The DOI matches its Crossref record; 102 of the 102 references it cites were found in a registry or an index; 4 of the 88 sources its claims cite were checked for support.
Focus on form: A critical review
Open accessAbstract
‘Focus on form’ (FonF) is a central construct in task-based language teaching. The term was first introduced by Michael Long to refer to an approach where learners’ attention is attracted to linguistic forms as they engage in the performance of tasks. It contrasts with a structure-based approach – ‘focus on forms’ (FonFs) – where specific linguistic forms are taught directly and explicitly. However, there is perhaps no construct in second language acquisition (SLA) that has proved so malleable and shifted in meaning so much. This review article begins by considering how Long’s original definition of it has stretched over time and then 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’. A classification of different types of focus-on-form activities/procedures is then presented. There follows a discussion of focus on form from a psycholinguistic and discoursal perspective along with a review of research relevant to these perspectives. The article addresses a number of criticisms that have been levelled against focus on form, with special consideration paid to how focus on form can be utilized in instructional contexts where more traditional (i.e. FonFs) approaches have been the norm.
Overview
AI snapshot
Written from the paper’s full text.
TL;DR
Ellis reviews how focus on form has shifted from Long’s original approach-level construct to a broader set of instructional procedures. He argues that FonF and FonFs should not be treated as rival approaches, because focus-on-form techniques can occur in both communicative and traditional instruction, and that corrective feedback in particular has strong empirical support.
Key findings
- The construct has expanded considerably: originally reactive, incidental, brief, implicit, and interactional within task-based teaching, focus on form now also includes pre-emptive, planned, explicit, non-interactive, pre-task planning, task repetition, and text enhancement. Ellis proposes defining it as techniques used in meaning-primary activities to attract attention to form.
- Corrective feedback receives the strongest support. Meta-analyses report sizable positive effects; Lyster and Saito found an effect size of 0.83 for prompts versus 0.53 for recasts, and Adams reported that over 60% of feedback episodes led to learning. Explicit feedback is generally more effective, though implicit feedback may have longer-term benefits.
- Text enhancement is limited: Lee and Huang’s meta-analysis of 20 studies found a small short-term positive effect that tended to fade. Pre-task planning generally aided fluency, improved complexity in 13 of 19 reviewed studies, and affected accuracy in a similar number; guided planning on a specific feature may be needed for accuracy gains. Task-repetition findings are mixed, with no transfer to new tasks in the reviewed studies.
- Comparative FonF/FonFs studies remain inconclusive. Sheen’s 2006 study was flawed because FonF was poorly implemented and tests favoured FonFs; Shintani found FonF produced better incidental learning for plural -s but not for copula be. Criticisms of FonF are often misplaced, though cultural and contextual implementation obstacles remain.
Methods
- Critical review and narrative synthesis of theoretical and empirical literature on focus on form, not a new empirical study.
- The article traces Long’s changing definitions, proposes an updated definition and classification, examines psycholinguistic dimensions such as selective attention, cognitive comparison, and working memory, and reviews discoursal, descriptive, experimental, meta-analytic, and comparative studies.
- The main analysis is conceptual argument and narrative synthesis; there are no participants, primary data, or new statistical analyses.
Limitations
- Stated: no global comparative method studies of FonF versus FonFs exist; local comparative studies do not allow clear conclusions; there is no understanding of whether different timings of focus on form differ in effectiveness; a full review of descriptive studies was not possible due to space; and the review mainly addresses grammar.
- Stated: implementation is difficult in contexts where traditional FonFs norms dominate, due to teacher unfamiliarity, learners treating language as an object, and exam systems that reward traditional testing.
- Evident: as a critical narrative review, the selection of studies is illustrative rather than systematic, and the conclusions depend on the author’s interpretive synthesis.
Model-written summary. Check it against the paper before relying on it.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
Claims the paper makes
86 Own interpretation · 39 No full text of the sources · 31 Sources not found · 21 No basis given · 4 Not checked yet · 3 Supported · 1 Supported so far
Every source the paper cites for this claim was checked and supports it.
In the paper
“There is now substantial evidence that recasts do facilitate attention and learning (see, for example, Goo & Mackey, 2013)”
§ Focus on Form: A Critical Review > The timing of focus on form
What the sources say
- Supportedcites Goo & Mackey, 2013 source
In “The Case for Recasts,” the paper says L2 research provides evidence that recasts facilitate development across settings and reports positive learning effects. In “What Are Recasts and Why Should We Study Them?,” it explains how recasts draw attention to target forms and facilitate noticing. (LLM, conf=0.92)
boosteddirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
- Supported
In the paper
“However, there is also evidence to suggest that when the focus on form leads to learners consciously attending to linguistic forms they are more likely to learn what they have attended to (Mackey, 2006).”
§ Focus on Form: A Critical Review > Selective attention
What the sources say
- Not checked — no full text of the sourcecites Mackey, 2006 source
hedgedconditional- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
In the paper
“There is now sufficient evidence to show that purely implicit learning is possible (see J. Williams, 2009).”
§ Focus on Form: A Critical Review > Selective attention
What the sources say
- Not matchedcites J. Williams, 2009
Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
boosted- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
- Not matched
In the paper
“Asking learners to repeat a task can also lead to enhanced focus on form (Bygate, 1996).”
§ Focus on Form: A Critical Review > Defining pedagogic focus on form
What the sources say
- Not matchedcites Bygate, 1996
Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
- Not matched
In the paper
“Both teachers and learners vary in the extent to which they engage in focus on form (Loewen, 2003).”
§ Focus on Form: A Critical Review > The discoursal dimension of focus on form
What the sources say
- Not checked — no full text of the sourcecites Loewen, 2003 source
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
A claim is checked only against the cited paper’s full text, never its abstract, and none is available for its sources.
In the paper
“In lessons where there is a primary focus on meaning, focus on form occurs frequently (Ellis, Basturkmen & Loewen, 2001); Nassaji (2010).”
§ Focus on Form: A Critical Review > The discoursal dimension of focus on form
What the sources say
plaincorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
In the paper
“In a classroom context, relatively few episodes concern pragmatic aspects of language (Ellis, Basturkmen & Loewen, 2001).”
§ Focus on Form: A Critical Review > The discoursal dimension of focus on form
What the sources say
- Not checked — no full text of the sourcecites Ellis, Basturkmen & Loewen, 2001 source
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
In the paper
“Often, however, teachers are not aware of the extent to which they engage in focus in form (Basturkmen, Loewen & Ellis, 2004).”
§ Focus on Form: A Critical Review > The discoursal dimension of focus on form
What the sources say
- Not matchedcites Basturkmen, Loewen & Ellis, 2004
Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
- Not matched
A claim is checked only against the cited paper’s full text, never its abstract, and none is available for its sources.
In the paper
“The extent to which learners notice those forms that are focussed on during communicative interactions varies according to a number of factors such as whether the form receiving the focus is relevant to the learners' communicative needs (J.Williams, 2001) and the discoursal characteristics of specific focus on form options, in particular their level of explicitness (Egi, 2007).”
§ Focus on Form: A Critical Review > The discoursal dimension of focus on form
What the sources say
plaincorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
A claim is checked only against the cited paper’s full text, never its abstract, and none is available for its sources.
In the paper
“Both learners and teachers sometimes make effective use of the learner's L1 to address linguistic problems in the L2 when performing communicative tasks (Nakatsukasa & Loewen, 2015;Storch and Wigglesworth, 2003).”
§ Focus on Form: A Critical Review > The discoursal dimension of focus on form
What the sources say
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
None of the sources cited for this claim have been checked yet.
In the paper
“By and large, focus on form episodes are triggered by lexical or grammatical problems.”
§ Focus on Form: A Critical Review > The discoursal dimension of focus on form
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
In the paper
“Especially when learners' proficiency is weak, the difficulty experienced in decoding and encoding for meaning may inhibit attention to form (see VanPatten, 1990).”
§ Focus on Form: A Critical Review > The timing of focus on form
What the sources say
- Not checked — no full text of the sourcecites VanPatten, 1990 source
hedgedconditional- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Non-interactive focus on form involving enhanced input potentially allows the learner much longer to carry out the comparison as it does not occur in online processing.”
§ Focus on Form: A Critical Review > Cognitive comparison
hedgedconditional- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: unclear — It is unclear why the paper says it holds.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“In other words carrying out a cognitive comparison may often involve more than just attending to the surface differences between the learner's own utterance and the target language input.”
§ Focus on Form: A Critical Review > Cognitive comparison
hedgedconditional- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“However, for such restructuring to take place, the learner will need to engage in some analysis of the recast.That is, the learner needs to compare not just 'no go' with 'you're not going' but rather the underlying negative patterns (i.e.'no + verb' and 'auxiliary + not + verb').”
§ Focus on Form: A Critical Review > Cognitive comparison
hedgedconditional- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Whether noticing of form is needed is likely to depend on the salience of the linguistic feature.”
§ Focus on Form: A Critical Review > Selective attention
hedgedcorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“This raises the likelihood that different kinds of focus on form may be needed to facilitate the acquisition of different linguistic features.”
§ Focus on Form: A Critical Review > Selective attention
hedgedconditional- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Pre-task planning can also be seen as a pre-emptive focus-on-form strategy that helps learners attend to form while performing a communicative task.”
§ Focus on Form: A Critical Review > The timing of focus on form
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“As a result they are sensitized to attend to input containing the linguistic forms they need or to request assistance from the teacher or another learner (a pre-emptive type of focus on form).”
§ Focus on Form: A Critical Review > Selective attention
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“In these ways focus on form can help learners to compare the current state of their L2 knowledge with the input they are provided with.”
§ Focus on Form: A Critical Review > Cognitive comparison
plainconditional- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
The paper states this without a source or data behind it here, so there is nothing to check it against. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Two key cognitive constructs (selective attention and cognitive comparison) along with the memory systems (working memory and long-term memory) that support the functioning of these constructs underlie psycholinguistic accounts of focus on form.”
§ Focus on Form: A Critical Review > The psycholinguistic dimension of focus on form
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Thus PPP is now seen as incorporating focus of form.”
§ Focus on Form: A Critical Review > Defining pedagogic focus on form
plaincorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
In the paper
“However, as Long (2015) came to recognize, focus on form can also be non-interactive as when learners are asked to process oral or written input where specific target features have been highlighted (i.e.enhanced input).”
§ Focus on Form: A Critical Review > Defining pedagogic focus on form
What the sources say
- Not matchedcites Long (2015)
Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
- Not matched
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Long also insists that focus on form occurs as a response to a problem.This also seems far too narrow.”
§ Focus on Form: A Critical Review > Defining pedagogic focus on form
hedged- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“This, however, is quite clearly incompatible with both Long's early and later accounts of focus on form.”
§ Focus on Form: A Critical Review > Defining pedagogic focus on form
boosted- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Temporary shifts in attention can occur as a result of both pre-emptive and reactive focus on form.”
§ Focus on Form: A Critical Review > The timing of focus on form
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
In the paper
“However, as Long (2015) later came to recognize, focus on form can at times be quite explicit and even involve metalinguistic comments.”
§ Focus on Form: A Critical Review > Defining pedagogic focus on form
What the sources say
- Not matchedcites Long (2015)
Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
- Not matched
In the paper
“This is can occur when learners become aware of a 'hole' in their existing L2 knowledge (Swain, 1998), which prevents them from expressing what they want to say.”
§ Focus on Form: A Critical Review > Selective attention
What the sources say
- Not matchedcites Swain, 1998
Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
- Not matched
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“In general, explicit types of feedback are more effective than implicit.”
§ Focus on Form: A Critical Review > Corrective feedback
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
In the paper
“Nassaji (2011) showed that the relationship between uptake/repair with learning depended on the type of repair with a stronger relationship between the two when the repair involved incorporation of the target form into new utterance than when it involved repetition of the feedback.”
§ Focus on Form: A Critical Review > The discoursal dimension of focus on form
What the sources say
- Not checked — no full text of the sourcecites Nassaji (2011) source
plaincorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
In the paper
“Studies (e.g.Shook, 1999) have shown that if learners engage in the top-down processing required for comprehension, less noticing of specific forms occurs.”
§ Focus on Form: A Critical Review > Text-enhancement
What the sources say
- Not matchedcites Shook, 1999
Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
boosteddirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
- Not matched
In the paper
“Lee & Huang also reported that the benefits of the exposure tended to wear off over time.”
§ Focus on Form: A Critical Review > Text-enhancement
What the sources say
- Not matchedcites Lee & Huang
Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
hedgeddirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
- Not matched
The paper states this without a source or data behind it here, so there is nothing to check it against. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“In order to explain how focus on form can contribute to acquisition researchers are increasingly drawing on models of working memory on the grounds that the processing of focus-on-form interventions must necessarily involve (1) temporary storage of input and output and (2) establishing links with long-term memory.”
§ Focus on Form: A Critical Review > Working memory and focus on form
plaincorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
In the paper
“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).”
§ Focus on Form: A Critical Review > The discoursal dimension of focus on form
What the sources say
- Not checked — no full text of the sourcecites Nassaji, 2013 source
plaincorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
In the paper
“There is clear evidence that learners do notice the corrections their receive even in implicit types of CF such as recasts (Egi, 2007)”
§ Focus on Form: A Critical Review > Corrective feedback
What the sources say
- Not checked — no full text of the sourcecites Egi, 2007 source
boosted- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Even if learners do notice the target feature, they may not acquire it.”
§ Focus on Form: A Critical Review > Text-enhancement
hedgedconditional- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“The main constraint, however, is the learner's level of proficiency.”
§ Focus on Form: A Critical Review > Text-enhancement
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
In the paper
“but to date there is little evidence to show a consistent direct effect of such noticing on acquisition (see, for example, Mackey (2006).”
§ Focus on Form: A Critical Review > Corrective feedback
What the sources say
- Not checked — no full text of the sourcecites Mackey (2006) source
hedged- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“While uptake-with-repair cannot be taken as evidence of learning, in some studies it has been found to be facilitative of learning (Loewen and Philp, 2006).”
§ Focus on Form: A Critical Review > The discoursal dimension of focus on form
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
In the paper
“While uptake-with-repair cannot be taken as evidence of learning, in some studies it has been found to be facilitative of learning (Loewen and Philp, 2006).”
§ Focus on Form: A Critical Review > The discoursal dimension of focus on form
What the sources say
- Not checked — no full text of the sourcecites Loewen and Philp, 2006 source
plainconditional- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“The results of the CF research provide the clearest support for focus on form.”
§ Focus on Form: A Critical Review > Corrective feedback
boosteddirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Overall, text-enhancement does not emerge as a very effective type of focus on form unless it is combined with other instructional techniques that encourage intentional learning.”
§ Focus on Form: A Critical Review > Text-enhancement
plainconditional- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“In part this depends on the extent to which the learners' general orientation is to meaning or form.”
§ Focus on Form: A Critical Review > The discoursal dimension of focus on form
hedgedconditional- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: unclear — It is unclear why the paper says it holds.
In the paper
“Nassaji (2010) found that the effectiveness of reactive and pre-emptive focus on form also differed depending on learners' language proficiency and class level, with advanced level learners benefiting more from reactive focus on form than less advanced learners.”
§ Focus on Form: A Critical Review > The discoursal dimension of focus on form
What the sources say
- Not checked — no full text of the sourcecites Nassaji (2010) source
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“This is most likely to occur if the focus on form leads to temporary storage of the targeted features in learners' phonological short-term memory.”
§ Focus on Form: A Critical Review > Working memory and focus on form
hedgedconditional- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
None of the sources cited for this claim could be matched to a paper in Crossref, so there is nothing to check it against.
In the paper
“All these meta-analyses reported that CF has a sizable positive effect on L2 learning.”
§ Focus on Form: A Critical Review > Corrective feedback
What the sources say
- Not matchedcites Russell & Spada, 2006
Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
- Not matchedcites Mackey & Goo, 2007
Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
- Not matchedcites Li, 2010
Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
- Not matched
In the paper
“However, Li's (2010) meta-analysis found that implicit CF proved to be more effective in post-tests completed a long time after the instruction.”
§ Focus on Form: A Critical Review > Corrective feedback
What the sources say
- Not matchedcites Li's (2010)
Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
- Not matched
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Models of working memory also provide a basis for addressing whether focus on form results in changes in procedural memory (i.e.implicit knowledge) or declarative memory (i.e.explicit knowledge).”
§ Focus on Form: A Critical Review > Working memory and focus on form
plaincorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“However, there are a number of 'local' comparative studies, which have investigated these two approaches in terms of their effect on the acquisition of specific target language features.”
§ Focus on Form: A Critical Review > Comparative studies of FonF and FonFs
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
In the paper
“Interestingly, however, in one study of guided planning where learners were asked to focus their planning on a single grammatical structure (Mochizuki & Ortega, 2008), fluency did not benefit.”
§ Focus on Form: A Critical Review > Pre-task planning
What the sources say
- Not checked — no full text of the sourcecites Mochizuki & Ortega, 2008 source
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
None of the sources cited for this claim have been checked yet.
In the paper
“However, none of these studies found evidence of any transfer-effects to a new task.”
§ Focus on Form: A Critical Review > Task-repetition
What the sources say
- Not matchedcites Bygate (1996;2001)
Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
- Not matchedcites Lynch & McLean (2000)
Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
- Not checked — no full text of the sourcecites Gass et al (1999) source
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
- Not matched
The paper states this without a source or data behind it here, so there is nothing to check it against. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“As noted earlier, pre-task planning serves to alleviate the problems that learners face in L2 production due to the limited capacity of their working memories.”
§ Focus on Form: A Critical Review > Pre-task planning
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: unclear — It is unclear why the paper says it holds.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Clearly, more work is needed on how specific planning strategies and foci affect performance of a task but if these two studies are indicative, it is the guided planning that focuses on a specific linguistic feature that is needed to achieve an effect on accuracy.”
§ Focus on Form: A Critical Review > Pre-task planning
hedgedconditional- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Thus focus on form is integral to task-based language teaching.”
§ Focus on Form: A Critical Review > Conclusion
plaincorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“It can be expected then that task repetition will have a similar effect on complexity, accuracy and fluency as pre-task planning.”
§ Focus on Form: A Critical Review > Task-repetition
plainconditional- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
In the paper
“However, these generalizations are quite crude and, as Ellis' review showed, factors such as the nature of the task, the length of the planning time and the learners' level of L2 proficiency mediated the effects of the pre-task planning in complex ways.”
§ Focus on Form: A Critical Review > Pre-task planning
What the sources say
- Not matchedcites Ellis' review
Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
plainconditional- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
- Not matched
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“When learners are asked to repeat the same task, the first performance functions in much the same way as pre-task planningit enables learners to both conceptualize what to say and select the language needed to say it.”
§ Focus on Form: A Critical Review > Task-repetition
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: unclear — It is unclear why the paper says it holds.
In the paper
“Thus, for example, in a context such as China, where 'education is conceived more as a process of knowledge accumulation than as a process of using knowledge for immediate purposes' (Littlewood;2015: 653), a communicative or task-based approach may be seen as culturally inappropriate.”
§ Focus on Form: A Critical Review > Conclusion
What the sources say
- Not matchedcites Littlewood;2015
Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
hedgedconditional- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
- Not matched
In the paper
“Sheen (2006) found that FonFs instruction led to greater learning than FonF but this study was seriously flawed.”
§ Focus on Form: A Critical Review > Comparative studies of FonF and FonFs
What the sources say
- Not checked — no full text of the sourcecites Sheen (2006) source
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“The effect that pre-task planning has on task performance will obviously also depend on what learners do while they plan.”
§ Focus on Form: A Critical Review > Pre-task planning
boostedconditional- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“There is evidence, however, that FonF results in richer types of classroom interaction that benefit the incidental acquisition of non-targeted features.”
§ Focus on Form: A Critical Review > Conclusion
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
In the paper
“There are current studies (e.g.Cintron-Valentin and Ellis, 2015) that claim to investigate 'focus on form' but also include explicit instruction of a target feature prior to the focus on form activity.”
§ Focus on Form: A Critical Review > Conclusion
What the sources say
- Not checked — no full text of the sourcecites Cintron-Valentin and Ellis, 2015 source
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
In the paper
“Pre-task planning also benefited complexity (especially grammatical complexity) in 13 of the 19 studies Ellis included in his review.”
§ Focus on Form: A Critical Review > Pre-task planning
What the sources say
- Not matchedcites Ellis
Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
- Not matched
In the paper
“Most of these objections are entirely misplaced reflecting fundamental misunderstandings about task-based language teaching and the role of focus on form (see Ellis, 2009).”
§ Focus on Form: A Critical Review > Critiques of focus on form
What the sources say
- Not checked — no full text of the sourcecites Ellis, 2009 source
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
In the paper
“There are no global comparative method studies that have investigated the relative effectiveness of FonF and FonFs in developing general L2 proficiency, reflecting the difficulty of achieving internal and external validity in the design of such studies (see R. Ellis, 2012).”
§ Focus on Form: A Critical Review > Comparative studies of FonF and FonFs
What the sources say
- Not checked — no full text of the sourcecites R. Ellis, 2012 source
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
In the paper
“A similar number of studies also reported it had an effect on accuracy.”
§ Focus on Form: A Critical Review > Pre-task planning
What the sources say
- Not matchedcites Ellis
Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
- Not matched
In the paper
“It facilitates 'planned language use', which, as Ochs (1979) noted, is characterized by more complex, target-like forms than unplanned language use.”
§ Focus on Form: A Critical Review > Pre-task planning
What the sources say
- Not checked — no full text of the sourcecites Ochs (1979) source
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
- It may state two separate claims as one. 65
- Probably not a substantial claim. 77
The sources with a verdict support this claim; the rest weren’t checked yet, have no full text we could read, or their verdicts aren’t rated yet.
In the paper
“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)).”
§ Focus on Form: A Critical Review > The timing of focus on form
What the sources say
- Supportedcites Lyster (2004) source
The introductory passage says form-focused instruction helps learners notice linguistic features during meaningful interaction. The Discussion reports that learners who received such instruction benefited during oral interaction, and the Conclusion reports improved performance and learning of grammatical-gender rules. Together, these support the hedged claim that teaching a target form can aid attention during communication and facilitate learning. (LLM, conf=0.86)
- Not checked — no full text of the sourcecites Cintron-Valentin and Ellis (2015) source
hedgedconditional- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
- Supported
Every source the paper cites for this claim was checked and supports it.
In the paper
“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.”
§ Focus on Form: A Critical Review > Corrective feedback
What the sources say
- Supportedcites Ellis, Loewen & Erlam (2006) source
The Method identifies past tense -ed as the target and lists the tests used to assess the two feedback groups. The Conclusion describes the explicit feedback as repeating the error and then giving a metalinguistic clue; the Discussion reports an advantage over recasts on the oral imitation and grammaticality judgment tests. It specifies that this advantage reached statistical significance on the delayed posttests. (LLM, conf=0.91)
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Supported
Every source the paper cites for this claim was checked and supports it.
In the paper
“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).”
§ Focus on Form: A Critical Review > Corrective feedback
What the sources say
- Supportedcites Lyster and Saito's (2010) source
The Types of CF section reports significant effects for both recasts and prompts in L2 classrooms. Its between-group effect sizes are 0.53 for recasts and 0.83 for prompts, as claimed; the paper does not claim that this between-group difference is statistically significant. (LLM, conf=0.94)
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it. It may state two separate claims as one.
- Supported
In the paper
“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.”
§ Focus on Form: A Critical Review > Defining pedagogic focus on form
What the sources say
- Not checked — no full text of the sourcecites Ellis, Basturkmen & Loewen (2001) source
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
A claim is checked only against the cited paper’s full text, never its abstract, and none is available for its sources.
In the paper
“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.”
§ Focus on Form: A Critical Review > The timing of focus on form
What the sources say
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
In the paper
“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].”
§ Focus on Form: A Critical Review > The discoursal dimension of focus on form
What the sources say
- Not checked — no full text of the sourcecites Sheen, 2004 source
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
The paper states this without a source or data behind it here, so there is nothing to check it against. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“To date, however, we have no understanding of whether some of these ways are more effective for learning than others.”
§ Focus on Form: A Critical Review > The timing of focus on form
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: fails — The paper may give no reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper may give no reason why it holds.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“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.”
§ Focus on Form: A Critical Review > Focus-on-form according to Long
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. It may state two separate claims as one.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“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.”
§ Focus on Form: A Critical Review > Focus-on-form according to Long
boosted- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it. It may state two separate claims as one.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“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.”
§ Focus on Form: A Critical Review > Defining pedagogic focus on form
hedgedcorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
The paper states this without a source or data behind it here, so there is nothing to check it against. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“For example, the final stage of presentation-practice-produce (PPP) involves such activities.”
§ Focus on Form: A Critical Review > Defining pedagogic focus on form
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
The paper states this without a source or data behind it here, so there is nothing to check it against. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“So too is Long's insistence that the focus must be reactive and brief.”
§ Focus on Form: A Critical Review > Focus-on-form according to Long
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“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).”
§ Focus on Form: A Critical Review > Focus-on-form according to Long
boosteddirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it. It may state two separate claims as one.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“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.”
§ Focus on Form: A Critical Review > Focus-on-form according to Long
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. It may state two separate claims as one.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“The term has a long life and lives on but the construct it refers to has changed in quite major ways.”
§ Focus on Form: A Critical Review > Focus-on-form according to Long
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“But it would seem that 'focus on form' is no longer seen as an 'approach' (i.e.FonF) but as a set of procedures.”
§ Focus on Form: A Critical Review > Focus-on-form according to Long
hedged- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Clearly, focus on form now involves much more than the negotiation of meaning.”
§ Focus on Form: A Critical Review > Focus-on-form according to Long
boosted- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim.
In the paper
“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).”
§ Focus on Form: A Critical Review > Focus-on-form according to Long
What the sources say
- Not checked — no full text of the sourcecites Long and Crookes, 1992 source
plaincorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
The paper states this without a source or data behind it here, so there is nothing to check it against. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Here Long views FonF and FonFs as 'programs' or 'approaches'.”
§ Focus on Form: A Critical Review > Focus-on-form according to Long
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“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.”
§ Focus on Form: A Critical Review > Focus-on-form according to Long
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: fails — The paper may give no reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it. The paper may give no reason why it holds.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Also the term 'focus on form' is somewhat misleading as the desired focus is not just on form but on form-meaning mapping”
§ Focus on Form: A Critical Review > Defining pedagogic focus on form
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: fails — It may be too vague to check against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. It may be too vague to check against evidence.
The paper states this without a source or data behind it here, so there is nothing to check it against. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Long first used the term in 1988 in a review of research of instructed interlanguage development.”
§ Focus on Form: A Critical Review > Focus-on-form according to Long
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: fails — The paper may give no reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it. The paper may give no reason why it holds.
In the paper
“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.”
§ Focus on Form: A Critical Review > Abstract
What the sources say
- Not matchedcites Long (1988;1991)
Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim.
- Not matched
The paper states this without a source or data behind it here, so there is nothing to check it against. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“For Long, then, the negotiation of meaning was the primary means for achieving a focus on form.”
§ Focus on Form: A Critical Review > Focus-on-form according to Long
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“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.”
§ Focus on Form: A Critical Review > Focus-on-form according to Long
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“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'.”
§ Focus on Form: A Critical Review > Abstract
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: fails — It may be too vague to check against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: fails — The paper may give no reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. It may be too vague to check against evidence. The paper may give no reason why it holds.
The paper states this without a source or data behind it here, so there is nothing to check it against. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“The problem here is that explicit language teaching can also include activities designed to focus learners' attention on form in communicative activities.”
§ Focus on Form: A Critical Review > Defining pedagogic focus on form
plaincorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: fails — The paper may give no reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper may give no reason why it holds.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“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).”
§ Focus on Form: A Critical Review > Focus-on-form according to Long
plainconditional- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it. It may state two separate claims as one.
None of the sources cited for this claim have been checked yet.
In the paper
“Focus on formboth interactive and non-interactivecan vary in how obtrusive it is (i.e.how much it interferes with communication).”
§ Focus on Form: A Critical Review > Defining pedagogic focus on form
plaincorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Clearly an expanded definition of focus on form is needed.”
§ Focus on Form: A Critical Review > Defining pedagogic focus on form
boosted- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: fails — It may be too vague to check against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. It may be too vague to check against evidence.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Clearly, in PPP the focus on form in the production activity must be planned.”
§ Focus on Form: A Critical Review > Defining pedagogic focus on form
boosted- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
The paper states this without a source or data behind it here, so there is nothing to check it against. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“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).”
§ Focus on Form: A Critical Review > Defining pedagogic focus on form
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. It may state two separate claims as one.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“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”
§ Focus on Form: A Critical Review > Cognitive comparison
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
The paper states this without a source or data behind it here, so there is nothing to check it against. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“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.”
§ Focus on Form: A Critical Review > Defining pedagogic focus on form
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: fails — It may be too vague to check against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. It may be too vague to check against evidence.
The paper states this without a source or data behind it here, so there is nothing to check it against. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“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.”
§ Focus on Form: A Critical Review > Defining pedagogic focus on form
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim.
In the paper
“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.”
§ Focus on Form: A Critical Review > Defining pedagogic focus on form
What the sources say
- Not matchedcites VanPatten, 1996
Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
boostedcorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it. It may state two separate claims as one.
- Not matched
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“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.”
§ Focus on Form: A Critical Review > Selective attention
hedgedconditional- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“There are doubts about L2 learners' ability to engage in simultaneous processing of meaning and form.”
§ Focus on Form: A Critical Review > The timing of focus on form
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“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.”
§ Focus on Form: A Critical Review > The timing of focus on form
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. It may state two separate claims as one.
None of the sources cited for this claim have been checked yet.
In the paper
“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.”
§ Focus on Form: A Critical Review > Selective attention
hedgedconditional- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. It may state two separate claims as one.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“The more obtrusive techniques, however, might be better classified as focus-on-forms techniques as arguably they direct rather than attract attention to form.”
§ Focus on Form: A Critical Review > Defining pedagogic focus on form
hedgedconditional- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: fails — It may be too vague to check against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. It may be too vague to check against evidence. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“This manipulation may also lead to enhanced attention to form when learners perform the task.”
§ Focus on Form: A Critical Review > Defining pedagogic focus on form
hedgedconditional- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
In the paper
“LREs are clearly instances of focus on form and typically involve explicit attention to form.”
§ Focus on Form: A Critical Review > Defining pedagogic focus on form
What the sources say
- Not matchedcites Swain (1998)
Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
boostedcorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
- Not matched
A claim is checked only against the cited paper’s full text, never its abstract, and none is available for its sources.
In the paper
“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.”
§ Focus on Form: A Critical Review > Defining pedagogic focus on form
What the sources say
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it. It may state two separate claims as one.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“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.”
§ Focus on Form: A Critical Review > Cognitive comparison
hedgedconditional- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: fails — The paper may give no reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it. The paper may give no reason why it holds. It may state two separate claims as one.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“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.”
§ Focus on Form: A Critical Review > Defining pedagogic focus on form
hedgedcorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: fails — It may be too vague to check against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. It may be too vague to check against evidence. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“However, Doughty & Williams clearly had interactive focus on form in mind.”
§ Focus on Form: A Critical Review > Cognitive comparison
boosted- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: fails — The paper may give no reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it. The paper may give no reason why it holds.
In the paper
“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.”
§ Focus on Form: A Critical Review > Defining pedagogic focus on form
What the sources say
- Not matchedcites Ellis 2015
Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim.
- Not matched
A claim is checked only against the cited paper’s full text, never its abstract, and none is available for its sources.
In the paper
“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).”
§ Focus on Form: A Critical Review > Defining pedagogic focus on form
What the sources say
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“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.”
§ Focus on Form: A Critical Review > Defining pedagogic focus on form
plainconditional- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
In the paper
“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.”
§ Focus on Form: A Critical Review > The psycholinguistic dimension of focus on form
What the sources say
- Not checked — no full text of the sourcecites Doughty, 2001 source
plaincorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
The paper states this without a source or data behind it here, so there is nothing to check it against. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“In focus on forms activities attention is intended to be selectively focused on linguistic form.”
§ Focus on Form: A Critical Review > Selective attention
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: fails — The paper may give no reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it. The paper may give no reason why it holds.
In the paper
“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”
§ Focus on Form: A Critical Review > The timing of focus on form
What the sources say
- Not matchedcites Doughty and Varela's (1998)
Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
hedgedconditional- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
- Not matched
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“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.”
§ Focus on Form: A Critical Review > Defining pedagogic focus on form
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“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.”
§ Focus on Form: A Critical Review > Selective attention
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: fails — The paper may give no reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it. The paper may give no reason why it holds.
The paper states this without a source or data behind it here, so there is nothing to check it against. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Non-interactive focus on form has also attracted considerable research.”
§ Focus on Form: A Critical Review > Defining pedagogic focus on form
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“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.”
§ Focus on Form: A Critical Review > Selective attention
hedgedconditional- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“These focus on form episodes are designed to avoid rather than repair a linguistic problem but they are clearly still problem-oriented.”
§ Focus on Form: A Critical Review > Defining pedagogic focus on form
boosteddirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. It may state two separate claims as one.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“The problem here lies in trying to characterize FonF and FonFs as approaches.”
§ Focus on Form: A Critical Review > Defining pedagogic focus on form
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: fails — It may be too vague to check against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. It may be too vague to check against evidence.
The paper states this without a source or data behind it here, so there is nothing to check it against. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“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.”
§ Focus on Form: A Critical Review > Defining pedagogic focus on form
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. It may state two separate claims as one.
The paper states this without a source or data behind it here, so there is nothing to check it against. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“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).”
§ Focus on Form: A Critical Review > Cognitive comparison
plainconditional- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
The paper states this without a source or data behind it here, so there is nothing to check it against. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“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.”
§ Focus on Form: A Critical Review > Defining pedagogic focus on form
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: fails — The paper may give no reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper may give no reason why it holds.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“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.”
§ Focus on Form: A Critical Review > Working memory and focus on form
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim.
The paper states this without a source or data behind it here, so there is nothing to check it against. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“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.”
§ Focus on Form: A Critical Review > The discoursal dimension of focus on form
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Rests on an assumption: Interaction plays the central role in both first language acquisition and naturalistic L2 acquisition.
In the paper
“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.”
§ Focus on Form: A Critical Review > Text-enhancement
What the sources say
- Not checked — no full text of the sourcecites Lee & Huang's (2008) source
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
In the paper
“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.”
§ Focus on Form: A Critical Review > Working memory and focus on form
What the sources say
- Not matchedcites Wen, 2015
Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
- Not matched
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“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.”
§ Focus on Form: A Critical Review > Working memory and focus on form
plaincorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: fails — The paper may give no reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it. The paper may give no reason why it holds.
In the paper
“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).”
§ Focus on Form: A Critical Review > The discoursal dimension of focus on form
What the sources say
- Not checked — no full text of the sourcecites Nassaji, 2013 source
hedgeddirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
The paper states this without a source or data behind it here, so there is nothing to check it against. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“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).”
§ Focus on Form: A Critical Review > The discoursal dimension of focus on form
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: fails — The paper may give no reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it. The paper may give no reason why it holds. It may state two separate claims as one.
A claim is checked only against the cited paper’s full text, never its abstract, and none is available for its sources.
In the paper
“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).”
§ Focus on Form: A Critical Review > The discoursal dimension of focus on form
What the sources say
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“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.”
§ Focus on Form: A Critical Review > Corrective feedback
hedgedconditional- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: unclear — It is unclear why the paper says it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“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.”
§ Focus on Form: A Critical Review > Text-enhancement
hedgedconditional- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
The paper states this without a source or data behind it here, so there is nothing to check it against. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“There is now a substantial body of descriptive classroom-based research that has investigated the discoursal aspects of focus-on-form.”
§ Focus on Form: A Critical Review > The discoursal dimension of focus on form
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: fails — The paper may give no reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it. The paper may give no reason why it holds.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“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.”
§ Focus on Form: A Critical Review > Corrective feedback
boosteddirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“In contrast, if there is time for analysis of the input, deeper processing involving declarative memory may take place resulting in explicit knowledge.”
§ Focus on Form: A Critical Review > Working memory and focus on form
hedgedconditional- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
In the paper
“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).”
§ Focus on Form: A Critical Review > The discoursal dimension of focus on form
What the sources say
- Not checked — no full text of the sourcecites J.Williams, 2001 source
plaincorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
In the paper
“But implicit forms of CF such as recasts have also been found to be effective and may even have a greater long-term effect.”
§ Focus on Form: A Critical Review > Corrective feedback
What the sources say
- Not matchedcites Li's (2010)
Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
hedgedconditional- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
- Not matched
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“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.”
§ Focus on Form: A Critical Review > Corrective feedback
hedgedconditional- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
In the paper
“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.”
§ Focus on Form: A Critical Review > Corrective feedback
What the sources say
- Not checked — no full text of the sourcecites McDonough (2004) source
plaincorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim.
In the paper
“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).”
§ Focus on Form: A Critical Review > Text-enhancement
What the sources say
- Not checked — no full text of the sourcecites Lee & Huang, 2008 source
hedgedconditional- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
In the paper
“She reported that over 60% of the feedback episodes led to learning.”
§ Focus on Form: A Critical Review > Corrective feedback
What the sources say
- Not matchedcites Adams (2007)
Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Not matched
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“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.”
§ Focus on Form: A Critical Review > Working memory and focus on form
hedgeddirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Noticing affects intake but not everything that is taken into working memory passes into long term memory.”
§ Focus on Form: A Critical Review > Text-enhancement
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“It is becoming clear that the role of working memory in processing focus-on-form interventions is complex.”
§ Focus on Form: A Critical Review > Working memory and focus on form
boosted- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: fails — The paper may give no reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it. The paper may give no reason why it holds.
In the paper
“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.”
§ Focus on Form: A Critical Review > Pre-task planning
What the sources say
- Not matchedcites Mochizuki & Ortega
Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
- Not matched
In the paper
“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.”
§ Focus on Form: A Critical Review > Comparative studies of FonF and FonFs
What the sources say
- Not checked — no full text of the sourcecites Shintani (2015) source
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. It may state two separate claims as one.
In the paper
“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).”
§ Focus on Form: A Critical Review > Comparative studies of FonF and FonFs
What the sources say
- Not matchedcites Shintani
Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. It may state two separate claims as one.
- Not matched
In the paper
“Gass et al (1999) found an effect for repetition on the accurate use of a specific grammatical feature.”
§ Focus on Form: A Critical Review > Task-repetition
What the sources say
- Not checked — no full text of the sourcecites Gass et al (1999) source
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“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.”
§ Focus on Form: A Critical Review > Conclusion
boostedconditional- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Focus on form is a crucial feature of task-based language teaching.”
§ Focus on Form: A Critical Review > Critiques of focus on form
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: fails — The paper may give no reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it. The paper may give no reason why it holds.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“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: A Critical Review > Conclusion
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: fails — The paper may give no reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it. The paper may give no reason why it holds.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“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.”
§ Focus on Form: A Critical Review > Conclusion
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
In the paper
“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.”
§ Focus on Form: A Critical Review > Pre-task planning
What the sources say
- Not checked — no full text of the sourcecites Ellis (2009) source
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
In the paper
“Sheen (2006) found that FonFs instruction led to greater learning than FonF but this study was seriously flawed.”
§ Focus on Form: A Critical Review > Comparative studies of FonF and FonFs
What the sources say
- Not checked — no full text of the sourcecites Sheen (2006) source
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“The scope of pedagogic focus on form has expanded considerably over the years, however.”
§ Focus on Form: A Critical Review > Conclusion
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“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.”
§ Focus on Form: A Critical Review > Conclusion
boosteddirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“There is also an important discoursal dimension to interactive focus-on-form.”
§ Focus on Form: A Critical Review > Conclusion
plaincorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: fails — The paper may give no reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper may give no reason why it holds.
In the paper
“These problems are now well documented (see, for example Carless, 2004) and cannot be easily overcome.”
§ Focus on Form: A Critical Review > Conclusion
What the sources say
- Not checked — no full text of the sourcecites Carless, 2004 source
boosted- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: unclear — It is unclear whether it could be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“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.”
§ Focus on Form: A Critical Review > Conclusion
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: fails — The paper may give no reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper may give no reason why it holds.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“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).”
§ Focus on Form: A Critical Review > Critiques of focus on form
boosteddirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: unclear — It is unclear why the paper says it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“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.”
§ Focus on Form: A Critical Review > Conclusion
boosteddirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“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.”
§ Focus on Form: A Critical Review > Conclusion
plaincorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
In the paper
“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.”
§ Focus on Form: A Critical Review > Comparative studies of FonF and FonFs
What the sources say
- Not checked — no full text of the sourcecites Sheen's (2006) source
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: fails — It may be too vague to check against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. It may be too vague to check against evidence. It may state two separate claims as one.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“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.”
§ Focus on Form: A Critical Review > Conclusion
plaincorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: fails — The paper may give no reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper may give no reason why it holds. It may state two separate claims as one.
In the paper
“Some studies reported that pre-task planning aided complexity but not accuracy and viceversa lending support to Skehan's (2009) Trade-off Hypothesis.”
§ Focus on Form: A Critical Review > Pre-task planning
What the sources say
- Not checked — no full text of the sourcecites Skehan's (2009) source
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it. It may state two separate claims as one.
In the paper
“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.”
§ Focus on Form: A Critical Review > Task-repetition
What the sources say
- Not matchedcites Sheppard (2006)
Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. It may state two separate claims as one.
- Not matched
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“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.”
§ Focus on Form: A Critical Review > Conclusion
plaincorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: fails — The paper may give no reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper may give no reason why it holds.
None of the sources cited for this claim could be matched to a paper in Crossref, so there is nothing to check it against.
In the paper
“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).”
§ Focus on Form: A Critical Review > Critiques of focus on form
What the sources say
- Not matchedcites Prabhu, 1987
Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
- Not matchedcites Van den Branden, 2006
Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
- Not matched
In the paper
“They reported that a general focus on grammar had a negative impact on complexity and fluency without enhancing accuracy”
§ Focus on Form: A Critical Review > Pre-task planning
What the sources say
- Not matchedcites Pang & Skehan
Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. It may state two separate claims as one.
- Not matched
In the paper
“Bygate (1996;2001), for example reported that fluency and complexity increased in the repeated task but not accuracy.”
§ Focus on Form: A Critical Review > Task-repetition
What the sources say
- Not matchedcites Bygate (1996;2001)
Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it. It may state two separate claims as one.
- Not matched
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“However, the results of task-repetition studies have produced somewhat mixed results along with evidence of trade-off effects in the repeated task.”
§ Focus on Form: A Critical Review > Task-repetition
plaincorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
In the paper
“Lynch & McLean (2000) found that repetition led to increased accuracy in low proficiency learners but to more complex language in higher proficiency learners.”
§ Focus on Form: A Critical Review > Task-repetition
What the sources say
- Not matchedcites Lynch & McLean (2000)
Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it. It may state two separate claims as one.
- Not matched
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“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.”
§ Focus on Form: A Critical Review > Conclusion
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
In the paper
“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).”
§ Focus on Form: A Critical Review > Comparative studies of FonF and FonFs
What the sources say
- Not matchedcites Sheen
Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
- Not matched
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“There is well-defined psycholinguistic dimension to focus on form.”
§ Focus on Form: A Critical Review > Conclusion
boosted- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: fails — The paper may give no reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper may give no reason why it holds.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“The limited capacity of WM constrains what learners can attend to while communicating and thus influences what they can focus on and learn.”
§ Focus on Form: A Critical Review > Conclusion
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: fails — The paper may give no reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper may give no reason why it holds.
In the paper
“Also the tests in his study all involved controlled production of the target features and so favoured the FonFs group”
§ Focus on Form: A Critical Review > Comparative studies of FonF and FonFs
What the sources say
- Not matchedcites Sheen
Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
- Not matched
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“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.”
§ Focus on Form: A Critical Review > Conclusion
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
The paper relies on this without support.
Constructs in Applied Linguistics are not stable, evolving as a result of research and accompanying theory development.
“These constructs are, however, not stable, evolving as a result of research and accompanying theory development.”
The paper relies on this without support.
Even though constructs themselves are not stable, the original labels stick.
“However, even though the constructs themselves are not stable, the original labels stick.”
The paper relies on this without support.
Focus on form is a central construct in task-based language teaching.
“Focus-on form' (FonF) is a central construct in task-based language teaching.”
The paper relies on this without support.
Interaction plays the central role in both first language acquisition and naturalistic L2 acquisition.
“on the grounds that it is interaction that plays the central role in both first language acquisition and naturalistic L2 acquisition.”
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
Each contradiction between two passages listed here was confirmed by an independent check.
Rated minor: it would not touch a result — a value no result rests on, a p-value that stays on the same side of the significance level, or a conflict that is clerical, resolved elsewhere in the paper, or outside its own findings.
In the paper
§ Focus on Form: A Critical Review > The timing of focus on form
“as several commentators have pointed out (Nicholas et al 2002;Ellis & Sheen, 2006)”
§ Focus on Form: A Critical Review > References
“61. Nicholas, H., P. Lightbown, and N. Spada. 2001. Recasts as feedback to language learners.”
Rated minor: it would not touch a result — a value no result rests on, a p-value that stays on the same side of the significance level, or a conflict that is clerical, resolved elsewhere in the paper, or outside its own findings.
In the paper
§ Focus on Form: A Critical Review > Pre-task planning
“Some studies have investigated this (e.g.Ortega 1999Ortega , 2005;;Mochizuki & Ortega, 2008;Pang & Skehan, 2015).”
§ Focus on Form: A Critical Review > References
“64. Pang, F., & Skehan, P. (2014). Self-reported planning behaviour and second language performance in narrative retelling.”
Rated minor: it would not touch a result — a value no result rests on, a p-value that stays on the same side of the significance level, or a conflict that is clerical, resolved elsewhere in the paper, or outside its own findings.
In the paper
§ Focus on Form: A Critical Review > Selective attention
“Tomlin and Villa (1993) argued that what they called 'detection' can occur without conscious awareness.”
§ Focus on Form: A Critical Review > References
“86. Tomlin, R. and V. Villa. 1994. Attention in cognitive science and second language acquisition.”
Citations
Cites
Speaking: from intention to articulation
(1989) · Choice Reviews Online · doi:10.5860/choice.27-1947 · Cited by 5,017
Speaking: From Intention to Articulation
Levelt, W. J. M. (1989) · doi:10.7551/mitpress/6393.001.0001 · Cited by 4,804
The Role of the Linguistic Environment in Second Language Acquisition
Long, M. H. (1996) · Handbook of Second Language Acquisition · doi:10.1016/b978-012589042-7/50015-3 · Cited by 3,927
Task-based Language Learning and Teaching
Ellis, R. (2003) · Asian Journal of English Language Teaching · doi:10.65961/ajelt-2003-1-009 · Cited by 3,601
Self-citationA Cognitive Approach to Language Learning
Garcia, P., & Skehan, P. (1999) · TESOL Quarterly · doi:10.2307/3587891 · Cited by 3,489
TASK-BASED LANGUAGE LEARNING AND TEACHING
Mackey, A. (2004) · Studies in Second Language Acquisition · doi:10.1017/s0272263104293056 · Cited by 2,842
CORRECTIVE FEEDBACK AND LEARNER UPTAKE: Negotiation of Form in Communicative Classrooms
Lyster, R., & Ranta, L. (1997) · Studies in Second Language Acquisition · doi:10.1017/s0272263197001034 · Cited by 2,629 · cited 3×
“In immersion classrooms, for example, corrective feedback of various kinds still occurs (Lyster & Ranta, 1997).”
Background(1998) · Cited by 2,572
Focus on Form: A Design Feature in Language Teaching Methodology
Long, M. (1991) · Studies in Bilingualism · doi:10.1075/sibil.2.07lon · Cited by 1,775 · cited 3×
“‘Focus on form’ was first used by Michael Long but has been borrowed (and extended) by countless scholars and researchers since.”
BackgroundMethodUnderstanding Second Language Acquisition
Ortega, L. (2014) · Routledge eBooks · doi:10.4324/9780203777282 · Cited by 1,634
Research works printed but not linked: 12
- Adams R., 2007, Conversational interaction in second language learning, 29
- Doughty C., 1998, Focus-on-form in classroom second language acquisition, 114
- Doughty C., 1998, Focus-on-form in classroom second language acquisition
- Doughty C., 1998, Focus-on-form in classroom second language acquisition, 1
- Doughty C., 1998, Focus-on-form in classroom second language acquisition, 197
- Long M., 1983, On TESOL ’82, 207
- Long M., 2006, Problems in SLA
- Long M., 1998, Focus-on-form in classroom second language acquisition, 15
- Mackey A., 2007, Conversational interaction in second language acquisition: A collection of empirical studies
- Schmidt R., 1994, AILA Review, 11, 11
- Shook D., 1999, Applied Language Learning, 10, 39
- Swain M., 1998, Focus-on-form in classroom second language acquisition
Cited by
Sorted by citations
Task-Based Language Teaching: Theory and Practice
Ellis, R., Skehan, P., Li, S., Shintani, N., & Lambert, C. (2019) · doi:10.1017/9781108643689 · Cited by 407
Self-citationAI in the Foreign Language Classroom: A Pedagogical Overview of Automated Writing Assistance Tools
Alharbi, W. (2023) · Education Research International · doi:10.1155/2023/4253331 · Cited by 286
Task-based language teaching theory and practice
Ellis, R., Skehan, P., Li, S., Shintani, N., & Lambert, C. (2020) · Cited by 284
Self-citationTBLT implementation and evaluation: A meta-analysis
Bryfonski, L., & McKay, T. (2017) · Language Teaching Research · doi:10.1177/1362168817744389 · Cited by 301
Towards a modular language curriculum for using tasks
Ellis, R. (2019) · Language Teaching Research · doi:10.1177/1362168818765315 · Cited by 211
Self-citation
Metadata
- Authors
- Ellis, R.
- Affiliations
- Shanghai International Studies University (CN)
- Corresponding author
- Ellis, Rod
- ORCID
- Ellis, Rod
- Venue
- Language Teaching Research
- Publisher
- SAGE Publications
- Published
- 2016-02-11
- Volume
- 20
- Issue
- 3
- Pages
- 405-428
- ISSN
- 1362-1688 (ISSN-L)
- 1477-0954
- OpenAlex
- W2255348714
- Cited by
- 417
- References
- 98
- Citations by year
- 2026: 21 · 2025: 38 · 2024: 29 · 2023: 35 · 2022: 37 · 2021: 75 · 2020: 86 · 2019: 54 · 2018: 17 · 2017: 19 · 2016: 5
- FWCI
- 201.71
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- green
- hdl.handle.net
- Locations
- Language Teaching Research (publishedVersion)
- eSpace (Curtin University) (submittedVersion)
- 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
- form-focused instruction, task-based language teaching, second language acquisition, explicit grammar instruction, psycholinguistics, discourse analysis, language teaching approaches
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.
A language model drew the claims from the paper on 2026-10-11, under version 3 of the claim definition (model deepseek-v4.1-flash, prompt extract-v3).
A second model labelled each claim on 2026-10-11 (model jev-1.13-20260917, definition revision gold-guideline-v0.2).
Cited sources are checked with a language model’s help (gpt-6-sol).
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
