Is There a Better Time to Focus on Form? Teacher and Learner Views
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 investigated the views of teachers and learners regarding the timing of grammatical instruction, conceptualized as a distinction between isolated and integrated form‐focused instruction ( FFI ) proposed by Spada and Lightbown (2008). Both types of FFI are described as taking place in primarily meaning‐based communicative classrooms. They differ in that isolated FFI occurs separately from communicative activities, whereas integrated FFI occurs during communicative activities. Using this theoretical distinction, the researchers developed teacher and learner questionnaires and validated them as measures of both constructs supported by factor analysis. The questionnaires were administered to explore the views of teachers and learners in two contexts, ESL in Canada and EFL in Brazil. Quantitative and qualitative analyses of the questionnaire data indicate a distinct preference for integrated FFI across groups (i.e., teachers and learners) and contexts (i.e., EFL and ESL ). At the same time teachers and learners also acknowledged the value of isolated FFI . These views recognizing the important roles played by both integrated and isolated FFI are consistent with those discussed in the instructed second language acquisition literature. Teachers and learners also drew attention to contextual and individual differences that may have an impact on decisions about the timing of grammatical instruction.
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 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 0.008 |
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