38.

1 Popular tradition would have you believe that

children are effortless second language learners and far

superior to adults in their eventual success. On both counts,

4 some qualifications are in order.

First, children’s widespread success in acquiring

second languages belies a tremendous subconscious effort

7 devoted to the task. Children exercise a good deal of both

cognitive and effective effort in order to internalize both native

and second languages. The difference between children and

10 adults lies primarily in the contrast between the child’s

spontaneous, peripheral attention to language forms and the

adult’s overt, focal awareness of and attention to those forms.

13 Second, adults are not necessarily less successful in

their efforts. Studies have shown that adults, in fact, can be

superior in a number of aspects of acquisition. They can learn

16 and retain a larger vocabulary. They can utilize various

deductive and abstract processes to shortcut the learning of

grammatical and other linguistic concepts. And, in classroom

19 learning, their superior intellect usually helps them to learn

faster than a child. So, while children’s fluency and

naturalness are often the envy of adults struggling with

22 second language, the context of classroom instruction may

introduce some difficulties to children learning a second

language.

25 Third, the popular claim fails to differentiate very

young children (say, four- to six-year-olds) from

pre-pubescent children (twelve to thirteen) and the whole

28 range of ages in between. There are actually many instances

of six- to twelve-year-old children manifesting significant

difficulty in acquiring a second language for a multitude of

31 reasons. Ranking high on that list of reasons are a number of

complex personal, social, cultural, and political factors at play

in elementary school education.

34 Teaching ESL to school-age children, therefore, is

not merely a matter of setting them loose on a plethora of

authentic language tasks in the classroom. To successfully

37 teach children a second language requires specific skills and

intuitions that differ from those appropriate for adult teaching.

H. Douglas Brown. Teaching by Principles.

Longman, 2001, p. 87 (adapted).