Incidental Focus on Form and Second Language Learning

Abstract

Incidental focus on form overtly draws learners' attention to linguistic items as they arise spontaneously—without prior planning—in meaning-focused interaction. This study examined the effectiveness of incidental focus on form in promoting second language (L2) learning. Seventeen hours of naturally occurring, meaning-focused L2 lessons were observed in 12 different classes of young adults in a private language school in Auckland, New Zealand. A total of 491 focus-on-form episodes (FFEs) were identified and used as a basis for individualized test items in which participants who participated in specific FFEs were asked to recall the linguistic information provided in them. The results revealed that learners were able to recall the targeted linguistic information correctly or partially correctly nearly 60% of the time 1 day after the FFE, and 50% of the time 2 weeks later. Furthermore, successful uptake in a FFE was found to be a significant predictor of correct test scores. These results suggest that incidental focus on form might be beneficial to learners, particularly if they incorporate the targeted linguistic items into their own production.This research was supported, in part, by a scholarship from the Foundation for Science, Research, and Technology, New Zealand. The author would like to thank the teachers and participants who kindly gave of their time to participate in this study. The author would also like to thank Rod Ellis, Catherine Elder, Helen Basturkmen, Rosemary Erlam, Jenefer Philp, and the anonymous SSLA reviewers for their valuable input and feedback on this study. Earlier versions of this paper were presented at the annual meeting of the American Association of Applied Linguistics in 2002 (Salt Lake City, UT) and at AILA 2002 (Singapore).

Role of focus-on-form instruction, corrective feedback and uptake in second language classrooms: some insights from recent second language acquisition research

“…He found that when learners produced more complex or accurate forms in modified output, they were more likely to produce these forms in subsequent utterances, again suggesting sustained impact. Loewen (2005) in similar vein observed that successful uptake in focus-on-form episodes served as a significant predictor of correct test scores, further evidence to support the assumption that uptake reflects or indeed promotes language development.…”

“…Table 1 below summarises key findings from the research reviewed above on focus on form. Lightbown and Spada (1990), Doughty and Varela (1998), Harley (1998), Muranoi (2000), Ellis (2002), Mennim (2003), Lyster (2004), Loewen (2005), Bouffard and Sarkar (2008) Use of focuson-form instruction in CLT classrooms Focus on form may occur without interfering with the communicative flow of the lessons Seedhouse (1997), Doughty and Varela (1998), Ellis et al (2001aEllis et al ( 2001b Effectiveness of focus-onform instruction depending on type Using both explicit and implicit focus-on-form strategies can promote language learning Spada (1997) Using implicit eliciting focus on form can promote language learning Lyster (2004) and Loewen (2004) Using explicit focus-on-form strategies can promote language learning Ellis (2002) and Fuente (2006) Research on learners Learners believe that they can attend to form and meaning at the same time Doughty and Varela (1998) Learner-driven independent focus on form (learner noticing) seems to have positive impact on their L2 proficiency Mackey (2006), Mennim, (2007, Hanaoka (2007) When learners initiate focus on form they seem to address lexical aspects in particular Williams (1999), Ellis et al (2001a) More proficient learners are likely to pay more attention to form than less proficient learners Williams (1999) Research on teachers Discrepancies in teacher beliefs and practice in relation to their use of focus on form in communicatively oriented classrooms Basturkmen et al (2004) TeachersÕ experience seems to play a role in teachersÕ use of focus on form Mackey, et al (2004) Corrective feedback Iwashita (2003: 2) defines corrective feedback as Ôsome kind of native speaker response to what the learner has saidÕ; it may in fact be better understood as some kind of response from a more expert language user, often a teac...…”

“…Some argue that learner uptake plays a positive role in learnersÕ second language development (McDonough 2005;Loewen 2005); others, even though they admit that uptake may be an important and observable source for understanding the impact of the feedback, doubt that it leads to long-term learning (Nabei and Swain 2002;Morris and Tarone 2003). They argue that ÔlearnersÕ uptake may not fully represent their cognitive processing of the feedbackÕ (Nabei and Swain 2002: 45).…”

Recasts, Modified Output and L2 Development: A Case of Persian EFL Learners

“…Some types of corrective feedback such as metalinguistc feedback and clarification requests usually demand modification or self-repair on the part of learners, while other types of corrective feedback such as recasts demands no self-repair or modified output. While using learners responses to corrective feedback as a yardstick for measuring the effectiveness of feedback has invoked some criticism (e.g., Long, 2007), some researchers suggested a link between certain types of learners' output in response to corrective feedback and subsequent L2 development (e.g., Loewen, 2005;McDonough, 2004McDonough, , 2005McDonough & Mackey, 2006). The aim of the current study is to investigate the association between learners' responses to recasts and subsequent development.…”

Digital Literacies and Generational Micro-Cultures: Email Feedback in Lebanon

“…While students expect it (Nunan, 1998), and not providing it can contribute to deficient interlanguages (Lightbown & Spada, 1999), error identification is a poor means of grammar feedback, as grammar learning interacts with rhetorical competency and culture performance (Fazio, 2001). Grammar feedback may be more effective if it is incidental, or accompanies attention to semantics (Loewen, 2005). The prevailing wisdom is that grammar feedback should reflect previously-announced, limited and focused criteria (Truscott, 2001).…”