The Occurrence and Effectiveness of Spontaneous Focus on Form in Adult ESL Classrooms
Bibliographic record
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.
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 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 | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".