Focus on form: A critical review

May combine two claims.

Pre-teaching the target form may help learners to attend to it while communicating and may also facilitate learning.

“Pre-teaching the target form may help learners to attend to it while communicating and may also facilitate learning (see, for example, studies by Lyster (2004) and Cintron- Valentin and Ellis (2015)).”

• cites Lyster (2004) sourceSupported
• cites Cintron-Valentin and Ellis (2015) sourceNot checked — no full text of the source

Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing).

Repetition followed by metalinguistic feedback led to greater gains in tests designed to measure both implicit and explicit knowledge of the target structure (past tense -ed) than recasts.

“Ellis, Loewen & Erlam (2006), for example, reported that repetition followed by metalinguistic feedback led to greater gains in tests designed to measure both implicit and explicit knowledge of the target structure (past tense -ed) than recasts.”

• cites Ellis, Loewen & Erlam (2006) sourceSupported

Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing). May combine two claims.

Both recasts and prompts are effective in promoting acquisition, but the effect size for prompts (0.83) was appreciably larger than that for recasts (0.53).

“They reported that both recasts and prompts are effective in promoting acquisition but the effect size for prompts (0.83) was appreciably larger than that for recasts (0.53).”

• cites Lyster and Saito's (2010) sourceSupported

May combine two claims.

Teachers sometimes pre-empt a problem, for example by reminding students to pay attention to a particular grammatical feature when they perform a task, and learners sometimes pre-empt as when they initiate questions about linguistic forms.

“As Ellis, Basturkmen & Loewen (2001) noted in their study of focus on form episodes in communicative ESL classes, there are occasions when teachers pre-empt a problem, for example, by reminding students they need to pay attention to a particular grammatical feature when they perform a task and learners also sometimes pre-empt as when they initiate questions about linguistic forms.”

• cites Ellis, Basturkmen & Loewen (2001) sourceNot checked — no full text of the source

May combine two claims.

Studies by J. Williams (2001) and Loewen (2005) provide evidence that temporary shifts in attention happen with some frequency in task-based interactions and can lead to learning.

“Studies by J. Williams (2001) and Loewen (2005) provide evidence that this happens with some frequency in task-based interactions and can lead to learning.”

• cites J. Williams (2001) sourceNot checked — no full text of the source
• cites Loewen (2005) sourceNot checked — no full text of the source

May combine two claims.

The instructional context affects the frequency with which different focus on form options occur and also the extent to which they result in uptake with repair.

“The instructional context affects the frequency with which different focus on form options occur and also the extent to which they result in uptake with repair (Sheen, 2004) [3].”

• cites Sheen, 2004 sourceNot checked — no full text of the source

Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S4 (based).

To date, we have no understanding of whether some ways of timing focus on form are more effective for learning than others.

“To date, however, we have no understanding of whether some of these ways are more effective for learning than others.”

Classified as probably not a substantial claim. May combine two claims.

Focus on form needs to occur in a communicative context and requires tasks that focus learners' primary attention on meaning while also providing periodic attention to form when triggered by communicative need.

“Given that the focus on form needs to occur in a communicative context, it requires the use of 'tasks' that focus learners' primary attention on meaning but also provide periodic attention to form by the teacher and/ or students when this is triggered by communicative need.”

Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing). May combine two claims.

Initially Long conceived of focus on form as providing learners with input, but by the time of his later work focus on form clearly involves production as well as input.

“Initially Long conceived of focus on form as providing learners with input (see the quotation from his 1988 article) but by this time focus on form clearly involves production as well as input.”

May combine two claims.

PPP might initially be viewed as a FonFs approach because it is based on a structural syllabus and involves explicit presentation and controlled practice of discrete linguistic features, but it can be seen as including a focus on form because it is not limited to purely formal elements.

“Thus, whereas PPP might initially be viewed as a FonFs approach as it is based on a structural syllabus and involves the explicit presentation and controlled practice of discrete linguistic features, it can be seen as including a focus on form as it is not limited to a focus on purely formal elements.”

Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing).

The final stage of presentation-practice-produce (PPP) involves activities designed to focus learners' attention on form in communicative activities.

“For example, the final stage of presentation-practice-produce (PPP) involves such activities.”

Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing).

Long insists that the focus must be reactive and brief.

“So too is Long's insistence that the focus must be reactive and brief.”

Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing). May combine two claims.

Long's characterization of FonF reflects his continuing work on the role of negotiation of meaning in L2 acquisition and his advocacy of task-based language teaching.

“This characterization of FonF focus on form clearly reflects Long's continuing work on the role of the negotiation of meaning in L2 acquisition and his advocacy of task-based language teaching (TBLT).”

Classified as probably not a substantial claim. May combine two claims.

In Long's latest definition, focus on form need not be implicit and can include provision of an explicit grammar rule if this is provided in response to a problem arising during a communicative exchange.

“Alsoand in this respect there is major shiftfocus on form need not be implicit.Long acknowledges that it can even include provision of an explicit grammar rule as long as this is provided in response to a problem that arises during a communicative exchange.”

May combine two claims.

The term 'focus on form' has a long life and lives on, but the construct it refers to has changed in quite major ways.

“The term has a long life and lives on but the construct it refers to has changed in quite major ways.”

Classified as probably not a substantial claim.

In Long's latest definition, focus on form is no longer seen as an approach but as a set of procedures.

“But it would seem that 'focus on form' is no longer seen as an 'approach' (i.e.FonF) but as a set of procedures.”

Classified as probably not a substantial claim.

Focus on form now involves much more than the negotiation of meaning.

“Clearly, focus on form now involves much more than the negotiation of meaning.”

Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing).

Focus on form lies at the heart of Long's advocacy of task-based language teaching.

“In other words, focus on form lies at the heart of Long's advocacy of task-based language teaching (TB LT) (see Long and Crookes, 1992).”

• cites Long and Crookes, 1992 sourceNot checked — no full text of the source

Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing).

Long views FonF and FonFs as programs or approaches.

“Here Long views FonF and FonFs as 'programs' or 'approaches'.”

Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing), S4 (based).

As other researchers and teacher educators have seized on the importance of incorporating attention to form in a communicative curriculum, the scope of the term 'focus on form' has expanded considerably.

“As we will see in the next section, as other researchers and teacher educators have seized on the importance of incorporating attention to form in a communicative curriculum, the scope of the term 'focus on form' has expanded considerably.”

Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S2 (checkable).

The term 'focus on form' is somewhat misleading because the desired focus is not just on form but on form-meaning mapping.

“Also the term 'focus on form' is somewhat misleading as the desired focus is not just on form but on form-meaning mapping”

Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing), S4 (based).

Long first used the term 'focus on form' in 1988 in a review of research on instructed interlanguage development.

“Long first used the term in 1988 in a review of research of instructed interlanguage development.”

Classified as probably not a substantial claim.

The term 'focus on form' was first introduced by Long (1988; 1991) to refer to an approach where learners' attention is attracted to linguistic forms as they engage in the performance of tasks.

“The term was first introduced by Long (1988;1991) to refer to an approach where learners' attention is attracted to linguistic forms as they engage in the performance of tasks.”

• cites Long (1988;1991)Not matched

  Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.

Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing).

For Long, negotiation of meaning was the primary means for achieving a focus on form.

“For Long, then, the negotiation of meaning was the primary means for achieving a focus on form.”

Classified as probably not a substantial claim.

The essential theoretical foundation of focus on form remains intact: attention to linguistic form needs to occur in ways compatible with how an L2 is acquired by learners.

“The essential theoretical foundation remains intact -attention to linguistic form needs to occur in ways that are compatible with how an L2 is acquired by learners.”

Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S2 (checkable), S4 (based).

The term 'focus on form' is best used to refer to specific kinds of activities or procedures rather than to an approach.

“offers an updated definition of the construct based on the view that the term is best used to refer to specific kinds of 'activities' or 'procedures' rather than to an 'approach'.”

Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S4 (based).

Explicit language teaching can also include activities designed to focus learners' attention on form in communicative activities.

“The problem here is that explicit language teaching can also include activities designed to focus learners' attention on form in communicative activities.”

Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing). May combine two claims.

Long does not see focus on form as catering just to incidental learning; rather, intentional learning is brought to the aid of incidental learning, improving the likelihood that a new form-meaning association will be perceived or perceived more quickly.

“Nor does Long see focus on form as catering just to incidental learning; rather 'intentional learning is brought to the aid of incidental learning, thereby improving the likelihood that a new form-meaning association will be perceived or perceived more quickly' (p.317).”

Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing).

Focus on form, both interactive and non-interactive, can vary in how obtrusive it is, that is, how much it interferes with communication.

“Focus on formboth interactive and non-interactivecan vary in how obtrusive it is (i.e.how much it interferes with communication).”

Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S2 (checkable).

An expanded definition of focus on form is needed.

“Clearly an expanded definition of focus on form is needed.”

Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing).

In PPP the focus on form in the production activity must be planned.

“Clearly, in PPP the focus on form in the production activity must be planned.”

Classified as probably not a substantial claim. May combine two claims.

Focus on form activities can be either unfocused, designed to elicit general samples of the L2 leading to incidental attention to a variety of forms, or focused, leading to a predetermined and intensive focus on a specific form or forms.

“The activities in which focus on form occurs, then, can be either unfocused (i.e.designed to simply elicit general samples of the L2) leading to incidental attention to a variety of forms) or they can be focused leading to a predetermined and intensive focus on a specific form(s).”

May combine two claims.

A recast affords the learner an overt comparison between his erroneous utterance and the target form and an opportunity to carry out the kind of mental comparison hypothesized to assist the restructuring of the L2 system.

“This affords the learner an overt comparison between his erroneous utterance and the target form and an opportunity for the learner to carry out the kind of the mental comparison hypothesized to assist the restructuring of the L2 system”

Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S2 (checkable).

Interactive focus on form can be defined as the pre-emptive or responsive attention to form that occurs during an activity that is primarily meaning-focused and that addresses either a communicative or linguistic problem.

“Interactive focus on form, then, can be defined as the pre-emptive or responsive attention to form that occurs during an activity that is primarily meaning-focused and that addresses either a communicative or linguistic problem.”

Classified as probably not a substantial claim.

Central to all senses of focus on form is that learners' attention is attracted to form-meaning mapping while they are engaged in an activity where the primary focus is on meaning.

“Central to all these senses of focus on form is that learners' attention is attracted to formmeaning mapping while they are engaged in an activity where the primary focus is on meaning.”

Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing). May combine two claims.

Input flood is viewed as minimally obtrusive, corrective recasts as more obtrusive, and input processing involving structured input as very clearly obtrusive.

“For example, 'input flood' is viewed as minimally obtrusive, corrective recasts as more obtrusive while 'input processing' involving structured input (VanPatten, 1996) is very clearly obtrusive.”

• cites VanPatten, 1996Not matched

  Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.

May combine two claims.

Recasts may facilitate the acquisition of salient/non-redundant features, but explicit correction may be needed for non-salient/communicatively redundant features.

“For example, recasts (generally considered an implicit type of focus on form) may facilitate the acquisition of salient/non-redundant features but explicit correction may be needed for non-salient/ communicatively redundant features.”

Classified as probably not a substantial claim.

There are doubts about L2 learners' ability to engage in simultaneous processing of meaning and form.

“There are doubts about L2 learners' ability to engage in simultaneous processing of meaning and form.”

Classified as probably not a substantial claim. May combine two claims.

In the classroom, opportunities will exist for simultaneous processing of form and meaning, focusing on form in advance of a communicative activity, temporary shifts of attention from meaning to form, and immediately contingent focus on form.

“In the classroom, opportunities will exist for the simultaneous processing of form and meaning, focusing on form in advance of a communicative activity (for example, by means of direct instruction), temporary shifts of attention from meaning to form, and immediately contingent focus on form.”

Classified as probably not a substantial claim. May combine two claims.

In focus on form activities attention is selectively focused on meaning but may also from time to time be voluntarily or involuntarily focused on specific linguistic forms that occur in the input or that the learner needs to express a particular meaning.

“In focus on form activities attention is selectively focused on meaning but may also from time to time be voluntarily or involuntarily focused on specific linguistic forms that occur in the input or that the learner needs to express a particular meaning.”

Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S2 (checkable), S3 (load-bearing).

More obtrusive techniques might be better classified as focus-on-forms techniques because arguably they direct rather than attract attention to form.

“The more obtrusive techniques, however, might be better classified as focus-on-forms techniques as arguably they direct rather than attract attention to form.”

Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing).

The provision of time for pre-task planning may lead to enhanced attention to form when learners perform the task.

“This manipulation may also lead to enhanced attention to form when learners perform the task.”

May combine two claims.

Language-related episodes (LREs) are clearly instances of focus on form and typically involve explicit attention to form.

“LREs are clearly instances of focus on form and typically involve explicit attention to form.”

• cites Swain (1998)Not matched

  Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.

Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing). May combine two claims.

A focus-on-form activity can be incorporated into a synthetic approach such as PPP, which some commentators have argued is needed in contexts where the L2 is a foreign rather than a second language and where there is an expectancy that the language will be taught explicitly.

“In the case of the latter a focus-on-form activity can be incorporated into a synthetic approach such as PPP, which some commentators (e.g.Fotos, 1998;Littlewood, 2007) have argued is needed in contexts where the L2 is a foreign rather than a second language and where there is an expectancy that the language will be taught explicitly.”

• cites Fotos, 1998 sourceNot checked — no full text of the source
• cites Littlewood, 2007 sourceNot checked — no full text of the source

Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing), S4 (based). May combine two claims.

The cognitive comparison in Schmidt's example is clearly a very conscious process, but in interactive focus-on-form episodes it may lead to 'detection' without any conscious awareness.

“The cognitive comparison in this example is clearly a very conscious process but in interactive focus-on-form episodes may lead to 'detection' without any conscious awareness.”

Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S2 (checkable), S3 (load-bearing).

Focus on form and focus on forms activities should perhaps be seen as placed on a continuum depending on the extent to which they cater to explicit or implicit attention to form.

“Perhaps, though, focus on form and focus on forms activities should be seen as placed on a continuum depending on the extent to which they cater to explicit or implicit attention to form.”

Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing), S4 (based).

Doughty and Williams clearly had interactive focus on form in mind.

“However, Doughty & Williams clearly had interactive focus on form in mind.”

Classified as probably not a substantial claim.

Focus on form is best understood not as an approach (FonF) but as involving different kinds of instructional procedures.

“As I have argued elsewhere (Ellis 2015), focus on form is best understood not as an approach (i.e. as FonF) but as involving different kinds of instructional procedures.”

• cites Ellis 2015Not matched

  Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.

Classified as probably not a substantial claim.

Other researchers have noted that the same kinds of interactional sequences can occur in a classroom where there is negotiation of form, that is, negotiation occurs even though there is no communication problem.

“Other researchers (e.g.Lyster 2001;Ellis, Basturkmen & Loewen 2001), however, have noted that the same kinds of interactional sequences can occur in a classroom where there is negotiation of form (i.e.negotiation occurs even though there is no communication problem).”

• cites Lyster 2001 sourceNot checked — no full text of the source
• cites Ellis, Basturkmen & Loewen 2001 sourceNot checked — no full text of the source

Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing).

Interactive focus on form allows for relatively implicit ways of focusing on form.

“Interactive focus on form certainly allows for relatively implicit ways of focusing on form, which was initially seen as a defining feature of focus on form.”

Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing).

Focus on form can be viewed from a psycholinguistic perspective by considering the cognitive correlates of the components of focus on form as they relate to both language use and learning.

“Focus on form can also be viewed from a psycholinguistic perspective by considering 'the cognitive correlates of the components of focus on form' (Doughty, 2001: 211) as these relate to both language use and learning.”

• cites Doughty, 2001 sourceNot checked — no full text of the source

Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing), S4 (based).

In focus on forms activities attention is intended to be selectively focused on linguistic form.

“In focus on forms activities attention is intended to be selectively focused on linguistic form.”

May combine two claims.

Recasts vary in terms of how implicit and explicit they are, and learners are more likely to benefit if the recasts are intensive and explicit.

“recasts vary in terms of how implicit and explicit they are and learners are more likely to benefit if the recasts are intensive and explicit as in Doughty and Varela's (1998) study of corrective recasts”

• cites Doughty and Varela's (1998)Not matched

  Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.

Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing).

Treating focus on form as procedures avoids the problem of whether it can only take place incidentally or can be pre-planned.

“Treating focus on form as procedures also avoids another problem, namely whether it can only take place incidentally (as Long initially envisaged) or can be pre-planned.”

Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing), S4 (based).

Irrespective of whether focus on form involves conscious noticing or subconscious attention, it caters to incidental learning, that is, learning that takes place without intention while selective attention switches briefly from meaning to form.

“Irrespective of whether focus on form involves conscious noticing or subconscious attention it caters to incidental learning, that is, learning that takes place without intention while selective attention switches briefly from meaning to form.”

Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing).

Non-interactive focus on form has attracted considerable research.

“Non-interactive focus on form has also attracted considerable research.”

May combine two claims.

Features that are salient and communicatively functional in context may be acquired implicitly, whereas features that are non-salient and communicatively redundant may only be acquired if they are explicitly noticed.

“Features that are salient and communicatively functional in context (e.g.lexical items or grammatical features such as plural-s) may be acquired implicitly whereas features that are non-salient and communicatively redundant (e.g.3rd person-s) may only be acquired if they are explicitly noticed.”

Classified as probably not a substantial claim. May combine two claims.

These focus on form episodes are designed to avoid rather than repair a linguistic problem but they are still problem-oriented.

“These focus on form episodes are designed to avoid rather than repair a linguistic problem but they are clearly still problem-oriented.”

Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S2 (checkable).

The problem lies in trying to characterize FonF and FonFs as approaches.

“The problem here lies in trying to characterize FonF and FonFs as approaches.”

Classified as probably not a substantial claim. May combine two claims.

Focus on form entails various techniques designed to attract learners' attention to form while they are using the L2 as a tool for communicating; focus on forms entails various devices such as exercises designed to direct learners' attention to specific forms to be studied and learned as objects.

“That is, focus on form entails various techniques designed to attract learners' attention to form while they are using the L2 as a tool for communicating.In contrast, focus on forms entails various devices (such as 'exercises') designed to direct learners' attention to specific forms that are to be studied and learned as objects.”

May combine two claims.

The learning of new forms can take place when learners simply attend to linguistic forms in the input, but it can also take place when they express their meaning using an erroneous linguistic form and receive corrective feedback, a reactive type of focus on form.

“The learning of new forms can take place when learners simply attend to linguistic forms in the input but it can also take place when they express their meaning using an erroneous linguistic form and receive corrective feedback (a reactive type of focus on form).”

Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S4 (based).

There is a fundamental difference between a synthetic approach involving linear teaching of discrete linguistic features and an analytical approach where attention to form only emerges out of efforts to comprehend and produce meaningful texts in the L2.

“There is a fundamental difference between a synthetic approach involving the linear teaching of discrete linguistic features and an analytical approach where attention to form only emerges out of the efforts to comprehend and produce meaningful texts in the L2.”

Classified as probably not a substantial claim.

The functioning of working memory enables 'intake' to be incorporated into the learner's interlanguage system either as implicit knowledge in procedural memory or as explicit knowledge in declarative memory.

“In terms familiar to SLA researchers, the functioning of working memory enables 'intake' to be incorporated into the learner's interlanguage system either as implicit knowledge in procedural memory or as explicit knowledge in declarative memory.”

Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing).

Interactive focus-on-form attracted the greatest attention of SLA researchers such as Long, Doughty, Mackey and R. Ellis on the grounds that interaction plays the central role in both first language acquisition and naturalistic L2 acquisition.

“It is the interactive focuson-form, however, that attracted the greatest attention of SLA researchers such as Long, Doughty, Mackey and R. Ellis on the grounds that it is interaction that plays the central role in both first language acquisition and naturalistic L2 acquisition.”

• AssumptionRests on an assumption: Interaction plays the central role in both first language acquisition and naturalistic L2 acquisition.

May combine two claims.

Lee & Huang's meta-analysis reported an overall positive effect of text-enhancement in tests administered shortly after reading enhanced texts, but the effect was quite small and there were marked differences in individual studies.

“They reported an overall positive effect in tests administered shortly after the learners had completed reading the enhanced texts but acknowledged that this was quite small and also that there were marked differences in the results of individual studies.”

• cites Lee & Huang's (2008) sourceNot checked — no full text of the source

May combine two claims.

All models of working memory acknowledge that working memory is limited in capacity and functions as a site where information can be temporarily stored, rehearsed to prolong activation, and processed by establishing links with long-term procedural and declarative memories.

“While there are a number of different models of working memory (see Wen, 2015), they all acknowledge that working memory is limited in capacity and functions as a site where information can be (1) temporarily stored, (2) rehearsed to prolong activation (3) and processed by establishing links with long-term procedural and declarative memories.”

• cites Wen, 2015Not matched

  Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.

Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing), S4 (based).

Simplistic notions that learners with larger working memories will benefit more from focus on form are giving way to more nuanced positions that distinguish how different aspects of working memory are involved in processing different types of focus-on-form interventions.

“Simplistic notions that learners with larger working memories will benefit more from focus on form are giving way to more nuanced positions that distinguish how different aspects of working memory are involved in processing different types of focus-on-form interventions.”

May combine two claims.

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).”

• cites Nassaji, 2013 sourceNot checked — no full text of the source

Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing), S4 (based). May combine two claims.

In a task-based approach focus on form can be achieved interactively by means of the negotiation of meaning or form and non-interactively.

“In a task-based approach focus on form can be achieved interactively by means of the negotiation of meaning or form and non-interactively (see Figure 1).”

May combine two claims.

Both focus on form initiated by learners in learner-learner interaction and by teachers in whole-class interaction benefit acquisition.

“Both focus on form initiated by learners in learner-learner interaction and by teachers in whole-class interaction benefit acquisition (J.Williams, 2001;Loewen, 2005).”

• cites J.Williams, 2001 sourceNot checked — no full text of the source
• cites Loewen, 2005 sourceNot checked — no full text of the source

May combine two claims.

On balance corrective feedback is more effective if it is explicit, presumably because it is more likely to guarantee a switch in selective attention to form.

“On balance CF is more effective if it is explicit, presumably because it is more likely to guarantee a switch in selective attention to form.”

May combine two claims.

Less proficient learners may struggle to engage in dual processing-comprehending the meaning of the text and consciously attending to linguistic form-and are likely to prioritize meaning over form.

“Less proficient learners may struggle to engage in dual processing -comprehending the meaning of the text and consciously attending to linguistic form -and are likely to prioritize meaning over form.”

Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing), S4 (based).

There is now a substantial body of descriptive classroom-based research that has investigated the discoursal aspects of focus-on-form.

“There is now a substantial body of descriptive classroom-based research that has investigated the discoursal aspects of focus-on-form.”

May combine two claims.

Correcting learners' errors while they are communicating is a highly effective way of drawing their attention to form and there is clear evidence that corrective feedback facilitates acquisition.

“Correcting learners' errors while they are communicating is a highly effective way of drawing their attention to form and there is clear evidence that CF facilitates acquisition.”

May combine two claims.

If there is time for analysis of the input, deeper processing involving declarative memory may take place, resulting in explicit knowledge.

“In contrast, if there is time for analysis of the input, deeper processing involving declarative memory may take place resulting in explicit knowledge.”

May combine two claims.

The extent to which learners participate in and benefit from focus on form depends on their L2 proficiency, with higher proficiency learners focusing on form more and benefitting more from it than lower proficiency learners.

“The extent to which learners participate in and benefit from focus on form depends on their L2 proficiency with higher proficiency learners focusing on form more and benefitting more from it than lower proficiency learners (J.Williams, 2001).”

• cites J.Williams, 2001 sourceNot checked — no full text of the source

May combine two claims.

Implicit forms of corrective feedback such as recasts have also been found to be effective and may even have a greater long-term effect.

“But implicit forms of CF such as recasts have also been found to be effective and may even have a greater long-term effect.”

• cites Li's (2010)Not matched

  Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.

May combine two claims.

Corrective feedback is likely to be more intensive when it is in the hands of the teacher but it also occurs in learner-learner interactions and contributes to learning.

“CF is likely to be more intensive when it is in the hands of the teacher but it also occurs in learner-learner interactions and contributes to learning.”

Classified as probably not a substantial claim.

Learners who participated more frequently in corrective feedback were the ones who showed significant improvement in oral tests that elicited use of conditionals.

“She reported that those learners who participated more frequently in the corrective feedback were the ones who showed significant improvement in oral tests that elicited use of conditionals.”

• cites McDonough (2004) sourceNot checked — no full text of the source

May combine two claims.

Text-enhancement is effective in helping learners to notice the target feature but not always so.

“The research on text-enhancement suggests that text-enhancement is effective in helping learners to notice the target feature but not always so (Lee & Huang, 2008).”

• cites Lee & Huang, 2008 sourceNot checked — no full text of the source

Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing).

Over 60% of the feedback episodes led to learning.

“She reported that over 60% of the feedback episodes led to learning.”

• cites Adams (2007)Not matched

  Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.

May combine two claims.

Learners may have difficulty in attending simultaneously to both meaning and form, and this can be explained by the limited capacity of working memory.

“We noted earlier that learners may have difficulty in attending simultaneously to both meaning and form.This can be explained by the limited capacity of working memory.”

May combine two claims.

Noticing affects intake but not everything that is taken into working memory passes into long-term memory.

“Noticing affects intake but not everything that is taken into working memory passes into long term memory.”

Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing), S4 (based).

The role of working memory in processing focus-on-form interventions is complex.

“It is becoming clear that the role of working memory in processing focus-on-form interventions is complex.”

May combine two claims.

Guided planning in Mochizuki & Ortega led to more accurate uses of the target structure (relative clauses) than did unguided planning but also resulted in similar levels of global complexity and fluency.

“The guided planning in Mochizuki & Ortega led to more accurate uses of the target structure (relative clauses) than did unguided planning but, importantly, it also resulted in similar levels of global complexity and fluency.”

• cites Mochizuki & OrtegaNot matched

  Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.

Classified as probably not a substantial claim. May combine two claims.

Shintani reported that FonF led to greater incidental learning, which was attributed to the fact that it created a greater functional need to attend to the target structures and afforded more opportunities for noticing them.

“Shintani reported that FonF led to greater incidental learning, which was attributed to the fact that it created a greater functional need to attend to the target structures and afforded more opportunities for noticing them.”

• cites Shintani (2015) sourceNot checked — no full text of the source

Classified as probably not a substantial claim. May combine two claims.

FonF led to greater incidental learning only for the meaning-bearing grammatical morpheme (plural -s) and not for the nonmeaning bearing structure (copula be).

“However, this was only true for one of the structures -the meaning-bearing grammatical morpheme (plural-s)and not for the nonmeaning bearing structure (copula be).”

• cites ShintaniNot matched

  Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.

Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing).

There was an effect for repetition on the accurate use of a specific grammatical feature.

“Gass et al (1999) found an effect for repetition on the accurate use of a specific grammatical feature.”

• cites Gass et al (1999) sourceNot checked — no full text of the source

May combine two claims.

Experimental studies of focus-on-form have shown that it facilitates L2 acquisition although this depends on a number of factors such as the salience of the focus on form and the learners' L2 proficiency.

“Experimental studies of focus-on-form have shown that it facilitates L2 acquisition although this depends on a number of factors such as the salience of the focus on form and the learners' L2 proficiency.”

Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing), S4 (based).

Focus on form is a crucial feature of task-based language teaching.

“Focus on form is a crucial feature of task-based language teaching.”

Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing), S4 (based).

Focus on form was first introduced as a pedagogic approach (FonF) that was seen as an alternative to a structured-based approach (i.e. FonFs).

“Focus on form was first introduced as a pedagogic approach (FonF) that was seen as an alternative to a structured-based approach (i.e.FonFs).”

May combine two claims.

In such contexts the teachers' unfamiliarity with focus on form, the learners' concern with language as an object rather than as a tool for communicating, and an educational system that requires students to take traditional type tests to progress academically all constitute formidable obstacles in implementing an approach that prioritizes focus on form rather than focus on forms.

“In such contexts the teachers' unfamiliarity with focus on form, the learners' concern with language as an object rather than as a tool for communicating, and an educational system that requires students to take traditional type tests to progress academically all constitute formidable obstacles in implementing an approach that prioritizes focus on form rather than focus on forms.”

May combine two claims.

Both guided and unguided pre-task planning had a positive overall effect on fluency except if the task was performed in a testing (as opposed to teaching) context.

“In a survey of planning studies, Ellis (2009) found that both had a positive overall effect on fluency except if the task was performed in a testing (as opposed to teaching) context.”

• cites Ellis (2009) sourceNot checked — no full text of the source

Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing).

Sheen (2006) found that FonFs instruction led to greater learning than FonF.

“Sheen (2006) found that FonFs instruction led to greater learning than FonF but this study was seriously flawed.”

• cites Sheen (2006) sourceNot checked — no full text of the source

Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing).

The scope of pedagogic focus on form has expanded considerably over the years.

“The scope of pedagogic focus on form has expanded considerably over the years, however.”

May combine two claims.

Reactive focus-on-form (i.e. corrective feedback) has been shown to be especially facilitative although focus on form undertaken preemptively also aids learning as does non-interactive enhanced input.

“Reactive focus-on-form (i.e.corrective feedback) has been shown to be especially facilitative although focus on form undertaken preemptively also aids learning as does non-interactive enhanced input.”

Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S4 (based).

There is an important discoursal dimension to interactive focus-on-form.

“There is also an important discoursal dimension to interactive focus-on-form.”

May combine two claims.

These problems are now well documented and cannot be easily overcome.

“These problems are now well documented (see, for example Carless, 2004) and cannot be easily overcome.”

• cites Carless, 2004 sourceNot checked — no full text of the source

Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S4 (based).

Subsequently, focus on form came to be viewed as a set of procedures for attracting attention to form that can figure in both approaches.

“Subsequently, however, focus on form came to be viewed as a set of procedures for attracting attention to form that can figure in both approaches.”

May combine two claims.

There is ample evidence to support theoretical hypotheses such as the Noticing Hypothesis and also to show that focus on form results in learning.

“There is ample evidence to support theoretical hypotheses such as the Noticing Hypothesis and also to show that focus on form results in learning (see previous sections).”

May combine two claims.

Pre-task planning and task-repetition have been shown to influence how learners orientate to the performance of a communicative task and impact on the complexity of the language involved.

“Pre-task planning and task-repetition have been shown to influence how learners orientate to the performance of a communicative task and impact on the complexity of the language involved.”

May combine two claims.

Descriptive research has identified a number of pre-emptive and reactive strategies that can be used to address form and how these strategies impact on learner production (for example, uptake with repair) and learning.

“Descriptive research has identified a number or pre-emptive and reactive strategies that can be used to address form and how these strategies impact on learner production (for example, uptake with repair) and learning.”

Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S2 (checkable). May combine two claims.

These studies only go some way to addressing Sheen's (2006) call for comparative studies of FonF and FonFs and they certainly do not allow any clear conclusions to be reached.

“These studies only go some way to addressing Sheen's (2006) call for comparative studies of FonF and FonFs and they certainly do not allow any clear conclusions to be reached.”

• cites Sheen's (2006) sourceNot checked — no full text of the source

Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S4 (based). May combine two claims.

Such procedures belong naturally to task-based teaching but they can also be found in more traditional approaches providing there is some opportunity for free production in the L2.

“Such procedures belong naturally to task-based teaching but they can also be found in more traditional approaches providing there is some opportunity for free production in the L2.”

Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing). May combine two claims.

Some studies reported that pre-task planning aided complexity but not accuracy and vice versa, lending support to Skehan's Trade-off Hypothesis.

“Some studies reported that pre-task planning aided complexity but not accuracy and viceversa lending support to Skehan's (2009) Trade-off Hypothesis.”

• cites Skehan's (2009) sourceNot checked — no full text of the source

Classified as probably not a substantial claim. May combine two claims.

Providing learners with input and feedback between performances led to improvements in complexity, accuracy and fluency in the repeat performance and also in complexity (but not in accuracy or fluency) in the performance of a new task.

“Sheppard (2006) tried providing learners with input and feedback between performances and found that both led to improvements in complexity, accuracy and fluency in the repeat performance and also in complexity (but not in accuracy or fluency) in the performance of a new task.”

• cites Sheppard (2006)Not matched

  Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.

Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S4 (based).

Central to all kinds of focus on form instruction is some kind of meaning-focused task that provides the context for the focus on form.

“Central to all kinds of focus on form instruction, however, is some kind of meaningfocused task that provides the context for the focus on form.”

May combine two claims.

There is evidence that a task-based approach that incorporates focus on form can be successfully implemented and is effective.

“There is also evidence that a task-based approach that incorporates focus on form can be successfully implemented and is effective (e.g.Prabhu, 1987;chapters in Van den Branden, 2006).”

• cites Prabhu, 1987Not matched

  Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.

• cites Van den Branden, 2006Not matched

  Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.

Classified as probably not a substantial claim. May combine two claims.

A general focus on grammar had a negative impact on complexity and fluency without enhancing accuracy.

“They reported that a general focus on grammar had a negative impact on complexity and fluency without enhancing accuracy”

• cites Pang & SkehanNot matched

  Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.

Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing). May combine two claims.

Fluency and complexity increased in the repeated task but not accuracy.

“Bygate (1996;2001), for example reported that fluency and complexity increased in the repeated task but not accuracy.”

• cites Bygate (1996;2001)Not matched

  Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.

May combine two claims.

The results of task-repetition studies have produced somewhat mixed results along with evidence of trade-off effects in the repeated task.

“However, the results of task-repetition studies have produced somewhat mixed results along with evidence of trade-off effects in the repeated task.”

Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing). May combine two claims.

Repetition led to increased accuracy in low proficiency learners but to more complex language in higher proficiency learners.

“Lynch & McLean (2000) found that repetition led to increased accuracy in low proficiency learners but to more complex language in higher proficiency learners.”

• cites Lynch & McLean (2000)Not matched

  Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.

May combine two claims.

Many of the objections to FonF are spurious, resting on the misconception that it constitutes a uniform approach consisting solely of task-induced interaction and on the failure to acknowledge the substantial empirical evidence that lends support to it.

“Many of the objections are spurious resting on the misconception that it constitutes a uniform approach consisting solely of task-induced interaction and on the failure to acknowledge the substantial empirical evidence that lends support to it.”

May combine two claims.

The FonF instruction in Sheen's study was not properly implemented as the teacher failed to correct the learners' errors consistently while they were performing the communicative tasks.

“Sheen admitted that the FonF instruction in his study was not properly implemented as the teacher failed to correct the learners' errors consistently while they were performing the communicative tasks (i.e. in other words there was very little focus on form).”

• cites SheenNot matched

  Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.

Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S4 (based).

There is a well-defined psycholinguistic dimension to focus on form.

“There is well-defined psycholinguistic dimension to focus on form.”

Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S4 (based).

The limited capacity of working memory constrains what learners can attend to while communicating and thus influences what they can focus on and learn.

“The limited capacity of WM constrains what learners can attend to while communicating and thus influences what they can focus on and learn.”

May combine two claims.

The tests in Sheen's study all involved controlled production of the target features and so favoured the FonFs group.

“Also the tests in his study all involved controlled production of the target features and so favoured the FonFs group”

• cites SheenNot matched

  Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.

May combine two claims.

Calls for comparative studies of FonF and FonFs have been answered but the research to date does not allow a clear answer as to their relative effectiveness.

“Calls for comparative studies of FonF and FonFs have been answered but the research to date does not allow a clear answer as to their relative effectiveness.”