Preemptive Focus on Form in Linguistic Features of Aviation English Classes: Uptakes Following Teacher-initiated Vs. Learner-initiated Focus on Form Episodes

Document Type: Original Article

Authors

1 Department of English Language, Amin Institute of Higher Education, Foolad Shahr, Isfahan, Iran.

2 Department of English Language, Urmia University, Urmia, Iran.

Abstract

As a response to the shortcomings of communicative language teaching (CLT), the arena for focus on form (FonF) instruction has been established. The present study aimed to investigate the rate of uptake following learner-initiated and teacher-initiated preemptive focus on form in an aviation English class. To this end, 20 sessions, 90 min each, of an aviation English class in Iran were observed and audio-recorded. In addition, another elicitation tool called uptake sheet was employed to gauge the effectiveness of preemptive focus on form. In so doing, the uptake moves following all instances of teacher-and learner-initiated preemptive Focus on Form Episodes (FFES) were counted. The audio recorded data were then checked against the data from the uptake sheets. The findings revealed that uptake moves took place more frequently after teacher-initiated preemptive FFES. FonF has not been investigated in aviation English; therefore, the implication is that in aviation English classes, ESP teachers should try to be well aware of FonF episodes as their initiation leads to more uptake. It can be concluded that teachers should be aware of ESP development through FonF in teaching ESP. This includes allocating enough lesson time for FonF in ESP classes, use of different FonF strategies to facilitate mastering ESP, and acknowledging the fact that learners can play an important role in facilitating their own language development when provided with opportunities to take greater control.

Keywords


Preemptive Focus on Form in Linguistic Features of Aviation English Classes: Uptakes Following Teacher-initiated Vs. Learner-initiated Focus on Form Episodes

[1]Mehdi Ghaedrahmat

[2]Zhila Mohamadnia*

IJEAP- 1901-1345

[3]Javad Gholami

 

Abstract

As a response to the shortcomings of communicative language teaching (CLT), the arena for focus on form (FonF) instruction has been established. The present study aimed to investigate the rate of uptake following learner-initiated and teacher-initiated preemptive focus on form in an aviation English class. To this end, 20 sessions, 90 min each, of an aviation English class in Iran were observed and audio-recorded. In addition, another elicitation tool called uptake sheet was employed to gauge the effectiveness of preemptive focus on form. In so doing, the uptake moves following all instances of teacher-and learner-initiated preemptive Focus on Form Episodes (FFES) were counted. The audio recorded data were then checked against the data from the uptake sheets. The findings revealed that uptake moves took place more frequently after teacher-initiated preemptive FFES. FonF has not been investigated in aviation English; therefore, the implication is that in aviation English classes, ESP teachers should try to be well aware of FonF episodes as their initiation leads to more uptake. It can be concluded that teachers should be aware of ESP development through FonF in teaching ESP. This includes allocating enough lesson time for FonF in ESP classes, use of different FonF strategies to facilitate mastering ESP, and acknowledging the fact that learners can play an important role in facilitating their own language development when provided with opportunities to take greater control.

Keywords:Aviation English, Uptake, Teacher-initiated FFE, Learner-initiated FFE, Focus on form, Preemptive

1. Introduction

As a usual classroom practice, language teachers provide learners with focused linguistic input in many second or foreign language classrooms to recognize problems in learners' interlanguage. According to Afitska (2012), this practice has been extended in many classes of English as an additional language (EAL). As a response to the shortcomings of communicative language teaching (CLT), the arena for focus on form (FonF) instruction has been established. The theoretical underpinning of this field, is rooted at the heart of three well-known hypotheses in the field of second language acquisition (SLA), namely, Long's Interaction Hypothesis (1983, 1996), Swain's Output Hypothesis (Swain, 1985), and Schmidt's Noticing Hypothesis (Schmidt,1990). As stated above, communicative language teaching has a number of shortcomings. Gholami and Bassirian (2011) claimed that through various studies, the inadequacy of communicative language teaching has been proved.

In fact, it has been shown that communicative language teaching cannot help L2 learners gain high levels of accuracy along with fluency (e.g. Harley & Swain, 1984; Harley, Allen, Cummins & Swain, 1990; Swain & Lapkin, 1995; Swain, 1998). Concerning this shortcoming, some SLA researchers believed that meaning-focused teaching should be integrated with focus on form instruction.However, it should not be similar to turning back to grammar instruction or to what Long and Robinson (1998) calls focus on forms. This approach believes in mixing linguistic forms during meaning-based practices. Focus on from instruction has been defined by Long and Robinson (1998) as follows: "During a meaning-focused classroom lesson, focus on form often consists of an occasional shift of attention to linguistic code features – by the teacher and/or one or more of the students – triggered by perceived problems with comprehension or production" (p. 23).

According to Long (1991, 1996), in focus on forms, language is analyzed into distinct elements (e.g., words, grammar rules, notions, functions). Later, these elements are taught item by item in a direct style. Therefore, FonFs creates a traditional approach to language teaching which encompasses a linear syllabus, instructional materials, and matching procedures designed to present and practice linguistic items. In FonFs, the learners' attention is focused on linguistic form; however, meaning is not dismissed. On the other hand, in focus on form (Long, 1991; Long & Crookes, 1992, as cited in Shintani, 2013) the primary focus is on meaning (i.e., on message processing) rather than on form (Shintani, 2013). In FonF, learners' attention is shifted from meaning to a linguistic form and the meaning that the linguistic form conveys; nonetheless, the prevailing focus is still on communicating. According to Shintani (2013), this change can be activated by perceived problems related to either comprehension or production, and it can be commenced by either the teacher or students. An important characteristic of FonF instruction is that it focuses on form-function mapping.

One feature of focus on form is that this type of instruction openly draws students' attention to "linguistic elements as they arise incidentally, in lessons where the overriding focus is on meaning or communication" (Long 1991, p. 45). Basturkmen, Loewen and Ellis (2002) claimed that "focus-on-form instruction provides learners with the opportunity to take time-out from focusing on message construction to pay attention to specific forms and the meanings they realize" (p. 2). Basturkmen, Loewen and Ellis (ibid) further believed that this change from focusing on message to focusing on language persuades learners to notice linguistic forms in the input which can improve learners' interlanguage. According to Afitska (2012), focus on form is contrasted with focus on forms in which the main focus of instruction is on linguistic forms.

According to Ellis, Basturkmen, and Loewen (2002), FonF can be planned or unplanned. In planned FonF, the focus on a definite linguistic feature is prearranged, and a "focused task" (p. 420) provides a context for its use. On the other hand, when the learners' attention is focused incidentally to specific linguistic forms while they are dealing with unfocused tasks, unplanned FonF takes place.  Accordingly, as stated in Shintani (2013), in unplanned FonF, the linguistic forms that are focused on are not pre-selected but happen naturally in dealing with a communicative task. In planned FonF, the selected linguistic feature is paid attention to intensively, that is attention is directed constantly at the same feature. However, in unplanned FonF, attention to form is typically extensive, that is attention is focused on various linguistic features.

2. Literature Review

2.1. Focus on Form

According to Ellis, Basturkmen, and Loewen (2002), there are two types of FonF, namely, planned or proactive and incidental FonF. Planned or proactive FonF, according to Doughty and William (1998) includes making observations to find out learners' linguistic problems so as to make decisions to develop some plans in advance to delete these problems. In planned FonF, the linguistic elements which are to be focused on are pre-determined. On the other hand, incidental FonF, as Ellis (2001) claims, occurs impulsively without any prior planning during meaning-focused activities. Incidental FonF is further categorized as either 'preemptive' or 'reactive'. 

According to Ellis, Basturkmen and Loewen (2001), preemptive FonF occurs when "either the teacher or a learner initiates attention to form, although no actual problem in production has arisen" (p. 414). It is said that preemptive FonF which can be learner-initiated or teacher-initiated, addresses an actual or perceived gap in the learner's knowledge. On the contrary, reactive FonF is the same as error correction, corrective feedback or negative evidence/feedback (Long, 1996). In this case, the teacher grabs the learners' attention to the wrong response that is considered an error. Feedback can be positive or negative. Positive feedback shows that a learner's response to an activity is correct. Negative feedback shows that the learner's response is linguistically abnormal. Lyster and Ranta (1997) categorized feedback into the following six different types: (1) explicit correction, (2) recasts, (3) clarification requests, (4) metalinguistic feedback, (5) elicitation and (6) repetition.

2.2. Uptake

Various definitions have so far been presented for 'uptake' or 'modified output'. Earlier, Allwright (1984) used the term uptake to refer to what learners are able to report learning during or at the end of the lesson. According to Lyster and Ranta (1997, p. 574), uptake include "different types of student responses, immediately following the feedback, including responses with repair of the non-target items as well as utterances still in need of repair". According to Ellis et al. (2001b, p. 286), uptake is:

an optional student move which occurs in episodes where the learner has demonstrated a gap in his/her knowledge [for example, by making an error, by asking a question, or by failing to answer a teacher's question] and which is a reaction to some preceding move in which another participant [usually the teacher] either explicitly or implicitly provides information about a linguistic feature.

A number of studies have so far been conducted on uptake (e.g. Ellis, Basturkmen & Loewen, 2001a; Mackey, Gass & McDonough, 2000; McDonough 2005; Oliver 2000; Panova & Lyster 2002). Some studies have shown that learner uptake plays a positive role in learners' second language development (Loewen, 2005; McDonough, 2005). On the other hand, some others are not sure about whether uptake leads to long-term learning (e.g. Morris & Tarone 2003; Nabei & Swain 2002). It is argued that "learners' uptake may not fully represent their cognitive processing of the feedback" (Nabei & Swain, 2002, p. 45). According to Morris and Tarone (2003), uptake in the shape of recast repetition could not be a reliable indicator of acquisition. However, Nabei and Swain (2002) contended that a "learner's immediate response after recast feedback might not be appropriate evidence for evaluating its effect [i.e. for assuming that acquisition has taken place]" (p. 45). Still, some studies suggest that uptake may have a longer-term effect. As a case in point, Iwashita (2003) showed that general learner accuracy increased significantly as the number of recasts provided during a treatment period, and the accuracy rate was constant.

According to McDonough (2005), uptake "may contribute to target language development by strengthening knowledge representation that learners already have stored and by encouraging automatic retrieval of linguistic forms" (p. 83). McDonough (ibid) found that when learners produced more complex forms in uptake or modified output, they were more likely to produce these forms in later utterances, again suggesting sustained impact. Similarly, Loewen (2005) observed that successful uptake is considered as a significant predictor of correct test scores. This is still another evidence that supports the assumption that uptake leads to better language development.

Uptake has been measured through different tools one of which has been uptake sheets. It was first introduced as a method of data collection by Allwright (1984) on learners' perceptions about what they learned in their language classes. Allwright (1984) gathered learners' reports about their learning which he called 'uptake'. It should be mentioned that this notion of uptake is completely different from the one assumed in focus on form research. According to Mackey and Gass (2005), in classroom research, through uptake sheets, the learners are asked to mark or note things on which the researcher or teacher is focusing. Mackey et al. (2001) used an example of including uptake sheets in a study by in which the learners were asked to mark uptake sheets to answer research questions which focused on the relationship between the format of the uptake sheet and the quantity and the quality of learner reporting.

Most of the studies on uptake have tried to determine the frequency of uptake, most of them studying uptake following reactive focus on form, which have found differing rates of uptake moves in different learning environments (e.g. Ellis, 1994; Ellis et al., 2001a; Egi, 2010; Farrokhi &Gholami, 2006; Farrokhi & Gholami, 2007; Loewen, 2004a; Lyster, 1998; Lyster & Izquierdo, 2009; Lyster & Ranta, 1997;  Mohamadnia & Gholami, 2008; Nassaji, 2009; Reinders, 2009; Zhao & Bitchener, 2007).

On the other hand, since preemptive focus on form has been a neglected corner of focus on form, studies on uptake occurring after preemptive focus on form, also, remain in the minority (e.g. Ellis et al., 2001a, 2001b; Farrokhi & Gholami, 2005, 2007; Gholami, 2009; Loewen, 2004a, 2004b; Zhao & Bitchener, 2007). Moreover, most of the studies on the frequency of occurrence and characteristics of uptake following preemptive FonF have been conducted in ESL settings, resulting in very different and sometimes contradictory findings. For example, Gholami and Bassirian (2011) showed that in terms of frequency and the rate of follow-up uptake moves, teacher-initiated FFEs were higher. On the other hand, Gholami, Karimi, and Atai (2017) showed that preemptive formulaic FFEs and student-initiated episodes were used more frequently than other types of FFEs. Therefore, the study of uptake in preemptive FonF in EFL contexts seems to be a worthy research line to be taken more by the researchers in the field.

According to Nassaji (2016), uptake is the instant learner answers that occur after feedback. Chaudron (1977) was one of the first researchers who focused on the importance of learner responses following feedback. Lyster and Ranta (1997) later used the term uptake to talk about such responses. According to Lyster and Ranta (1997), uptake is any response following feedback, the responses may range from those that modified the learner's original output in some way to utterances which simply admitted the receipt of the feedback such as yes, OK, etc. Lyster and Ranta (ibid) then classified uptake in terms of learner repair and argued that uptake, defined in this way, shows that students try to do something with the feedback.

The notion of uptake has been investigated in a number of studies on interactional feedback. However, there are differences among studies with regard to what kind of learner responses should be considered as uptake. According to some scholars, uptake is not simply a learner response, but it is an attempt involving some degree of modifications of the original output following feedback (e.g. Mackey & Philp, 1998; Nassaji, 2011b). This understanding of uptake seems to be more meaningful in that the term uptake usually signifies that learners have somewhat profited from the feedback, whereas responses of acknowledgement do not necessarily do so.

Uptake has been investigated in different studies about interactional feedback. Some differences exist among these studies about the kind of learner responses which should be considered as uptake. Some scholars believe that uptake is not a simple response of learners, but it involves some degrees of modifications of the original output following feedback (e.g. Nassaji, 2011a). Successful uptake leads learners to notice the discrepancy between their non-target-like output and their target-like production (Egi, 2010), which acts as a catalyst for their interlanguage development (Gass, 1997). Successful uptake includes learners’ modification of their forms which are erroneous. Thus, uptake is identified as a strong predictor of learning as shown by the findings of customized posttests (e.g. Loewen, 2005; Nassaji, 2011a).

Previous studies have indicated that focus on form can occur in the context of message-oriented lessons without troubling the communication flow in ESL lessons and also that it can result in higher levels of learner uptake. Ellis et al. (2001a) investigated learner uptake in focus on form episodes in a communicative ESL teaching class. The results revealed that learner uptake was higher than what was reported for immersion classrooms. No study has ever investigated the effect of focus on form instruction in aviation English classes in Iran.

In a recent study, Gholami and Gholami (2018) investigated the degree to which incidental focus-on-form episodes (FFEs) with formulaic sequences occur, and the extent to which they result in uptake in EFL classes. To gather the data, 36 hours of communicative classroom interactions from three advanced EFL classes were audio-recorded. It was shown that learners and teachers regularly draw their attention to formulaic sequences. FFEs with formulaic focus as well as collocations led to more uptake than those with other linguistic foci. Finally, among types of incidental FonF, the highest rate of (successful) uptake was observed in student-initiated FFEs with formulaic focus. The distinction between the present study and the study by Gholami and Gholami (2018) is that in our study, aviation English was investigated. In addition, the focus was on oral uptake moves following learner-initiated and teacher-initiated preemptive FFEs in Aviation English classes.

Gholami, Karimi, and Atai (2017) investigated three categories of formulaic sequences (FSs), namely, collocations, lexical bundles, and idioms in incidental focus on form (FonF). Thirty hours of audio-recorded communicative classroom interactions between the teacher and the class in three EFL classes were analyzed. A total of 1102 instances of FFEs were identified, 38% of which were of formulaic nature. The results showed more non-formulaic FFEs than formulaic ones. Preemptive formulaic FFEs and student-initiated episodes were used more frequently than the other types. Among the FSs, collocation was the most frequently focused category.

Gholami and Bassirian (2011) investigated learner- and teacher-initiated focus on form episodes (FFEs), as well as the following rate of uptake moves. To do this, 18 sessions of an intermediate EFL class were observed, audio-recorded, and analyzed. A think-aloud incidental focus-on-form sheet was utilized to gather instances of learner- and teacher-generated FFES. The results from the audio-data and the sheets showed that in terms of frequency and rate of the follow-up uptake moves, teacher-initiated FFEs were higher. The qualitative analysis of the uptake sheets also showed that after some teacher-initiated FFEs, some learners produced multiple uptake moves, while after some others no one or just a single learner produced uptake. The findings from uptake sheets indicate that specific teacher-initiated FFEs are highly effective in tapping the linguistic holes of all or the majority of EFL learners in a given class.

2.3. Aviation English

Aviation English is a sub-branch of English for specific purposes (ESP) and English for Occupational Purposes (EOP). According to Anthony (1997), English for Occupational Purposes is: "The portion of the curriculum which prepares students for gainful employment in occupations ranging from low-skilled to sophisticated jobs in technical fields"(p. 129). Examples of EOP courses include English for Technicians, English for Secretaries, English for Doctors as well as English for aviators and flight engineers which is referred to as ' Aviation English'.

Crystal (1997) refers to Aviation English as "Air speak", and according to him aviation English is "a restricted vocabulary that has a fixed set of sentences which are used to express unambiguously all situations that could possibly occur" (p.109). Aviation English is the lingua franca of international civil aviation. English of course serves as a template for Aviation English, but the standard phraseology of Air speak has its own individual characteristics which makes it different from conversational English. This area refers to the additional knowledge of vocabulary that pilots and controllers should have in order to manage some other non-routine communicative situations. These expressions and vocabulary are closely related to their daily duties. They are related to some other aviation fields like meteorology, flight dispatch, ground services, radio navigation aids, urgency and emergency situations, etc. So, aviation personnel should also be competent in aviation related ESP, which is something that goes beyond routine ATC phraseology.

In dealing with the existing gap, the present descriptive study aimed to investigate various features of teacher initiated preemptive FonF in aviation English classes as an under-researched ESP context in Iran. Another purpose of this study was to measure the effectiveness of teacher-initiated FFEs (i.e., uptake) using an instrument called 'incidental focus on form and uptake sheet', along with the traditional procedure of measuring uptake through audio-recorded data, so as to gain a more plain picture of uptake by cross-checking the results from both procedures. Researchers in the field of second language acquisition (e.g. Lightbown & Spada, 1990) have been interested in whether focus on form has any impact on language acquisition. A review of the existing literature during the recent decades shows that focus on form improves linguistic knowledge. On the other hand, not much research has so far investigated the effectiveness of FonF in ESP classes; therefore, the present study is intended to compare the uptake after teacher-initiated and learner-initiated preemptive FonF in Aviation English Classes through addressing the following research questions:

Research Question One: Is there any significant difference in the frequency of oral uptake moves following learner-initiated and teacher-initiated preemptive FFEs in aviation English classes?

Research Question One: Is there any significant difference between the frequencies of oral uptake moves and the written instances of uptake elicited through uptake sheets in aviation English classes?

 

3. Method

According to Ellis (2001b), despite planned focus on form, experimental methods cannot be used to study incidental focus on form, since such research needs the pre-selection of linguistic features for investigation. The observational data for this study were collected from intact aviation English classes in army aviation flight academy in Iran, where Communicative Language Teaching (CLT) is extremely advocated and the tasks and exercises used by the teachers are principally meaning oriented.

3.1. Context of the Study

This research was carried out at Army Aviation Training Center, Flight Academy (AATCFA, for short) located in Isfahan, Iran. This academy has a record of designing and running EGP and ESP courses for pilots and flight engineers since pre-revolution for more than 40 years. The teaching staff offer EAP courses for the pilot students and flight engineers. It should be noted that both pilot students and flight engineers are required to pass a course of 830 hours of general English as well as ESP purposes. This is accompanied with more than 420 hours of practical courses. The classes held in this center are mostly communicative. In addition, pair works, group works, and free discussions are common practices in aviation English classes held in army aviation academy.

3.2. Instruments

In order to gather the needed data, an uptake sheet was employed. The uptake sheet used in this research was adopted from Gholami and Bassirian (2011). More instances of uptake sheets are available in Mackey and Gass (2005). A sample of the used uptake sheet is included in appendix A. In order to make sure of the validity of the uptake sheet, a board of experts reviewed the uptake sheet and approved its use for the intended purpose. Learners in this study were instructed to use these uptake sheets to jot down newly learned language points as they had already done so on their notebooks. They were told that these sheets are to assist them in better taking notes of the novel linguistic points they notice in classroom interactions.

3.3. Participants

Purposive sampling was used to select an aviation English class at A.A.T.C.F.A. The logic of the purposive sampling lies in selecting information-rich cases for study in depth (Patton, 2002). All the teachers of the selected class were teaching EAP courses to pilot students and flight engineers. These participants were chosen from among the teachers who teach in the same context to students in the same discipline. In fact, a different teacher attends the same class for each topic of aviation English. The rationale behind selecting the EAP courses was that based on the proficiency test which is regularly administered to the students of the A.A.T.C.F.A, the students of these courses were almost at the same level of proficiency. All the participants were Iranian and native speakers of Farsi. Due to the military context of the research, there were just male participants. It is worth mentioning that in teaching aviation English, as a norm, many flight courses are offered by pilots and flight engineers who are considered subject teachers; however, these subject teachers are needed to be competent enough in general English proficiency. Both ELT and EAP teachers could be called experienced in teaching EAP as the minimum years of teaching experience reported was four years; however, the ELT instructors had an average of about 9 years of experience in English teaching. Furthermore, a number of 17 student pilots were studying aviation English in this class. Their age ranged from 21-23, and they all were studying English for around five months. None of them had the experience of living in other countries.

3.4. Data Collection Procedure

In order to gather the necessary data for the present research, an aviation English class was observed and audio-recorded using two small mp3 recorders, one recorder was put in front of the class to record a clear voice of the teacher, and the other recorder was put in the back of the class to get a clear sound of the learners. In addition, in order to have a clearer picture of the issue under question, one of the researchers attended 20 sessions, 90 min. each, of the aviation English class in person and took broad field notes. The total time of the classes was 1800 minutes. In order to have a more comprehensive picture of the issue under study, a think-aloud incidental focus-on-form and uptake sheet was also utilized. In the present research, the teacher's interactions with the whole class were audio recorded, and   the learner-learner interactions were not recorded.  Having completed the data collection phase, the audio-recorded data were transcribed and examples of preemptive FonF were identified. Here are two examples of teacher-initiated FonF interaction.

Extract 1:

Teacher: what does approach permission mean?

 Student: approach permission?

 Teacher: Approach permission means the pilot is requesting the control tower to land in the heliport.

Student: So it means requesting to land.

Extract 2:

Teacher: The tower asked the pilot to maintain.

Student:  Maintain?

Teacher: Maintain means "Continue in accordance with the specified conditions."

Student: So maintain in aviation means continue.

 

The following examples are instance of student-initiated FonF.

Extract 3:

Student:  …. the transmission and swash plate assembly provide the tilt…what is tilt?

Teacher. ….tilt is the angle of rotation.

Student:  ….for the flight control system.

Extract 4:

Student:  What does the cyclic control system do?

Teacher. It controls the horizontal flight of the helicopter.

Student: Oh, the horizontal flight not the vertical flight.

 

The uptake sheets were distributed among the learners at the beginning of every session, and they were gathered at the end of each session. This was done to make sure of immediate, on-the-site uptake moves. In addition, the learners were taught to write only those language forms which they observed in the class, no matter whether they were presented by the teacher or other learners. The learners were also taught how to fill in the uptake sheet. It should also be mentioned that it was not tried to manipulate the frequency or characteristics of preemptive Fon F or the uptake. Having identified the instances of teacher-initiated FonF and the samples of oral uptake, the audio-data were cross-checked by the researchers. The data were the frequency of the instances of teacher-initiated and learner-initiated FonF uptakes; therefore, Chi-square test was employed to compare the frequency of these variables. In order to check the reliability of the data, the first researcher and the third researcher of this study identified, coded and categorized all instances of teacher-initiated and learner-initiated preemptive FFEs and the following uptake instances for 10 percent of the data. Then, the data from the two coders were exposed to Kappa coefficient analysis, and the level of congruity between the two sets of scoring was calculated to be .93.

4. Results and Discussion

The main goal of this study was to compare the uptakes followed by teacher-initiated and learner-initiated preemptive focus on form episodes based on its frequency evident in audio-recorded data and that of uptake sheets. The frequency and the percentage of both oral uptake moves and sheet-based uptake moves following learner-and teacher-initiated preemptive FonF in the observed aviation English class is presented in Table 1.  

 

Table 1: Uptake After Learner-Initiated and Teacher-Initiated Preemptive FFEs

 

Uptake moves based on

Total

Oral uptakes

Uptake sheets

Learner-initiated

 

 

Count

36

22

58

% Within Learner-initiated or Teacher-initiated

62%

38%

100%

% Between Learner-initiated & Teacher-initiated

46.8%

21.4%

32.2%

Residual

 

 

 

Teacher-initiated

 

Count

41

81

122

% Within Learner-initiated or Teacher-initiated

33.6%

66.4%

100

% Between Learner-initiated & Teacher-initiated

53.2%

78.6%

67.8%

Residual

 

 

 

Total

 

Count

77

103

180

% Within Learner-initiated or Teacher-initiated

42.8%

57.2%

100%

% Between Learner-initiated & Teacher-initiated

100%

100%

100%

 

According to the results presented in Table 1, only 77 oral uptake moves were observed after preemptive FonF in the aviation English class. On the contrary, the uptake moves which were observed through uptake sheets were found to be more with a frequency of 103 instances. That is to say, the total percentage of uptake moves followed by oral uptakes was 42.8%, while the percentage of uptake moves through uptake moves was identified to be 57.2%. Such findings are, in fact, in line with the concern raised by Farrokhi and Gholami (2007), according to whom the unobtrusive observation of uptake moves in language classes cannot be considered as a perfect method to gain a complete view of uptake. In addition, the findings lend support to the study by Gholami and Bassirian (2011). The reason for higher rates of uptake moves through uptake sheets may be the fact that through uptake sheets, language learners may feel more relaxed to produce more uptake sheets compared with the time when they embark on producing uptakes orally. Furthermore, the military context of the research may also have contributed to the higher rates of uptakes through uptake sheets. In military contexts, the distance between teachers and learners may hamper oral production of uptakes, and this could lead to higher rates of uptakes through uptake sheets.

Considering the oral uptake moves, as demonstrated in Table 2, 46.8% of all uptake moves happened after learner-initiated FonF episodes, whereas, 53.2% of them occurred after teacher-initiated FonF episodes. Furthermore, the obtained data from the uptake sheets showed that, after learner-initiated FonF episodes, 21.4% of the learners' written uptake moves were observed, while 78.6% of the written uptakes were observed after teacher-initiated FonF episodes. It can be observed that the data form observations are in line with the data from uptake sheets. In order to compare the learner-initiated preemptive FonF with teacher-initiated FonF, Chi-square analysis was run. Table 2 presents the results. ‌

 

 

Table 2: Results of Chi-Square Test on Preemptive FonF Episodes

 

Value

df

Asymp. Sig. (2-sided)

Exact Sig. (2-sided)

Exact Sig. (1-sided)

Pearson Chi-Square

.000a

1

1.000

 

 

Continuity Correctionb

.000

1

1.000

 

 

Likelihood Ratio

.000

1

1.000

 

 

Fisher's Exact Test

 

 

 

1.000

.833

Linear-by-Linear Association

.000

1

1.000

 

 

N of Valid Casesb

4

 

 

 

 

 

As shown in Table 2, there is a significance difference between oral uptakes and uptake sheets produced after preemptive FonF by teachers and learners = 0.833 (1df, p<.05). The results of uptake moves based on oral uptake and uptake sheets are presented in Figure 1.

 

 

 

Figure 1: Oral Uptake and Uptake Sheets

 

The findings of the present research are in contrast with the study by Ellis et al. (2001a). Ellis et al. (2001a) in a study about learner uptake in communicative ESL classes found uptake to happen in two-third of the FonF instances. The results of their study also revealed higher frequency of uptake after reactive and learner initiated episodes compared with teacher-initiated FonF episodes, while in the present study, uptake occurred more frequently after teacher-initiated FonF. One reason for this may be the fact that in aviation English classes, like other EFL contexts, teachers are considered as the main source of input. In ESL contexts, the learners receive input from various sources in society. Furthermore, in military contexts, the learners rely more heavily on their teacher to provide them with materials and rich linguistic input. Furthermore, Ellis et al. (2001) believed that teacher-initiated preemptive FFEs roots from teacher's subjective evaluation, and it may not address a real gap in the learners' linguistic knowledge; therefore, it may be harmful rather than helpful, and it may interfere with classroom communication.

The findings are also justifiable according to Doughty and Varela (1998) and Zhao's (2005) comments, according to whom learner-initiated focus on form can also be disadvantageous in that it may hinder communicative practices in classes. They claim that learners' knowledge differs from each other; therefore, teachers prefer not to focus on each individual's enquiry concerning a linguistic form since it may waste other students' time. Accordingly, teacher-initiated focus on form is more appreciated.

In fact, it can be said that many of the issues raised by single learners were not considered as an issue of concern and importance for others; therefore, the learners did not prefer to produce uptake after other learners' comments. The findings of the present study contrast with the study by Farrokhi and Gholami (2007) in that the frequency of uptake in the present study was higher. According to the existing literature and as some researchers in the field have also claimed (e.g. Loewen, 2004a), it seems necessary to introduce an optimum level to integrate incidental and preemptive focus on form into meaning-oriented activities in language classes in general and aviation English classes in particular. In other words, meaning-focused communication should be interrupted on identified intervals and the necessary linguistic forms should be attended. The optimal frequency of such interruption should be defined. In fact, the FFEs should be spread out so that learners will have enough chance to produce uptake.

The results gained from uptake sheets confirmed that results of observations in that teacher-initiated focus on form can lead to higher rates of uptake. This is also in contrast with Ellis et al. (2001a), who claimed that complexity of a focus-on-form episode leads to higher rates of uptake. The three phases of initiation by learners, response by teachers and follow-up or uptake by learners are more complex than the time when teacher her/himself draws learners' attention to a linguistic form. However, in the present research it was observed that teacher-initiated FonF leads to higher rates of uptake, and complexity of interaction episodes did not affect the rate of uptake. Furthermore, Ellis et al. (2001a) claimed that when learners understand what has been corrected, they are more likely to modify their output after correction.

In terms of the frequency of FFEs, the findings are in contradiction with those of Gholami, Karimi, and Atai (2017) who reported more non-formulaic FFEs than formulaic ones. The reason for this may be due to the fact that aviation English is considered as a jargon which is full of formulaic sequences of language. On the other hand, the findings in this regard lend support to the study by Gholami and Gholami (2018) in which it was shown that learners and teachers regularly draw their attention to formulaic sequences. FFEs with formulaic focus as well as collocations led to more uptake than those with other linguistic foci. Finally, among types of incidental FonF, the highest rate of (successful) uptake was observed in student-initiated FFEs with formulaic focus.

 

5. Conclusion

Within the past decades, an increased interest has been exerted in the area of focus on form in general and the amount of uptake following such language-based interventions in meaning-oriented classes in the literature. As a first study of its kind in accounting for preemptive focus on form practices in aviation English ESP context, the present research examined the rate of uptake after teacher-initiated and learner-initiated FonF. This study found that learner uptake is more likely to occur after teacher-initiated FFEs. A striking finding of this study is that in aviation English classes, ESP teachers should try to be well aware of focus on form episodes and the importance of initiating such episodes, as their initiation leads to more uptake. Based on the results, it can be concluded that all teachers should support ESP development through focus on form in teaching ESP. This includes allocating enough lesson time for focus on form in ESP classes, use of different FonF strategies to facilitate mastering ESP, and acknowledging the fact that learners, particularly at later stages of their development, can play an important role in facilitating their own language development when provided with opportunities to take greater control.

Accordingly, there is a clear need for further studies to investigate the use of focus-on-form instruction, and uptake in EFL contexts, and in a greater variety of contexts. The findings of the present study have some implications for learning as well as teaching ESP courses. The results also highlight the use of more focus on form moves in ESP classes to clarify and identify problems and errors to obtain more desirable results in aviation English classes. The findings also may be of use for syllabus designers of aviation courses to include courses which lead to classroom interactions which lead to better understanding of ESP materials in classes.

 

References

Anthony, L. (1997). ESP: What Does it Mean? Retrieved from: http:/ /www.aaib.gov.uk/ cms_resources. Cfm ?file=/4-1990 %20 GOBME. pdf.

Afitska, O. (2012). Role of focus-on-form instruction, corrective feedback and uptake in second language classrooms: Some insights from recent second language acquisition research, The Language Learning Journal, 43(1), 57-73.

Allwright, B. (1984). Why don’t learners learn what teachers teach? The interaction hypothesis. In D. Singleton and D. Little (Eds.), Language Learning in Formal and Informal Contexts, (pp. 3-18), Dublin: IRAAL.

Basturkmen, H., Loewen, S. & Ellis, R. (2002). Metalanguage in focus on form in the communicative classroom. Language Awareness, 1(1), 1-13.

Chaudron, C. (1977). A descriptive model of discourse in the corrective treatment of learners’ errors. Language Learning, 27, 29-46.

Crystal, D. (1997).  English as a Global Language. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Doughty, C., & Varela, E. (1998). Communicative focus on form. In C. Doughty & J. Williams (Eds.), Focus on form in classroom second language acquisition (pp. 114-138). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Doughty, C., & Williams, J. (1998). Focus on form in classroom second language Acquisition. Cambridge: Cambridge UniversityPress.

Egi, T. (2010). Uptake, modified output, and learner perceptions of recasts: Learner responses as language awareness. The Modern Language Journal, 94(1), 1-21.

Ellis, R. (1994). Uptake as language awareness. Language Awareness, 4(3), 147-160.

Ellis, R. (2001). Investigating form-focused instruction. Language Learning, 51(1), 1-46.

Ellis, R., Basturkmen, H. & Loewen, S. (2001a). Preemptive focus on form in the ESL classroom. TESOL Quarterly, 35(3), 407-432.

Ellis, R., Basturkmen, H. &. Loewen, S. (2001b). Learner uptake in communicative ESL lessons. Language Learning, 51(2), 281-318.

Ellis, R., Tanaka, Y. & Yamazaki, A. (1994). Classroom interaction, comprehension and the acquisition of word meanings. Language Learning, 44(3), 449-491.

Ellis, R., Basturkmen H., & Loewen, S. (2002). Doing focus on form. System, 30(4), 419-432.

Farrokhi, F. & Gholami, J. (2005). Preemptive language related episodes, corrective feedback, and uptake in an EFL class. Iranian Journal of Applied Linguistics, 8(1), 23-45.

Farrokhi, F. & Gholami, J. (2006). Uptake and language related episodes in EFL classes. Proceedings of the International Conference on Conversation Analysis (ICCA06). Helsinki University, Finland, May 10-14.

Farrokhi, F. & Gholami, J. (2007). Reactive and preemptive language related episodes and uptake in an EFL Class. The Asian EFL Journal, 9(2), 58-92.

Gass, M. (1997). Input, interaction, and the second language learner. Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.

Gholami, J. (2009). Incidental focus on form in English language teaching: Reactive and   preemptive focus on form practices, and uptake in EFL classes. Berlin: VDM Verlag.

Gholami, J. & Bassirian, M. (2011). Incidental focus on form and uptake: a new visage of learner- and teacher-initiated preemptive focus on form and uptake in EFL classes. Berlin: Lambert AcademicPublishing.

Gholami, J. & Bassirian, M. (2012). (Mis) Conceptions regarding teacher-generated preemptive attention to form. TELL, 5(2), 1-29.

Gholami, L., & Gholami, J. (2018). Uptake in incidental focus-on-form episodes concerning formulaic language in advanced adult EFL classes. Language Teaching Research, https://doi.org/10.1177/1362168818783442

Gholami, L., Karimi, M. N., & Atai, M. R. (2017). Formulaic focus-on-form episodes in adult EFL communicative interactions. System, 68, 72-86. doi:10.1016/j.system.2017.06.015

Harley, B. & Swain, M. (1984). The interlanguage of immersion students and its implication for second language teaching. In A. Davies, C. Criper, & A. P. R. Howatt (Eds.), Interlanguage (pp. 291-311). Edinburgh, Scotland: Edinburgh.

Harley, B., Allen, P., Cummins, J. & Swain, M. (1990). The nature of language proficiency. In B. Harley, P. Allen, J. Cummins, & M. Swain (Eds.), The development of second language proficiency (pp. 7-25). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Iwashita, N. (2003). Negative feedback and positive evidence in task-based interaction. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 25(3), 1-36.

Lightbown, P.M. & Spada, N. (1990). Focus-on-form and corrective feedback in communicative language teaching. Studies in Second Language Acquisition,12(4), 429–448.

Loewen, S. (2005). Incidental focus on form and second language learning. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 27, 361-386.

Loewen, S. (2004a). Uptake in incidental focus on form in meaning focused ESL lessons. Language Learning, 54(1), 153-188.

Loewen, S. (2004b). The occurrence and characteristics of student initiated focus on form. In H. Reinders, H. Anderson, M. M. Hobbs, & J. Jones-Parry (Eds.). Supporting independent learning in the 21st century. Proceedings of the inaugural conference of the Independent Learning Association (pp. 86-93). Auckland: Independent Learning Association Oceania. Retrieved from http://www.independentlearning.org /ila03/ila03_loewen%20.pdf

Loewen, S. (2005). Incidental focus on form and second language learning. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 27(3), 361-386.

Long, M. H. (1983). Native speaker/non-native speaker conversation and the negotiation of comprehensible input. Applied Linguistics, 4(2), 126-141.

Long, M.H. (1991). Focus on form: A design feature in language teaching methodology. In K. de Bot, R. Ginsberg & C. Kramsch (Eds.), Foreign Language Research in Cross-cultural Perspective, (pp. 39–52). Amsterdam: John Benjamins.

Long, M. H. (1996). The role of the linguistic environment in second language acquisition. In C. Ritchie, T. K. Bhatia (Eds.), Handbook of language acquisition, (pp. 413- 468). New York: Academic Press.

Long, M. H., & Crookes, G. (1992). Three approaches to task-based syllabus design. TESOL Quarterly, 26, 27–56.

Long, M., & Robinson, P. (1998). Focus on form: Theory, research and practice. In C. Doughty & J. Williams (Eds.), Focus on form in classroom second language acquisition (pp. 15-41). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Lyster, R. (1998). Negotiation of form, recasts, and explicit correction in relation to error types and learner repair in immersion classrooms. Language Learning, 48(2), 183-218.

Lyster, R. & Izquierdo, J. (2009). Prompts versus recasts in dyadic interaction. Language Learning, 59(2), 453-498.

Lyster, R. & Ranta, L. (1997). Corrective feedback and learner uptake: Negotiation of form in communicative classrooms. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 19(1), 37–66.

Mackey, A., & Gass, S., (2005). Second language research: Methodology and design. Mahwah, New Jersey: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Inc, Publishers.

Mackey, A., McDonough, K., Fujii, A., & Tatsumi, T. (2001). Investigating learner's reports about the L2 classroom. International Review of Applied Linguistics, 39(4), 285-308.

Mackey, A., Gass, S., & McDonough, K. (2000). How do learners perceive interactional feedback? Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 22, 471-497.

Mackey, A., & Philp, J. (1998). Conversational interaction and second language development: Recasts, responses, and red herrings. Modern Language Journal, 82, 338-356.

McDonough, K. (2005). Identifying the impact of negative feedback and learners’ responses on ESL questions development. Studies in Second Language Acquisition 27(1), 79-103.

Mohamadnia, Z., & Gholami, J. (2008). Incidental focus on form: does proficiency matter? TELL, 2(6), 1-26.

Morris, F.A. & Tarone, E.E. (2003). Impact of classroom dynamics on the effectiveness of recasts in second language acquisition. Language Learning, 53(2), 325–368.

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(1), 43-63.

Nassaji, H. (2009). Effects of recasts and elicitations in dyadic interaction and the role of feedback explicitness. Language Learning, 59(2), 411-452.

Nassaji, H. (2011a). Correcting students’ written grammatical errors: The effects of negotiated versus non negotiated feedback. Studies in Second Language Learning and Teaching, 1, 315-334.

Nassaji, H. (2011b). Immediate learner repair and its relationship with learning targeted forms in dyadic interaction. System, 39, 17-29.

Nassaji, H. (2016). Research timeline: Form-focused instruction and second language acquisition. Language Teaching Research, 49, 35–62.

Oliver, R. (2000). Age differences in negotiation and feedback in classroom and pair work. Language Learning, 50(1), 119-151.

Panova, I. & Lyster, R. (2002). Patterns of corrective feedback and uptake in an adult ESL classroom. TESOL Quarterly, 36(4), 573-595.

Patton, M. Q. (2002). Qualitative evaluation and research methods. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. 

Reinders, H. (2009). Learner uptake and acquisition in three grammar oriented production activities: Language Teaching Research, 13(2), 201-222.

Schmidt, R. (1990). The role of consciousness in second language learning. Applied Linguistics, 11(2), 129-158.

Shintani, N. (2013). A comparative study of the effects of input-based and production- based instruction on vocabulary acquisition by young EFL learners. Language Teaching Research, 15, 137-158.

Swain, M. (1985). Communicative competence: Some roles of comprehensible input and comprehensible output in its development. In S. Gass & C. Madden (Eds.), Input in second language acquisition (pp. 235-253). Rowley, MA: Newbury House.

Swain, M. (1998). Focus on form through conscious reflection. In C. Doughty & J. Williams (Eds.), Focus on form in classroom second language acquisition (pp. 64-81). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Swain, M., & Lapkin, S. (1995). Problems in output and the cognitive processes they generate:  A step towards second language learning. Applied Linguistics, 16(3), 370-391.

Zhao, Y. (2005). Incidental focus on form in t-l interaction and l-l interaction. Unpublished doctoral dissertation. Auckland University of Technology,Auckland, New Zealand.

Zhao, S. Y. & Bitchener, J. (2007). Incidental focus on form in teacher learner and learner-learner interactions. System, 35(4), 431-447.

 

 

Appendix A: Sample Uptake Sheet

 

 

Who said it? (check as many as you wish)

Was it NEW to you?

What are you noticing about…

Teacher

Classmate

Me

  Yes

 No

Pronunciation

 

 

 

 

 

Vocabulary

 

 

 

 

 

Grammar

 

 

 

 

 

 



 

 

References

Anthony, L. (1997). ESP: What Does it Mean? Retrieved from: http:/ /www.aaib.gov.uk/ cms_resources. Cfm ?file=/4-1990 %20 GOBME. pdf.

Afitska, O. (2012). Role of focus-on-form instruction, corrective feedback and uptake in second language classrooms: Some insights from recent second language acquisition research, The Language Learning Journal, 43(1), 57-73.

Allwright, B. (1984). Why don’t learners learn what teachers teach? The interaction hypothesis. In D. Singleton and D. Little (Eds.), Language Learning in Formal and Informal Contexts, (pp. 3-18), Dublin: IRAAL.

Basturkmen, H., Loewen, S. & Ellis, R. (2002). Metalanguage in focus on form in the communicative classroom. Language Awareness, 1(1), 1-13.

Chaudron, C. (1977). A descriptive model of discourse in the corrective treatment of learners’ errors. Language Learning, 27, 29-46.

Crystal, D. (1997).  English as a Global Language. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Doughty, C., & Varela, E. (1998). Communicative focus on form. In C. Doughty & J. Williams (Eds.), Focus on form in classroom second language acquisition (pp. 114-138). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Doughty, C., & Williams, J. (1998). Focus on form in classroom second language Acquisition. Cambridge: Cambridge UniversityPress.

Egi, T. (2010). Uptake, modified output, and learner perceptions of recasts: Learner responses as language awareness. The Modern Language Journal, 94(1), 1-21.

Ellis, R. (1994). Uptake as language awareness. Language Awareness, 4(3), 147-160.

Ellis, R. (2001). Investigating form-focused instruction. Language Learning, 51(1), 1-46.

Ellis, R., Basturkmen, H. & Loewen, S. (2001a). Preemptive focus on form in the ESL classroom. TESOL Quarterly, 35(3), 407-432.

Ellis, R., Basturkmen, H. &. Loewen, S. (2001b). Learner uptake in communicative ESL lessons. Language Learning, 51(2), 281-318.

Ellis, R., Tanaka, Y. & Yamazaki, A. (1994). Classroom interaction, comprehension and the acquisition of word meanings. Language Learning, 44(3), 449-491.

Ellis, R., Basturkmen H., & Loewen, S. (2002). Doing focus on form. System, 30(4), 419-432.

Farrokhi, F. & Gholami, J. (2005). Preemptive language related episodes, corrective feedback, and uptake in an EFL class. Iranian Journal of Applied Linguistics, 8(1), 23-45.

Farrokhi, F. & Gholami, J. (2006). Uptake and language related episodes in EFL classes. Proceedings of the International Conference on Conversation Analysis (ICCA06). Helsinki University, Finland, May 10-14.

Farrokhi, F. & Gholami, J. (2007). Reactive and preemptive language related episodes and uptake in an EFL Class. The Asian EFL Journal, 9(2), 58-92.

Gass, M. (1997). Input, interaction, and the second language learner. Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.

Gholami, J. (2009). Incidental focus on form in English language teaching: Reactive and   preemptive focus on form practices, and uptake in EFL classes. Berlin: VDM Verlag.

Gholami, J. & Bassirian, M. (2011). Incidental focus on form and uptake: a new visage of learner- and teacher-initiated preemptive focus on form and uptake in EFL classes. Berlin: Lambert AcademicPublishing.

Gholami, J. & Bassirian, M. (2012). (Mis) Conceptions regarding teacher-generated preemptive attention to form. TELL, 5(2), 1-29.

Gholami, L., & Gholami, J. (2018). Uptake in incidental focus-on-form episodes concerning formulaic language in advanced adult EFL classes. Language Teaching Research, https://doi.org/10.1177/1362168818783442

Gholami, L., Karimi, M. N., & Atai, M. R. (2017). Formulaic focus-on-form episodes in adult EFL communicative interactions. System, 68, 72-86. doi:10.1016/j.system.2017.06.015

Harley, B. & Swain, M. (1984). The interlanguage of immersion students and its implication for second language teaching. In A. Davies, C. Criper, & A. P. R. Howatt (Eds.), Interlanguage (pp. 291-311). Edinburgh, Scotland: Edinburgh.

Harley, B., Allen, P., Cummins, J. & Swain, M. (1990). The nature of language proficiency. In B. Harley, P. Allen, J. Cummins, & M. Swain (Eds.), The development of second language proficiency (pp. 7-25). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Iwashita, N. (2003). Negative feedback and positive evidence in task-based interaction. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 25(3), 1-36.

Lightbown, P.M. & Spada, N. (1990). Focus-on-form and corrective feedback in communicative language teaching. Studies in Second Language Acquisition,12(4), 429–448.

Loewen, S. (2005). Incidental focus on form and second language learning. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 27, 361-386.

Loewen, S. (2004a). Uptake in incidental focus on form in meaning focused ESL lessons. Language Learning, 54(1), 153-188.

Loewen, S. (2004b). The occurrence and characteristics of student initiated focus on form. In H. Reinders, H. Anderson, M. M. Hobbs, & J. Jones-Parry (Eds.). Supporting independent learning in the 21st century. Proceedings of the inaugural conference of the Independent Learning Association (pp. 86-93). Auckland: Independent Learning Association Oceania. Retrieved from http://www.independentlearning.org /ila03/ila03_loewen%20.pdf

Loewen, S. (2005). Incidental focus on form and second language learning. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 27(3), 361-386.

Long, M. H. (1983). Native speaker/non-native speaker conversation and the negotiation of comprehensible input. Applied Linguistics, 4(2), 126-141.

Long, M.H. (1991). Focus on form: A design feature in language teaching methodology. In K. de Bot, R. Ginsberg & C. Kramsch (Eds.), Foreign Language Research in Cross-cultural Perspective, (pp. 39–52). Amsterdam: John Benjamins.

Long, M. H. (1996). The role of the linguistic environment in second language acquisition. In C. Ritchie, T. K. Bhatia (Eds.), Handbook of language acquisition, (pp. 413- 468). New York: Academic Press.

Long, M. H., & Crookes, G. (1992). Three approaches to task-based syllabus design. TESOL Quarterly, 26, 27–56.

Long, M., & Robinson, P. (1998). Focus on form: Theory, research and practice. In C. Doughty & J. Williams (Eds.), Focus on form in classroom second language acquisition (pp. 15-41). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Lyster, R. (1998). Negotiation of form, recasts, and explicit correction in relation to error types and learner repair in immersion classrooms. Language Learning, 48(2), 183-218.

Lyster, R. & Izquierdo, J. (2009). Prompts versus recasts in dyadic interaction. Language Learning, 59(2), 453-498.

Lyster, R. & Ranta, L. (1997). Corrective feedback and learner uptake: Negotiation of form in communicative classrooms. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 19(1), 37–66.

Mackey, A., & Gass, S., (2005). Second language research: Methodology and design. Mahwah, New Jersey: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Inc, Publishers.

Mackey, A., McDonough, K., Fujii, A., & Tatsumi, T. (2001). Investigating learner's reports about the L2 classroom. International Review of Applied Linguistics, 39(4), 285-308.

Mackey, A., Gass, S., & McDonough, K. (2000). How do learners perceive interactional feedback? Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 22, 471-497.

Mackey, A., & Philp, J. (1998). Conversational interaction and second language development: Recasts, responses, and red herrings. Modern Language Journal, 82, 338-356.

McDonough, K. (2005). Identifying the impact of negative feedback and learners’ responses on ESL questions development. Studies in Second Language Acquisition 27(1), 79-103.

Mohamadnia, Z., & Gholami, J. (2008). Incidental focus on form: does proficiency matter? TELL, 2(6), 1-26.

Morris, F.A. & Tarone, E.E. (2003). Impact of classroom dynamics on the effectiveness of recasts in second language acquisition. Language Learning, 53(2), 325–368.

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(1), 43-63.

Nassaji, H. (2009). Effects of recasts and elicitations in dyadic interaction and the role of feedback explicitness. Language Learning, 59(2), 411-452.

Nassaji, H. (2011a). Correcting students’ written grammatical errors: The effects of negotiated versus non negotiated feedback. Studies in Second Language Learning and Teaching, 1, 315-334.

Nassaji, H. (2011b). Immediate learner repair and its relationship with learning targeted forms in dyadic interaction. System, 39, 17-29.

Nassaji, H. (2016). Research timeline: Form-focused instruction and second language acquisition. Language Teaching Research, 49, 35–62.

Oliver, R. (2000). Age differences in negotiation and feedback in classroom and pair work. Language Learning, 50(1), 119-151.

Panova, I. & Lyster, R. (2002). Patterns of corrective feedback and uptake in an adult ESL classroom. TESOL Quarterly, 36(4), 573-595.

Patton, M. Q. (2002). Qualitative evaluation and research methods. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. 

Reinders, H. (2009). Learner uptake and acquisition in three grammar oriented production activities: Language Teaching Research, 13(2), 201-222.

Schmidt, R. (1990). The role of consciousness in second language learning. Applied Linguistics, 11(2), 129-158.

Shintani, N. (2013). A comparative study of the effects of input-based and production- based instruction on vocabulary acquisition by young EFL learners. Language Teaching Research, 15, 137-158.

Swain, M. (1985). Communicative competence: Some roles of comprehensible input and comprehensible output in its development. In S. Gass & C. Madden (Eds.), Input in second language acquisition (pp. 235-253). Rowley, MA: Newbury House.

Swain, M. (1998). Focus on form through conscious reflection. In C. Doughty & J. Williams (Eds.), Focus on form in classroom second language acquisition (pp. 64-81). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Swain, M., & Lapkin, S. (1995). Problems in output and the cognitive processes they generate:  A step towards second language learning. Applied Linguistics, 16(3), 370-391.

Zhao, Y. (2005). Incidental focus on form in t-l interaction and l-l interaction. Unpublished doctoral dissertation. Auckland University of Technology,Auckland, New Zealand.

Zhao, S. Y. & Bitchener, J. (2007). Incidental focus on form in teacher learner and learner-learner interactions. System, 35(4), 431-447.