Is There a Better Time to Focus onForm? Teacher and Learner Views

ANTONELLA VALEOYork UniversityToronto, Ontario, Canada

NINA SPADAUniversity of TorontoToronto, Ontario, Canada

This study investigated the views of teachers and learners regardingthe timing of grammatical instruction, conceptualized as a distinctionbetween isolated and integrated form-focused instruction (FFI) pro-posed by Spada and Lightbown (2008). Both types of FFI aredescribed as taking place in primarily meaning-based communicativeclassrooms. They differ in that isolated FFI occurs separately fromcommunicative activities, whereas integrated FFI occurs during com-municative activities. Using this theoretical distinction, the research-ers developed teacher and learner questionnaires and validated themas measures of both constructs supported by factor analysis. Thequestionnaires were administered to explore the views of teachersand learners in two contexts, ESL in Canada and EFL in Brazil.Quantitative and qualitative analyses of the questionnaire data indi-cate a distinct preference for integrated FFI across groups (i.e., teach-ers and learners) and contexts (i.e., EFL and ESL). At the same timeteachers and learners also acknowledged the value of isolated FFI.These views recognizing the important roles played by both inte-grated and isolated FFI are consistent with those discussed in theinstructed second language acquisition literature. Teachers and learn-ers also drew attention to contextual and individual differences thatmay have an impact on decisions about the timing of grammaticalinstruction.

doi: 10.1002/tesq.222

Since the introduction of communicative language teaching (CLT),one of the central concerns for language teachers and researchers

has been how to best support the development of grammatical accu-racy. Although some versions of CLT maintain no role for grammarinstruction, emphasizing an exclusive focus on meaning/content-basedinstruction (Howatt, 1984; Krashen, 1982; Prabhu, 1987), other views

TESOL QUARTERLY Vol. 0, No. 0, xxxx 2015

© 2015 TESOL International Association

1

of CLT acknowledge the need for a focus on form within primarilymeaning/content-based instruction (Savignon, 2002; Spada, 2007).Most classroom research supports the latter view, showing that a com-bined focus on form and meaning is more effective than an exclusivefocus on either one (Spada, 2011). The challenge, however, is todetermine how best to draw learners’ attention to grammar withinCLT. One way in which this has been examined is in relation to thetiming of grammatical instruction, whether it is provided separatelyfrom or embedded within communicative practice.

Much of the discussion around the timing of grammar instructionhas been theoretical in nature. For example, Doughty and Williams(1998) propose a model that distinguishes between separation, sequen-tial integration, and simultaneous integration. Sequential integrationincludes brief interventions of a focus on form, whereas simultaneousintegration involves continuous attention to both. Ellis (2006)addresses two primary questions related to the timing of grammarinstruction: at what point grammar should be introduced in a pro-gram, and when it is best addressed during a lesson. With respect tothe first question, one could argue that an early knowledge of struc-ture helps learners develop strong form-meaning mappings necessaryfor language acquisition. Alternatively, one could argue that earlylearners can develop basic communication by piecing together lexicalitems, which then provides a strong foundation for grammatical devel-opment at later stages. With respect to the question of timing of gram-mar instruction during a lesson, Ellis suggests that instruction can bedirected at a particular grammatical form, or teachers can addressgrammar as it arises in communicative activities.

Building on an earlier discussion of the teaching of grammarwithin the instructional sequence (Lightbown, 1998), Spada andLightbown (2008) distinguish between two approaches to the timingof grammatical instruction that they refer to as isolated and integratedform-focused instruction (FFI). Both types of instruction occur inclassrooms where the primary focus is on meaning but differ in termsof when the attention is focused on form. Isolated FFI describesinstruction in which learners’ attention is drawn to form separatelyfrom communicative activities, that is, before, in preparation, or aftera communicative activity. Integrated FFI describes instruction inwhich learners’ attention is drawn to form during communicativeactivities. Spada and Lightbown argue for the complementarity of iso-lated and integrated FFI—that both types of instruction are beneficialfor different aspects of L2 learning—and claim that an exclusivechoice between the two is not necessary. The results of a recent class-room study provide empirical support for this claim, reporting thatthe effects of integrated and isolated FFI contributed to the develop-

TESOL QUARTERLY2

ment of different types of L2 knowledge (Spada, Jessop, Tomita, Su-zuki, & Valeo, 2014).

These theoretical and empirical insights from the instructed secondlanguage acquisition (SLA) literature suggest that the two approachesto the timing of grammatical instruction are not mutually exclusive,but these views do not include those from classroom teachers whoseopinions may differ. We know from the teacher cognition literaturethat teachers base their instructional practice on more than theoryand research in SLA. Their own practical theories about teaching aremotivated by a much wider range of social, pedagogical, contextual,and pragmatic factors (Andrews, 2003; Borg, 2003b; Borg & Burns,2008). One of the goals of the present research is to explore whetherteachers’ perspectives on isolated and integrated FFI are consistentwith current theoretical views about the timing of grammatical instruc-tion as discussed in the instructed SLA literature. Whereas teachers’beliefs have been shown to strongly influence the development ofteachers’ practice and views about teacher preparation (e.g., Borg,2003b; Fang, 1996; Kagan, 1992; Peacock, 2001), learners’ beliefs havealso been observed to play an important role in second language (L2)learning. For example, there is evidence that what learners believeguides them in adopting specific learning strategies (Yang, 1999)which may impact on language learning success. Importantly, compati-bility between teacher and learner beliefs has also long been high-lighted as a factor for successful learning and teaching (Horwitz,1988). Nonetheless, teachers’ and learners’ views can differ consider-ably and a mismatch between the two could negatively contribute tolearners’ motivation and satisfaction, as well as pedagogical effective-ness (Kern, 1995; Schulz, 2001). Thus a second goal of the presentresearch is to investigate whether learners’ views about isolated andintegrated FFI are compatible or incompatible with teachers’ views.

The impact of context is also critical in our understanding of howteachers and learners engage with different methodologies andinstructional approaches. A significant contextual factor is the distinc-tion between English as a foreign language (EFL) and English as a sec-ond language (ESL). Although not a monolithic distinction, it isrecognized that ESL and EFL contexts typically provide different lin-guistic environments to learners and teachers, and have an importantimpact on pedagogy (Tomlinson, 2005). For example, the ESL contextprovides rich input and exposure to a greater range of language out-side the classroom than contexts in which the target language is notused in the broader community. In EFL contexts, most if not all ofthe oral input is provided by the teacher and opportunities for interac-tion are limited to the classroom. Successful program innovationdepends on an understanding of the context, a point that has been

IS THERE A BETTER TIME TO FOCUS ON FORM? 3

observed in EFL classrooms attempting to adopt communicativelanguage teaching (e.g., Savignon & Wang, 2003).

These differences in EFL and ESL contexts may have an effect onteachers’ and learners’ beliefs related to questions such as the timingof grammatical instruction. For example, one might speculate that EFLlearners and teachers may prefer isolated FFI because it gives themgreater control over grammar teaching and learning, whereas ESLlearners and teachers may value integrated FFI as an approach that bestreflects the immediate communicative needs outside the classroom.Therefore, the third goal of the present research is to explore whetherthere are any differences between teacher and learner views dependingon the context of their language teaching/learning experience.

This study reports on an investigation of teacher and learner viewsabout isolated and integrated FFI in ESL in Canada and EFL in Brazil.Using validated questionnaires to measure teachers’ and learners’views about the two types of instruction, the following researchquestions were investigated:

1. Do ESL/EFL teachers and learners have a preference forisolated or integrated FFI?

2. Are there differences between learners’ and teachers’ prefer-ences for isolated and integrated FFI?

3. Are there differences between ESL and EFL teachers’ andlearners’ preferences for isolated and integrated FFI?

BELIEFS AND PREFERENCES FOR GRAMMATICALINSTRUCTION

Previous studies have examined teacher and learner beliefs andpreferences related to grammatical instruction in both secondlanguage and foreign language contexts. The majority of these havebeen concerned with teacher and learner views on the value of explicitinstruction and the role of error correction (e.g., Andrews, 2003;Graham, 2011; Kartchava & Ammar, 2014; Loewen et al., 2009; Mori,2011; Park, 2010; Peacock, 1999; Schulz, 1996; Yoshida, 2008). Thefindings from these studies have varied and research has highlightedthe role of context and the impact of multiple variables on learnerand teacher beliefs and preferences. For example, a synthesis of find-ings from studies involving EFL learners in a number of countriesindicate that grammatical instruction was generally considered impor-tant but how important varied as a matter of degree (Horwitz, 1999).Other research has shown that setting and target language appear to

TESOL QUARTERLY4

play a role. Loewen et al. (2009) found that ESL learners were lesspositive about grammar instruction and error correction and valuedimproving communicative skills more than learners of other foreignlanguages, whereas learners of Chinese and Arabic were more positiveabout grammar instruction and error correction than learners of otherlanguages. The authors suggest that context, previous experience, andthe nature of the target language played important roles in shapingthe different views of ESL learners and those of other languages.

Research investigating the degree to which teachers and learnersshare common beliefs has also shown similar patterns: Differencesbetween teachers and learners appear to be a matter of degree ratherthan absolute, and a number of factors appear to play a role. In somecases, learners were more favorable towards explicit grammar instruc-tion or corrective feedback than teachers were (Brown, 2009; Graham,2011; Park, 2010; Schulz, 1996). Other research has confirmed that thedifferences were a matter of degree but also highlighted the role ofcontext. For example, Schulz (2001) found that EFL learners in Colom-bia and learners of foreign languages in U.S. universities favoredexplicit grammatical instruction and error correction more stronglythan teachers; however, learners and teachers in Colombia, overall,were more positive about the value of explicit instruction and error cor-rection than their U.S. counterparts. In addition, Colombian teachersfelt more strongly than the U.S. teachers that studying grammar helpedcommunicative abilities develop and that learners enjoyed it.

Few studies have focused on learners’ and teachers’ views about thetiming of grammatical instruction. Two studies have examined thisquestion using terminology that is different from but similar to theconstructs of integrated and isolated FFI. For example, Burgess andEtherington (2002) addressed the issue as “decontextualised presenta-tion of grammar” versus “discourse-based, unified approaches”(p. 437). In research with teachers of English for academic purposes(EAP) in ESL contexts, teachers expressed a preference for the use ofauthentic texts to present grammar, which suggested a bias towardsdiscourse-based treatment of grammar rather than a decontextualizedpresentation of grammar (Barnard & Scampton, 2008; Burgess & Ethe-rington, 2002). Borg and Burns (2008) elicited beliefs about how toaddress grammar in relation to skills teaching and found that bothESL and EFL teachers overwhelmingly expressed a preference foraddressing grammar integrated with rather than isolated from skills-based activities and teaching.

Two studies have specifically investigated beliefs and preferences forisolated and integrated FFI as defined by Spada and Lightbown (2008)using questionnaires similar or identical to those created for thepresent study. In a study with teachers and learners in a university EFL

IS THERE A BETTER TIME TO FOCUS ON FORM? 5

program in Iran, Songhori (2012) found that both groups preferredintegrated FFI.1 The researcher suggests that this showed support for acommunicative approach to language teaching in which a focus onform was integrated with communicative activities. However, he high-lights the potential mismatch between these preferences and contex-tual factors in state schools in Iran that encouraged more traditionalstructure-based approaches with little attention paid to meaning-basedinstruction.2 On the basis of learner preferences, the author calls forteachers to adopt a more integrated approach. Elg€un-G€und€uz, Akcan,and Bayyurt (2012) used the same learner questionnaire described inthe present study with primary school learners in Turkey. The ques-tionnaire data show that, overall, learners preferred integrated FFI toisolated FFI. In follow-up interviews with a smaller group of learners,the researchers described an isolated and integrated lesson and askedthe learners to say which they preferred and why. The majority of thelearners preferred integrated FFI and described how it motivated themto learn and helped them transfer grammatical knowledge to commu-nication. Those who preferred isolated FFI described how separatinggrammar instruction from communicative practice helped them noticethe grammatical rule and apply it in grammar-based tests.

Teacher and learner views about the timing of grammaticalinstruction have not been as extensively investigated as other aspectsof grammatical instruction (e.g., explicit instruction, error correction).In addition, studies that have examined the question of timing havenot compared teacher and learner views across ESL and EFL instruc-tional contexts. Furthermore, although the constructs of integratedand isolated FFI are valuable as a theoretical framework to address thequestion of timing of grammatical instruction, the extent to whichteacher and learner views align with current discussions about this inthe instructed SLA literature has not been directly examined. Thisstudy is intended to address these gaps.

METHOD

Research Context

This study involved participants in two different instructional con-texts: ESL in Canada and EFL in Brazil. In Canada, all but four of the

1 Songhori (2012) used earlier versions of the learner and teacher questionnaires that arereported in this study.

2 In this study the construct of isolated FFI appears to be associated with traditional dis-crete-point grammar instruction. The former occurs in classrooms that arecommunicatively oriented, whereas the latter occurs in classrooms that are exclusivelyfocused on language forms.

TESOL QUARTERLY6

teachers taught in publicly funded colleges or universities. These insti-tutions offer credit and noncredit ESL classes to both newcomers andinternational students. Noncredit courses may prepare students forentry into a credit program. Courses are part time or full time and fol-low communicative, task-based curricula. The teachers in Brazil taughtin university credit programs in which English classes were provided inlessons of 2–3 hours per week and were counted towards a degree, cer-tificate, or diploma. The teaching in these programs was characterizedby a strongly communicatively oriented approach with an emphasis oncontent and meaning-based input and interaction.

The learner participants who were studying in Brazil were enrolledin the same type of program as those in which the teacher participantswere teaching. The learner participants in the ESL Canadian contextwere enrolled in two types of programs: a community ESL programfor newcomers and a university EAP program for, primarily, interna-tional students. Both were communicatively oriented programs with anemphasis on content and meaning-based input and interaction. Thecommunity-based program had a settlement focus with a topic-basedsyllabus and was publicly funded to serve adults immigrating toCanada. The university program had an academic focus with a skills-based syllabus and charged tuition, primarily serving internationalstudents in Canada.

Participants

A total of 100 teachers participated in the study; 53 taught EFL inBrazil and 47 taught ESL in Canada. Table 1 provides profiles of theEFL and ESL teacher participants. The profiles were similar in a num-ber of ways. In both groups, the majority of the teachers were female,had received their teacher education with a focus on communicativemethodology, and had studied a second language. There were a num-ber of marked differences as well. Overall, the ESL teachers wereolder, had more teaching experience, and had completed a higherlevel of education. In addition, when asked to describe the way inwhich they had been taught (grammar translation, audiolingual, com-municative, or other), the majority of the EFL teachers cited commu-nicative methodology, whereas the most common response from theESL teachers was grammar translation. Additional data show that bothgroups taught in a range of contexts, including universities, colleges,and private language schools. The majority (70% of the EFL teachersand 83% of the ESL teachers) reported teaching beginner and low-intermediate learners.

IS THERE A BETTER TIME TO FOCUS ON FORM? 7

A total of 469 adult learners participated in the study, 294 studyingESL in Canada and 175 studying EFL in Brazil. Approximately 63% ofthe ESL learners were women and spoke 1 of 12 languages as a firstlanguage; the most common languages cited were Spanish (27%) andChinese (20%). The majority (74%) were enrolled in an intermediate-level class. Most of the EFL learners (81%) spoke Portuguese as ahome language and all reported being enrolled in intermediate-levelclasses in a university English language program. A majority (84%) ofthe EFL learners were women.

Questionnaire Development and Validation

The teachers and learners completed questionnaires containingstatements that reflected an isolated or integrated approach as conceptu-alized in Spada and Lightbown (2008). They were asked to respondon a 5-point Likert scale to indicate the degree to which they agreedor disagreed with each statement. The teacher questionnaire wasadapted from the one developed by Burgess and Etherington (2002).An examination of that questionnaire indicates that 11 items were con-sistent with the constructs of isolated FFI (n = 5) and integrated FFI(n = 6). Additional items were created resulting in a total of 22questions, 11 describing aspects of teaching and learning thatreflected isolated FFI and 11 describing aspects reflecting integratedFFI. An example of a statement reflecting an isolated approach is Iprefer lessons that teach grammar separately from communication; the inte-grated approach was reflected in I prefer teaching grammar as part of

TABLE 1

Profile of Teacher Participants

Data EFL (n = 53) ESL (n = 47)

Gender Female83% (n = 44)

Female74% (n = 35)

Age Under 2959% (n = 31)

Over 4070% (n = 33)

Teaching experience Less than 10 years70% (n = 37)

Over 10 years62% (n = 29)

Education Bachelor’s degree72% (n = 36)

Graduate degree72% (n = 30)

Method of teacher education Communicative74% (n = 39)

Communicative87% (n = 40)

Studied an L2 Yes94% (n = 50)

Yes98% (n = 46)

Method of L2 study Communicative53% (n = 28)

Grammar translation39% (n = 18)

TESOL QUARTERLY8

meaning-based activities. In addition, the questionnaire included anopen-ended question that invited teachers to add any other commentsthey wished to make. Other questions were included to gather demo-graphic information about the teachers. The same questionnaire wasused for ESL teachers in Canada and EFL teachers in Brazil. Bothquestionnaires were completed online and in English.

The learner questionnaire was developed to capture the same con-structs using language that was comprehensible to the learners. Thefirst version was designed for ESL learners in Canada and contained20 items, 10 of which reflected the construct of isolated FFI and 10reflected integrated FFI. Drawing on this questionnaire, a secondversion with 26 items3 was developed and translated into Portuguesefor use with the EFL learners in Brazil. An example of an isolateditem common to both is I like studying grammar rules first and thendoing communicative activities. An example of an integrated item is Ilike activities that focus on grammar and communication at the same time.The questionnaires also included questions about gender, languagebackground, and level of study, as well as open-ended questionsinviting learners to add any comments they wished to make. Bothquestionnaires were completed in hard copy in classrooms and col-lected immediately.

Prior to analyzing the questionnaire data to respond to the threeresearch questions, we examined the data to determine the reliabil-ity and validity of the questionnaires as research tools. We carriedout reliability analyses to ensure that the teachers and learnersresponded to the isolated and integrated items in a consistent man-ner. Cronbach’s alpha was used to determine the internal consis-tency of the items. In the next step, exploratory factor analysis wasused to determine whether the items were a valid measure of theisolated and integrated constructs (see Supporting Informationfound in online version). Items that did not receive consistent val-ues were deleted and excluded from further analysis. The Appendixcontains the original versions of the questionnaires with the deleteditems identified.

The validation process was applied to each of the questionnaires—the ESL learner and teacher questionnaires and the EFL learnerand teacher questionnaires. A description of the validation of theESL learner questionnaire was reported in Spada, Barkaoui, Peters,So, and Valeo (2009). Reliability and factor analyses of learners’responses to the questionnaire items indicate that 14 of the original20 items were both internally consistent and valid as measures of

3 Additional items were created in an attempt to improve the robustness of thequestionnaire.

IS THERE A BETTER TIME TO FOCUS ON FORM? 9

the isolated and integrated constructs. For the EFL learner question-naire, 24 were found to be reliable and valid measures of isolatedand integrated FFI. For each of the teacher questionnaires, 13 itemswere found to be reliable measures, 10 of which were common toboth questionnaires. Table 2 presents the results of the reliabilityanalysis.

RESULTS

The participants’ responses were calculated separately for the iso-lated items and the integrated items. These were calculated as meanscores for each group: ESL learners, EFL learners, ESL teachers, andEFL teachers.

Teacher Data: Quantitative Results

Table 3 shows the means for both the ESL and EFL teacherresponses. Figure 1 graphically illustrates the differences and similari-ties between groups. The means show that teachers in both groupsexpressed a strong preference for integrated FFI. A paired samples t-test confirmed that this difference was statistically significant for boththe ESL teachers, t(46) = 13.081, p < .01, d = 1.908, and the EFLteachers, t(52) = 14.896, p < .01, d = 2.047. In addition, the ESLteachers’ means indicate a stronger preference for integrated FFI andthis was also statistically significant, F(1,98) = 4.833, p = .030, partialg2 = .047. Although the means also suggest that the EFL teachersmore strongly disagreed with the isolated items than the ESL teachersdid, this was not statistically significant, F(1,98) = 3.163, p = .078,partial g2 = .031.

TABLE 2

Questionnaire Reliability Analysis

Questionnaire Item type n Reliability (a coefficient)

ESL learner(N = 294)

ISO 7 .671INT 7 .703

EFL learner(N = 175)

ISO 12 .821INT 12 .832

ESL teacher(N = 47)

ISO 6 .792INT 7 .767

EFL teacher(N = 53)

ISO 6 .639INT 7 .717

TESOL QUARTERLY10

Teacher Data: Qualitative Results

Data were also gathered from the comments that teachers madein response to open-ended questions in the questionnaires. Thesecomments allowed teachers to elaborate on their responses to the Lik-ert scale questions and thus provided qualitative data to accompanythe quantitative data that is the primary source for the findings in thisstudy. Thirty-three of the 47 ESL teacher participants provided com-ments. Almost half (n = 15) of the comments elaborated on therespondent’s preference for integrated FFI. For example, one teacherdescribed her position as follows: “Grammar in context is very impor-tant. Students learn grammar much better when they can relate it to aspecific meaning or use. Therefore, I always contextualize a grammarpoint first before I isolate the structure and point out the rules to thestudents.” Four of the comments clearly supported integrated FFI and

TABLE 3

Teacher Questionnaires Descriptive Statistics

Group Item type M SD

ESL (n = 47) INT 4.12 0.42ISO 2.41 0.70

EFL (n = 53) INT 3.89 0.59ISO 2.19 0.53

FIGURE 1. Means for ESL and EFL teachers.

IS THERE A BETTER TIME TO FOCUS ON FORM? 11

also acknowledged a role for isolated FFI. Only two comments sup-ported isolated FFI exclusively; for example, “My personal belief is thatthe grammar point should be taught and understood and thenapplied during meaning-based activities to assess their understandingof the grammar use.” In addition, 7 of the 33 teachers replied that thedecision depended on different variables, including students’ profi-ciency level, previous academic experience, type of language feature,student needs, and preferences for learning. The remaining commentsaddressed issues related to teaching but not directly relevant to eitherisolated or integrated FFI. Thus, although an overall preference forintegrated FFI was evident in the quantitative and qualitative resultsfor the ESL teachers, some of the teachers’ comments also indicatedthat decisions to opt for isolated or integrated FFI were dependent ona variety of factors.

The EFL teachers offered fewer comments on the questionnaire; 26of the 53 participants responded to the open-ended questions. Nine ofthe comments reinforced the respondents’ preference for integratedFFI. Two examples of these are “I think that grammar must be taughtthrough context” and “I think the best way to teach grammar isthrough texts. . . . I think students really learn grammar when they facea text and when they have to produce a real conversation.” Four ofthe nine comments indicating a preference for integrated FFI alsoincluded statements that expressed an appreciation for isolated FFI.For example, one teacher wrote, “I believe that doing meaning-basedactivities that include attention to grammar is the best way to learn touse English more accurately. But, in case the learners have difficulty touse correctly the grammar point, grammar should be taught separatelyfrom the communicative activity.” Four other comments acknowledgedthat both approaches are beneficial and that the decision depends ona number of factors. For example, one teacher wrote that “differencesamong students’ learning styles should be taken into account whenteaching grammar,” suggesting that “the teacher has, first and fore-most, to know his/her students and try to work with activities that canlead students both to accuracy and fluency.” Not one of the EFL teach-ers provided comments indicating a preference for isolated FFI. Theremaining responses addressed issues not directly relevant to the tim-ing of grammatical instruction. Overall, the qualitative responses fromthe EFL teachers are similar to those of the ESL teachers indicating apreference for integrated FFI and an acknowledgement of the benefitsof isolated FFI. A few of the EFL teachers also commented on how achoice between the two is dependent on context and learner variables.

Interestingly, five of the teachers offered additional commentsrelated to their experience of completing the questionnaire. Thesecomments described how the questionnaire inspired them to reflect

TESOL QUARTERLY12

on the timing of grammar instruction. One teacher described it as “ameaningful questionnaire which makes us think how we really have toteach grammar.” Another teacher wrote, “It [the questionnaire]makes me re-check what I have been doing,” and another stated,“This questionnaire was important to me . . . gave me a chance tothink better about my English classes.” One ESL teacher describedhow participating in the survey raised questions for her: “I foundmyself hesitating a lot during the survey. I feel less certain about theplace of grammar than I used to. . . . I now see the value in teachinggrammar in an isolated way—students understand it better and faster.”Another described a similar reflection: “Truly, I’m struggling with myespoused theory and my theory in use. What I think I prefer and whatI actually do may be different based on the learners in front of meand the type of expectations they have and their preferences.”

Learner Data: Quantitative Results

Table 4 shows the means for the learner data and Figure 2 graphi-cally illustrates a comparison. The group means indicate that both theEFL and ESL learners expressed a preference for integrated FFI overisolated FFI. A paired-samples t-test confirmed this difference to be sta-tistically significant for both the ESL learners, t(286) = 4.181, p < .01,d = 0.247, and EFL learners, t(174) = 15.425, p < .01, d = 1.166.

The means also show that the ESL learners expressed their prefer-ences more strongly than the EFL group for both types of instructionand this difference is most noticeable with the learners’ responses tothe isolated items. What this means is that although both groupsexpressed a statistically significant preference for integrated over iso-lated FFI, the ESL learners responded more favorably to some of theisolated items than did the EFL learners. For example, in response tothe isolated item Before reading an article, I like to study the grammar usedin it, the mean calculation for the EFL learners was 2.23, whereas themean for the ESL learners was 3.89. Likewise, in response to the iso-lated item I find it helpful to study grammar separately from communicative

TABLE 4

Learner Questionnaires Descriptive Statistics

Group Item type M SD

ESL (n = 294) INT 4.03 .60ISO 3.83 .63

EFL (n = 175) INT 3.90 .64ISO 2.62 .70

IS THERE A BETTER TIME TO FOCUS ON FORM? 13

activities, the EFL learners’ mean was 2.84, whereas the ESL learners’mean was 3.71. A repeated measures ANOVA confirmed that this dif-ference between the ESL and EFL learners was statistically significant,F(1, 460) = 63.023, p = .000, partial g2 = .245.4

Learner Data: Qualitative Results

Of 294 ESL learners, 159 responded to the open-ended question.Nearly one third of the respondents (n = 45) wrote comments rein-forcing their preference for integrated FFI; for example, “I prefer tolearn grammar when I am doing communicative activities,” and “Idon’t think only grammar practice is a good way to learn English. Inmy opinion I can learn more when I study grammar and speaking atthe same time.” Similarly, another learner wrote, “In my opinion, themost important thing is trying to focus our eyes on grammar wheneverusing English: speaking, listening, reading and writing.” Thirteenlearners described their preferences for isolated FFI; for example, “Inmy case, I prefer to learn grammar by itself, and try to use grammar inwriting,” and “I rather to have first an introduction to the grammarsection and then practice it with writing and oral exercises.” Two of

FIGURE 2. Means for ESL and EFL Learners.

4 Analyses explored the influence of individual differences in relation to preferences forisolated and integrated FFI. For the EFL students, a multivariate analysis of variance(MANOVA) indicated that the preferences were not significantly affected by EFL profi-ciency level (Wilks’ Lambda = .962, F(4, 300) = 1.480, p = .208), length of study ofEnglish (Wilks’ Lambda = .943, F(6, 300) = 1.484, p = .183), or the level-study interac-tion (Wilks’ Lambda = .910, F(12, 300) = 1.202, p = .281).

TESOL QUARTERLY14

the students acknowledged value in both approaches, and the remain-ing 95 comments addressed a wide range of issues such as requests formore practice, smaller classes, a focus on pronunciation, and expres-sions of frustration with grammatical accuracy in general. Thus, whilea distinct preference for integrated FFI was evident in the quantitativeand qualitative findings for the majority of the ESL learners, there wasalso evidence to support a preference for isolated FFI for a smallgroup of them.

Fewer of the EFL learners, 51 of the 175 participants, wrote com-ments in the questionnaires. Twenty of the learners elaborated on apreference for integrated FFI; for example, “I try to learn grammarthrough reading texts and books in English and paying attention tohow grammar is used in movies and TV cable programs”; “I thinkgrammar should be taught through communicative tasks; if they arenot it becomes something that is mechanical and hard to under-stand later”; and “Learning traditional grammar ends up being tir-ing if studied in the isolated way because it gives the impressionthat the subject will not be used.” Two elaborated on a preferencefor isolated FFI; for example, “I think grammar should be taughtbefore communicative activities because it facilitates understanding,”and “I prefer to study it before communicative tasks so that I willfeel more secure when speaking.” Five students highlighted theneed to consider individual learner differences in making a choicebetween integrated and isolated FFI, including proficiency level, age,and goals of the learner. For example, one student wrote, “Whenwe achieve a certain level of English, the matter is not about know-ing a grammar point. [It’s] about how much you can use it. I findthat when we first start to learn a certain grammar point, it is help-ful to learn it by itself but some practices in terms of communica-tion have to be followed after that.” Another student commentedon learner goals: “I think it all depends on the student’s goal whichcould be to enter the university, pass a proficiency test or acquireoral and written fluency. For the first case, grammar could betaught separately; for the second, grammar should be included incommunicative tasks.” Twenty-four learners made general commentssupporting a role for grammar teaching in language classrooms.Thus, similar to the ESL learners, most of the EFL learners whoprovided qualitative comments on integrated or isolated FFI con-firmed their preference for integrated FFI.

In summary, the quantitative and qualitative findings indicate aclear preference for integrated FFI for the majority of both teachersand learners in ESL and EFL contexts. This preference for inte-grated FFI did not prevent many of the teachers and learners fromacknowledging the benefits of isolated FFI. Nevertheless, when given

IS THERE A BETTER TIME TO FOCUS ON FORM? 15

a choice between the two, isolated FFI did not emerge as thepreferred choice for most of the teachers and learners in bothcontexts.

DISCUSSION

The first question in this study explored whether ESL/EFL teachersand learners have a preference for isolated or integrated FFI. Analysisof the quantitative responses to the questionnaire items and the quali-tative analysis of the teacher and learner comments indicate a distinctpreference for integrated over isolated FFI. This finding is consistentwith the other two studies that have investigated the same FFI con-structs (Elg€un-G€und€uz et al., 2012; Songhori, 2012). They also echosimilar findings in studies that have reported teachers’ preferences forinstruction that treats grammar in an integrated manner by presentingit within a text and addressing it during communicative activitiesrather than in an isolated manner (Barnard & Scampton, 2008; Borg& Burns, 2008; Burgess & Etherington, 2002). This preference for inte-grated FFI expressed by both teachers and learners is consistent withtheoretical assumptions about the role of grammar in communicativeclassrooms—that embedding grammar within communicative activitieshas the potential to enhance L2 learning by creating opportunities forlearners to focus on form and communication at the same time(Doughty & Williams, 1998). It is also consistent with empirical find-ings in instructed SLA research indicating the benefits of a focus onform within communicative practice (Spada, 2011).

Even though the majority of teachers and learners expressed a pref-erence for integrated FFI, this did not mean that they discounted thevalue of isolated FFI. This was evident in the quantitative data, particu-larly for the ESL learners who responded more positively to some ofthe isolated items on the questionnaire and who reinforced this intheir comments in the qualitative data. Furthermore, several of theESL teachers described situations in which they felt that one approachwas “sometimes necessary” over the other. This recognition ofthe value of both approaches is consistent with research and theoryclaiming that each option may play a different role in L2 learning.Indeed some of the respondents referred to specific circumstances inwhich isolated and/or integrated FFI might be particularly useful, sim-ilar to those discussed in Spada and Lightbown (2008); for example,isolated instruction may be particularly useful in promoting the acqui-sition of language features that are difficult to notice in the input(e.g., third person singular s in English), whereas integrated FFI may

TESOL QUARTERLY16

be of particular benefit in the development of fluency and the autom-atization of language features for effective communication.

The second research question examined whether there were differ-ences between the beliefs and preferences of learners and those ofteachers. The fact that the teachers and learners in this study sharedsimilar views about integrated and isolated approaches to grammarinstruction suggests a compatible match of beliefs and preferencesand is consistent with the findings of Songhori (2012) in whichteachers cited learners’ preferences as a guide to their own choicesabout timing in grammatical instruction. A number of teachers in thisstudy also referred to learner preferences as an important factor, simi-lar to comments made by the teachers in Burgess and Etherington’s(2002) study. This is consistent with the position that it is importantfor learners and teachers to share (or at least understand) eachother’s preferences for learning and teaching (Horwitz, 1998; Schulz,1996). As indicated above, previous research on learner and teacherpreferences about grammar instruction and error correction has oftenrevealed differences between teacher and learner views (Brown, 2009;Park, 2010; Schulz, 1996). These studies have reported, for example,that learners preferred to have more explicit grammar instruction anderror correction than teachers were willing to provide and thought wasnecessary. Interestingly, these two instructional components (i.e., expli-cit grammar teaching and error correction) are included in both inte-grated and isolated FFI. They do not constitute distinctions betweenthe two types and thus would not have emerged as differences in thepresent study with its focus on timing rather than type of grammaticalinstruction.

The third research question explored whether there were differ-ences between ESL and EFL teachers’ and learners’ preferences. Theresults reveal that teachers and learners in both instructional contextsexpressed a preference for integrated FFI with no substantive differ-ence between the contexts. This is in line with studies that have foundagreement between teachers and learners on the topic of grammaticalinstruction across instructional contexts (e.g., Borg & Burns, 2008;Schulz, 2001). Nonetheless, some statistically significant differenceswere also evident between the ESL and EFL teachers and learnersin this study. For example, the ESL teachers indicated a strongerpreference for integrated FFI than the EFL teachers did (see Table 3and Figure 1), and the ESL learners responded more positively tosome of the isolated items than the EFL learners did (see Table 4 andFigure 2). In the case of the differences between ESL and EFL learn-ers, the different linguistic environments in which they were situatedmay have played a role. For example, it is possible that ESL learnersexpressed stronger preferences for isolated FFI because they already

IS THERE A BETTER TIME TO FOCUS ON FORM? 17

had opportunities for exposure to language outside the classroom. Assuch, they may have valued isolated FFI to fine-tune some of thelanguage they used in communicative interactions in the “natural”setting. Conversely, because EFL learners did not have access to arich communicative context outside the classroom, they may haveappreciated integrated FFI for the opportunity to get “two for one,” tofocus on both language and communication at the same time. In theircomparison of learners’ views about grammar instruction in secondand foreign language classes, Loewen et al. (2009) suggest the oppo-site—that the differences in context may have encouraged ESL learn-ers to prioritize communication over grammatical instruction preciselybecause it was available. The ESL learners in that study, however, werecompared to learners of other languages (i.e., not EFL), and theresearchers note that target language and previous learner experiencewith grammar were key variables.

With regard to the teachers, differences in the backgrounds anddemographic characteristics between the EFL and ESL teachers mayhave played a role. Overall, the ESL teachers had more teaching expe-rience than the EFL teachers and a majority of them had completed agraduate degree. Although it is not clear how these characteristics mayhave affected the responses of individuals, they cannot be discounted.For example, it may be that ESL teachers’ classroom experience andgraduate-level education may have given them more confidence insupporting one approach over another, in this case integrated FFI,with greater conviction. Although the EFL teachers also expressed apreference for integrated FFI, perhaps they were less confident aboutit because they drew on less teaching experience and education,though this is speculative.

CONCLUSION AND IMPLICATIONS

This study investigated teachers’ and learners’ views about the tim-ing of grammatical instruction in second and foreign language con-texts. The findings show a distinct preference for integrated overisolated FFI across groups (i.e., teachers and learners) and contexts(i.e., ESL and EFL). The overall preference for integrated FFI suggeststhat teachers and learners are comfortable with instruction thatdemands switching between attention to form and attention to mean-ing. These findings are consistent with current theory and research inL2 learning and teaching.

The preference for integrated FFI observed in this study was notabsolute. The qualitative comments provided by many of the ESL andEFL teachers and learners point to the benefits of isolated FFI. It is

TESOL QUARTERLY18

interesting to note, however, that despite their recognition of thevalue of isolated FFI, this was not selected as the preferred choice bymost of the teachers and learners. Thus, it appears that, for the major-ity of ESL and EFL teachers and learners in in this study, integratedFFI is the default choice, with isolated FFI as an option depending ona range of pedagogic variables.

The fact that teachers and learners shared a similar instructionalpreference can be seen as positive news, given the concerns in the lit-erature with a mismatch between the two. As indicated above, this isin contrast to other research that has reported differences betweenthe two groups. This may be due to the fact that the learners andteachers in the present study were asked to respond to questions abouta specific feature of grammar instruction (i.e., timing) rather than tobroader notions about the role of grammar instruction in general.This adds credence to the proposal that more focused studies maylead to more unified results (Borg, 2003a).

It is important to note that the use of questionnaires for the pur-poses of understanding learner beliefs and teacher cognition comeswith limitations. A more in-depth examination of individual teacherand learner perspectives might have been gained through interviews,which could have supplemented the information obtained via thequestionnaires used in this study and would have enhanced the data-base. In fact, interview data were collected with a sample of the EFLteachers who participated in the study, but it was not possible to col-lect these data with the ESL teachers and learners in both contexts.The EFL teacher interview data confirmed the findings reported here,that is, a preference for integrated FFI along with recognition of thevalue of isolated FFI (see Spada & dos Santos Lima, in press, for a dis-cussion of interview findings with the EFL teachers). It is equallyimportant to note that unlike other teacher and learner questionnairestudies, the instrument used to collect teacher and learner data in thisstudy underwent extensive reliability and validity testing. The use of avalidated questionnaire not only adds to the robustness of the findingsbut also makes it possible for future studies to use these researchinstruments to examine the timing of grammatical instruction in otherlanguage learning contexts.

The unexpected finding from several teachers who reported thatcompleting the questionnaire contributed to their professional growthin important ways is further evidence of the value of the question-naire. Their comments revealed that the questionnaire had encour-aged them to seriously reflect on their beliefs and preferences. Thisis well aligned with the current emphasis on teacher reflection as asource of professional growth. Research has highlighted thecomplexity of teacher engagement with research and the impact of

IS THERE A BETTER TIME TO FOCUS ON FORM? 19

experience on the development of teacher cognition (see Borg,2003b, 2010, for reviews).

The results of this study indicate that teacher and learner viewsabout the timing of grammatical instruction in communicativeclassrooms are remarkably similar both within and across ESL and EFLcontexts. The finding that integrated FFI was preferred by the majorityof teachers and learners might lead one to argue that L2 instructorsshould be encouraged to adopt integrated FFI as their instructionalstrategy. We believe it would be premature to do so for the followingreasons. First, many of the teachers and learners who expressed a pref-erence for integrated FFI also acknowledged the benefits of isolatedFFI. This is compatible with current theoretical and empirical work ininstructed SLA. Second, until more research is done to explore ingreater depth the reasons behind teacher and learner choices for iso-lated and integrated FFI, it is difficult to know under what conditionsit is best to implement one or the other. Finally, while there is evi-dence that integrated and isolated FFI contribute positively to L2learning, there is no evidence that one approach is more effectivethan the other. Thus, based on the needs of learners and a range ofother contextual and pedagogical factors, L2 teachers would beadvised to incorporate both integrated and isolated FFI into theirinstructional practice with the knowledge that each is valuable for L2learning.

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

We thank the teachers and students who agreed to take part in this research andseveral researchers involved in various aspects of this work, including KhaledBarkaoui, Lorena Jessop, Colette Peters, Paul Quinn, Marilia dos Santos Lima, andMargaret So. This research was carried out at the University of Toronto and sup-ported by a grant from the Social Sciences and Humanities Research Council ofCanada.

THE AUTHORS

Antonella Valeo is an assistant professor in ESL and applied linguistics at YorkUniversity in Toronto, where she teaches undergraduate courses in content-basedESL and graduate courses in applied linguistics. Her research investigatesinstructed second language acquisition and teacher development.

Nina Spada is a professor in the Language and Literacies Education programat the Ontario Institute for Studies in Education (OISE), University of Toronto,where she teaches courses in second language acquisition and researchmethods. Dr. Spada’s classroom research focuses on the effects of instructionon second language learning.

TESOL QUARTERLY20

REFERENCES

Andrews, S. (2003). “Just like instant noodles”: L2 teachers and their beliefs aboutgrammar pedagogy. Teachers and Teaching: Theory and Practice, 9, 351–375.doi:10.1080/1354060032000097253

Barnard, R., & Scampton, D. (2008). Teaching grammar: A survey of EAP teachersin New Zealand. New Zealand Studies in Applied Linguistics, 14(2), 59–82.

Borg, S. (2003a). Teacher cognition in grammar teaching: A literature review. Lan-guage Awareness, 12(2), 96–108. doi:10.1080/09658410308667069

Borg, S. (2003b). Teacher cognition in language teaching: A review of research onwhat language teachers think, know, believe, and do. Language Teaching, 36,81–109. doi:10.1017/S0261444803001903

Borg, S. (2010). Language teacher research engagement. Language Teaching, 43,391–429. doi:10.1017/S0261444810000170

Borg, S., & Burns, A. (2008). Integrating grammar in adult TESOL classrooms.Applied Linguistics, 29, 456–482. doi:10.1093/applin/amn020

Brown, A. V. (2009). Students’ and teachers’ perceptions of effective foreign lan-guage teaching: A comparison of ideals. Modern Language Journal, 93, 46–60.doi:10.1111/j.1540-4781.2009.00827.x

Burgess, J., & Etherington, S. (2002). Focus on grammatical form: Explicit orimplicit? System, 30, 433–458. doi:10.1016/S0346-251X(02)00048-9

Doughty, C., & Williams, J. (1998). Pedagogical choices in focus on form. In C.Doughty & J. Williams (Eds.), Focus on form in classroom second language acquisi-tion (pp. 197–261). Cambridge, England: Cambridge University Press.

Elg€un-G€und€uz, Z., Akcan, S., & Bayyurt, Y. (2012). Isolated form-focused instruc-tion and grammatical form: Explicit school English classrooms in Turkey. Lan-guage, Culture and Curriculum, 25(2), 157–171. doi:10.1080/07908318.2012.683008

Ellis, R. (2006). Current issues in the teaching of grammar: An SLA perspective.TESOL Quarterly, 40, 83–107. doi:10.2307/40264512

Fang, Z. (1996). A review of research on teacher beliefs and practices. EducationalResearch, 38(1), 47–65. doi:10.1080/0013188960380104

Graham, M. G. (2011). Teachers’ and students’ beliefs about the role of grammar andgrammar instruction in the foreign language classroom (Unpublished doctoral disser-tation). Capella University, Minneapolis, MN.

Horwitz, E. K. (1988). The beliefs about language learning of beginning universityforeign language students. Modern Language Journal, 72, 283–294. doi:10.2307/327506

Horwitz, E. K. (1999). Cultural and situational influences on foreign languagelearners’ beliefs about language learning: A review of BALLI studies. System, 27,557–576. doi:10.1016/S0346-251X(99)00050-0

Howatt, A. P. R. (1984). A history of English language teaching. Oxford, England:Oxford University Press.

Kagan, D. M. (1992). Implication of research on teacher belief. Educational Psychol-ogist, 27(1), 65–90. doi:10.1207/s15326985ep2701_6

Kartchava, E., & Ammar, A. (2014). Learners’ beliefs as mediators of what isnoticed and learned in the language classroom. TESOL Quarterly, 48, 86–109.doi:10.1002/tesq.101

Kern, R. G. (1995). Students’ and teachers’ beliefs about language learning. For-eign Language Annals, 28, 71–92. doi:10.1111/j.1944-9720.1995.tb00770.x

Krashen, S. (1982). Principles and practices in second language acquisition. Oxford,England: Pergamon Press.

IS THERE A BETTER TIME TO FOCUS ON FORM? 21

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

Loewen, S., Li, S., Fei, F., Thompson, A., Nakatsukasas, K., Ahn, S., & Chen, X.(2009). Second language learners’ beliefs about grammar instruction and errorcorrection. Modern Language Journal, 93, 91–104. doi:10.1111/j.1540-4781.2009.00830.x

Mori, R. (2011). Teacher cognition in corrective feedback in Japan. System, 39,451–467. doi:10.1016/j.system.2011.10.014

Park, H. (2010). Teachers’ and learners’ preferences for error correction (Unpublishedmaster’s thesis). California State University, Sacramento, CA.

Peacock, M. (1999). Beliefs about language learning and their relationship to pro-ficiency. International Journal of Applied Linguistics, 9, 247–265. doi:10.1111/j.1473-4192.1999.tb00175.x

Peacock, M. (2001). Pre-service ESL teachers’ beliefs about second language learn-ing: A longitudinal study. System, 29, 177–195. doi:10.1016/S0346-251X(01)00010-0

Prabhu, N. S. (1987). Second language pedagogy. Oxford, England: Oxford UniversityPress.

Savignon, S. J. (2002). Communicative language teaching: Linguistic theory andclassroom practice. In S. J. Savignon (Ed.), Interpreting communicative languageteaching: Contexts and concerns in teacher education (pp. 1–28). New Haven, CT:Yale University Press.

Savignon, S. J., & Wang, C. (2003). Communicative language teaching in EFL con-texts: Learner attitudes and perceptions. International Review of Applied Linguis-tics, 41, 223–249. doi:10.1515/iral.2003.010

Schulz, R. (1996). Focus on form in the foreign language classroom: Learners’and teachers’ views on error correction and the role of grammar. Foreign Lan-guage Annals, 29, 343–364. doi:10.1111/j.1944-9720.1996.tb01247.x

Schulz, R. (2001). Cultural differences in learner and teacher perceptions con-cerning the role of grammar instruction and corrective feedback: USA-Colom-bia. Modern Language Journal, 85, 244–258. doi:10.1111/0026-7902.00107

Songhori, M. H. (2012). Exploring the congruence between teachers’ andstudents’ preferences for form-focused instruction: Isolated or integrated? AsianEFL Journal Professional Teaching Articles, 61, 4–23.

Spada, N. (2007). Communicative language teaching: Current status and futureprospects. In J. Cummins & C. Davison (Eds.)., International handbook of Englishlanguage teaching, Part 1 (pp. 271–288). New York, NY: Springer. doi:10.1007/978-0-387-46301-8_20

Spada, N. (2011). Beyond form-focused instruction: Reflections on past, presentand future research. Language Teaching, 44, 225–236. doi:10.1017/S0261444810000224

Spada, N., Barkaoui, K., Peters, C., So, M., & Valeo, A. (2009). Developing a ques-tionnaire to investigate second language learners’ preferences for two types ofform-focused instruction. System, 37, 70–81. doi:10.1016/j.system.2008.06.002

Spada, N., & dos Santos Lima, M. (in press). Teacher and learner preferences forintegrated and isolated form-focused instruction. In D. Christian, M. A. Christi-son, P. Duff, & N. Spada (Eds.), Research on teaching and learning English gram-mar. New York, NY: Routledge.

Spada, N., Jessop, L., Tomita, Y., Suzuki, W., & Valeo, A. (2014). Isolated and inte-grated form-focused instruction: Effects on different types of L2 knowledge.Language Teaching Research, 18, 453–473. doi:10.1177/1362168813519883

TESOL QUARTERLY22

Spada, N., & Lightbown, P. M. (2008). Form-focused instruction: Isolated or inte-grated? TESOL Quarterly, 42, 181–207. doi:10.1002/j.1545-7249.2008.tb00115.x

Tomlinson, B. (2005). English as a foreign language: Matching procedures to thecontext of learning. In E. Hinkel (Ed.), Handbook of research in second languageteaching and learning (pp. 137–153). London, England: Lawrence Erlbaum.

Yang, N. (1999). The relationship between EFL learners’ beliefs and learning strat-egy use. System, 27, 515–535. doi:10.1016/S0346-251X(99)00048-2

Yoshida, R. (2008). Teachers’ choice and learners’ preference of corrective feed-back types. Language Awareness, 17(1), 78–93. doi:10.2167/la429.0

APPENDIX

Questionnaires

EFL Student Questionnaire (Integrated items italicized)

1. Grammar should be taught during communicative activities.

2. I like to study grammar before I use it.

3. I like learning grammar by communicating.

4. I can learn grammar during reading or speaking activities.

5. I like lessons that focus only on teaching grammar.

6. Doing communicative activities is the best way to use English accu-rately.*

7. I like grammar teaching before, not during, communicativeactivities.

8. My grammar improves when I do communicative activities.

9. I like the teacher to correct my mistakes after I finish commu-nicative activities.*

10. I find it hard to learn grammar by reading or listening.

11. I like activities that focus on grammar and communication at thesame time.

12. My English will improve if I study grammar separately fromcommunicative activities.

13. I find it helpful when the instructor teaches grammar while we read atext.

14. I like studying grammar rules first and then doing communica-tive activities.

15. I can learn grammar while reading or listening to a passage.

16. I like the teacher to correct my mistakes while I am doing communica-tive activities.

IS THERE A BETTER TIME TO FOCUS ON FORM? 23

17. I like learning grammar separately from communicative activi-ties.

18. I like grammar teaching during communicative activities.

19. Doing grammar exercises is the best way to use English accu-rately.

20. I like to learn grammar as I work on different skills and activities.

21. Grammar should be taught separately from communicativeactivities.

22. Before reading an article, I like to study the grammar used init.

23. I like communicative activities that include grammar instruction.

24. I find it helpful to study grammar separately from communica-tive activities.

25. I like learning grammar during speaking, writing, listening or readingactivities.

26. I like grammar teaching after, not during, communicativeactivities.

*Deleted in factor analysis.

ESL Student Questionnaire (Integrated items italicized)

1. I like to know exactly which grammar point I am studying.

2. I believe my grammar will improve quickly if I communicate usingEnglish.**

3. I find it easier to learn grammar when the instructor teaches itby itself.

4. I like the teacher to correct my mistakes as soon as I make them.**

5. I prefer lessons that focus on communication and teach grammar onlywhen necessary.*

6. I like learning grammar by seeing the explanation and doingpractice exercises.

7. I like learning grammar by using language.

8. I can learn grammar during reading or speaking activities.

9. I like lessons that focus only on teaching grammar.

10. Doing grammar exercises is the best way to learn to use Eng-lish more accurately.

11. I find it hard to learn grammar through reading or listeningactivities.*

TESOL QUARTERLY24

12. I prefer to learn grammar as I work on different skills and activities.

13. I like learning grammar by itself.*

14. I find it helpful when the instructor teaches grammar while we read atext.

15. I like the teacher to correct my mistakes after an activity iscompleted.**

16. I can learn grammar while reading or listening to a passage.

17. I believe my English will improve quickly if I study and practicegrammar.

18. I like learning grammar during speaking, writing, listening or readingactivities.

19. Doing communicative activities is the best way to learn to use Englishmore accurately.

20. I find it helpful to learn a grammar point before I read it in atext.

*Deleted in reliability analysis. **Deleted in factor analysis.

EFL/ESL Teacher Questionnaire (Integrated items italicized)

1. Participating in meaning-based activities that include attention togrammar is the best way for students to develop their grammaticalknowledge.

2. I prefer teaching grammar as part of meaning-based activities.

3. Teaching structures only through meaning-based activities canlimit students’ grammatical accuracy outside the classroom.**

4. When students learn grammar in a meaning-based context, they willbe able to successfully express their meaning.

5. Students learn grammar more successfully if it is presented within con-text.

6. The most effective way to teach a new structure is to present it withina meaning-based context.**++

7. Doing exercises that focus exclusively on individual structuresis the best way for students to develop their grammaticalknowledge.

8. Learners will be able to communicate accurately only if theylearn grammar separately from meaning-based activities.**

9. I prefer lessons that teach grammar separately from communi-cation.**++

IS THERE A BETTER TIME TO FOCUS ON FORM? 25

10. Students learn grammar more successfully if it is separatedfrom context.++

11. Separate treatment of grammar fails to develop language knowledgewhich students can use outside the classroom.*++

12. I prefer teaching grammar separately from meaning-basedactivities.**++

13. Students’ grammatical mistakes should be corrected during communica-tive activities.*+

14. Grammar is best taught through exercises which focus on indi-vidual structures.

15. Teaching grammar in a meaning-based context is my preferred way toteach.

16. Doing exercises that focus on individual structures is the bestway to learn to use English more accurately.

17. I prefer lessons that teach communication and grammar at the sametime.**++

18. The most effective way to teach a new structure is to presentthe grammar rule before a communicative activity.+

19. Grammar should be taught separately from communicativeactivities.

20. Doing meaning-based activities that include attention to grammar isthe best way to learn to use English more accurately.

21. The best time to correct students’ grammatical mistakes isafter, not during communicative activities.*+

22. Grammar is best taught through activities which focus on meaning.

*Deleted in reliability analysis of EFL data; **Deleted in factor analysis of EFL data.+Deleted in reliability analysis of ESL data; ++Deleted in factor analysis of ESL data.

Supporting Information

Additional Supporting Information may be found in the onlineversion of this article:

Table S1. ESL Student Questionnaire.Table S2. EFL Student Questionnaire.Table S3. EFL Teacher Questionnaire.Table S4. ESL Teacher Questionnaire.

TESOL QUARTERLY26