INTRODUCTION

The title of this paper raises the question as to whether a choice needs to be made between two alternatives - isolated or integrated attention to form. I will argue that this is not the case but firstly I would like to clarify what I mean by attention to form and isolated and integrated. By attention I mean any effort made by the teacher or the goals/focus of pedagogical materials to direct the learners' attention to language forms either through direct or indirect instruction or corrective feedback. By form I'm referring to all the different elements of language - at the word level (vocabulary), sentence level (grammar), or inter-sentential level (discourse). I am also referring to the functions and purposes of language use (e.g. social, pragmatic) as well as the intercultural aspect of language, which is a central component of the Languages Curriculum in Australia. Isolated and Integrated refer to the timing of attention to form in the instructional sequence, that is, whether it is provided simultaneously with or separated from communicative practice. This is discussed in more detail below.

Throughout the history of language teaching, attention to form has been accomplished in different ways. Table 1 presents three approaches that span the history of languages pedagogy: 1) Traditional structure-based teaching; 2) Communicative Language Teaching; and 3) 21st century Communicative Language Teaching. In the early days of languages pedagogy there was an exclusive focus on discrete-point grammar instruction and metalinguistic rules, which is characteristic of the grammar translation (GT) approach. GT dominated the field of languages teaching for many decades beginning in the 1500s with the teaching of Latin, rising to prominence in the 18th and 19th centuries and continuing in many places in the world today. In the 1960s the Audiolingual Method (ALM) was introduced and quickly became popular. Often referred to as the "scientific approach" to additional language teaching because of its roots in behaviourist psychology and structural linguistics (Lado, 1964), the ALM focused on memorisation and pattern practice. Although GT and ALM differed in significant ways, the common element was their exclusive focus on language.

Table 1: Approaches to focusing on form in additional language pedagogy

Traditional             Communicative language      21st century CLT
structure-based         teaching (CLT.1,2...)       Balance, Scope &
teaching                                            Depth

Focus on discrete       Focus on communication;     Attention to form,
-point grammar          little attention to         communication,
instruction             grammar                     content, social &
(Grammar Translation)                               cultural aspects
Focus on memorization   Focus on comprehensible     Focus on authentic
and pattern             input and communicative     texts, contexts,
practice (Audiolingual  interaction (e.g. strong    language use
Method)                 version of CLT; Task-based
                        language teaching (TBLT)
Emphasis on accuracy    Emphasis on fluency         Emphasis on accuracy
Linguistic competence   Communicative competence    & fluency Linguistic
                                                    competence
                                                    Communicative
                                                    competence
                                                    Intercultural
                                                    competence....

In the early 1980s languages pedagogy began to move away from an exclusive focus on language to an emphasis on communication. Communicative Language Teaching (CLT) is the label that was used to characterise the approach to languages instruction that became popular at this time (for descriptions of the history of language teaching methods, see Larsen-Freeman & Anderson, 2011; Howatt & Widdowson, 2004). As most of you know, there are different versions of CLT. One of them, referred to as the strong version (Johnson, 1982) represented a pendulum swing from an exclusive focus on language forms characteristic of GT and ALM to an exclusive focus on meaning/communication. This version of CLT was connected to two theoretical constructs that gained prominence in the field of second language acquisition (SLA) in the late 70s and early 80s: the comprehensible input hypothesis (Krashen, 1984) and the interaction hypothesis (Long, 1981). Both emphasised the necessity for a focus on meaning-based input and interaction and advocated little (or no) attention to form. Both were highly influential in the field of languages pedagogy and contributed to the development of the CLT movement as well as to other instructional approaches based on opportunities for more authentic learning opportunities in meaning-based learner/learner interaction such as Taskbased language teaching (TBLT) (Ellis, 2003; Nunan, 2004; Long, 2015). Other versions of CLT acknowledged the need for more of a balance between meaning-based instruction and attention to language forms (Spada, 2007) and are compatible with Form-focused instruction discussed below. Today there is also greater scope with respect to the domains of language within CLT, including, for example, more attention to social and cultural aspects. There is also greater concern for depth and the need for cognitively engaging and challenging content which is particularly relevant to content-based language teaching (Lightbown, 2014) but also to teaching language as a subject (Kramsch, 2014).

Ever since the introduction of communicatively-oriented approaches to languages pedagogy, a question that has motivated most of my research is: How best to focus on language within CLT? There are different ways in which this question has been investigated in languages education research as well as implemented in additional languages classrooms. I am going to talk about two of them in my presentation today: Form-Focused Instruction (FFI) and Functional Grammar (FG). Even though they are situated within different theoretical frameworks and perspectives on language, learning, and use, both are concerned with how best to focus on language and meaning/content in languages classrooms. FFI and FG have been the focus of research in languages programs in which language is taught as subject matter as well as programs in which language and curricular content are taught simultaneously (e.g. immersion and Content and Language-Integrated Learning (CLIL). Since the focus of my classroom research has been conceptualised and implemented within the framework of FFI, I will be speaking most about that in my presentation today. I will also discuss some of the additional language research and practice that has been done within a Functional Grammar (FG) approach, but I direct your attention to the references provided for a more detailed examination of this work.

FORM-FOCUSED INSTRUCTION: EXPLICIT AND IMPLICIT

FFI takes a cognitive perspective on language learning and teaching and is situated within instructed SLA research. In the late 1990s I defined FFI as "Any effort to draw learners' attention to form within communicative and meaning-based contexts" (Spada, 1997, p.73). Initially FFI research focused on the development of the additional language grammar but it has expanded considerably to include the effects of FFI on the learning of vocabulary (Schmitt, 2008), pragmatics (Eun Hee & Tadayoshi, 2006) and pronunciation (Lee, Jang & Plonsky, 2015). Two questions that are relevant to FFI and have received quite a bit of attention in the instructed SLA literature are: 1) Are there better times to provide attention to form?, and 2) Are there better ways to draw learners' attention to form? The first question relates to the distinction between integrated and isolated in the title of this talk. The second question relates to explicit and implicit instruction. Because these pairs of terms are sometimes confused it is important to clarify the difference between them.

Explicit attention to form can be provided in different ways. It can come in the form of metalinguistic information (e.g. grammar rules), or explicit guidance and direction about how the target language works without metalanguage provided by a teacher or textbook. It can also occur via explicit practice that is learner generated. Examples of these different ways in which explicit instruction is provided are below.

Example 1: Metalingusitic information (Italian lesson on the conjugation of the future tense)

1. The future tense (third person) of regular verbs is formed by adding the ending a to the infinitive minus the final e. The future endings of verbs in are ere and ire are the same.

2. The spoken stress on 3rd person singular is on the final accented vowel of the ending (This example and Example 4 below are from Benati (2004)).

                  Arrivare     Prendere   Partire
                  (to arrive)  (to take)  (to leave)

lui/lei (he/she)  Arrivera     Prendera   Partira

Example 3: Explicit practice (learner generated)

An excerpt of an interaction between two learners engaged in a dictogloss task. This task was originally developed by an Australian educator, Ruth Wajnryb (1990). In a dictagloss, a short, dense text is read to learners at normal speed; while it is being read, students jot down words and phrases; learners then work together in pairs to reconstruct the text and are asked to focus on both accurate language and content. The learners in this example were students in a French immersion program in Canada. The text of the dictogloss that they were asked to read and reconstruct was delivered in French (Kowal & Swain, 2994). It appears in Appendix 1, along with an English translation

Kermit: J'ai fait un rave effrayant la nuit derniere. (I had a frightening dream last night.)

Julia: La nuit derniere. (Last night.)

Kermit: Puis, je sais le debut de la seconde phrase. (And, I know the beginning of the second sentence.)

Julia: Attend! Attend! it y a quelque chose de mal avec cette phrase. Est-ce que c'est une rave ou un rave?

(Wait! wait! Wait! there is something wrong with this sentence. Is dream masculine or feminine (testing both ways to see which sounds better)

Let us turn our attention now to implicit attention to form, which does not contain any overt signals to form and is contextualised and embedded within a meaningful context. One way to do this is via exposure to exemplars in the input as seen in Example 4. In this task learners are asked to indicate whether they agree or disagree with a list of predictions thought to happen in the next ten years and to compare their responses with a partner. The target feature is the future tense in Italian (see Benati, 2004 for the complete exercise and further examples).

Example 4: Implicit FFI (High frequency input)

                                  Sono d'accordo  Non sono d'accordo
                                      (Agree)        (Disagree)

1. Una donna diventera president
degli USA. (A woman will become
president of the United States)
2. Si trovera it vaccino per
('AIDS. (An AIDS vaccine will
be discovered)
3. Luomo arrivera sul pianeta
Marte. (Man will land on Mars)

In the next example of implicit FFI, students of Spanish are asked to read the passage Caperucita roja (Little Red Riding Hood) and then to respond to comprehension questions about it). The implicit grammar focus in this case (sse highlighting below) is the imperfect tense (red) and preterit (green) in Spanish. The focus on language in this example is slightly more explicit than what we saw in Example 4 where the target forms are not highlighted. (see Appendix 1 for the English translation of this excerpt and Jourdenais et al., 1995 for the complete text and description of the study)

Example 5: Implicit FFI (High frequency input)

Habia una vex una chica que vivia en el bosque. Caperucita roja, ese era su nombre porque siempre Ilevaba una capa roja, visitaba a su abuela los fines de semana. Un die, la madre le dijo: "Caperucita, anda y visita a la abuela, que este enferma, y Ilevale esta canasta de comida." En el camino, Caperucita se encontro con el lobo y le dijo: "Hola chica, a donde vas?"

el bosque = woods    el lobo = wolf       elcazador = hunter
la canasta = basket  disparar = to shoot

EFFECTS OF EXPLICIT AND IMPLICIT INSTRUCTION ON ADDITIONAL LANGUAGE DEVELOPMENT

The question as to whether implicit or explicit language instruction is more beneficial for languages learning has been investigated in several research syntheses and meta-analyses (Goo et al., 2015; Norris & Ortega, 2000, Spada, 2011; Spada & Tomita, 2010). The results indicate that explicit instruction is more effective than implicit instruction. However, for the most part, the studies reviewed tracked learners' progress using grammar tests, which are measures of explicit knowledge. Thus, it is not surprising that explicit instruction was found to be more effective when explicit knowledge was measured. More research is needed to look at the effects of explicit and implicit teaching on learners' abilities to use language communicatively and fluently before we can be confident of the advantages of explicit instruction (Doughty, 2003). It may be the case that different types of instruction lead to different types of knowledge. Let us now turn our attention to the question of whether there may be better times in the instructional sequence to draw learners' attention to form, that is, via integrated or isolated FFI.

FORM-FOCUSED INSTRUCTION: ISOLATED AND INTEGRATED

The distinction that Patsy Lightbown and I made between integrated and isolated FFI (Spada & Lightbown, 2008) is as follows. Integrated FFI refers to attention to form that is embedded in communicative practice; isolated FFI refers to attention to form that is separated from communicative practice. It is important to emphasise that both types of FFI include attention to form and meaning. Thus, isolated FFI is not the same as traditional structure-based approaches to languages instruction in which the focus was on language only. Instead, isolated FFI refers to instruction in which attention to form is delivered separately from communicative practice but both are included. Integrated FFI refers to instruction in which attention to form and language occurs simultaneously; this was illustrated in the dictogloss activity in Example 3 above. Importantly, attention to form within Isolated or Integrated FFI can be explicit or implicit. The distinction between these two FFI approaches is not how attention to form is provided but when it is provided in the instructional sequence.

While there have lively debates about the separation and integration of language form in the pedagogical literature, there has been little research to explore their effects on additional language learning. Some of the pedagogical arguments in support of Isolated FFI are that it is the 'natural way to teach' and it is part of traditional presentation/practice pedagogy. It has also been argued that humans are limited capacity processors and cannot pay attention to everything at once; focusing on both form and meaning is particularly difficult for low proficiency learners (Van Patten, 1990). Another argument is that if attention to form is provided separately from communicative practice it is more motivating because there is no interruption in communicative interaction (Raimes, 2002). On the other hand, arguments in support of Integrated FFI include the claim that it is more efficient. That is, when learners have the opportunity to communicate and receive feedback on form at the same time, students get 'two for one'. It has also been argued that Integrated FFI is more motivating than Isolated FFI because immediate help is available to learners precisely when it is needed (see Spada & Lightbown, 2008 for more discussion of the arguments in support of Isolated and Integrated FFI).

One of the first studies I carried out to investigate Isolated and Integrated FFI was a questionnaire study in which we asked teachers and learners about their opinions and preferences for each type of instruction (Spada et al., 2009). It was primarily a validation study to test whether the questionnaire items were measuring the constructs - Isolated and Integrated FFI. Table 2 presents a selection of some of the statements that are included in the teacher questionnaire. (To see the complete questionnaire for teachers and learners go to the IRIS Repository (Instruments for Research into Second Languages database) at: https://www.iris-database.org).

As you can see, four of the items were designed to measure preferences for Isolated FFI (2, 4, 6, 8) and four for Integrated FFI (1, 3, 5, 7). In a subsequent study we administered the questionnaire to approximately 100 teachers and 500 learners. This included teachers and learners of English as a second language in Canada and English as a foreign language in Brazil. The results revealed that both groups of teachers had a clear preference for integrated over isolated FFI but they also indicated that they valued Isolated FFI. Similarly, both groups of learners expressed a clear preference for integrated over isolated FFI and also indicated that they valued Isolated FFI (Valeo & Spada, 2016). Many teachers and learners wrote comments on the questionnaire to qualify their choices by pointing to factors such as "it depends on the instructional context, the learners' proficiency". Indeed some of them indicated that having to make a choice between the two types of FFI was difficult and went so far as to say it was not fair to ask them to make a choice!

The following are a number of statements      Strongly  Strongly  Not
about preferences for teaching grammar.       Disagree  Agree     Sure
Please read each statement carefully and
then indicate whether you agree or disagree
with it by circling only one number between
1 and 4 or check ([check]) "Not Sure"
(but only if necessary). Be sure to respond
to all statements.
                                              1   2     3   4

1. I prefer teaching grammar as part of
   meaning-based activities.
2. Students learn grammar more successfully
   if it is separated from context.
3. When students learn grammar in a
   meaning-based context, they will be able
   to successfully express their meaning.
4. I prefer teaching grammar separately from
   meaning-based activities.
5. The most effective way to teach a new
   structure is to present it within a
   meaning-based context.
6. Grammar should be taught separately from
   communication activities.
7. Separate treatment of grammar fails to
   develop language knowledge, which
   students can use outside the classroom.
8. I prefer lessons that teach grammar
   separately from communication.

We interpreted these results as pointing to the complementarity of both types of instruction and the acknowledgement that each contributes to teaching and learning in important ways. This led us to explore whether there might be different contributions of Integrated and Isolated FFI to additional languages learning in subsequent research. Additional motivation for this came from a theory in cognitive psychology referred to as Transfer Appropriate Processing (TAP) (Blaxton, 1989; Morris et al, 1977). TAP claims that when we learn something, for example, a new word, our memories record the word learned and also the cognitive and perceptual processes that were engaged while learning it. Subsequently, when we try to remember the word, we also recall aspects of the learning process. Therefore, the greater the similarity between how we learn something and our later efforts to retrieve that knowledge, the greater the chances are of success. When we extend TAP to languages learning, we might hypothesize that target language knowledge learned in isolated grammar activities will be more easily retrieved in isolated grammar activities and that target language knowledge learned in communicative interaction will be more easily retrieved in communicative interaction (Lightbown, 2008). To be sure this hypothesis is consistent with the observation of many teachers and researchers. Students who perform well on grammar tests and have learned their additional language in traditional structure-based ways are not necessarily fluent users of the test items in spontaneous speech and many fluent speakers whose language acquisition took place primarily outside the classroom perform poorly on tests requiring metalinguistic knowledge or the retrieval of individual language features that are isolated from a communicative context. We decided to explore the question as to whether Isolated and Integrated FFI might lead to different types of language knowledge in an experimental classroom study.

The study took place with adult learners of English in Canada with a wide range of first language backgrounds (Spada et al., 2014). They were studying English in a community-based program and were in four intact classrooms characterised as representing an intermediate level of proficiency. The students received instruction on a specific language feature (the passive voice) and this was delivered via Integrated and Isolated FFI. In two of the classes, learners participated in activities where attention to form was always embedded within communicative practice (i.e. Integrated FFI) and in the other two classes, there were separate activities for form and meaning-based practice (i.e. Isolated FFI). The instruction spanned 12 hours of class time delivered over three days. The same content (i.e. themes and topics) was covered in the instructional materials and the same amount of time was given to form and meaning- based practice in both instructional groups. The only difference was that learners in the Isolated FFI classes did their form-focused activities separately from their communication and meaning-based activities and learners in the Integrated FFI classes did their form-focused activities embedded within communicative practice. (See Spada et al., 2014 for more details about the instructional activities)

Two language tests were used to measure learners' knowledge of and ability to use the passive voice in English before and after the instruction. This included 1) an error correction task in which learners were asked to correct ungrammatical sentences, and 2) a picture-cued story telling oral production task in which learners were prompted to produce the target form in a communicative context. Based on TAP theory we predicted that learners in the Isolated FFI classes would do better on the error correction task and learners in the Integrated FFI classes would do better on the oral production task. The results revealed that learners in both groups improved over time and there were no differences between them on the two language measures.

These findings might lead to the conclusion that as long as learners receive a combination of form and meaning-based practice, differences in the timing of attention to form may be less important than the fact that both are included in the overall instructional approach. More research is needed to explore this question, however, because only a few studies have been done to investigate the effects of Isolated and Integrated FFI on languages learning and the findings are mixed (e.g. File & Adams, 2010; Elgon-Gunduz et al., 2012). It may also be the case that the benefits of a particular type of FFI depend on several factors many of which were raised by the teachers who completed our questionnaire. For example, Isolated FFI may be more effective when less salient language features are the target of instruction and are not easily heard or noticed in the input (e.g. plurals in French). Isolated FFI may also be more beneficial for low-level proficiency learners who are not able to make the form-meaning connections because they are having difficulty understanding the input. Isolated FFI may also be a better choice when all learners share the same first language background and are bound to make the same mistakes when learning the additional language - for example moving from a language without grammatical gender (English to Italian French or Spanish). On the other hand, Integrated FFI might be beneficial for complex language features with rules that are difficult to teach in an isolated manner (e.g. honorifics in Japanese). Integrated FFI might also work better with task-essential structures - ones that are highly likely to occur in communicative tasks (e.g. the use of the conditional tense in hypothetical situations) (See Spada & Lightbown, 2008 for more discussion).

FUNCTIONAL GRAMMAR

The second perspective on drawing learners' attention to language within meaning/content-based instruction is Functional Grammar (FG). FG takes a social view of language and learning and is based on systemic functional grammar conceptualised by Michael Halliday, one of Australia's, indeed one of the world's, renowned linguists. Systemic functional grammar focuses on the purposes to which language is used, on the functions of language within discourse and makes explicit links between social context, meaning, words, grammar and text (Halliday, 1978, 1994). It begins with a focus on meaning and helps additional language learners understand the forms that work together to make that meaning. FG has been the focus of recent investigations with immigrant children mainstreamed into English-medium schools in the United States (e.g. de Oliveira & Schleppegrell, 2015) and in English-medium instruction in universities throughout the world (Coffin & Donohue, 2014). The concepts and practices of FG are particularly relevant to those teaching in CLIL programs, which are growing in Australia and elsewhere. What FG does in practice is to support academic development by drawing students' attention to the ways language is used in school/curricular subjects. This is important because what we have learned from many years of research in content-based language teaching programs is that language learning does not "take care of itself", that quality (not just quantity) of classroom input and interaction is important for language learning and the effective integration of language and content is key to learning both (Lightbown, 2014). Each must be given equal attention and FG is intended to do this within the context of academic discourse. Below are a few examples of how language and content have been addressed within a FG approach. Even though they focus on school-age immigrant children who are learning English and other subjects simultaneously, they are relevant to the teaching of any language within CLIL and immersion programs and also in teaching language as subject matter.

The first example comes from a middle school classroom in California where the students are working with a passage from their history textbook. The teacher is helping the students think about how history texts talk about agency (who is doing what to whom?) by analysing key sentences. As seen in the excerpt below the teacher helps the students identify "its citizens" as the agents of "financing Rome's huge armies and paying heavy taxes". The teacher asks students what "its" refers to and helps them recognize that the reference is to "Rome's citizens". This helps to focus their attention on how English uses pronouns.

To finance Rome's huge armies, its citizens had to pay heavy taxes. These taxes hurt the economy and drove many people into poverty.

The discussion continues along these lines, identifying "these taxes" as the same as "heavy taxes" and recognising that the agent of "hurt the economy and drove many people into poverty" is "taxes" (see Schleppegrell et al., 2008 for more details of this example and others). The researchers report that discussions like these help students to better understand and think critically about what they were learning about history and at the same time they were also learning more about how English works.

Another challenge facing students when learning about how to use appropriate academic language is the use of conjunctions. That is, learners of additional languages tend to draw on everyday conjunctions when more academic ones are needed. For example they use "and" multiple times rather than the contrastive and consequential conjunctions that would better express the meanings between the clauses as illustrated in the sentences below. The first "and" links two clauses that might better linked with "but then" or another contrastive meaning, and the second "and" could be more effectively replaced with a conjunction of consequence-"so the salary grows".

... they had the agriculture and they develop a new economy, and the salary grows for the people....

... they had the agriculture but then they develop a new economy so the salary grows for the people...

Research carried out with English learners in CLIL programs in Spain shows that when teachers raise students' awareness of these differences, they not only improve their production but also their comprehension of texts in which more academic conjunctions are used (Llinares and Whittaker, 2010).

In another study Spycher (2007) investigated the use of a different conjunction that was motivated by a student's question: "Maestra, que quiere decir 'although' en espanol?" ("Teacher, how do you say 'although' in Spanish?"). This is not an easy question to answer because what's important about conjunctions is how they function to make logical connections in text so giving a definition is not very helpful. The researcher who worked with the learner in this study reports how the process of deconstructing text and talking about grammar helped the student begin to adopt the academic features he will need to be a successful writer in his content classes. This can be seen when one compares the two drafts of the student's writing below:

First draft: The people of the others countries are helping. Although the help can't give all the people. It is almost impossible to help everyone.

Second draft: The world is helping now with food, money, clean water, and clothing. Although this help is necessary, it is impossible to help everybody.

ISOLATED AND INTEGRATED FFI IN RELATION TO FG AND THE AUSTRALIAN CURRICULUM: LANGUAGES

When thinking about FG in relation to Isolated and Integrated FFI, it seems that FG is intrinsically integrated because instruction always starts with meaning and the focus on form is contextualised and embedded within the discourse of content-based instruction. In programs where language is taught as a subject, however, opportunities for selecting either Isolated or Integrated FFI exist and depend on teachers and curriculum designers' decisions about when and how to draw learners' attention to language. This leads me to wonder how the constructs of Integrated and Isolated FFI might relate to the Australian Languages Curriculum. Figure 1 presents the two strands of the curriculum: 1) Communicating (using language), and 2) Understanding (analysing language and culture).

One critical feature of this curriculum that differs from what I have been talking about so far is the emphasis on culture and the interaction between language and culture. Indeed, the interrelationship of language, culture, and learning provides an important foundation for the Australian Curriculum: Languages. Liddicoat and his colleagues describe intercultural learning as a process of "developing with learners an understanding of their own language(s) and culture(s) in relation to an additional language and culture" (Liddicoat et al. 2003, p. 15). This contrasts with FFI in which the emphasis is on language form primarily at the sentential level and from FG with its emphasis on language functions and forms within discourse. Nonetheless, an intercultural approach to languages teaching and learning is more similar to FG because it is rooted within a social semiotic and sociocultural perspective on learning and is also influenced by studies in intercultural education and intercultural communication (Kramsch, 2011).

On the surface then, it would seem that intercultural instruction is more compatible with Integrated FFI precisely because it is embedded within cultural meanings and contexts. However, intercultural teaching is also about language forms and how they are used differently across languages. Therefore, it is also compatible with Isolated FFI because of its contrastive focus on specific language features that students need to know and use to express meaning across languages. This leads me to wonder whether there are particular aspects/features of intercultural teaching and learning that might more compatible with Isolated or Integrated FFI. When I took a look at some of the sample lesson plans for a wide range of languages within the Australian Department of Education document entitled: Intercultural Language Teaching and Learning in Practice it seemed to me that most of the intercultural instruction represented Isolated FFI but I only looked at a few examples and I expect that choices made about the separation or integration of an intercultural focus on form would be based on the factors that I referred to above (e.g. nature of the language features, proficiency level of learners, saliency of differences in forms). I will leave this question for languages educators working with the Australian Languages Curriculum to ponder.

CONCLUSION

In my presentation I have discussed two distinct approaches to focusing on language within communicative and content-based programs: Form-focused instruction and Functional grammar. I have reviewed some of the research that shows benefits for both a focus on language integrated with communicative instruction and practice as well a focus on language that is separate from it. Both serve important roles in the teaching and learning process. I have also tried to make the argument that CLT has evolved and expanded considerably since its introduction in the early 1980s. Indeed 21st century CLT reflects a greater balance, scope and depth; it includes not only attention to form, meaning, communication, and function but also to culture and content. Also the goals for teachers and learners within 21st century CTL are to achieve linguistic, communicative, functional and intercultural competence as well as a range of other competencies discussed in the applied linguistics literature such as symbolic competence (Kramsch, 2006), global, and performative competence (Lo Bianco, 2006; Canagarajah, 1989). Indeed the challenges for language teachers and learners in the 21st century are great and in my view make rocket science look easy in comparison. Nonetheless to live in a world where multiple languages and cultures are valued and respected and taught and learned is important, indeed crucial work - something that the languages educators in this audience do every day.

REFERENCES

Benati, A. (2004). The effects of structured input and explicit information on the acquisition of Italian future tense. In VanPatten (Ed.). Processing instruction: Theory, research, and commentary. Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.

Blaxton, T. A. (1989). Investigating dissociations among memory measures: Support for a transfer-appropriate processing framework. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 15, 657-668.

Canagarajah, S. (2012). Translingual practice: Global Englishes and cosmopolitan relations, Abingdon, UK: Taylor Francis Group.

Coffin, C. & Donohue, J. (2014). A language as social semiotic approach to teaching and learning in higher education. Language Learning 64, Supplement 1, 1-10.

de Oliveira. L. & Schleppegrell, M. (2015). Focus on grammar and meaning. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Doughty, C. (2003). Instructed SLA: Constraints, Compensation, and Enhancement. In

C. Doughty & M. Long (Eds.), The handbook of second language acquisition. Oxford: Blackwell.

Elgun-Gunduz, Z., Akcan, S., & Bayyurt, Y. (2012). Isolated form-focused instruction and integrated form-focused instruction in primary school classrooms in Turkey. Language, Culture and Curriculum, 25, 157-171.

Ellis, R. (2003). Task-based language teaching and learning. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Eun Hee, J. & Tadayoshi, K. Effects of instruction on interlanguage pragmatic development. In Norris & Ortega, (Eds.), Synthesizing research on language learning and teaching. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.

File, K.A., & Adams, R. (2010). Should vocabulary instruction be integrated or isolated? TESOL Quarterly, 44, 222-249.

Goo, J., Granena, G., Yilmaz, Y., & Novella, M. (2015). Implicit and explicit instruction in L2 learning : Norris & Ortega (2000) revisited and updated. In P. Rebuschat (Ed.), Implicit and explicit learning of languages. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.

Halliday, M.A.K. (1978). Language as social semiotic. The social interpretation of language and meaning. London: Edward Arnold.

Halliday, M.A.K. (1994). An introduction to functional grammar (2nd ed). London: Edward Arnold.

Howatt, A.P.R. & Widdowson, H.G. (2004). A history of English language teaching. (2nd edition). Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Johnson, K. (1982). Communicative syllabus design and methodology. Oxford: Pergamon Press.

Jourdenais, R., Ota, M., Stauffer, S., Boyson, B., & Doughty C. J. (1995). Does textual enhancement promote noticing? A think-aloud protocol analysis. In R. Schmidt (Ed.), Attention and awareness in foreign language learning. Honolulu : University of Hawai'i Press.

Kowal, M., & Swain, M. (1994). Using collaborative language production tasks to promote students' language awareness. Language Awareness, 3, 73-93.

Kramsch, C. (2014). Teaching foreign languages in an era of globalization: Introduction. Modern Language Journal, 98, 296-311.

Kramsch, C. (2011). The symbolic dimensions of the intercultural. Language Teaching, 44, 354-367.

Kramsch, C. (2006). From communicative competence to symbolic competence. The Modern Language Journal, 80, 244-266.

Krashen, S. (1984). The input hypothesis: Issues and implications. London: Longman.

Lee, J., Jang, J., & Plonsky, L. (2014). The effectiveness of second language pronunciation instruction: A meta-Analysis. Applied Linguistics, 36, 345-366.

Lado, R. (1964). Language teaching: A scientific approach. New York: McGraw-Hill.

Larsen-Freeman, D., & Anderson, M. (2011). Techniques and principles in language teaching, (3rd edition). Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Liddicoat, A., Papademetre, L., Scarino, A. & Kohler, M. 2003, Report on intercultural language learning. Department of Education, Science and Training, Canberra. Australia.

Lightbown, P. M. (2014). Focus on content-based language teaching. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Lightbown, P. M. (2008). Transfer appropriate processing as a model for classroom second language acquisition. In Z. Han (Ed.), Understanding second language process. Clevedon, UK: Multilingual Matters.

Llinares, A., & Whittaker, R. (2010). Writing and speaking in the history class: A comparative analysis of CLIL and first language contexts. In C. Dalton-Puffer, T. Nikula & U. Smit (Eds.), Language use and language learning in CLIL classrooms. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.

Lo Bianco, J. (2006). Educating for citizenship in a global community: World kids, world citizens and global education. In J. Campbell, N. Baikaloff, & C. Power (Eds.), Towards a global community: Educating for tomorrow's world. New York: Springer.

Long, M. (1981). Input, interaction and second language acquisition. In H. Winitz (Ed.), Native language and foreign language acquisition. Annals of the New York Academy of Sciences 379, 259-278.

Long, M. (2015). Second language acquisition and task-based language teaching. Malden, MA: Wiley-Blackwell.

Morris, D. D., Bransford, J. D., & Franks, J. J. (1977). Levels of processing versus transfer appropriate processing. Journal of Verbal Learning and Verbal Behavior, 16, 519-533.

Norris, J, & Ortega, L. (2000). Effectiveness of L2 instruction: A research synthesis and quantitative meta-analysis. Language Learning, 50. 417-528.

Nunan, D. (2004). Task-based language teaching. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.

de Oliveira, L. & Schleppegrell, M. J. (2015). Focus on grammar and meaning. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Raimes, A. (2002). Errors: Windows into the mind. In G. DeLuca, L. Fox, M. Johnson, & M. Kogen (Eds.). Dialogue on writing: Rethinking ESL, basic writing, and first-year composition. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.

Schleppegrell, M. J., Greer, S., & Taylor, S. (2008). Literacy in history: Language and meaning. Australian Journal of Language and Literacy, 31, 174-187.

Schmitt, N. (2008). Review article: Instructed second language vocabulary learning. Language Teaching Research, 12, 329-363.

Spada, N. (2011). Beyond form-focused instruction: Reflections on past, present and future research. Language Teaching. 44, 225-236.

Spada, N. (2007). Communicative language teaching: Current status and future prospects. In J. Cummins & C. Davis (Eds.), Kluwer handbook of English language teaching. Amsterdam: Kluwer Publications.

Spada, N. (1997). Form-focused instruction and second language acquisition: A review of classroom and laboratory research. Language Teaching, 30, 73-87.

Spada, N. & Tomita, Y. (2010). Interactions between type of instruction and type of language feature: A meta-analysis. Language Learning, 60, 1-46.

Spada, N. & Lightbown, P.M. (2008). Form-focused instruction: Isolated or Integrated? TESOL Quarterly, 42, 181-207.

Spada, N., Jessop, L., Suzuki, W., Tomita, Y. & Valeo (2014), Isolated and integrated form-focused instruction: Effects on different types of L2 knowledge, Language Teaching Research, 18, 453-473.

Spada, N. Barkaoui, K., Peters, C., So, M. & Valeo, A. (2009). Developing a questionnaire to measure learners' preferences for isolated and integrated form-focused instruction. System, 37, 70-81.

Spycher, P. (2007). Academic writing of adolescent English learners: Learning to use "although". Journal of Second Language Writing, 16, 238-254.

Valeo, A. & Spada, N. (2016). Is there a better time to focus on grammar? Teacher and learner views. TESOL Quarterly, 314-339.

Van Patten, B. (1990). Attending to content and form in the input: An experiment in consciousness. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 12, 287-301.

Wajnryb, R. (1990). Grammar dictation. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

APPENDIX 1

Dictagloss

(French text)

J'ai fait un retie effrayant la nuit derriere. Je marchais dans un long passage etroit du metro. Soudain, jai entendu des pas derriere moi. Je me suis retourne(e) et jai vu un homme aux cheveux couleur de carotte stries de meches violettes, at en costume d'Adam. II tenait un enorme oreiller noir. L'expression de ses yeux etait diabolique.

(English translation)

I had a frightening dream the other night. I was walking down a long narrow passage in the metro. Suddenly I heard footsteps behind me. I turned around and saw a naked man with carrot colored hair streaked with purple highlights. He was holding a huge black pillow. The expression in his eyes was diabolic.

Little Red Riding Hood (English translation)

Once upon a time there was a little girl who lived in the forest. Her name was Little Red Riding Hood because she always wore a red cape when she visited her grandmother on weekends. One day, her mother said, "Little Red Riding Hood, go and visit your grandmother, who is sick, and bring her this basket of food." On the way Little Red Riding Hood met a wolf who said: "Hi little girl, where are you going?"

Nina Spada, University of Toronto (*)

Dr. Nina Spada is Professor Emerita in the Language and Literacies Education program at the University of Toronto where she teaches courses in second language (L2) acquisition, research methods, and the role of instruction in L2 learning. She joined the faculty of the University of Toronto in 2000 after 15 years at McGill University in Montreal, Canada.

Dr. Spada is a leading international expert on the role of instruction in second language acquisition (SLA). Her large-scale research on the contributions of form-focused instruction in classroom SLA has received continuous national and international research funding for over 30 years and her work has had a significant impact on the conceptualization and design of research investigating the teaching and learning of second languages in classroom settings elsewhere.

Included in Dr. Spada's numerous publications are over 100 articles in journals and collected editions and 4 books/edited volumes. Particularly noteworthy is the recognition Dr. Spada has received as a co-author of How Languages are Learned published by Oxford University Press. This award-winning book is used internationally as a standard text on second language learning. The 4th edition was published in February 2013 and it has been translated into Arabic, Chinese, Korean and Japanese.

Dr. Spada is regularly invited as a keynote speaker at conferences throughout the world. She has also made significant contributions to international projects related to the teaching and learning of second and foreign languages including those sponsored by the World Bank and the European Commission on the Teaching and Learning of Second/Foreign languages. She has given workshops and presentations to a broad range of audiences in Canada, US, Europe, South America, Australia, Asia and the Middle East.

Dr. Spada is Past President of the American Association for Applied Linguistics.

Nina Spada, University of Toronto

This paper is a written version of a plenary presentation delivered at the 21st International Conference of the Australian Federation of Modern Language Teachers Associations (AFMLTA) held on the Gold Coast, Queensland, in July 2017

Caption: Example 2: Explicit guidance and direction (Differences between possessive determiner agreement in French and English)

Caption: Figure 1: Two strands of the Australian Curriculum: Languages

Please Note: Illustration(s) are not available due to copyright restrictions.