Skip to main content Accessibility help

We use cookies to distinguish you from other users and to provide you with a better experience on our websites. Close this message to accept cookies or find out how to manage your cookie settings.

Close cookie message
×
Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-t7fkt Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-28T05:25:53.382Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
Series:   Elements in Second Language Acquisition

Focus on Form

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  27 April 2021

Alessandro Benati
Alessandro Benati
Affiliation:
The University of Hong Kong

Summary

This Cambridge Element examines the role and nature of focus on form in second language acquisition. An overall assessment of the role of instruction and the nature of language is provided. Instruction might have a facilitative role in the rate of acquisition. The Element briefly reviews empirical research examining the relative effects of different types of focus on form and presents some of the key implications for second language learning and teaching. An effective focus on form type is one that is input and meaning oriented. Manipulating input to facilitate language processing and form-meaning connections might enhance second language acquisition.
Get access

Keywords

focus on formexplicit knowledgeexplicit knowledgelanguageinstruction
Type
Element
Information
Series: Elements in Second Language Acquisition
Online ISBN: 9781108762656
Publisher: Cambridge University Press
Print publication: 06 May 2021

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

Bibliography

Primary Sources

DeKeyser, R. (2015). Skill acquisition theory. In VanPatten, B. & Williams, J. (eds.), Theories in second language acquisition, 2nd ed. (94–112). New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
Housen, A., Kuiken, F. (2009). Complexity, accuracy and fluency in second language acquisition. Special issue. Applied Linguistics, 30 (4).Google Scholar
Keating, G. (2018). Second language acquisition: The basics. New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
VanPatten, B. (2010). Two faces of SLA: Mental representation and skill. Journal of English Studies, 10, 1–18.Google Scholar
VanPatten, B. (2016). Why explicit knowledge cannot turn into implicit knowledge. Foreign Language Annals, 49, 650–7.Google Scholar
VanPatten, B., Benati, A. (2010). Key terms in second language acquisition. London: BloomsburyGoogle Scholar
VanPatten, B., Rothman, J. (2014). Against rules. In Benati, A., Laval, C. & Arche, M. (eds.), The grammar dimension in instructed second language learning (15–35). London: Bloomsbury.Google Scholar

Secondary Sources

Benati, A. (2020). Key questions in language teaching. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Krashen, S. (1982). Principles and practice in second language acquisition. London: Pergamon.Google Scholar
Ellis, N. C. (2012). Frequency-based accounts of SLA. In Gass, S. M. and Mackey, A. (eds.), Handbook of second language acquisition (93–210). New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
Goo, J., Granena, G., Yilmaz, Y., Novella, M. (2015). Implicit and explicit instruction in L2 learning: Norris and Ortega (2000) revisited and updated. In Rebuschat, P. (ed.) Implicit and explicit learning of languages (443–482). Amsterdam: John Benjamins.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kang, E., Sok, S., Han, ZhaoHong (2019). Thirty-five years of ISLA on form-focused instruction: A meta-analysis. Language Teaching Research, 23, 428–53.Google Scholar
Long, M. (1983). Does second language instruction make a difference? TESOL Quarterly, 17, 359–82.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Norris, J., Ortega, L. (2000). Effectiveness of second language instruction: A research synthesis and quantitative meta-analysis. Language Learning, 50, 417–528.Google Scholar
Paradis, M. (2004). A neurolinguistics theory of bilingualism. Amsterdam: John Benjamin.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Pienemann, M., Lenzing, A. (2015). Processability theory. In VanPatten, B. & Williams, J. (eds.), Theories in second language acquisition, 2nd ed. (159–79). New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
Schmidt, R. (1995). Consciousness and foreign language learning: A tutorial on attention andawareness in learning. In Schmidt, R. (ed.), Attention and awareness in foreign language learning (1–63). Honolulu: University of Hawai’i Press.Google Scholar
Schwieter, J., Benati, A. (2019). The Cambridge handbook of language learning. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Spada, N., Tomita, Y. (2010). Interactions between type of instruction and type of language feature: A meta-analysis. Language Learning, 60, 263–308.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
VanPatten, B., Smith, M., Benati, A., (2019). Key questions in second language acquisition: An introduction. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Wong, W., Simard, D. (2018). Focusing on form in language instruction. New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
Benati, A. (2013). Key issues in second language teaching. London: Equinox.Google Scholar
Benati, A., Schwieter, J. (2019). Pedagogical interventions to L2 grammar instruction. In Schwieter, J. & Benati, A. (ed.), The Cambridge handbook of language learning (475–99). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Doughty, C., Williams, J. (eds.). (1998). Focus-on-form in classroom second language acquisition. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Ellis, R. (2016). Focus on form: A critical review. Language Teaching Research, 20, 405–28.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Long, M. (1991). Focus on form: A design feature in language teaching methodology. In de Bot, K., Ginsberg, R. & Kramsch, C. (eds.), Foreign language research in cross-cultural perspective (39–52). Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
Long, M. (2015). Second language acquisition and task-based language teaching. Malden, MA: Wiley Blackwell.Google Scholar
Long, M. (2017). Instructed second language acquisition (ISLA): Geopolitics, methodological issues, and some major research questions. Instructed Second Language Acquisition 1, 7–44.Google Scholar
Long, M., Robinson, P. (1998). Focus on form: Theory, research and practice. In Doughty, C., & Williams, J. (eds.), Focus on form in classroom second language acquisition (15–41). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Nassaji, H., Fotos, S. (2011). Teaching grammar in second language classrooms. New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
Ranta, L., Lyster, R. (2017). Form-focused instruction. In Garrett, P. & Cots, J. (ed.), The Routledge handbook of language awareness (40–56). New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
Alanen, R. (1995). Input enhancement and rule presentation in second language acquisition. In Schmidt, R. (ed.), Attention and awareness in foreign language learning (259–302). Honolulu: University of Hawai‘i Press.Google Scholar
Alsadoon, R. (2015). Textual input enhancement for vowel blindness: A study with Arabic ESL learners. The Modern Language Journal, 99, 57–79.Google Scholar
Boers, F., Demecheleer, M., He, L., Deconinck, J., Stengers, H., Eyckmans, J. (2017). Typographic enhancement of multiword units in second language text. Language Learning, 27, 448–69.Google Scholar
Choi, S. (2016). Processing and learning of enhanced English collocations: An eye movement study. Language Teaching Research, 21, 403–26.Google Scholar
Cintrón-Valentín, M., Ellis, N. (2015). Exploring the interface: Explicit focus-on-form instruction and learned attentional biases in L2 Latin. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 37, 197–235.Google Scholar
Doughty, C. (1991). Second language acquisition does make a difference: Evidence from an empirical study of SL relativization. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 13, 431–69.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hernàndez, T. (2011). Reexamining the role of explicit instruction and input flood on the acquisition of Spanish discourse markers. Language Teaching Research, 15, 159–82.Google Scholar
Indrarathne, B., Kormos, J. (2016). The role of working memory in processing input: Insights from eye-tracking. Bilingualism: Language and Cognition, 21, 355–74.Google Scholar
Issa, B., Morgan-Short, K., Villegas, B., Raney, G. (2015). An eye-tracking study on the role of attention and its relationship with motivation. EUROSLA Yearbook, 15, 114–42.Google Scholar
Izumi, S. (2002). Output, input enhancement, and the noticing hypothesis: An experimental study on ESL relativization. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 24, 541–77.Google Scholar
Jourdenais, R., Ota, M., Stauffer, S., Boyson, B., Doughty, C. (1995). Does textual enhancement promote noticing? A think aloud protocol analysis. In Schmidt, R. (ed.), Attention and awareness in foreign language learning (183–216). Honolulu: University of Hawaii Press.Google Scholar
LaBrozzi, R. (2014). The effects of textual enhancement type on L2 form recognition and reading comprehension in Spanish. Language Teaching Research, 20, 75–91.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lee, M., Révész, A. (2020). Promoting grammatical development through captions and textual enhancement in multimodal input-based tasks. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 42, 625–51.Google Scholar
Lee, S-K. (2007). Effects of textual enhancement and topic familiarity on Korean EFL students’ reading comprehension and learning of passive. Language Learning, 57, 87–118.Google Scholar
Lee, S.-K., Huang, H. (2008). Visual input enhancement and grammar learning: A meta-analytic review. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 30, 307–31.Google Scholar
Leow, R. (1997). The effects of input enhancement and text length on adult L2 readers’ comprehension and intake in second language acquisition. Applied Language Learning, 8, 151–182.Google Scholar
Leow, R. (2001). Do learners notice enhanced forms while interacting with the L2? An online and offline study of the role of written input enhancement in L2 reading. Hispania, 84, 496–509.Google Scholar
Leow, R., Egi, T., Nuevo, A., Tsai, Y. (2003). The roles of textual enhancement and type of linguistic item in adult L2 learners’ comprehension and intake. Applied Language Learning, 13, 1–16.Google Scholar
Meguro, Y. (2017). Textual enhancement, grammar learning, reading comprehension, and tag questions. Language Teaching Research, 23, 58–77.Google Scholar
Overstreet, M. (1998). Text enhancement and content familiarity: The focus of learner attention. Spanish Applied Linguistics, 2, 229–58.Google Scholar
Rahimi, S., Ahmadian, M., Amerian, M., Dowlatabadi, H. R. (2020). Comparing accuracy and durability effects of jigsaw versus input flood tasks on the recognition of regular past tense /-ed/. Open Sage.Google Scholar
Reinders, H., Ellis, R. (2009). The effects of two types of input on intake and the acquisition of implicit and explicit knowledge. In Ellis, R., Loewen, S., Elder, C., Erlam, R., Philp, J., & Reinders, R. (eds.), Implicit and explicit knowledge in second language learning, testing and teaching (282–302). Bristol: Multilingual Matters.Google Scholar
Sharwood Smith, M. (1993). Input enhancement in instructed SLA: Theoretical bases. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 15, 165–79.Google Scholar
Shook, D. J. (1994). What foreign language reading recalls reveal about the input-to-intake phenomenon. Applied Language Learning, 10, 39–76.Google Scholar
Simard, D. (2009). Differential effects of textual enhancement formats on intake. System, 37, 124–35.Google Scholar
Simard, D., Fortier, V., Foucambert, D. (2013). Measuring metasyntactic ability among heritage language children. Bilingualism: Language and Cognition, 16, 19–31.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Szudarski, P., Carter, R. (2016). The role of input flood and input enhancement in EFL learners’ acquisition of collocations. International Journal of Applied Linguistics, 26, 245–65.Google Scholar
Toomer, M., Elgort, I. (2019). The development of implicit and explicit knowledge of collocations: A conceptual replication and extension of Sonbul and Schmitt (2013). Language Learning, 69, 405–39.Google Scholar
Trahey, M., White, L. (1993).Positive evidence and preemption in the second language classroom. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 15, 181–204.Google Scholar
White, J. (1998). Getting the learners’ attention: A typographical input enhancement study. In Doughty, C. & Williams, J. (eds.), Focus on form in classroom second language acquisition (85–113). Cambridge, MA: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Williams, J., & Evans, J. (1998). What kind of focus and on which forms? In Doughty, C. & Williams, J. (eds.), Focus on form in classroom second language acquisition (139–55). Cambridge, MA: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Winke, P. (2013). The effects of input enhancement on grammar learning and comprehension. A modified replication of Lee (2007) with eye-movement data. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 35, 323–52.Google Scholar
Wong, W. (2002). Modality and attention to meaning and form in the input. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 23, 345–368.Google Scholar
Wong, W. (2005). Input enhancement: From theory and research to the classroom. New York: McGraw-Hill.Google Scholar
Zyzik, E., Marqués Pascual, L. (2012). Spanish differential object marking: An empirical study of implicit and explicit instruction. Studies in Hispanic and Lusophone Linguistics, 12, 387–422.Google Scholar
Alanen, R. (1995). Input enhancement and rule presentation in second language acquisition. In Schmidt, R. (ed.), Attention and awareness in foreign language learning (259–302). Honolulu: University of Hawai‘i Press.Google Scholar
Alsadoon, R. (2015). Textual input enhancement for vowel blindness: A study with Arabic ESL learners. The Modern Language Journal, 99, 57–79.Google Scholar
Boers, F., Demecheleer, M., He, L., Deconinck, J., Stengers, H., Eyckmans, J. (2017). Typographic enhancement of multiword units in second language text. Language Learning, 27, 448–69.Google Scholar
Choi, S. (2016). Processing and learning of enhanced English collocations: An eye movement study. Language Teaching Research, 21, 403–26.Google Scholar
Cintrón-Valentín, M., Ellis, N. (2015). Exploring the interface: Explicit focus-on-form instruction and learned attentional biases in L2 Latin. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 37, 197–235.Google Scholar
Doughty, C. (1991). Second language acquisition does make a difference: Evidence from an empirical study of SL relativization. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 13, 431–69.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hernàndez, T. (2011). Reexamining the role of explicit instruction and input flood on the acquisition of Spanish discourse markers. Language Teaching Research, 15, 159–82.Google Scholar
Indrarathne, B., Kormos, J. (2016). The role of working memory in processing input: Insights from eye-tracking. Bilingualism: Language and Cognition, 21, 355–74.Google Scholar
Issa, B., Morgan-Short, K., Villegas, B., Raney, G. (2015). An eye-tracking study on the role of attention and its relationship with motivation. EUROSLA Yearbook, 15, 114–42.Google Scholar
Izumi, S. (2002). Output, input enhancement, and the noticing hypothesis: An experimental study on ESL relativization. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 24, 541–77.Google Scholar
Jourdenais, R., Ota, M., Stauffer, S., Boyson, B., Doughty, C. (1995). Does textual enhancement promote noticing? A think aloud protocol analysis. In Schmidt, R. (ed.), Attention and awareness in foreign language learning (183–216). Honolulu: University of Hawaii Press.Google Scholar
LaBrozzi, R. (2014). The effects of textual enhancement type on L2 form recognition and reading comprehension in Spanish. Language Teaching Research, 20, 75–91.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lee, M., Révész, A. (2020). Promoting grammatical development through captions and textual enhancement in multimodal input-based tasks. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 42, 625–51.Google Scholar
Lee, S-K. (2007). Effects of textual enhancement and topic familiarity on Korean EFL students’ reading comprehension and learning of passive. Language Learning, 57, 87–118.Google Scholar
Lee, S.-K., Huang, H. (2008). Visual input enhancement and grammar learning: A meta-analytic review. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 30, 307–31.Google Scholar
Leow, R. (1997). The effects of input enhancement and text length on adult L2 readers’ comprehension and intake in second language acquisition. Applied Language Learning, 8, 151–182.Google Scholar
Leow, R. (2001). Do learners notice enhanced forms while interacting with the L2? An online and offline study of the role of written input enhancement in L2 reading. Hispania, 84, 496–509.Google Scholar
Leow, R., Egi, T., Nuevo, A., Tsai, Y. (2003). The roles of textual enhancement and type of linguistic item in adult L2 learners’ comprehension and intake. Applied Language Learning, 13, 1–16.Google Scholar
Meguro, Y. (2017). Textual enhancement, grammar learning, reading comprehension, and tag questions. Language Teaching Research, 23, 58–77.Google Scholar
Overstreet, M. (1998). Text enhancement and content familiarity: The focus of learner attention. Spanish Applied Linguistics, 2, 229–58.Google Scholar
Rahimi, S., Ahmadian, M., Amerian, M., Dowlatabadi, H. R. (2020). Comparing accuracy and durability effects of jigsaw versus input flood tasks on the recognition of regular past tense /-ed/. Open Sage.Google Scholar
Reinders, H., Ellis, R. (2009). The effects of two types of input on intake and the acquisition of implicit and explicit knowledge. In Ellis, R., Loewen, S., Elder, C., Erlam, R., Philp, J., & Reinders, R. (eds.), Implicit and explicit knowledge in second language learning, testing and teaching (282–302). Bristol: Multilingual Matters.Google Scholar
Sharwood Smith, M. (1993). Input enhancement in instructed SLA: Theoretical bases. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 15, 165–79.Google Scholar
Shook, D. J. (1994). What foreign language reading recalls reveal about the input-to-intake phenomenon. Applied Language Learning, 10, 39–76.Google Scholar
Simard, D. (2009). Differential effects of textual enhancement formats on intake. System, 37, 124–35.Google Scholar
Simard, D., Fortier, V., Foucambert, D. (2013). Measuring metasyntactic ability among heritage language children. Bilingualism: Language and Cognition, 16, 19–31.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Szudarski, P., Carter, R. (2016). The role of input flood and input enhancement in EFL learners’ acquisition of collocations. International Journal of Applied Linguistics, 26, 245–65.Google Scholar
Toomer, M., Elgort, I. (2019). The development of implicit and explicit knowledge of collocations: A conceptual replication and extension of Sonbul and Schmitt (2013). Language Learning, 69, 405–39.Google Scholar
Trahey, M., White, L. (1993).Positive evidence and preemption in the second language classroom. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 15, 181–204.Google Scholar
White, J. (1998). Getting the learners’ attention: A typographical input enhancement study. In Doughty, C. & Williams, J. (eds.), Focus on form in classroom second language acquisition (85–113). Cambridge, MA: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Williams, J., & Evans, J. (1998). What kind of focus and on which forms? In Doughty, C. & Williams, J. (eds.), Focus on form in classroom second language acquisition (139–55). Cambridge, MA: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Winke, P. (2013). The effects of input enhancement on grammar learning and comprehension. A modified replication of Lee (2007) with eye-movement data. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 35, 323–52.Google Scholar
Wong, W. (2002). Modality and attention to meaning and form in the input. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 23, 345–368.Google Scholar
Wong, W. (2005). Input enhancement: From theory and research to the classroom. New York: McGraw-Hill.Google Scholar
Zyzik, E., Marqués Pascual, L. (2012). Spanish differential object marking: An empirical study of implicit and explicit instruction. Studies in Hispanic and Lusophone Linguistics, 12, 387–422.Google Scholar
Benati, a. (2004a). the effects of structured input and explicit information on the acquisition of italian future tense. In vanpatten, b. (ed.), processing instruction: theory, research, and commentary (207–55). mahwah, nj: erlbaum.Google Scholar
Benati, A. (2004b). The effects of processing instruction and its components on the acquisition of gender agreement in Italian. Language Awareness, 13, 67–80.Google Scholar
Benati, A. (2005). The effects of processing instruction, traditional instruction and meaning-output instruction on the acquisition of the English past simple tense. Language Teaching Research, 9, 87–113.Google Scholar
Benati, A. (2013a). The input processing theory. In Mayo, P. Garcia (ed.), Contemporary approaches to second language acquisition (93–110). Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
Benati, A. (2013b). Age and the effects of processing instruction on the acquisition of EnglishPassive constructions among school children and adult native speakers of Turkish. In Lee, J. F. & Benati, A. (eds.), Individual differences and processing instruction (83–104). Sheffield, UK: Equinox.Google Scholar
Benati, A. (2019). Classroom-oriented research: Processing instruction. Language Teaching. 52,3, 343–59.Google Scholar
Benati, A. (2020). The effects of structured input and traditional instruction on the acquisition of the English causative passive forms: An eye-tracking study measuring accuracy in responses and processing patterns. (forthcoming in Language Teaching Research).Google Scholar
Benati, A. (forthcoming). Input processing and processing instruction: The acquisition of Italian and Modern Standard Arabic. Amsterdam: Benjamins Publishing.Google Scholar
Benati, A., Lee, J. (2008). Grammar acquisition and processing instruction. Clevedon: Multilingual Matters.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Benati, A., Lee, J. (2010). Processing instruction and discourse. London: Bloomsbury.Google Scholar
Benati, A. G., Lee, J. F. (eds.). (2015). Processing instruction: New insights after twenty years of theory, research and application [Special issue]. IRAL, 53.Google Scholar
Benati, A., Batziou, M. (2017) The effects of structured-input and structured-output tasks on the acquisition of English causative. IRAL, 57, 265–288.Google Scholar
Benati, A., Batziou, M. (2019) Discourse and long-term effects of structured-input and structured-output tasks in combination and isolation on the acquisition of passive English causative forms. Accepted and forthcoming in Language Awareness, 28, 1–18.Google Scholar
Benati, A., Schwieter, J. (2017). Input processing and processing instruction: Pedagogical and cognitive considerations for L3 acquisition In Tanja, A. & Hahn, A. (eds.), L3 Syntactic Transfer: Models, New Developments and Implications (195–223). Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
Chiucchiu, G., Benati, A. (2020). The effects of structured input and textual enhancement on the acquisition of Italian Subjunctive: A self-paced reading study. Forthcoming in Instructed Second Language Acquisition.Google Scholar
Farley, A. (2001a). The effects of processing instruction and meaning-based output instruction. Spanish Applied Linguistics, 5, 57–94.Google Scholar
Farley, A. (2001b). Authentic processing instruction and the Spanish subjunctive. Hispania, 84, 289–99.Google Scholar
Farley, A. (2004). Processing instruction and the Spanish subjunctive: Is explicit information needed? In VanPatten, B. (ed.), Processing instruction: Theory, research, and commentary (227–39). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.Google Scholar
Henry, N. (2015). Morphosyntactic processing, cue interaction, and the effects of instruction: An investigation of processing instruction and the acquisition of case markings in L2 German (Unpublished doctoral dissertation)Google Scholar
Ito, K., Wong, W. (2019). Processing instruction and the effects of input modality and voice familiarity on the acquisition of the French causative construction. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 41, 443–68.Google Scholar
Lee, J. (2015). The milestones in twenty years of processing instruction research. International Review of Applied Linguistics in Language Teaching, 53, 111–26.Google Scholar
Lee, J., VanPatten, B. (2003). Making communicative teaching happen, 2nd ed. New York: McGraw-Hill.Google Scholar
Lee, J., Benati, A. (2007a). Delivering processing instruction in classrooms and virtual contexts. London: Equinox.Google Scholar
Lee, J., Benati, A. (2007b). Second language processing: An analysis of theory, problems and possible solutions. Continuum: LondonGoogle Scholar
Lee, J., Benati, A. (2009). Research and perspectives on processing instruction. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar
Lee, J., Doherty, S. (2018), Native and nonnative processing of active and passive sentence: The effects of processing instruction on the allocation of visual attention. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 41, 1–27.Google Scholar
Morgan-Short, K., Bowden, H. (2006). Processing instruction and meaningful output-based instruction: Effects on second language development. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 28, 31–65.Google Scholar
VanPatten, B. (1996). Input processing and grammar instruction: Theory and research. Norwood, NJ: Ablex.Google Scholar
VanPatten, B. (2015a). Input processing in adult SLA. In VanPatten, B. and Williams, J. (eds.), Theories in second language acquisition (113–35). New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
VanPatten, B. (2015b). Foundations of processing instruction. IRAL, 53, 91–109.Google Scholar
VanPatten, B., Cadierno, T. (1993). Explicit instruction and input processing. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 15, 225–43.Google Scholar
VanPatten, B., Fernández, C. (2004) The long-term effects of processing instruction. In VanPatten, B. (ed.), Processing instruction: Theory, research, and commentary (273–289). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.Google Scholar
VanPatten, B., Oikkenon, S. (1996). Explanation vs. structured input in processing instruction. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 18, 495–510.Google Scholar
VanPatten, B., Wong, W. (2004). Processing instruction and the French causative: Another replication. In VanPatten, B. (ed.), Processing instruction: Theory, research, and commentary (97–118). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.Google Scholar
VanPatten, B., Farmer., J., Clardy, C.. (2009). Processing instruction and meaning- based output instruction: A response to Keating and Farley (2008). Hispania, 92, 116–26.Google Scholar
Wong, W., Ito, K. (2018). The effects of processing instruction and traditional instruction on L2 online processing of the causative construction in French: An eye-tracking study. Studies in Second Language Acquisition 40, 241–68.Google Scholar
Ammar, A., Spada, N. (2006) One size fits all? Recasts, prompts and L2 learning. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 28, 543–574.Google Scholar
Carpenter, H., Jeon, K. S., MacGregor, D., Mackey, A. (2006). Learners’ interpretations of recasts. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 28, 209–236.Google Scholar
Doughty, C., Varela, E. (1998) Communicative focus on form. In Doughty, C. and Williams, J. (eds.), Focus on form in classroom second language acquisition. (114–38). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Ellis, R., Loewen, S., Erlam, R. (2006). Implicit and explicit corrective feedback and the acquisition of L2 grammar. Studies in Second Language Acquisition 28, 339–69.Google Scholar
Egi, T. (2007). Recasts, learners’ perceptions, and L2 development. In Mackey, A. (ed.), Conversational interaction in second language acquisition: A series of empirical studies (249–67). Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Ellis, R. (2012) Language teaching research and language pedagogy. Oxford: Wiley-Blackwell.Google Scholar
Gass, S., Mackey, A. (2015). Input, interaction and output in second language acquisition. In VanPatten, B. & Williams, J. (eds.), Theories in second language acquisition: An introduction (175–199). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.Google Scholar
Go, J., Mackey, A. (2013). The case against the case against recasts. Studies in Second Language Acquistion, 35, 127–65.Google Scholar
Granena, G., Yilmaz, Y. (2019). Corrective feedback and the role of implicit sequence-learning ability in L2 online performance. Language Learning, 69, 127–56.Google Scholar
Han, Z. H. (2002). A study of the impact of recasts on tense consistency in L2 output. TESOL Quarterly, 36, 543–72.Google Scholar
Lightbown, P., Spada, N. (1993). How languages are learned. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Lyster, R. (1998). Recasts, repetition, and ambiguity in L2 classroom discourse. Studies in Second Language Acquisition 20, 51–81.Google Scholar
Lyster, R. (2004) Differential effects of prompts and recasts in form-focused instruction. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 26, 399–432.Google Scholar
Lyster, R., Izquierdo, J. (2009). Prompts versus recasts in dyadic interaction. Language Learning 59, 453–98.Google Scholar
Lyster, R., Ranta, L. (1997) Corrective feedback and learner uptake: Negotiation of form in communicative classrooms. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 19, 37–66.Google Scholar
Lyster, R., Saito, K. (2010). Oral feedback in classroom SLA: A meta-analysis. Studies in Second Language Acquisition 32.2, 265–302.Google Scholar
Lyster, R., Saito, K., Sato, M. (2013) Oral corrective feedback in second language classrooms. Language Teaching, 46(1), 1–40.Google Scholar
Loewen, S., Philp, J. (2006). Recasts in the Adult English L2 classroom: Characteristics, explicitness, and effectiveness. Modern Language Journal, 90, 536–56.Google Scholar
Mackey, A., Philp, J. (1998). Conversational interaction and second language development: Recasts, responses, and red herrings? The Modern Language Journal 82, 338–356.Google Scholar
Nabei, T., Swain, M. (2002). Learner awareness of recasts in classroom interaction: A case study of an adult EFL student’s second language learning. Language Awareness 11, 43–63.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Nassaji, H. (2009). Effects of recasts and elicitations in dyadic interaction and the role of feedback explicitness. Language Learning 59, 411–52.Google Scholar
Nassaji, H. (2017). The effectiveness of extensive versus intensive recasts for learning L2 grammar. Modern Language Journal 101.2, 353–68.Google Scholar
Panova, I., Lyster, R. (2002). Patterns of corrective feedback and uptake in an adult ESL classroom. TESOL Quarterly 36, 573–95.Google Scholar
Ranta, L., Lyster, R. (2007) A cognitive approach to improving immersion students’ oral language abilities: The Awareness-Practice-Feedback sequence. In DeKeyser, R. (ed.), Practice in a second language: Perspectives from applied linguistics and cognitive psychology (141–60). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Rassaei, E. (2020). The separate and combined effects of recasts and textual enhancement as two focus on form techniques on L2 development. System, 89, 1–14.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sato, M. (2013). Beliefs about peer interaction and peer corrective feedback: Efficacy of classroom intervention. The Modern Language Journal 97, 611–33.Google Scholar
Saito, K., Lyster, R. (2012) Effects of form–focused instruction and corrective feedback on L2 pronunciation development of /r/ by Japanese learners of English. Language Learning, 62(2), 595–33.Google Scholar
Sheen, Y. (2007) The effects of corrective feedback, language aptitude, and learner attitudes on the acquisition of English articles. In Mackey, A. (ed.), Conversational interaction in second language acquisition: A collection of empirical studies. (301–22). Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Yang, Y., Lyster, R. (2010). Effects of form-focused practice and feedback on Chinese EFL learners’ acquisition of regular and irregular past tense forms. Studies in Second Language Acquisition 32, 235–63.Google Scholar
Alegría de la Colina, A., García Mayo, M. P. (2007). Attention to form across collaborative tasks by low-proficiency learners in an EFL setting. In García Mayo, M. P. (ed.), Investigating Tasks in Formal Language Settings (91–116). Clevedon: Multilingual Matters.Google Scholar
Basterrechea, M., García Mayo, M. P. (2013). Language-related episodes (LREs) during collaborative tasks: A comparison of CLIL and EFL learners. In McDonough, K. & Mackey, A. (eds.), Second language interaction in diverse educational contexts (25–43). Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
Basterrechea, M., García Mayo, M. P., Leeser, M. J. (2014). Pushed output and noticing in a dictogloss: task implementation in the CLIL classroom. Porta Linguarum, 22, 7–22.Google Scholar
Ellis, R. (1987). Interlanguage variability in narrative discourse: Style shifting in the use of the past tense. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 9, 1–19.Google Scholar
Fotos, S. (1994) Integrating grammar instruction and communicative language use through grammar consciousness-raising tasks. TESOL Quarterly, 28, 323–51.Google Scholar
Fotos, S., Ellis, R. (1991) Communicating about grammar: A task-based approach. TESOL Quarterly, 25, 605–28.Google Scholar
HoKang, D. (2009). The role of DG on both listening and grammar. English Education Journal, 5(2), 1–23.Google Scholar
Idek, S., Fong, L. L. (2015). The use of DG as an information gap task in exploiting dual application principle in learning irregular verbs. Journal of Management Research, 7(2), 481.Google Scholar
Kuiken, F., Vedder, I. (2002). The effect of interaction in acquiring the grammar of a second language. International Journal of Educational Research, 37(3–4), 343–58.Google Scholar
Leeser, M. J. (2004). Learner proficiency and focus on form during collaborative dialogue. Language Teaching Research, 8(1), 55–81.Google Scholar
Leeser, M. (Forthcoming). A research synthesis and meta-analysis of processing instruction.Google Scholar
Lim, W. L., Jacobs, G. M. (2001). An analysis of students’ dyadic interaction on a dictogloss task. ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED 456 649.Google Scholar
García Mayo, M. P. (2002). The Activeness of Two Form-Focus Tasks in Advanced EFL Pedagogy. International Journal of Applied Linguistic, 12, 156–75.Google Scholar
Mehnert, U. (1998). The effects of different lengths of time for planning on second language performance. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 20, 83–108.Google Scholar
Nabei, T. (1996). DG: Is it an effective language learning task? Working Papers in Educational Linguistics, 12, 59–74.Google Scholar
Qin, J. (2008) The effect of processing instruction and dictogloss tasks on acquisition of the English passive. Language Teaching Research, 12, 61–82.Google Scholar
Rutherford, K. (2001). An investigation of the effects of planning on oral production in a second language. (Unpublished MA thesis.) University of Auckland.Google Scholar
Swain, M., Lapkin, S. (2001). Focus on form through collaborative dialogue: Exploring task effects. In Bygate, M., Skehan, P. & Swain, M. (eds.), Researching pedagogic tasks (56–89). London: Longman, Pearson Education.Google Scholar
Shintani, N. (2014) The effectiveness of Processing Instruction and production-based instruction on L2 grammar acquisition: A meta-analysis. Applied Linguistics, 36, 306–25.Google Scholar
Smart, J. (2014) The role of guided induction in paper-based data-driven learning. ReCALL, 26, 184–201.Google Scholar
Sugiharto, S. (2006). Grammar consciousness raising: Rresearch, theory and application. Indonesian JELT, 2, 16–23.Google Scholar
VanPatten, B., Inclezan, D., Salazar, H., Farley, A. (2009). Processing instruction and dictogloss: A study on object pronouns and word order in Spanish. Foreign Language Annals, 42, 557–75.Google Scholar
Wajnryb, R. (1990). Research books for teachers: Grammar dictation: Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Yeo, K. (2002). The effects of DG: A technique of focus on form. English Teaching, 57, 149–67.Google Scholar
Yip, V. (1994). Grammatical consciousness-raising and learnability. In Odlin, T. (ed.), Perspective on pedagogical grammar (123–39). Cambridge: Cambridge University PressGoogle Scholar

Save element to Kindle

To save this element to your Kindle, first ensure [email protected] is added to your Approved Personal Document E-mail List under your Personal Document Settings on the Manage Your Content and Devices page of your Amazon account. Then enter the ‘name’ part of your Kindle email address below. Find out more about saving to your Kindle.

Note you can select to save to either the @free.kindle.com or @kindle.com variations. ‘@free.kindle.com’ emails are free but can only be saved to your device when it is connected to wi-fi. ‘@kindle.com’ emails can be delivered even when you are not connected to wi-fi, but note that service fees apply.

Find out more about the Kindle Personal Document Service.

Focus on Form
Available formats
×

Save element to Dropbox

To save content items to your account, please confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your account. Find out more about saving content to Dropbox.

Focus on Form
Available formats
×

Save element to Google Drive

To save content items to your account, please confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your account. Find out more about saving content to Google Drive.

Focus on Form
Available formats
×