An Exploration of L2 Teachers’ Use of Pedagogical Interventions Devised to Draw L2 Learners’ Attention to Form
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This descriptive observational study aimed at exploring the form‐focused instruction (FFI) interventions used by four French and four English as‐a‐second‐language high school teachers to draw their students’ attention to form. With the help of an Intervention‐on‐Form(s)‐Observation Scheme (IFOS) developed and tested for this purpose, each FFI intervention observed during 60 hours of video‐recorded class time was coded according to its type (e.g., corrective feedback, explanation, enhancement, form‐oriented exercises) and its related characteristics (e.g., linguistic focus, interactional pattern, source of the intervention). The results show that grammar‐oriented interventions are rather frequent in these second‐language classes and that some differences in preferences of intervention types exist in the two contexts. Although FFI interventions are more frequent in the English classes observed, the overall time spent on FFI is significantly higher in the French classes. The reasons for this as well as details regarding the characteristics of the interventions coded through the use of the IFOS will be discussed.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.003 | 0.014 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".