Critique on a journal

1. Summary
This research article was written to identify the feasibility of integrating form
focused instructions with communicative language approach in a Chinese based
university. The problem that the writer found was the inadequate English competency
among students who were majoring in English. To improve their linguistic capability, the
writer believed that there is a need to improve on the grammatical functions within a
communicative language classroom.
The writer began his research article by arguing that behaviourist approach is not
suitable for second language learning. He quoted this from Littlewood (1990) and
subsequently Lightbown and Spada (1999) who had done researches on that. The
writer also emphasized Chomsky’s theory that human language is not through imitated
behaviour but created from innate knowledge rebounded the behaviourists approaches.
However, the writer did not believe that using Communicative Language
Teaching (CLT) per se was good enough. This is because in CLT, L2 learners acquire
grammatical accuracy through conversations with native speakers, based on Krashen’s
Monitor Model. However, in China, natural acquisition will be impossible. Thus,
grammar instruction is deemed fundamental. This was supported by Wei (2005) who
said that grammar can provide input for noticing language forms and helps learners
become aware of their own output, especially for L2 learners in such conditions.
Based on the findings, there is a significant improvement on students who were
taught the integrated way. Because there was a control group which showed the lowest
result in the nationwide test, Qian concludes that FFI does help in improving the
students’ English proficiency.
1

2. Critique
The research article is done by Qian Xiao-xia, a lecturer from Zhejiang
Gongshang University, China. In this research, Qian concluded that explicit form
focused instruction (FFI) within a communicative language teaching (CLT) class
increases the proficiency of the students. In my opinion, this is an interesting approach
as both FFI and CLT have different teaching methodology and language focus. FFI
focuses on explicitly teaching the grammar rules and forms to learners in order for them
to be consciously aware of the usage. It is more teacher centered and language
accuracy is the main objective of such teaching method. CLT is more focused on
speaking and conveying meaning to the audience. It is learner centered and learners
are given various real life situations to increase their speaking coherence and fluency.
This research is related to the Malaysian context where CLT and grammar
teaching are integrated within the English language learning. However, in Malaysia,
English accuracy is deemed the fundamental standards towards having fully acquire the
language for all students. In fact, to be acknowledged as being proficient in the
language, learners have to score high marks in the English subject during school and
government examinations. Thus, this research article is beneficial for teachers in
improving students’ English proficiency for them to use in their everyday life.
Therefore, I agree with Qian in the importance of FFI to be taught explicitly to L2
learners in order for them to be aware consciously of the grammatical rules in English.
In both Malaysia and China, English is not the first language. Thus, when learners
acquire another language, they will first try to construct their understanding of the
grammar rules by testing them with their first language to be used within the context of
the target language. If these learners are not given feedback during this process, they
2

3. will not be aware of the errors made and continue to use them. In the end, the wrongly
used language will fossilize and will subsequently need certain teaching techniques in
order to break it up. This can be seen in Qian’s problem that even when the students
are already in tertiary education and majoring in English, they could still commit errors
not because they do not know but might be caused by the influence from the first
language and the lack of corrections or feedback throughout their acquisition process.
Moreover, the usage of CLT before the presentation of the FFI presents a
stronger support towards providing a meaning-focused input (MFI) and meaning-
focused output (MFO) in second language acquisition. Both these approaches are
coherent with the tertiary learners as they are learning specifically towards their content
knowledge and need the ideas and language styles to interact socially with other people.
As learners brainstorm ideas within the topics learnt in the classroom setting, they will
soon be familiar with the tasks and could achieve a high chance to succeed when facing
the real world. Because learners are already engaged in the meaning, they can start to
notice the grammars and language forms used to provide an accurate meaning across.
By then, they will be able to assimilate or accommodate the new knowledge as they
have reasoned out the differences. When learners continually use the accurate forms,
they will be able to reach the level of automaticity.
Nonetheless, I do have my hesitation in agreeing totally with Qian on the
research methods that he had used to carry out the theories. Firstly, Qian had used a
confusing research terminology due to the lack of definition. Qian did not explain on the
meaning between ‘dominantly taught’ and ‘integrated’. Based on my understanding, the
usage of FFI within a CLT classroom after or while MFI and MFO are being delivered is
a form of integrating both methodologies together which has been explained by Qian in
3

4. Section 4.1: An Integrated Methodology (pg. 24). In fact, according to Spada (2008),
integrated FFI is defined as ‘drawing the learners’ attention to language form during
communicative or content-based instruction where the overall focus remains on the
exchange of meaning’. So, when Qian introduces the words ‘dominantly taught’ for
Class 0302, what are the differences with Class 0301 which is taught in the integrated
manner since they are both given the FFI treatment within the CLT class. Moreover,
since there is a difference in the results between dominantly and integrated FFI
teaching, it may imply that there were other reasons which had caused Class 0301 to
fair lower than Class 0302, considering that dominantly taught and integrated has the
same idea of teaching FFI within the CLT classroom.
The reliability of this research is also disputable because there seem to be a bias
in the sample respondents. The students had already been categorized accordingly to
their results when entering university. Therefore, the samples were not random. Looking
at Table 1, students of Class 0302 are of best results among the three. By having the
treatment on this group of students, it further reinforces their acquisition of the language.
It is thus within their prior knowledge on the language which could be comparatively
better than the other two classes.
In my opinion, it would be better if Qian carry out the One-Group Pretest-Posttest
design. Learners are first given a pretest to know their weaknesses before given the FFI
treatment. Using this method, the significant difference in their language before and
after the treatment will become apparent, especially on whether there is an
improvement across the abilities of learners in the English majored classes. Although
there may be some setbacks for this type of design, it is fairer for all learners as they all
4

5. have similar problems with FFI. The pre-test can resemble that of the Test for English
Majors-Band Four (TEM-4).
Scrutinizing further on the research, the validity of the findings is questionable
because of the usage of the Band system. The nationwide Test for English Majors-Band
Four (TEM-4) to test on the proficiency may not signify whether students have acquired
mastery in the aspects of language forms and grammar. As Qian had stated, students
had problems with pronunciation, spelling, grammatical structures, word formation and
many more. Having gone over and over again the English linguistic and semantics
within the teaching units, there may be a possibility that it is a form of regurgitation
during the examination. Thus, it may be inapt to be acknowledged as a benchmark in
proving that students are proficient in English. This is because in my opinion, learners
were given topics throughout their course where the sentence forms and vocabulary are
similar based on the content that they are studying. Thus, in a way, it might be a form of
repetition for learners where they became familiar with the style, manner and even the
content to be tested in the TEM-4.
After all, in most nationwide examination, students are already given the
exposure on the types of questions being asked. For example, in Malaysia, we do have
topics across the curriculum for English and that classes are taught using the CLT
approach in line with the aim of producing students who are able to communicate
effectively in the real world. Nonetheless, because the format of the national
examinations such as Penilaian Menengah Rendah and Sijil Pelajaran Malaysia are
given to the learners, they will tend to be proficient within the aspects of what is being
tested because they are familiar with it. However, students who scored a high grade
which indicates the high proficiency acquired by the learner will not suffice once they
5

6. enter the real working world as they struggle to search for the best way to communicate
within a context. This, I assume is the drawback for Qian since the definition of
proficiency is not explained. Will it represent the ability to communicate accurately in
English, excelling in the TEM-4 test or just communicating meaningfully within a
situation? The objectives are thus vague in the implementation of the FFI in a CLT class,
affecting the usage of TEM-4.
In conclusion, Qian has succeeded in justifying his own reasons for the teaching
methodology which he had chosen but was unable to carry it out in a clear manner. His
reasons cut across from the literature review to researches done on similar variables
but he was not able to provide a strong discussion relating to his research. In fact, he
had failed to link the findings of the research with the literature and statements which he
had presented at the beginning of the article. Based on the findings of his research, I
think it is quite difficult for Qian to strongly prove the feasibility of using FFI in a CLT
class due to biasness of respondents and loosely defined research terminologies. So,
there needs to be a well planned research to investigate further in integrating both FFI
and CLT together. It is after all, a strong assimilation which focuses on English
acquisition, extending from meanings to the forms of the language. Generally, this
research has inspired me to develop my teaching methodology in class as I weigh the
practicality and possibility of integrating FFI within my CLT class. It has allowed me to
think of my aims in teaching to produce second language learners who are able to
speak effectively in English for their own benefits.
6