Is There a Better Time to Focus on

Form? Teacher and Learner Views

ANTONELLA VALEO
York University
Toronto, Ontario, Canada

NINA SPADA
University of Toronto
Toronto, Ontario, Canada

This study investigated the views of teachers and learners regarding

the timing of grammatical instruction, conceptualized as a distinction
between isolated and integrated form-focused instruction (FFI) proposed by Spada and Lightbown (2008). Both types of FFI are
described as taking place in primarily meaning-based communicative
classrooms. They differ in that isolated FFI occurs separately from
communicative activities, whereas integrated FFI occurs during communicative activities. Using this theoretical distinction, the researchers developed teacher and learner questionnaires and validated them
as measures of both constructs supported by factor analysis. The
questionnaires were administered to explore the views of teachers
and learners in two contexts, ESL in Canada and EFL in Brazil.
Quantitative and qualitative analyses of the questionnaire data indicate a distinct preference for integrated FFI across groups (i.e., teachers and learners) and contexts (i.e., EFL and ESL). At the same time
teachers and learners also acknowledged the value of isolated FFI.
These views recognizing the important roles played by both integrated and isolated FFI are consistent with those discussed in the
instructed second language acquisition literature. Teachers and learners also drew attention to contextual and individual differences that
may have an impact on decisions about the timing of grammatical
instruction.
doi: 10.1002/tesq.222

ince 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 accuracy. Although some versions of CLT maintain no role for grammar
instruction, emphasizing an exclusive focus on meaning/content-based
instruction (Howatt, 1984; Krashen, 1982; Prabhu, 1987), other views
TESOL QUARTERLY Vol. 0, No. 0, xxxx 2015
2015 TESOL International Association

of CLT acknowledge the need for a focus on form within primarily

meaning/content-based instruction (Savignon, 2002; Spada, 2007).
Most classroom research supports the latter view, showing that a combined focus on form and meaning is more effective than an exclusive
focus on either one (Spada, 2011). The challenge, however, is to
determine how best to draw learners attention to grammar within
CLT. One way in which this has been examined is in relation to the
timing of grammatical instruction, whether it is provided separately
from or embedded within communicative practice.
Much of the discussion around the timing of grammar instruction
has been theoretical in nature. For example, Doughty and Williams
(1998) propose a model that distinguishes between separation, sequential integration, and simultaneous integration. Sequential integration
includes brief interventions of a focus on form, whereas simultaneous
integration involves continuous attention to both. Ellis (2006)
addresses two primary questions related to the timing of grammar
instruction: at what point grammar should be introduced in a program, and when it is best addressed during a lesson. With respect to
the first question, one could argue that an early knowledge of structure helps learners develop strong form-meaning mappings necessary
for language acquisition. Alternatively, one could argue that early
learners can develop basic communication by piecing together lexical
items, which then provides a strong foundation for grammatical development at later stages. With respect to the question of timing of grammar instruction during a lesson, Ellis suggests that instruction can be
directed at a particular grammatical form, or teachers can address
grammar as it arises in communicative activities.
Building on an earlier discussion of the teaching of grammar
within the instructional sequence (Lightbown, 1998), Spada and
Lightbown (2008) distinguish between two approaches to the timing
of grammatical instruction that they refer to as isolated and integrated
form-focused instruction (FFI). Both types of instruction occur in
classrooms where the primary focus is on meaning but differ in terms
of when the attention is focused on form. Isolated FFI describes
instruction in which learners attention is drawn to form separately
from communicative activities, that is, before, in preparation, or after
a communicative activity. Integrated FFI describes instruction in
which learners attention is drawn to form during communicative
activities. Spada and Lightbown argue for the complementarity of isolated and integrated FFIthat both types of instruction are beneficial
for different aspects of L2 learningand claim that an exclusive
choice between the two is not necessary. The results of a recent classroom study provide empirical support for this claim, reporting that
the effects of integrated and isolated FFI contributed to the develop2

TESOL QUARTERLY

ment of different types of L2 knowledge (Spada, Jessop, Tomita, Suzuki, & Valeo, 2014).
These theoretical and empirical insights from the instructed second
language acquisition (SLA) literature suggest that the two approaches
to the timing of grammatical instruction are not mutually exclusive,
but these views do not include those from classroom teachers whose
opinions may differ. We know from the teacher cognition literature
that teachers base their instructional practice on more than theory
and research in SLA. Their own practical theories about teaching are
motivated 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 whether
teachers perspectives on isolated and integrated FFI are consistent
with current theoretical views about the timing of grammatical instruction as discussed in the instructed SLA literature. Whereas teachers
beliefs have been shown to strongly influence the development of
teachers practice and views about teacher preparation (e.g., Borg,
2003b; Fang, 1996; Kagan, 1992; Peacock, 2001), learners beliefs have
also been observed to play an important role in second language (L2)
learning. For example, there is evidence that what learners believe
guides them in adopting specific learning strategies (Yang, 1999)
which may impact on language learning success. Importantly, compatibility between teacher and learner beliefs has also long been highlighted as a factor for successful learning and teaching (Horwitz,
1988). Nonetheless, teachers and learners views can differ considerably and a mismatch between the two could negatively contribute to
learners motivation and satisfaction, as well as pedagogical effectiveness (Kern, 1995; Schulz, 2001). Thus a second goal of the present
research is to investigate whether learners views about isolated and
integrated FFI are compatible or incompatible with teachers views.
The impact of context is also critical in our understanding of how
teachers and learners engage with different methodologies and
instructional approaches. A significant contextual factor is the distinction between English as a foreign language (EFL) and English as a second language (ESL). Although not a monolithic distinction, it is
recognized that ESL and EFL contexts typically provide different linguistic environments to learners and teachers, and have an important
impact on pedagogy (Tomlinson, 2005). For example, the ESL context
provides rich input and exposure to a greater range of language outside the classroom than contexts in which the target language is not
used in the broader community. In EFL contexts, most if not all of
the oral input is provided by the teacher and opportunities for interaction are limited to the classroom. Successful program innovation
depends on an understanding of the context, a point that has been
IS THERE A BETTER TIME TO FOCUS ON FORM?

observed in EFL classrooms attempting to adopt communicative

language teaching (e.g., Savignon & Wang, 2003).
These differences in EFL and ESL contexts may have an effect on
teachers and learners beliefs related to questions such as the timing
of grammatical instruction. For example, one might speculate that EFL
learners and teachers may prefer isolated FFI because it gives them
greater control over grammar teaching and learning, whereas ESL
learners and teachers may value integrated FFI as an approach that best
reflects the immediate communicative needs outside the classroom.
Therefore, the third goal of the present research is to explore whether
there are any differences between teacher and learner views depending
on the context of their language teaching/learning experience.
This study reports on an investigation of teacher and learner views
about 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 research
questions were investigated:
1. Do ESL/EFL teachers and learners have a preference for
isolated or integrated FFI?
2. Are there differences between learners and teachers preferences for isolated and integrated FFI?
3. Are there differences between ESL and EFL teachers and
learners preferences for isolated and integrated FFI?

BELIEFS AND PREFERENCES FOR GRAMMATICAL

INSTRUCTION
Previous studies have examined teacher and learner beliefs and
preferences related to grammatical instruction in both second
language and foreign language contexts. The majority of these have
been concerned with teacher and learner views on the value of explicit
instruction 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). The
findings from these studies have varied and research has highlighted
the role of context and the impact of multiple variables on learner
and teacher beliefs and preferences. For example, a synthesis of findings from studies involving EFL learners in a number of countries
indicate that grammatical instruction was generally considered important but how important varied as a matter of degree (Horwitz, 1999).
Other research has shown that setting and target language appear to
4

TESOL QUARTERLY

the students acknowledged value in both approaches, and the remaining 95 comments addressed a wide range of issues such as requests for
more practice, smaller classes, a focus on pronunciation, and expressions of frustration with grammatical accuracy in general. Thus, while
a distinct preference for integrated FFI was evident in the quantitative
and qualitative findings for the majority of the ESL learners, there was
also evidence to support a preference for isolated FFI for a small
group of them.
Fewer of the EFL learners, 51 of the 175 participants, wrote comments in the questionnaires. Twenty of the learners elaborated on a
preference for integrated FFI; for example, I try to learn grammar
through reading texts and books in English and paying attention to
how grammar is used in movies and TV cable programs; I think
grammar should be taught through communicative tasks; if they are
not it becomes something that is mechanical and hard to understand later; and Learning traditional grammar ends up being tiring if studied in the isolated way because it gives the impression
that the subject will not be used. Two elaborated on a preference
for isolated FFI; for example, I think grammar should be taught
before communicative activities because it facilitates understanding,
and I prefer to study it before communicative tasks so that I will
feel more secure when speaking. Five students highlighted the
need to consider individual learner differences in making a choice
between integrated and isolated FFI, including proficiency level, age,
and goals of the learner. For example, one student wrote, When
we achieve a certain level of English, the matter is not about knowing a grammar point. [Its] about how much you can use it. I find
that when we first start to learn a certain grammar point, it is helpful to learn it by itself but some practices in terms of communication have to be followed after that. Another student commented
on learner goals: I think it all depends on the students goal which
could be to enter the university, pass a proficiency test or acquire
oral and written fluency. For the first case, grammar could be
taught separately; for the second, grammar should be included in
communicative tasks. Twenty-four learners made general comments
supporting a role for grammar teaching in language classrooms.
Thus, similar to the ESL learners, most of the EFL learners who
provided qualitative comments on integrated or isolated FFI confirmed their preference for integrated FFI.
In summary, the quantitative and qualitative findings indicate a
clear preference for integrated FFI for the majority of both teachers
and learners in ESL and EFL contexts. This preference for integrated FFI did not prevent many of the teachers and learners from
acknowledging the benefits of isolated FFI. Nevertheless, when given
IS THERE A BETTER TIME TO FOCUS ON FORM?

15

program in Iran, Songhori (2012) found that both groups preferred

integrated FFI.1 The researcher suggests that this showed support for a
communicative approach to language teaching in which a focus on
form was integrated with communicative activities. However, he highlights the potential mismatch between these preferences and contextual factors in state schools in Iran that encouraged more traditional
structure-based approaches with little attention paid to meaning-based
instruction.2 On the basis of learner preferences, the author calls for
teachers to adopt a more integrated approach. Elg
un-G
und
uz, Akcan,
and Bayyurt (2012) used the same learner questionnaire described in
the present study with primary school learners in Turkey. The questionnaire data show that, overall, learners preferred integrated FFI to
isolated FFI. In follow-up interviews with a smaller group of learners,
the researchers described an isolated and integrated lesson and asked
the learners to say which they preferred and why. The majority of the
learners preferred integrated FFI and described how it motivated them
to learn and helped them transfer grammatical knowledge to communication. Those who preferred isolated FFI described how separating
grammar instruction from communicative practice helped them notice
the grammatical rule and apply it in grammar-based tests.
Teacher and learner views about the timing of grammatical
instruction have not been as extensively investigated as other aspects
of grammatical instruction (e.g., explicit instruction, error correction).
In addition, studies that have examined the question of timing have
not compared teacher and learner views across ESL and EFL instructional contexts. Furthermore, although the constructs of integrated
and isolated FFI are valuable as a theoretical framework to address the
question of timing of grammatical instruction, the extent to which
teacher and learner views align with current discussions about this in
the instructed SLA literature has not been directly examined. This
study is intended to address these gaps.

METHOD
Research Context
This study involved participants in two different instructional contexts: 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 are
reported in this study.
2
In this study the construct of isolated FFI appears to be associated with traditional discrete-point grammar instruction. The former occurs in classrooms that are
communicatively oriented, whereas the latter occurs in classrooms that are exclusively
focused on language forms.

TESOL QUARTERLY

teachers taught in publicly funded colleges or universities. These institutions offer credit and noncredit ESL classes to both newcomers and
international students. Noncredit courses may prepare students for
entry into a credit program. Courses are part time or full time and follow communicative, task-based curricula. The teachers in Brazil taught
in university credit programs in which English classes were provided in
lessons of 23 hours per week and were counted towards a degree, certificate, or diploma. The teaching in these programs was characterized
by a strongly communicatively oriented approach with an emphasis on
content and meaning-based input and interaction.
The learner participants who were studying in Brazil were enrolled
in the same type of program as those in which the teacher participants
were teaching. The learner participants in the ESL Canadian context
were enrolled in two types of programs: a community ESL program
for newcomers and a university EAP program for, primarily, international students. Both were communicatively oriented programs with an
emphasis on content and meaning-based input and interaction. The
community-based program had a settlement focus with a topic-based
syllabus and was publicly funded to serve adults immigrating to
Canada. The university program had an academic focus with a skillsbased syllabus and charged tuition, primarily serving international
students in Canada.

Participants
A total of 100 teachers participated in the study; 53 taught EFL in
Brazil and 47 taught ESL in Canada. Table 1 provides profiles of the
EFL and ESL teacher participants. The profiles were similar in a number of ways. In both groups, the majority of the teachers were female,
had received their teacher education with a focus on communicative
methodology, and had studied a second language. There were a number of marked differences as well. Overall, the ESL teachers were
older, had more teaching experience, and had completed a higher
level of education. In addition, when asked to describe the way in
which they had been taught (grammar translation, audiolingual, communicative, or other), the majority of the EFL teachers cited communicative methodology, whereas the most common response from the
ESL teachers was grammar translation. Additional data show that both
groups taught in a range of contexts, including universities, colleges,
and private language schools. The majority (70% of the EFL teachers
and 83% of the ESL teachers) reported teaching beginner and lowintermediate learners.

IS THERE A BETTER TIME TO FOCUS ON FORM?

TABLE 1
Profile of Teacher Participants
Data
Gender
Age
Teaching experience
Education
Method of teacher education
Studied an L2
Method of L2 study

EFL (n = 53)

ESL (n = 47)

Female
83% (n = 44)
Under 29
59% (n = 31)
Less than 10 years
70% (n = 37)
Bachelors degree
72% (n = 36)
Communicative
74% (n = 39)
Yes
94% (n = 50)
Communicative
53% (n = 28)

Female
74% (n = 35)
Over 40
70% (n = 33)
Over 10 years
62% (n = 29)
Graduate degree
72% (n = 30)
Communicative
87% (n = 40)
Yes
98% (n = 46)
Grammar translation
39% (n = 18)

A total of 469 adult learners participated in the study, 294 studying

ESL in Canada and 175 studying EFL in Brazil. Approximately 63% of
the ESL learners were women and spoke 1 of 12 languages as a first
language; the most common languages cited were Spanish (27%) and
Chinese (20%). The majority (74%) were enrolled in an intermediatelevel class. Most of the EFL learners (81%) spoke Portuguese as a
home language and all reported being enrolled in intermediate-level
classes in a university English language program. A majority (84%) of
the EFL learners were women.

Questionnaire Development and Validation

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

TESOL QUARTERLY

meaning-based activities. In addition, the questionnaire included an

open-ended question that invited teachers to add any other comments
they wished to make. Other questions were included to gather demographic information about the teachers. The same questionnaire was
used for ESL teachers in Canada and EFL teachers in Brazil. Both
questionnaires were completed online and in English.
The learner questionnaire was developed to capture the same constructs using language that was comprehensible to the learners. The
first version was designed for ESL learners in Canada and contained
20 items, 10 of which reflected the construct of isolated FFI and 10
reflected integrated FFI. Drawing on this questionnaire, a second
version with 26 items3 was developed and translated into Portuguese
for use with the EFL learners in Brazil. An example of an isolated
item common to both is I like studying grammar rules first and then
doing communicative activities. An example of an integrated item is I
like activities that focus on grammar and communication at the same time.
The questionnaires also included questions about gender, language
background, and level of study, as well as open-ended questions
inviting learners to add any comments they wished to make. Both
questionnaires were completed in hard copy in classrooms and collected immediately.
Prior to analyzing the questionnaire data to respond to the three
research questions, we examined the data to determine the reliability and validity of the questionnaires as research tools. We carried
out reliability analyses to ensure that the teachers and learners
responded to the isolated and integrated items in a consistent manner. Cronbachs alpha was used to determine the internal consistency of the items. In the next step, exploratory factor analysis was
used to determine whether the items were a valid measure of the
isolated and integrated constructs (see Supporting Information
found in online version). Items that did not receive consistent values were deleted and excluded from further analysis. The Appendix
contains the original versions of the questionnaires with the deleted
items identified.
The validation process was applied to each of the questionnaires
the ESL learner and teacher questionnaires and the EFL learner
and teacher questionnaires. A description of the validation of the
ESL 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 original
20 items were both internally consistent and valid as measures of
3

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

questionnaire.

IS THERE A BETTER TIME TO FOCUS ON FORM?

the isolated and integrated constructs. For the EFL learner questionnaire, 24 were found to be reliable and valid measures of isolated
and integrated FFI. For each of the teacher questionnaires, 13 items
were found to be reliable measures, 10 of which were common to
both questionnaires. Table 2 presents the results of the reliability
analysis.

RESULTS
The participants responses were calculated separately for the isolated items and the integrated items. These were calculated as mean
scores for each group: ESL learners, EFL learners, ESL teachers, and
EFL teachers.

Teacher Data: Quantitative Results

Table 3 shows the means for both the ESL and EFL teacher
responses. Figure 1 graphically illustrates the differences and similarities between groups. The means show that teachers in both groups
expressed a strong preference for integrated FFI. A paired samples ttest confirmed that this difference was statistically significant for both
the ESL teachers, t(46) = 13.081, p < .01, d = 1.908, and the EFL
teachers, t(52) = 14.896, p < .01, d = 2.047. In addition, the ESL
teachers means indicate a stronger preference for integrated FFI and
this was also statistically significant, F(1,98) = 4.833, p = .030, partial
g2 = .047. Although the means also suggest that the EFL teachers
more strongly disagreed with the isolated items than the ESL teachers
did, this was not statistically significant, F(1,98) = 3.163, p = .078,
partial g2 = .031.

TABLE 2
Questionnaire Reliability Analysis
Questionnaire

Item type

Reliability (a coefficient)

ESL learner
(N = 294)
EFL learner
(N = 175)
ESL teacher
(N = 47)
EFL teacher
(N = 53)

ISO
INT
ISO
INT
ISO
INT
ISO
INT

7
7
12
12
6
7
6
7

.671
.703
.821
.832
.792
.767
.639
.717

10

TESOL QUARTERLY

TABLE 3
Teacher Questionnaires Descriptive Statistics
Group

Item type

ESL (n = 47)

INT
ISO
INT
ISO

EFL (n = 53)

SD

4.12
2.41
3.89
2.19

0.42
0.70
0.59
0.53

FIGURE 1. Means for ESL and EFL teachers.

Teacher Data: Qualitative Results

Data were also gathered from the comments that teachers made
in response to open-ended questions in the questionnaires. These
comments allowed teachers to elaborate on their responses to the Likert scale questions and thus provided qualitative data to accompany
the quantitative data that is the primary source for the findings in this
study. Thirty-three of the 47 ESL teacher participants provided comments. Almost half (n = 15) of the comments elaborated on the
respondents preference for integrated FFI. For example, one teacher
described her position as follows: Grammar in context is very important. Students learn grammar much better when they can relate it to a
specific meaning or use. Therefore, I always contextualize a grammar
point first before I isolate the structure and point out the rules to the
students. Four of the comments clearly supported integrated FFI and
IS THERE A BETTER TIME TO FOCUS ON FORM?

11

also acknowledged a role for isolated FFI. Only two comments supported isolated FFI exclusively; for example, My personal belief is that
the grammar point should be taught and understood and then
applied during meaning-based activities to assess their understanding
of the grammar use. In addition, 7 of the 33 teachers replied that the
decision depended on different variables, including students proficiency level, previous academic experience, type of language feature,
student needs, and preferences for learning. The remaining comments
addressed issues related to teaching but not directly relevant to either
isolated or integrated FFI. Thus, although an overall preference for
integrated FFI was evident in the quantitative and qualitative results
for the ESL teachers, some of the teachers comments also indicated
that decisions to opt for isolated or integrated FFI were dependent on
a variety of factors.
The EFL teachers offered fewer comments on the questionnaire; 26
of the 53 participants responded to the open-ended questions. Nine of
the comments reinforced the respondents preference for integrated
FFI. Two examples of these are I think that grammar must be taught
through context and I think the best way to teach grammar is
through texts. . . . I think students really learn grammar when they face
a text and when they have to produce a real conversation. Four of
the nine comments indicating a preference for integrated FFI also
included statements that expressed an appreciation for isolated FFI.
For example, one teacher wrote, I believe that doing meaning-based
activities that include attention to grammar is the best way to learn to
use English more accurately. But, in case the learners have difficulty to
use correctly the grammar point, grammar should be taught separately
from the communicative activity. Four other comments acknowledged
that both approaches are beneficial and that the decision depends on
a number of factors. For example, one teacher wrote that differences
among students learning styles should be taken into account when
teaching grammar, suggesting that the teacher has, first and foremost, to know his/her students and try to work with activities that can
lead students both to accuracy and fluency. Not one of the EFL teachers provided comments indicating a preference for isolated FFI. The
remaining responses addressed issues not directly relevant to the timing of grammatical instruction. Overall, the qualitative responses from
the EFL teachers are similar to those of the ESL teachers indicating a
preference for integrated FFI and an acknowledgement of the benefits
of isolated FFI. A few of the EFL teachers also commented on how a
choice between the two is dependent on context and learner variables.
Interestingly, five of the teachers offered additional comments
related to their experience of completing the questionnaire. These
comments described how the questionnaire inspired them to reflect
12

TESOL QUARTERLY

on the timing of grammar instruction. One teacher described it as a

meaningful questionnaire which makes us think how we really have to
teach 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 to
think better about my English classes. One ESL teacher described
how participating in the survey raised questions for her: I found
myself hesitating a lot during the survey. I feel less certain about the
place of grammar than I used to. . . . I now see the value in teaching
grammar in an isolated waystudents understand it better and faster.
Another described a similar reflection: Truly, Im struggling with my
espoused theory and my theory in use. What I think I prefer and what
I actually do may be different based on the learners in front of me
and 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 graphically illustrates a comparison. The group means indicate that both the
EFL and ESL learners expressed a preference for integrated FFI over
isolated FFI. A paired-samples t-test confirmed this difference to be statistically 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 preferences more strongly than the EFL group for both types of instruction
and this difference is most noticeable with the learners responses to
the isolated items. What this means is that although both groups
expressed a statistically significant preference for integrated over isolated FFI, the ESL learners responded more favorably to some of the
isolated items than did the EFL learners. For example, in response to
the isolated item Before reading an article, I like to study the grammar used
in it, the mean calculation for the EFL learners was 2.23, whereas the
mean for the ESL learners was 3.89. Likewise, in response to the isolated item I find it helpful to study grammar separately from communicative
TABLE 4
Learner Questionnaires Descriptive Statistics
Group

Item type

ESL (n = 294)

INT
ISO
INT
ISO

EFL (n = 175)

IS THERE A BETTER TIME TO FOCUS ON FORM?

SD

4.03
3.83
3.90
2.62

.60
.63
.64
.70

13

FIGURE 2. Means for ESL and EFL Learners.

activities, the EFL learners mean was 2.84, whereas the ESL learners
mean was 3.71. A repeated measures ANOVA confirmed that this difference 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 reinforcing their preference for integrated FFI; for example, I prefer to
learn grammar when I am doing communicative activities, and I
dont think only grammar practice is a good way to learn English. In
my opinion I can learn more when I study grammar and speaking at
the same time. Similarly, another learner wrote, In my opinion, the
most important thing is trying to focus our eyes on grammar whenever
using English: speaking, listening, reading and writing. Thirteen
learners described their preferences for isolated FFI; for example, In
my case, I prefer to learn grammar by itself, and try to use grammar in
writing, and I rather to have first an introduction to the grammar
section and then practice it with writing and oral exercises. Two of
4

14

Analyses explored the influence of individual differences in relation to preferences for

isolated and integrated FFI. For the EFL students, a multivariate analysis of variance
(MANOVA) indicated that the preferences were not significantly affected by EFL proficiency level (Wilks Lambda = .962, F(4, 300) = 1.480, p = .208), length of study of
English (Wilks Lambda = .943, F(6, 300) = 1.484, p = .183), or the level-study interaction (Wilks Lambda = .910, F(12, 300) = 1.202, p = .281).

TESOL QUARTERLY

the students acknowledged value in both approaches, and the remaining 95 comments addressed a wide range of issues such as requests for
more practice, smaller classes, a focus on pronunciation, and expressions of frustration with grammatical accuracy in general. Thus, while
a distinct preference for integrated FFI was evident in the quantitative
and qualitative findings for the majority of the ESL learners, there was
also evidence to support a preference for isolated FFI for a small
group of them.
Fewer of the EFL learners, 51 of the 175 participants, wrote comments in the questionnaires. Twenty of the learners elaborated on a
preference for integrated FFI; for example, I try to learn grammar
through reading texts and books in English and paying attention to
how grammar is used in movies and TV cable programs; I think
grammar should be taught through communicative tasks; if they are
not it becomes something that is mechanical and hard to understand later; and Learning traditional grammar ends up being tiring if studied in the isolated way because it gives the impression
that the subject will not be used. Two elaborated on a preference
for isolated FFI; for example, I think grammar should be taught
before communicative activities because it facilitates understanding,
and I prefer to study it before communicative tasks so that I will
feel more secure when speaking. Five students highlighted the
need to consider individual learner differences in making a choice
between integrated and isolated FFI, including proficiency level, age,
and goals of the learner. For example, one student wrote, When
we achieve a certain level of English, the matter is not about knowing a grammar point. [Its] about how much you can use it. I find
that when we first start to learn a certain grammar point, it is helpful to learn it by itself but some practices in terms of communication have to be followed after that. Another student commented
on learner goals: I think it all depends on the students goal which
could be to enter the university, pass a proficiency test or acquire
oral and written fluency. For the first case, grammar could be
taught separately; for the second, grammar should be included in
communicative tasks. Twenty-four learners made general comments
supporting a role for grammar teaching in language classrooms.
Thus, similar to the ESL learners, most of the EFL learners who
provided qualitative comments on integrated or isolated FFI confirmed their preference for integrated FFI.
In summary, the quantitative and qualitative findings indicate a
clear preference for integrated FFI for the majority of both teachers
and learners in ESL and EFL contexts. This preference for integrated FFI did not prevent many of the teachers and learners from
acknowledging 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 the
preferred choice for most of the teachers and learners in both
contexts.

DISCUSSION
The first question in this study explored whether ESL/EFL teachers
and learners have a preference for isolated or integrated FFI. Analysis
of the quantitative responses to the questionnaire items and the qualitative analysis of the teacher and learner comments indicate a distinct
preference for integrated over isolated FFI. This finding is consistent
with the other two studies that have investigated the same FFI constructs (Elg
un-G
und
uz et al., 2012; Songhori, 2012). They also echo
similar findings in studies that have reported teachers preferences for
instruction that treats grammar in an integrated manner by presenting
it within a text and addressing it during communicative activities
rather than in an isolated manner (Barnard & Scampton, 2008; Borg
& Burns, 2008; Burgess & Etherington, 2002). This preference for integrated FFI expressed by both teachers and learners is consistent with
theoretical assumptions about the role of grammar in communicative
classroomsthat embedding grammar within communicative activities
has the potential to enhance L2 learning by creating opportunities for
learners to focus on form and communication at the same time
(Doughty & Williams, 1998). It is also consistent with empirical findings in instructed SLA research indicating the benefits of a focus on
form within communicative practice (Spada, 2011).
Even though the majority of teachers and learners expressed a preference for integrated FFI, this did not mean that they discounted the
value of isolated FFI. This was evident in the quantitative data, particularly for the ESL learners who responded more positively to some of
the isolated items on the questionnaire and who reinforced this in
their comments in the qualitative data. Furthermore, several of the
ESL teachers described situations in which they felt that one approach
was sometimes necessary over the other. This recognition of
the value of both approaches is consistent with research and theory
claiming that each option may play a different role in L2 learning.
Indeed some of the respondents referred to specific circumstances in
which isolated and/or integrated FFI might be particularly useful, similar to those discussed in Spada and Lightbown (2008); for example,
isolated instruction may be particularly useful in promoting the acquisition of language features that are difficult to notice in the input
(e.g., third person singular s in English), whereas integrated FFI may

16

TESOL QUARTERLY

be of particular benefit in the development of fluency and the automatization of language features for effective communication.
The second research question examined whether there were differences between the beliefs and preferences of learners and those of
teachers. The fact that the teachers and learners in this study shared
similar views about integrated and isolated approaches to grammar
instruction suggests a compatible match of beliefs and preferences
and is consistent with the findings of Songhori (2012) in which
teachers cited learners preferences as a guide to their own choices
about timing in grammatical instruction. A number of teachers in this
study also referred to learner preferences as an important factor, similar to comments made by the teachers in Burgess and Etheringtons
(2002) study. This is consistent with the position that it is important
for learners and teachers to share (or at least understand) each
others preferences for learning and teaching (Horwitz, 1998; Schulz,
1996). As indicated above, previous research on learner and teacher
preferences about grammar instruction and error correction has often
revealed 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 and
error correction than teachers were willing to provide and thought was
necessary. Interestingly, these two instructional components (i.e., explicit grammar teaching and error correction) are included in both integrated and isolated FFI. They do not constitute distinctions between
the two types and thus would not have emerged as differences in the
present study with its focus on timing rather than type of grammatical
instruction.
The third research question explored whether there were differences between ESL and EFL teachers and learners preferences. The
results reveal that teachers and learners in both instructional contexts
expressed a preference for integrated FFI with no substantive difference between the contexts. This is in line with studies that have found
agreement between teachers and learners on the topic of grammatical
instruction across instructional contexts (e.g., Borg & Burns, 2008;
Schulz, 2001). Nonetheless, some statistically significant differences
were also evident between the ESL and EFL teachers and learners
in this study. For example, the ESL teachers indicated a stronger
preference for integrated FFI than the EFL teachers did (see Table 3
and Figure 1), and the ESL learners responded more positively to
some of the isolated items than the EFL learners did (see Table 4 and
Figure 2). In the case of the differences between ESL and EFL learners, the different linguistic environments in which they were situated
may have played a role. For example, it is possible that ESL learners
expressed 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. As

such, they may have valued isolated FFI to fine-tune some of the
language they used in communicative interactions in the natural
setting. Conversely, because EFL learners did not have access to a
rich communicative context outside the classroom, they may have
appreciated integrated FFI for the opportunity to get two for one, to
focus on both language and communication at the same time. In their
comparison of learners views about grammar instruction in second
and foreign language classes, Loewen et al. (2009) suggest the oppositethat the differences in context may have encouraged ESL learners to prioritize communication over grammatical instruction precisely
because it was available. The ESL learners in that study, however, were
compared to learners of other languages (i.e., not EFL), and the
researchers note that target language and previous learner experience
with grammar were key variables.
With regard to the teachers, differences in the backgrounds and
demographic characteristics between the EFL and ESL teachers may
have played a role. Overall, the ESL teachers had more teaching experience than the EFL teachers and a majority of them had completed a
graduate degree. Although it is not clear how these characteristics may
have affected the responses of individuals, they cannot be discounted.
For example, it may be that ESL teachers classroom experience and
graduate-level education may have given them more confidence in
supporting one approach over another, in this case integrated FFI,
with greater conviction. Although the EFL teachers also expressed a
preference for integrated FFI, perhaps they were less confident about
it 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 timing of grammatical instruction in second and foreign language contexts. The findings show a distinct preference for integrated over
isolated FFI across groups (i.e., teachers and learners) and contexts
(i.e., ESL and EFL). The overall preference for integrated FFI suggests
that teachers and learners are comfortable with instruction that
demands switching between attention to form and attention to meaning. These findings are consistent with current theory and research in
L2 learning and teaching.
The preference for integrated FFI observed in this study was not
absolute. The qualitative comments provided by many of the ESL and
EFL teachers and learners point to the benefits of isolated FFI. It is
18

TESOL QUARTERLY

interesting to note, however, that despite their recognition of the

value of isolated FFI, this was not selected as the preferred choice by
most of the teachers and learners. Thus, it appears that, for the majority of ESL and EFL teachers and learners in in this study, integrated
FFI is the default choice, with isolated FFI as an option depending on
a range of pedagogic variables.
The fact that teachers and learners shared a similar instructional
preference can be seen as positive news, given the concerns in the literature with a mismatch between the two. As indicated above, this is
in contrast to other research that has reported differences between
the two groups. This may be due to the fact that the learners and
teachers in the present study were asked to respond to questions about
a specific feature of grammar instruction (i.e., timing) rather than to
broader notions about the role of grammar instruction in general.
This adds credence to the proposal that more focused studies may
lead to more unified results (Borg, 2003a).
It is important to note that the use of questionnaires for the purposes of understanding learner beliefs and teacher cognition comes
with limitations. A more in-depth examination of individual teacher
and learner perspectives might have been gained through interviews,
which could have supplemented the information obtained via the
questionnaires used in this study and would have enhanced the database. In fact, interview data were collected with a sample of the EFL
teachers who participated in the study, but it was not possible to collect 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 the
value of isolated FFI (see Spada & dos Santos Lima, in press, for a discussion of interview findings with the EFL teachers). It is equally
important to note that unlike other teacher and learner questionnaire
studies, the instrument used to collect teacher and learner data in this
study underwent extensive reliability and validity testing. The use of a
validated questionnaire not only adds to the robustness of the findings
but also makes it possible for future studies to use these research
instruments to examine the timing of grammatical instruction in other
language learning contexts.
The unexpected finding from several teachers who reported that
completing the questionnaire contributed to their professional growth
in important ways is further evidence of the value of the questionnaire. Their comments revealed that the questionnaire had encouraged them to seriously reflect on their beliefs and preferences. This
is well aligned with the current emphasis on teacher reflection as a
source of professional growth. Research has highlighted the
complexity 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 views
about the timing of grammatical instruction in communicative
classrooms are remarkably similar both within and across ESL and EFL
contexts. The finding that integrated FFI was preferred by the majority
of teachers and learners might lead one to argue that L2 instructors
should be encouraged to adopt integrated FFI as their instructional
strategy. We believe it would be premature to do so for the following
reasons. First, many of the teachers and learners who expressed a preference for integrated FFI also acknowledged the benefits of isolated
FFI. This is compatible with current theoretical and empirical work in
instructed SLA. Second, until more research is done to explore in
greater depth the reasons behind teacher and learner choices for isolated and integrated FFI, it is difficult to know under what conditions
it is best to implement one or the other. Finally, while there is evidence that integrated and isolated FFI contribute positively to L2
learning, there is no evidence that one approach is more effective
than the other. Thus, based on the needs of learners and a range of
other contextual and pedagogical factors, L2 teachers would be
advised to incorporate both integrated and isolated FFI into their
instructional practice with the knowledge that each is valuable for L2
learning.
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
We thank the teachers and students who agreed to take part in this research and
several researchers involved in various aspects of this work, including Khaled
Barkaoui, Lorena Jessop, Colette Peters, Paul Quinn, Marilia dos Santos Lima, and
Margaret So. This research was carried out at the University of Toronto and supported by a grant from the Social Sciences and Humanities Research Council of
Canada.

THE AUTHORS
Antonella
University
ESL and
instructed

Valeo is an assistant professor in ESL and applied linguistics at York

in Toronto, where she teaches undergraduate courses in content-based
graduate courses in applied linguistics. Her research investigates
second language acquisition and teacher development.

Nina Spada is a professor in the Language and Literacies Education program

at the Ontario Institute for Studies in Education (OISE), University of Toronto,
where she teaches courses in second language acquisition and research
methods. Dr. Spadas classroom research focuses on the effects of instruction
on second language learning.

20

TESOL QUARTERLY

REFERENCES
Andrews, S. (2003). Just like instant noodles: L2 teachers and their beliefs about
grammar pedagogy. Teachers and Teaching: Theory and Practice, 9, 351375.
doi:10.1080/1354060032000097253
Barnard, R., & Scampton, D. (2008). Teaching grammar: A survey of EAP teachers
in New Zealand. New Zealand Studies in Applied Linguistics, 14(2), 5982.
Borg, S. (2003a). Teacher cognition in grammar teaching: A literature review. Language Awareness, 12(2), 96108. doi:10.1080/09658410308667069
Borg, S. (2003b). Teacher cognition in language teaching: A review of research on
what language teachers think, know, believe, and do. Language Teaching, 36,
81109. doi:10.1017/S0261444803001903
Borg, S. (2010). Language teacher research engagement. Language Teaching, 43,
391429. doi:10.1017/S0261444810000170
Borg, S., & Burns, A. (2008). Integrating grammar in adult TESOL classrooms.
Applied Linguistics, 29, 456482. doi:10.1093/applin/amn020
Brown, A. V. (2009). Students and teachers perceptions of effective foreign language teaching: A comparison of ideals. Modern Language Journal, 93, 4660.
doi:10.1111/j.1540-4781.2009.00827.x
Burgess, J., & Etherington, S. (2002). Focus on grammatical form: Explicit or
implicit? System, 30, 433458. 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 acquisition (pp. 197261). Cambridge, England: Cambridge University Press.
Elg
un-G
und
uz, Z., Akcan, S., & Bayyurt, Y. (2012). Isolated form-focused instruction and grammatical form: Explicit school English classrooms in Turkey. Language, Culture and Curriculum, 25(2), 157171. doi:10.1080/07908318.2012.
683008
Ellis, R. (2006). Current issues in the teaching of grammar: An SLA perspective.
TESOL Quarterly, 40, 83107. doi:10.2307/40264512
Fang, Z. (1996). A review of research on teacher beliefs and practices. Educational
Research, 38(1), 4765. doi:10.1080/0013188960380104
Graham, M. G. (2011). Teachers and students beliefs about the role of grammar and
grammar instruction in the foreign language classroom (Unpublished doctoral dissertation). Capella University, Minneapolis, MN.
Horwitz, E. K. (1988). The beliefs about language learning of beginning university
foreign language students. Modern Language Journal, 72, 283294. doi:10.2307/
327506
Horwitz, E. K. (1999). Cultural and situational influences on foreign language
learners beliefs about language learning: A review of BALLI studies. System, 27,
557576. 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 Psychologist, 27(1), 6590. doi:10.1207/s15326985ep2701_6
Kartchava, E., & Ammar, A. (2014). Learners beliefs as mediators of what is
noticed and learned in the language classroom. TESOL Quarterly, 48, 86109.
doi:10.1002/tesq.101
Kern, R. G. (1995). Students and teachers beliefs about language learning. Foreign Language Annals, 28, 7192. 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 acquisition (pp. 177196). 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 error
correction. Modern Language Journal, 93, 91104. doi:10.1111/j.1540-4781.2009.
00830.x
Mori, R. (2011). Teacher cognition in corrective feedback in Japan. System, 39,
451467. doi:10.1016/j.system.2011.10.014
Park, H. (2010). Teachers and learners preferences for error correction (Unpublished
masters thesis). California State University, Sacramento, CA.
Peacock, M. (1999). Beliefs about language learning and their relationship to proficiency. International Journal of Applied Linguistics, 9, 247265. doi:10.1111/
j.1473-4192.1999.tb00175.x
Peacock, M. (2001). Pre-service ESL teachers beliefs about second language learning: A longitudinal study. System, 29, 177195. doi:10.1016/S0346-251X(01)
00010-0
Prabhu, N. S. (1987). Second language pedagogy. Oxford, England: Oxford University
Press.
Savignon, S. J. (2002). Communicative language teaching: Linguistic theory and
classroom practice. In S. J. Savignon (Ed.), Interpreting communicative language
teaching: Contexts and concerns in teacher education (pp. 128). New Haven, CT:
Yale University Press.
Savignon, S. J., & Wang, C. (2003). Communicative language teaching in EFL contexts: Learner attitudes and perceptions. International Review of Applied Linguistics, 41, 223249. 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 Language Annals, 29, 343364. doi:10.1111/j.1944-9720.1996.tb01247.x
Schulz, R. (2001). Cultural differences in learner and teacher perceptions concerning the role of grammar instruction and corrective feedback: USA-Colombia. Modern Language Journal, 85, 244258. doi:10.1111/0026-7902.00107
Songhori, M. H. (2012). Exploring the congruence between teachers and
students preferences for form-focused instruction: Isolated or integrated? Asian
EFL Journal Professional Teaching Articles, 61, 423.
Spada, N. (2007). Communicative language teaching: Current status and future
prospects. In J. Cummins & C. Davison (Eds.)., International handbook of English
language teaching, Part 1 (pp. 271288). New York, NY: Springer. doi:10.1007/
978-0-387-46301-8_20
Spada, N. (2011). Beyond form-focused instruction: Reflections on past, present
and future research. Language Teaching, 44, 225236. doi:10.1017/S02614448
10000224
Spada, N., Barkaoui, K., Peters, C., So, M., & Valeo, A. (2009). Developing a questionnaire to investigate second language learners preferences for two types of
form-focused instruction. System, 37, 7081. doi:10.1016/j.system.2008.06.002
Spada, N., & dos Santos Lima, M. (in press). Teacher and learner preferences for
integrated and isolated form-focused instruction. In D. Christian, M. A. Christison, P. Duff, & N. Spada (Eds.), Research on teaching and learning English grammar. New York, NY: Routledge.
Spada, N., Jessop, L., Tomita, Y., Suzuki, W., & Valeo, A. (2014). Isolated and integrated form-focused instruction: Effects on different types of L2 knowledge.
Language Teaching Research, 18, 453473. doi:10.1177/1362168813519883

22

TESOL QUARTERLY

Spada, N., & Lightbown, P. M. (2008). Form-focused instruction: Isolated or integrated? TESOL Quarterly, 42, 181207. doi:10.1002/j.1545-7249.2008.tb00115.x
Tomlinson, B. (2005). English as a foreign language: Matching procedures to the
context of learning. In E. Hinkel (Ed.), Handbook of research in second language
teaching and learning (pp. 137153). London, England: Lawrence Erlbaum.
Yang, N. (1999). The relationship between EFL learners beliefs and learning strategy use. System, 27, 515535. doi:10.1016/S0346-251X(99)00048-2
Yoshida, R. (2008). Teachers choice and learners preference of corrective feedback types. Language Awareness, 17(1), 7893. doi:10.2167/la429.0

APPENDIX
Questionnaires
EFL
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
9.
10.
11.
12.
13.
14.
15.
16.

Student Questionnaire (Integrated items italicized)

Grammar should be taught during communicative activities.
I like to study grammar before I use it.
I like learning grammar by communicating.
I can learn grammar during reading or speaking activities.
I like lessons that focus only on teaching grammar.
Doing communicative activities is the best way to use English accurately.*
I like grammar teaching before, not during, communicative
activities.
My grammar improves when I do communicative activities.
I like the teacher to correct my mistakes after I finish communicative activities.*
I find it hard to learn grammar by reading or listening.
I like activities that focus on grammar and communication at the
same time.
My English will improve if I study grammar separately from
communicative activities.
I find it helpful when the instructor teaches grammar while we read a
text.
I like studying grammar rules first and then doing communicative activities.
I can learn grammar while reading or listening to a passage.
I like the teacher to correct my mistakes while I am doing communicative activities.

IS THERE A BETTER TIME TO FOCUS ON FORM?

23

17. I like learning grammar separately from communicative activities.

18. I like grammar teaching during communicative activities.
19. Doing grammar exercises is the best way to use English accurately.
20. I like to learn grammar as I work on different skills and activities.
21. Grammar should be taught separately from communicative
activities.
22. Before reading an article, I like to study the grammar used in
it.
23. I like communicative activities that include grammar instruction.
24. I find it helpful to study grammar separately from communicative activities.
25. I like learning grammar during speaking, writing, listening or reading
activities.
26. I like grammar teaching after, not during, communicative
activities.
*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 using
English.**
3. I find it easier to learn grammar when the instructor teaches it
by 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 only
when necessary.*
6. I like learning grammar by seeing the explanation and doing
practice 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 English more accurately.
11. I find it hard to learn grammar through reading or listening
activities.*

24

TESOL QUARTERLY

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 a
text.
15. I like the teacher to correct my mistakes after an activity is
completed.**
16. I can learn grammar while reading or listening to a passage.
17. I believe my English will improve quickly if I study and practice
grammar.
18. I like learning grammar during speaking, writing, listening or reading
activities.
19. Doing communicative activities is the best way to learn to use English
more accurately.
20. I find it helpful to learn a grammar point before I read it in a
text.
*Deleted in reliability analysis. **Deleted in factor analysis.

EFL/ESL Teacher Questionnaire (Integrated items italicized)

1. Participating in meaning-based activities that include attention to
grammar is the best way for students to develop their grammatical
knowledge.
2. I prefer teaching grammar as part of meaning-based activities.
3. Teaching structures only through meaning-based activities can
limit students grammatical accuracy outside the classroom.**
4. When students learn grammar in a meaning-based context, they will
be able to successfully express their meaning.
5. Students learn grammar more successfully if it is presented within context.
6. The most effective way to teach a new structure is to present it within
a meaning-based context.**++
7. Doing exercises that focus exclusively on individual structures
is the best way for students to develop their grammatical
knowledge.
8. Learners will be able to communicate accurately only if they
learn grammar separately from meaning-based activities.**
9. I prefer lessons that teach grammar separately from communication.**++

IS THERE A BETTER TIME TO FOCUS ON FORM?

25

10. Students learn grammar more successfully if it is separated

from context.++
11. Separate treatment of grammar fails to develop language knowledge
which students can use outside the classroom.*++
12. I prefer teaching grammar separately from meaning-based
activities.**++
13. Students grammatical mistakes should be corrected during communicative activities.*+
14. Grammar is best taught through exercises which focus on individual structures.
15. Teaching grammar in a meaning-based context is my preferred way to
teach.
16. Doing exercises that focus on individual structures is the best
way to learn to use English more accurately.
17. I prefer lessons that teach communication and grammar at the same
time.**++
18. The most effective way to teach a new structure is to present
the grammar rule before a communicative activity.+
19. Grammar should be taught separately from communicative
activities.
20. Doing meaning-based activities that include attention to grammar is
the best way to learn to use English more accurately.
21. The best time to correct students grammatical mistakes is
after, 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 online
version of this article:
Table
Table
Table
Table

26

S1.
S2.
S3.
S4.

ESL
EFL
EFL
ESL

Student Questionnaire.
Student Questionnaire.
Teacher Questionnaire.
Teacher Questionnaire.

TESOL QUARTERLY