Chapter 6: second language learning in the classroom
The goal of experimental studies is usually to identify specific variables that may affect learning
similarly in different environments and find ways of measuring these effects. Experimental research
often involves control groups and experimental groups, with participants randomly assigned to each
group. Control groups typically continue with their regular programme rather than the special
instructional intervention that is being investigated. Most quantitative research that takes place in
classroom settings is referred to as quasi-experimental because students are in intact classroom groups
rather than being randomly assigned to control and experimental groups.
Qualitative research, including ethnographies and case studies, often involves small numbers, perhaps
one class or only one or two learners in that class. The emphasis is not on what is most general but
rather on a thorough understanding of what is particular about what is happening in this classroom.
While quantitative and qualitative research are important in assessing theoretical proposals, action
research carried out by teachers in their own classrooms is also essential to answer specific local
questions.
Proposals:
1. Get it right from the beginning
The grammar translation approach has its origin in the teaching of classical languages (for example,
Greek and Latin). Students were presented with vocabulary lists, often accompanied by translation
equivalents, and grammar rules. The original purpose of this approach was to help students read
literature rather than to develop fluency in the spoken language. It was also thought that this approach
provided students with good mental exercise to help develop their intellectual and academic abilities.
In a typical grammar translation activity, students read a text together line by line and are asked to
translate it from the target language into their native language. Students may answer comprehension
questions based on the passage, often in their L1. The teacher draws attention to a specific grammar
rule that is illustrated by the text (for example, a certain verb form). Following this, the students are
given an exercise in which they are asked to practise the grammar rule, for example, by filling in the
blanks with the appropriate verb form in a series of decontextualized sentences that may or may not
be related to the text they have read and translated.
Audiolingual instruction arose in part as a reaction to the grammar translation approach. The
argument was that, unlike grammar translation teaching, in which students learned about the
language, audiolingual teaching would lead students to actually speak the language (Brooks, 1960;
Lado, 1964). In Chapter 4, we saw that the audiolingual approach was based on behaviourism and
contrastive analysis. The examples below reflect audiolingual teaching. It is evident that, even though
the emphasis is on the oral language, students rarely use the language spontaneously. Teachers avoid
letting beginning learners speak freely out of concern that this would allow them to make errors. The
errors, it is said, could become habits. So it is better to prevent these bad habits before they happen
and ‘Get it right from the beginning’.
Pure repetition. The students have no reason to get involved or to think about what they are saying.
Indeed, some students who have no idea what the sentences mean will successfully repeat them
anyway, while their minds wander off to other things.
Research findings.
Many adult learners, especially those with good metalinguistic knowledge of other languages, express
a preference for structure-based approaches.
The grammar translation approach is useful for the study of grammar and vocabulary and can be
valuable for understanding important cultural texts. The audiolingual approach with its emphasis on
speaking and listening was used successfully with highly motivated adult learners in intensive training
programmes for government personnel in the United States. However, there is little classroom
research to support such approaches for students in ordinary school programmes that must serve the
needs of students who bring different levels of motivation and aptitude to the classroom. In fact, it
was the frequent failure of traditional grammar translation and audiolingual methods to produce
fluency and accuracy in typical classrooms that led to the development of more communicative
approaches to teaching in the first place.
Supporters of communicative language teaching have argued that language is not learned by the
gradual accumulation of one grammatical feature after another—whether through the study of
grammar rules or the repetition of model sentences. They suggest that the focus of learning should be
on trying to understand and express meaning rather than on learning rules or set phrases. In this view,
errors are a natural and valuable part of the language learning process. Furthermore, they believe that
the motivation of learners is often stifled by an insistence on correctness in the earliest stages of L2
learning. These opponents of the ‘Get it right from the beginning’ proposal argue that it is better to
encourage learners to develop ‘fluency’ before ‘accuracy’. Some researchers and educators have
reacted to the version of communicative language teaching that advocates an exclusive focus on
meaning. They argue that allowing learners too much ‘freedom’ without correction and explicit
instruction will lead to early fossilization of errors.
a. Study 15: Audiolingual pattern drill
b. Study 16: Grammar plus communicative practice. Savignon (Grammar plus
communicative practice): This study asked whether adding communicative practice to
an otherwise audiolingual, grammar-focused course would boost communicative
ability without harming grammatical accuracy. Forty-eight college students all
received four hours per week of audiolingual instruction and then one extra hour per
week that differed by group: communicative tasks, culture activities in L1, or extra
grammar drills. The communicative group showed significantly better performance
on measures of fluency and spontaneous communication while scoring no worse on
grammatical tests, so the added communicative hour improved communicative
competence without reducing accuracy.
Interpreting Research
Learners receiving audiolingual or grammar-translation instruction are often unable to communicate
their messages and intentions effectively in a second language. Experience has also shown that
primarily or exclusively structure-based approaches to teaching do not guarantee that learners develop
high levels of accuracy and linguistic knowledge. In fact, it is often difficult to determine what
students know about the target language. The classroom emphasis on accuracy often leads learners to
feel inhibited and reluctant to take chances in using their knowledge for communication. The results
from these studies provide evidence that learners benefit from opportunities for communicative
practice in contexts where the emphasis is on understanding and expressing meaning. It is important
to emphasize that in the Savignon study, all students continued to receive their regular, grammar-
focused instruction while they participated in additional communicative activities in French (L2) or
culture-based instruction in English (the students’ L1). Therefore, this study offers support for the
argument that the addition of communicative practice is advantageous, not that grammar instruction is
not advantageous. As we review five more proposals for how to promote L2 learning in the
classroom, we will look at how each one sees the relative contributions of meaning-based instruction
and grammar-based instruction.
2. Just listen… and read
Based on the hypothesis that language acquisition takes place when learners are exposed to
comprehensible input through listening and/or reading. As noted in Chapter 4, the individual whose
name is most closely associated with this proposal is Stephen Krashen (1985, 1989).
This is a controversial proposal because it suggests that L2 learners do not need to produce language
in order to learn it, except perhaps to get other people to provide input by speaking to them.
According to this view, it is enough to hear (or read) and understand the target language.
Example 3. Materials: audio cassette tapes + earphones = audiobooks of books that were not
graded/adapted. They hear and read English for the next 30 minutes. For some of the time, the teacher
walks around the classroom, checking that the machines are running smoothly, but she does not
interact with the students concerning what they are doing. Some of the students are listening with
closed eyes; others read actively, mouthing the words silently as they follow each line with a finger.
a. Study 17: Comprehension-based instruction for children. Lightbown et al.
(Comprehension-based instruction for children): This investigation explored whether
sustained exposure to comprehensible input (listening and reading) without oral
practice could produce L2 gains in young learners. Children in an experimental
programme spent daily class time listening to and reading graded materials with
virtually no spoken production, and their progress was compared to peers in a regular
audiolingual programme. After two years (and at later follow-up), the
comprehension-only students matched or sometimes exceeded the regular programme
students on comprehension and some speaking measures, though they lagged on
writing and on certain aspects of accuracy, indicating input is powerful but not
sufficient for all skills.
b. Study 18: Reading for words. Horst (Reading for words / graded readers): This study
examined whether the extensive use of simplified graded readers would produce
incidental vocabulary growth for adult ESL learners. Participants chose and read
graded readers over several weeks while their vocabulary gains were evaluated with
individualized measures based on the specific books they read. Results showed
measurable vocabulary acquisition attributable to reading — the more they read, the
more words they learned — but substantial gains required considerable reading
volume, so reading is effective but needs to be sustained.
c. Study 19: Input flood. Trahey & White (Input flood): This study tested whether
deliberately increasing the frequency of a target feature in input (an “input flood”)
leads learners to notice and learn that feature — here, English adverb placement —
without explicit instruction. Young learners read many short texts over a two-week
period containing hundreds of correctly placed adverbs and completed related
comprehension tasks. Learners improved in accepting grammatical English adverb
order but continued to accept ungrammatical orders influenced by their L1,
suggesting that high-frequency positive evidence helps but may not eliminate L1-
based errors without negative evidence or explicit guidance.
d. Study 20: Enhanced input. Joanna White (Enhanced input): This study investigated
whether typographical enhancement (e.g., bolding, underlining) of target forms in
reading materials would draw learner attention and improve acquisition of possessive
determiners. French-speaking learners read texts with many instances of possessives
that were visually highlighted, and their performance was compared to learners who
read the same texts without enhancement. Both groups improved similarly, implying
that simple typographic enhancement alone was not sufficient to produce robust
learning; learners benefited more when enhancement was combined with explicit
rules or collaborative problem-solving.
e. Study 21: Processing instruction. VanPatten (Processing instruction): This line of
research tested whether instruction that forces learners to process form–meaning
relations (processing instruction) helps them notice and acquire difficult grammatical
features better than traditional production practice. Adult learners received explicit
explanations plus comprehension-based tasks that required attention to the target
(e.g., object pronoun placement) so they could not rely on context alone, while a
comparison group practised production of the same forms. Those who received
processing instruction outperformed the production group on comprehension and also
did as well or better on production, showing that guided input processing can transfer
to productive ability.
f. Study 22: Incidental acquisition—comprehension versus production. Shintani &
Ellis (Incidental acquisition — comprehension vs production): This study
investigated whether incidental learning of the English plural –s occurs more from
comprehension activities or from production tasks with young Japanese learners.
Three groups performed tasks that emphasized comprehension, production, or
unrelated activities, all involving target vocabulary over six weeks, and receptive and
productive knowledge of plural marking was measured afterward. Both
comprehension and production groups outperformed controls on receptive and
productive measures, with the youngest/least-exposed learners gaining more from
comprehension, indicating that both pathways support incidental acquisition but input
may be especially important early on.
Interpreting Research
Research on comprehension-based approaches to L2 acquisition shows that learners can make
considerable progress if they have sustained exposure to language they understand. The evidence also
suggests, however, that comprehension-based activities may best be seen as an excellent way to begin
learning and as a supplement to other kinds of learning for more advanced learners. Comprehension
of meaningful language is the foundation of language acquisition. Active listening and reading for
meaning are valuable components of classroom teachers’ pedagogical practices. Nevertheless,
considerable research and experience challenge the hypothesis that comprehensible input is enough.
3. Let’s talk
Advocates of the ‘Let’s talk’ proposal emphasize the importance of access to both comprehensible
input and conversational interactions with teachers and other students. They argue that when learners
are given the opportunity to engage in interaction, they are compelled to negotiate for meaning, that
is, to express and clarify their intentions, thoughts, opinions, etc., in a way that permits them to arrive
at mutual understanding. This is especially true when the learners are working together to accomplish
a particular goal, for example, in task-based language teaching (TBLT). According to the interaction
hypothesis, negotiation leads learners to acquire the language forms—the words and the grammatical
structures—that carry the meaning they are attending to.
a. Study 23: The dynamics of pair work. Storch (The dynamics of pair work): This
longitudinal classroom study examined how different interaction patterns in pair work
(collaborative, dominant–dominant, dominant–passive, expert–novice) affected
learning events and retention during tasks. Ten pairs of adult ESL learners completed
multiple tasks across a semester; the researcher identified moments of language
learning during interaction and then checked whether those items were retained in
later tasks. Pairs whose interaction was collaborative or expert–novice retained more
of the language they worked on, whereas dominant–dominant or dominant–passive
pairs retained the least, showing that the quality of interaction matters for learning.
b. Study 24: Interaction and L2 development. Mackey (Interaction and L2
development): This experimental study tested whether negotiated interaction with
native speakers promotes grammatical development over listening or scripted tasks.
Learners were assigned to groups that either interacted with native speakers
(Interactor), observed such interactions, completed scripted tasks that avoided
negotiation, or served as controls; their development of question formation was
tracked. Interactors who negotiated meaning showed significantly greater and more
sustained progress in question formation than observers, scripted, or control groups,
supporting the interaction hypothesis that negotiation facilitates L2 development.
c. Study 25: Learner–learner interaction in a Thai classroom. McDonough (Learner–
learner interaction in a Thai classroom): This classroom study investigated how pair
and small-group activities that prompted discussion of environmental problems
affected learners’ use of conditional clauses and whether features like negative
feedback and modified output occurred. Thai EFL students were audio-recorded
during discussions and tested on conditional clause accuracy before, immediately
after, and after a delay. Learners who produced more negative feedback and modified
output during interaction significantly improved in the accuracy of conditional
clauses, while those who did not use these interactional features made little progress;
notably, learners often did not perceive group work as useful even when it helped
their learning.
4. Get two for one
One of the fastest growing approaches to L2 teaching around the world is content-based language
teaching (CBLT), in which students acquire a second or foreign language as they are taught subject
matter in that language. The expectation of this approach is that students can get ‘two for one’,
learning the subject matter content and the language at the same time.
In immersion and Content and Language Integrated Learning (CLIL) programmes, students choose to
receive content-based instruction in a second language. These programmes are usually set in schools
where instruction is offered in both the L2 and the students’ L1, which is also the majority language
of the community. In these settings, the L2 classroom may be the only place where students use the
L2.
Research findings
In many contexts for CBLT, it has been assumed that students could develop L2 proficiency, as well
as both academic knowledge and skills, simply through the experience of being taught academic
content in their L2. Indeed, it is this expectation that inspires the title of this section ‘Get two for one’.
In recent years, researchers and educators have critically examined this expectation. They have found
that many types of CBLT are effective and allow students to achieve success in learning both L2 and
academic content.
They have also found that the most successful programmes are those that (1) allow students to
continue to develop their L1 knowledge and skill (including literacy) as they learn the L2 (Lindholm-
Leary & Genesee, 2014) and (2) provide students with guidance in learning the L2 rather than
assuming that they will be able to acquire the new language simply by focusing on academic content
in that language (Tedick & Lyster, 2020).
a. Study 26: French immersion programmes in Canada. This set of longitudinal
studies investigated the linguistic and academic outcomes of students educated
through French immersion, where school subjects were taught through the L2.
Learners were followed over several years and compared with students educated in
the majority language on measures of fluency, comprehension, grammatical accuracy,
and academic achievement. The results consistently showed that immersion students
achieved high levels of fluency, listening comprehension, and communicative
confidence, and they performed as well as their peers academically. However, they
continued to show persistent grammatical weaknesses, especially in verb morphology
and agreement. The study demonstrated that content-based instruction strongly
promotes fluency but does not guarantee full grammatical accuracy without explicit
attention to form.
b. Study 27: Late immersion under stress in Hong Kong. This study examined the
effects of implementing late immersion programmes in a sociolinguistically
demanding context, where students were required to learn academic content through
English under high academic pressure. Secondary school students in Hong Kong
followed content subjects through English, which was not their dominant language,
and their language development and academic performance were closely monitored.
The results showed that although students improved in reading and academic
vocabulary, many struggled to express complex ideas orally and experienced high
cognitive and affective stress. The study concluded that late immersion can yield
linguistic benefits in academic language, but it also places heavy demands on learners
and requires strong pedagogical and institutional support.
c. Study 28: The development of specific language features by CLIL students. This
study investigated whether students in CLIL (Content and Language Integrated
Learning) programmes develop specific grammatical features in the same way as
students in traditional EFL classrooms. CLIL learners were compared with non-CLIL
learners on the acquisition of particular morphosyntactic features over time. The
results showed that CLIL students generally developed greater fluency and receptive
skills, but certain grammatical features developed slowly and remained inaccurate in
both groups. This study demonstrated that increased exposure through content
instruction does not automatically lead to full mastery of all grammatical forms and
that some linguistic features require focused instruction.
d. Study 29: Inuit children in content-based programmes. This study examined the
linguistic and cognitive consequences of educating Inuit children through a second
language rather than their home language. Inuit learners received schooling through
English, while their home language was Inuktitut, and researchers analysed their L1
and L2 development as well as their academic performance. The results showed that
the children became more proficient in English, but their first language began to
weaken, and some students did not reach full academic proficiency in either
language. The study concluded that exclusive content-based instruction in the L2 can
endanger the development of the first language and negatively affect overall cognitive
and academic growth when the L1 is not adequately supported.
e. Study 30: Dual language or two-way immersion. This study investigated the
outcomes of dual-language (two-way immersion) programmes in which minority-
language and majority-language students were educated together using both
languages as media of instruction. Students were taught academic content through
both languages over several years, and their bilingual proficiency as well as academic
achievement were assessed. The results showed that both minority and majority
students developed high levels of bilingualism and biliteracy while maintaining
strong academic performance. Minority students, in particular, achieved better long-
term educational outcomes than in one-way immersion programmes. The study
demonstrated that two-way immersion is an effective model for promoting balanced
bilingualism and academic success while supporting both languages.
5. Teach what is teachable
a. Study 31: Ready to learn
b. Study 32: Readies, unreadies, and recasts
c. Study 33: Developmental stage and L1 influence
d. Study 34: Teaching grammatical patterns in predicted and reversed orders
e. Study 35: Developmental readiness and task-based teaching
6. Get it right in the end
a. Study 36: Form-focus experiments in intensive ESL
b. Study 37: Focusing on gender in French immersion
c. Study 38: Focusing on sociolinguistic forms in French immersion
d. Study 39: Focusing on language and content in mainstream social studies classes
e. Study 40: Form-focused instruction, corrective feedback, and pronunciation
development
f. Study 41: Focus on form through collaborative dialogue
g. Study 42: Focus on form in task-based instruction
h. Study 43: The timing of form-focused instruction
i. Study 44: The timing of corrective feedback—immediate or delayed?
.
Study 27 — Lyster & Ranta (Types of corrective feedback in immersion classrooms)
This study investigated which types of oral corrective feedback occur in immersion classrooms and
which are most likely to lead to learner uptake. A large corpus of classroom interaction from French
immersion classes was analyzed to identify feedback types such as recasts, elicitation, clarification
requests, and explicit correction, and to observe how learners responded. Recasts were by far the most
frequent type of feedback, but they led to the least learner uptake, while prompts such as elicitation
and clarification requests generated more self-correction. The study showed that feedback which
pushes learners to modify their own output is more effective for learning than implicit reformulations.
Study 28 — Doughty & Varela (Focus on form in content-based instruction)
This study explored whether brief form-focused feedback embedded in meaning-focused instruction
could improve accuracy without interrupting communication. Middle-school students in a science
immersion class received corrective feedback on past tense forms during content lessons through
recasts and brief prompts. Over time, the experimental group showed significantly greater
improvement in the correct use of past tense than a comparison group without feedback. The results
demonstrated that focus on form can successfully be integrated into content instruction and lead to
durable grammatical improvement.
Study 29 — Ellis, Loewen & Erlam (Implicit vs. explicit feedback)
This study compared the effects of implicit feedback (recasts) and explicit feedback (metalinguistic
explanation and prompts) on the acquisition of a grammatical structure. Adult ESL learners completed
communicative tasks and received either implicit or explicit correction on targeted errors. The explicit
feedback group achieved higher immediate and delayed gains than the implicit group, especially on
tasks requiring rule application. The findings suggest that while both feedback types are beneficial,
explicit feedback is more effective for durable grammatical learning.
Study 30 — Truscott vs. Ferris (Written corrective feedback debate)
This line of research addressed whether correcting learners’ written errors actually improves accuracy.
Truscott argued, based on multiple studies, that grammar correction in writing is ineffective or even
harmful, whereas Ferris reanalyzed the evidence and conducted classroom-based studies showing
improvement from focused written feedback. Follow-up studies found that students who received
consistent and focused written corrective feedback improved in grammatical accuracy over time more
than students who received none. The debate ultimately showed that written corrective feedback can
be effective when it is systematic and targeted rather than unfocused.
Study 31 — Swain & Lapkin (Pushed output in immersion)
This study examined whether producing language and being “pushed” to be precise promotes
grammatical development in immersion learners. Learners completed collaborative tasks that required
them to discuss language form while producing output, and their language-related episodes were
analyzed. The results showed that when learners were forced to clarify and reformulate their output,
they noticed gaps in their interlanguage and made progress on problematic structures. This study
provided strong evidence that output, not only input, plays a critical role in L2 development.
Study 32 — Izumi (Output vs. input for noticing)
This experimental study tested whether producing language helps learners notice grammatical gaps
more effectively than comprehension alone. Adult learners were assigned to input-only, output-only,
and combined input–output groups targeting relative clauses. Learners who produced output showed
greater noticing of form and larger gains than those who only received input, especially in tasks
requiring controlled production. The study supported the claim that output facilitates noticing and
restructuring of interlanguage.
Study 33 — Long (The Interaction Hypothesis in classroom settings)
This study investigated whether interactionally modified input leads to greater grammatical
development than pre-modified input. Learners completed problem-solving tasks that required
negotiation of meaning, while a comparison group received simplified input without interaction.
Learners who negotiated meaning showed greater development in morphosyntax than those who
passively received simplified input. The results confirmed that interaction itself — not just simplified
input — plays a crucial role in acquisition.
Study 34 — Mackey, Gass & McDonough (Feedback and development over time)
This longitudinal study examined whether learners who received interactional feedback showed long-
term grammatical development. Learners participated in communicative tasks over several weeks and
received different amounts of feedback and opportunities for modified output. Those who engaged
frequently in feedback episodes showed significantly stronger development on question formation
over time. The study confirmed that the benefits of interaction and feedback are not only immediate
but also durable.
Study 35 — Spada & Lightbown (Form-focused instruction in communicative classrooms)
This study compared classrooms with strong communicative orientation but different amounts of
form-focused instruction. Some teachers systematically integrated grammar explanations and
corrective feedback into communicative lessons, while others avoided form-focused work. Students in
the integrated classrooms achieved significantly higher grammatical accuracy than those in purely
communicative classrooms, without losing fluency. The results showed that communicative teaching
is most effective when supported by systematic attention to form.
Study 36 — Harley (Grammatical gender in immersion)
This study examined whether learners in French immersion acquire grammatical gender naturally
through input alone. Immersion learners were tested on gender assignment and agreement after years
of exposure. Despite high fluency, students continued to make persistent gender errors, even at
advanced stages. The results showed that some grammatical features are resistant to acquisition
without explicit instruction or focused feedback.
Study 37 — Spada & Tomita (Meta-analysis of form-focused instruction)
This large meta-analysis examined results from numerous classroom studies to determine the overall
effectiveness of form-focused instruction. The researchers compared isolated grammar teaching and
integrated form-focused instruction across many learning contexts. Both types of instruction produced
positive effects on accuracy, but integrated form-focused instruction embedded in communication was
particularly effective for durable learning. The study confirmed quantitatively that attention to form
significantly enhances L2 development.
Perfect — here are the final exam-ready summaries of Studies 38–44, again answering What?
How? Results? clearly and concisely in connected English. With this, you now have the complete set
of 44 case studies.
Study 38 — Lyster (Counterbalanced instruction in immersion)
This study investigated whether alternating between meaning-focused instruction and form-focused
instruction (counterbalanced instruction) would improve the acquisition of grammatical morphology
in immersion learners. Learners received periods of content-based instruction alternated with periods
of explicit form-focused teaching on target structures such as verb morphology. Results showed that
students in the counterbalanced programmes achieved significantly higher grammatical accuracy than
those in purely immersion settings, without sacrificing fluency. The study demonstrated that
systematic alternation of meaning and form is more effective than exclusive reliance on content-based
input.
** Study 39 — Norris & Ortega (Meta-analysis of instruction)**
This large-scale meta-analysis examined the overall effectiveness of different types of instructional
treatments across many L2 classroom studies. The researchers compared explicit vs. implicit
instruction, isolated vs. integrated instruction, and short- vs. long-term effects. The results showed
that explicit instruction produced larger and more durable effects than implicit instruction, and that
instruction in general was highly beneficial compared to no instruction. The study confirmed that
teaching greatly facilitates acquisition, especially when learners’ attention is clearly drawn to form.
Study 40 — DeKeyser (Practice and skill acquisition)
This study examined whether language learning follows general principles of skill acquisition,
particularly the role of practice in the automatisation of grammatical knowledge. Adult learners
received rule explanations followed by extensive practice under controlled and communicative
conditions. Results showed that intensive practice led to faster and more accurate performance,
especially for rule-governed features, supporting the idea that declarative knowledge can become
procedural through practice. The study highlighted the importance of repetition and meaningful use
for fluency development.
Study 41 — Han (Fossilization and persistent errors)
This study investigated why some grammatical errors persist in advanced learners despite years of
exposure and instruction. Learners’ interlanguage systems were analysed longitudinally to see which
errors stabilized over time. The results showed that some forms become fossilized due to early
incorrect representations, lack of negative feedback, and communicative success without accuracy.
The study suggested that focused instruction and feedback are necessary to destabilize fossilized
forms.
Study 42 — Mackey & Philp (Noticing, feedback, and developmental readiness)
This study explored whether feedback is more effective when learners are developmentally ready to
acquire a structure. Learners engaged in communicative tasks and received recasts on question
formation, and their progress was compared across developmental stages. Results showed that
learners who were developmentally ready benefited most from feedback, while those at earlier stages
improved little. The study confirmed that feedback interacts with learner readiness and cannot
override natural developmental sequences.
Study 43 — Ellis (Explicit knowledge and consciousness)
This study examined the role of explicit knowledge in second language development and whether it
contributes to spontaneous language use. Learners’ explicit grammar knowledge was measured and
compared with their performance in communicative tasks. The results showed that explicit knowledge
supports monitoring and editing but does not automatically become implicit knowledge without
meaningful practice and communicative use. The study reinforced the distinction between knowing
rules and being able to use them fluently.
Study 44 — Lightbown & Spada (Form-focused instruction in communicative classrooms)
This concluding classroom study synthesized evidence from a wide range of communicative
programmes to test whether systematic form-focused instruction improves accuracy without reducing
fluency. Classrooms that integrated regular corrective feedback, brief explanations, and focused
practice into communicative lessons were compared with those that avoided grammar instruction.
Learners in the integrated classrooms achieved higher levels of grammatical accuracy while
maintaining strong communicative skills. The study provided final confirmation that balanced
instruction combining meaning and form yields the strongest overall learning outcomes.