Focus on FormS

Focus on FormS (FonFs) is one pole of Michael Long's (1991) three-way distinction between orientations to grammar in language teaching. It refers to the deliberate, pre-planned teaching of discrete linguistic forms as the primary organising principle of instruction. The capitalised "S" is not a typo; it marks the plural: the syllabus is built around accumulated language forms, taught one at a time in a planned sequence.

Long's Three-Way Distinction

Long (1991) argued that the field had been trapped in a false binary: teach grammar or don't. He proposed three fundamentally different orientations:

Orientation	Primary focus	Attention to form	Example approach
Focus on FormS (FonFs)	Language as object	Pre-selected, explicit, systematic	PPP, grammar-translation, structural drills
Focus on Form (FonF)	Meaning, with reactive attention to form	Incidental, triggered by need	Recasts during communicative tasks, TBLT
Focus on Meaning (FonM)	Communication only	None or minimal	Natural Approach, pure immersion

The distinction is not merely terminological. Each orientation rests on different assumptions about how languages are learnt and leads to different classroom practices.

Characteristics of Focus on FormS

• Pre-selection: The teacher or syllabus designer decides in advance which forms will be taught and in what order. The learner's communicative needs do not drive the sequence.
• Isolation: Forms are extracted from communicative context and presented as discrete items: a grammar rule, a structure, a function.
• Synthetic syllabus: The learner is expected to synthesise the accumulated parts into communicative ability. The syllabus is a synthetic one: structural, functional-notional, or lexical.
• Explicit instruction: Typically involves presentation of rules, controlled practice, and production: the classic PPP cycle.
• Primary orientation to form: Meaning serves form, not the other way round. Practice sentences exist to demonstrate the structure, not to communicate genuine messages.

Theoretical Assumptions

FonFs assumes that:

1. Language can be broken into discrete, teachable units.
2. These units can be sequenced from simple to complex.
3. Learners acquire what is taught in the order it is taught.
4. Explicit knowledge converts to implicit knowledge through practice.

Long and others in the interactionist tradition challenged all four assumptions. Research on developmental sequences shows that learners do not necessarily acquire forms in the order they are presented. The Teachability Hypothesis (Pienemann, 1985) suggests that instruction can only be effective when learners are developmentally ready.

The Case Against (and For) FonFs

Against: Long (1991, 2015) argued that FonFs is inefficient because it ignores learner readiness, lacks the communicative context needed for acquisition, and produces knowledge that may not transfer to spontaneous use. Pure FonFs yields learners who know about the language but cannot use it fluently.

For: FonFs remains the dominant approach worldwide. Proponents argue that structured input, explicit instruction, and practice do contribute to acquisition, particularly for simple, rule-based features. Consciousness-Raising tasks, which draw attention to form without demanding production, represent a more cognitively oriented version of form-focused teaching. DeKeyser's (1998) skill acquisition theory provides a theoretical basis for the practice-makes-perfect assumption.

Relationship to Other Concepts

• Form-Focused Instruction is the broader umbrella: it includes both FonFs and FonF.
• Focus on Form is the reactive counterpart: attention to form arises during meaning-focused activity.
• PPP (Presentation–Practice–Production) is the most common classroom realisation of FonFs.
• Consciousness-Raising blurs the line: it draws explicit attention to form but through discovery and analysis rather than drill.
• TBLT is built on FonF principles and explicitly rejects FonFs as the organising principle of a syllabus, though it may incorporate form-focused episodes within a task cycle.