Cited by 50EFL/ESL Teaching and LearningSecond Language Acquisition and LearningLinguistics and Language Analysis

Participation Structure and Incidental Focus on Form in Adult ESL Classrooms

Nassaji, Hossein·2013·Language Learning

Abstract

This study examined the role of incidental focus on form (FonF) in adult English‐as‐a‐second‐language classrooms. Specifically, it explored the extent to which the amount, type, and effectiveness of FonF were related to differences in classroom participation structure, that is, the organization of classroom talk within which FonF may occur. The data consisted of 54 hours of audio‐ and video‐recorded classroom interaction collected over two 12‐week semesters from 35 lessons at three levels of language proficiency: beginner, intermediate, and advanced. The data were transcribed and coded in terms of types of FonF (reactive vs. preemptive, and student vs. teacher initiated) and types of participation structure (whole class, small group, and individual one on one). Individualized posttests were developed and administered to each student 1 week after each classroom observation to assess the effectiveness of FonF. The results revealed that incidental FonF occurred rather frequently in all classrooms but its occurrence varied depending on the type of participation structure. The results also demonstrated a relationship between participation structure and the effectiveness of FonF as well as an interaction between participation structure and class levels. These findings highlight the role of classroom participation structure as an important contextual factor that may impact the provision and success of incidental FonF.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1111/lang.12020

Cites

14 of 14 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Claims the paper makes

This paper’s full text isn’t openly available, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

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?

  • The effectiveness of focus on form differs according to the participation structure, with a stronger effect when the teacher participates in small group work than in whole-class interaction.

    “The effectiveness of focus on form also differs according to the participation structure, with a stronger effect evident when the teacher participates in small group work than in whole-class interaction (Nassaji, 2013).”

    From Focus on form: A critical review (2016) · cites this paper as Nassaji, 2013

  • In interactions involving the teacher, pre-emptive focus on form is more effective than reactive focus on form, especially if it is the learner who preempts.

    “In interactions involving the teacher there is evidence that pre-emptive focus on form is more effective than reactive focus on form especially if it is the learner who preempts (Nassaji, 2013).”

    From Focus on form: A critical review (2016) · cites this paper as Nassaji, 2013

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Nassaji, H.
Affiliations
University of Victoria (CA)
Corresponding author
Nassaji, Hossein
Venue
Language Learning
Publisher
Wiley
Published
2013-08-30
Volume
63
Issue
4
Pages
835-869
ISSN
  • 0023-8333 (ISSN-L)
  • 1467-9922
OpenAlex
W1923541208
Cited by
50
References
14
Citations by year
2026: 1 · 2025: 2 · 2024: 3 · 2023: 5 · 2022: 4 · 2021: 9 · 2020: 5 · 2019: 2 · 2018: 4 · 2017: 5 · 2016: 5 · 2015: 4 · 2014: 1
FWCI
23.26
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Locations
Language Learning (publishedVersion)
Funders
Social Sciences and Humanities Research Council of Canada
Topics
  • Social Sciences › Arts and Humanities › Language and Linguistics › EFL/ESL Teaching and Learning
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Developmental and Educational Psychology › Second Language Acquisition and Learning
  • Social Sciences › Arts and Humanities › Language and Linguistics › Linguistics and Language Analysis
Keywords
adult English as a second language, classroom discourse, small group instruction, one-on-one instruction, whole-class instruction, language proficiency levels, second language acquisition

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