Form‐Focused Instruction: Isolated or Integrated?
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
There is increasing consensus that form‐focused instruction helps learners in communicative or content‐based instruction to learn features of the target language that they may not acquire without guidance. The subject of this article is the role of instruction that is provided in separate (isolated) activities or within the context of communicative activities (integrated). Research suggests that both types of instruction can be beneficial, depending on the language feature to be learned, as well as characteristics of the learner and the learning conditions. For example, isolated lessons may be necessary to help learners who share the same first language (L1) overcome problems related to L1 influence on their interlanguage; integrated instruction may be best for helping learners develop the kind of fluency and automaticity that are needed for communication outside the classroom. The evidence suggests that teachers and students see the benefits of both types of instruction. Explanations for the effectiveness of each type of instruction are drawn from theoretical work in second language acquisition and cognitive psychology as well as from empirical research.
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 | 0.001 | 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 | 0.001 |
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