Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
Cited by 431

The DOI matches its Crossref record.

Teachers' Stated Beliefs about Incidental Focus on Form and their Classroom Practices

Basturkmen, H.·2004·Applied Linguistics

Abstract

This article reports a case study investigating the relationship between three teachers' stated beliefs about and practices of focus on form in intermediate level ESL communicative lessons. Focus on form was defined and studied in terms of incidental time-outs taken by students and teachers to deal with issues of linguistic form during communicative lessons. The teachers' statements of belief about focus on form were compared to their management of focus on form during lessons in which all the teachers used the same communicative task. Results showed some inconsistencies in the teachers' stated beliefs, in particular in relation to when it is legitimate to take time out from a communicative activity to focus on issues of form, and preferred error correction technique. While some statistically significant differences in the teachers' practices were reflected in differences in their stated beliefs, others were not. These results indicated a somewhat tenuous relationship between the teachers' practices and stated beliefs regarding focus on form. It is argued that future investigations of teachers' beliefs, especially of unplanned elements of teaching such as focus on form, need to be based on both stated beliefs and observed behaviours.

Overview

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1093/applin/25.2.243

Cites

Statistics

Verification

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Citations

Cited by

Metadata

Authors
Basturkmen, H.
Venue
Applied Linguistics
Published
2004-06-01
Volume
25
Issue
2
Pages
243-272
ISSN
  • 0142-6001 (ISSN-L)
  • 1477-450X
OpenAlex
W2050393289
Cited by
431
References
0
FWCI
71.37
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed

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

Data sources

Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.

Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).

Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.