The Effect of Focus on Form and Focus on Forms Instruction on the Acquisition of Productive Knowledge of L2 Vocabulary by Young Beginning‐Level Learners
Open accessAbstract
The purpose of the study reported in this article is to investigate the effect of two instructional approaches—focus on forms (FonFs) and focus on form (FonF)—on the acquisition of a set of nouns and adjectives by young Japanese children who were complete beginners. The article begins by defining FonFs and FonF and considering the theoretical rationale for each. The author then examines how FonFs (operationalized as present‐practice‐produce) and FonF (operationalized through task‐based teaching) can be realized. It is demonstrated that in the case of beginning‐level learners, task‐based teaching is best operationalized in terms of comprehension‐based rather than production‐based tasks. The article concludes with a review of the research that has compared the effects of FonFs and FonF on vocabulary acquisition.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Claims the paper makes
Claims other papers make about this one
Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?
Some classroom studies and a statistical meta-analysis favor input-based approaches over output-based instruction.
“Some classroom studies, moreover (e.g., Shintani, 2011Shintani, , 2013)), have compared input-based and outputbased instruction; the results, together with those of a statistical meta-analysis of the same issues in teaching grammar in general (Shintani, Li, & Ellis, 2013), favor input-based approaches.”
From In Defense of Tasks and TBLT: Nonissues and Real Issues (2016) · cites this paper as Shintani, 2013
The citation lists haven’t been fetched yet
References 42 · Cited by 142
- Authors
- Shintani, N.
- Affiliations
- Nanyang Technological University (SG)
- Corresponding author
- Shintani, Natsuko
- ORCID
- Shintani, Natsuko
- Venue
- TESOL Quarterly
- Publisher
- Wiley
- Published
- 2012-09-04
- Volume
- 47
- Issue
- 1
- Pages
- 36-62
- ISSN
- 0039-8322 (ISSN-L)
- 1545-7249
- OpenAlex
- W2138837663
- Cited by
- 142
- References
- 42
- Citations by year
- 2026: 3 · 2025: 10 · 2024: 6 · 2023: 2 · 2022: 7 · 2021: 46 · 2020: 5 · 2019: 31 · 2018: 13 · 2017: 2 · 2016: 3 · 2015: 6 · 2014: 5 · 2013: 1 · 2012: 2
- FWCI
- 9.02
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- green
- hdl.handle.net
- Locations
- TESOL Quarterly (publishedVersion)
- ResearchSpace (University of Auckland) (submittedVersion, cc-by)
- Topics
- Social Sciences › Psychology › Developmental and Educational Psychology › Second Language Acquisition and Learning
- Social Sciences › Arts and Humanities › Language and Linguistics › EFL/ESL Teaching and Learning
- Social Sciences › Arts and Humanities › Language and Linguistics › Subtitles and Audiovisual Media
- Keywords
- form-focused instruction, second language vocabulary acquisition, productive vocabulary knowledge, task-based language teaching, beginning-level learners, young learners, Japanese learners of English, nouns and adjectives
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review
