Focus on Form (FonF) is a concept introduced by Michael Long (1991) to describe a particular way of attending to language form during meaning-focused communication. Long's contribution was not just terminological: it drew a principled distinction between three fundamentally different orientations to grammar in language teaching, each with different theoretical assumptions and different empirical support.
No attention to linguistic form at all. Learners attend only to content and communication. This is the position of Krashen's Natural Approach and pure immersion programs. The assumption: acquisition happens through comprehensible input alone, and explicit attention to form is unnecessary or even harmful.
Attention to form arises incidentally during communication that is primarily meaning-focused. The learner's main orientation is to meaning, and form is attended to briefly when a communicative problem triggers it. Long's original definition requires two conditions: (1) the activity is fundamentally meaning-focused, and (2) attention to form is reactive: triggered by a comprehension or production difficulty, not pre-planned.
Grammar here is a tool in service of meaning. The primary mechanism is Corrective Feedback: recasts, prompts, and explicit correction delivered in response to errors during communicative activity.
Language is treated as an object of study. Forms are pre-selected by the teacher or syllabus and taught in a planned sequence. The primary orientation is to form, not meaning. This is the world of grammar syllabuses, PPP, grammar-translation, and structural drills. A Synthetic Syllabus organises instruction around accumulated language items.
Long's 1991 conception was strictly reactive: attention to form arises only after a communicative breakdown or error occurs. Doughty and Williams (1998) expanded the concept to include proactive focus on form, where the teacher plans in advance to draw attention to a specific feature during a meaning-focused activity. This distinction matters for lesson planning:
Both are focus on form (not formS) because the primary orientation remains meaning. The difference is whether the teacher anticipates the form or responds to it.
Evidence supporting focus on form (e.g., corrective feedback during tasks improves accuracy) does not automatically support focus on forms (e.g., PPP teaches grammar effectively). They operate through fundamentally different mechanisms:
| Focus on Form | Focus on FormS | |
|---|---|---|
| Primary focus | Meaning | Form |
| Timing | Reactive or proactive, within communication | Pre-planned, before communication |
| Selection | Based on learner need or task demands | Pre-selected by syllabus |
| Syllabus type | analytic syllabus | Synthetic Syllabus |
| Methods | TBLT, content-based instruction | PPP, grammar-translation |
| Theoretical basis | Interaction Hypothesis, Noticing Hypothesis | Structural linguistics, skill-learning theory |
Focus on form works best when teachers develop sensitivity to learner errors during communicative tasks and respond with well-timed, brief interventions, such as a recast here or a clarification request there, that redirect attention to form without derailing communication. The skill is knowing when to intervene and when to let communication flow.