Participation Structure and Incidental Focus on Form in Adult ESL Classrooms
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This study examined the role of incidental focus on form (FonF) in adult English‐as‐a‐second‐language classrooms. Specifically, it explored the extent to which the amount, type, and effectiveness of FonF were related to differences in classroom participation structure, that is, the organization of classroom talk within which FonF may occur. The data consisted of 54 hours of audio‐ and video‐recorded classroom interaction collected over two 12‐week semesters from 35 lessons at three levels of language proficiency: beginner, intermediate, and advanced. The data were transcribed and coded in terms of types of FonF (reactive vs. preemptive, and student vs. teacher initiated) and types of participation structure (whole class, small group, and individual one on one). Individualized posttests were developed and administered to each student 1 week after each classroom observation to assess the effectiveness of FonF. The results revealed that incidental FonF occurred rather frequently in all classrooms but its occurrence varied depending on the type of participation structure. The results also demonstrated a relationship between participation structure and the effectiveness of FonF as well as an interaction between participation structure and class levels. These findings highlight the role of classroom participation structure as an important contextual factor that may impact the provision and success of incidental FonF.
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.
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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 it