Cited by 48EFL/ESL Teaching and LearningSecond Language Acquisition and LearningLinguistics and Language Analysis

The Occurrence and Effectiveness of Spontaneous Focus on Form in Adult ESL Classrooms

Nassaji, Hossein·2010·The Canadian Modern Language Review

Abstract

In recent years, researchers have become increasingly interested in the notion of spontaneous focus on form (FonF) (i.e., attention to linguistic forms that arise incidentally during meaningful communication). Previous research has indicated that such FonF is beneficial for L2 learning. However, this research has focused mainly on reactive FonF, with relatively little investigation into pre-emptive FonF. This paper presents findings from a large-scale, classroom-based study that examined the role of both reactive and pre-emptive FonF in second-language development as measured by tailor-made, student-specific post-tests. Data from 54 hours of classroom interaction within seven intact ESL classes at three levels of language proficiency revealed that both reactive and pre-emptive FonF occurred. However, pre-emptive FonF led to higher individualized post-test scores than did reactive FonF. Furthermore, the amount, type, and effectiveness of FonF were strongly related to the learners’ level of language proficiency.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.3138/cmlr.66.6.907

Cites

60 of 60 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

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

Claims the paper makes

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

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

  • In lessons where there is a primary focus on meaning, focus on form occurs frequently.

    “In lessons where there is a primary focus on meaning, focus on form occurs frequently (Ellis, Basturkmen & Loewen, 2001); Nassaji (2010).”

    From Focus on form: A critical review (2016) · cites this paper as Nassaji (2010)

  • The effectiveness of reactive and pre-emptive focus on form differs depending on learners' language proficiency and class level, with advanced level learners benefiting more from reactive focus on form than less advanced learners.

    “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.”

    From Focus on form: A critical review (2016) · cites this paper as Nassaji (2010)

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Nassaji, H.
Corresponding author
Nassaji, Hossein
Venue
The Canadian Modern Language Review
Published
2010-12
Volume
66
Issue
6
Pages
907-933
ISSN
  • 0008-4506 (ISSN-L)
  • 1710-1131
OpenAlex
W2098617271
Cited by
48
References
60
Citations by year
2026: 3 · 2025: 1 · 2023: 3 · 2022: 3 · 2021: 1 · 2020: 4 · 2019: 4 · 2018: 1 · 2017: 6 · 2016: 5 · 2015: 4 · 2014: 4 · 2013: 6 · 2012: 2
FWCI
25.35
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Locations
  • Canadian Modern Language Review/ La Revue canadienne des langues vivantes (publishedVersion)
  • Project Muse (Johns Hopkins 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
second language acquisition, ESL classroom, adult language learners, language proficiency, classroom interaction, form-focused instruction

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review