1185419

research-article2023
LTR0010.1177/13621688231185419Language Teaching ResearchPouresmaeil and Vali

LANGUAGE
TEACHING
Article RESEARCH

Language Teaching Research

The effects of incidental

1­–24
© The Author(s) 2023

focus on form on learning Article reuse guidelines:

vocabulary, grammar, and sagepub.com/journals-permissions
https://doi.org/10.1177/13621688231185419
DOI: 10.1177/13621688231185419

pronunciation journals.sagepub.com/home/ltr

Amin Pouresmaeil
Department of Linguistics, Macquarie University, Australia

Mehran Vali
English Department, Islamic Azad University Urmia Branch, Iran

Abstract
Previous studies on incidental focus on form (FonF) have mostly focused on its overall effectiveness.
This study is an attempt to further examine the effectiveness of incidental FonF with regard to
different linguistic categories (vocabulary, grammar, and pronunciation). To this end, eight hours
of a free discussion English as a foreign language (EFL) class with 12 upper-intermediate learners
were observed, and instances of focus on form episodes (FFEs) were identified. Uptake sheets
were also used to identify the learners’ noticing of FFEs and their novelty to them. To measure
the effects of incidental FonF on learning different linguistic categories, individualized immediate
and delayed post-tests were designed based on learners’ on-the-spot written reports of noticing
of novel linguistic forms addressed by FFEs. The results indicated that incidental FonF was almost
equally effective in developing learners’ knowledge of different linguistic forms. The findings also
revealed that incidental FonF was effective in fostering learners’ knowledge of different linguistic
forms at both explicit/implicit and receptive/productive levels.

Keywords
Incidental focus on form, vocabulary, grammar, pronunciation, effectiveness

Corresponding author:
Amin Pouresmaeil, Department of Linguistics, Faculty of Medicine, Health and Human Sciences, Macquarie
University, Balaclava Rd., North Ryde, Sydney, NSW 2109, Australia
Email: [email protected]
2 Language Teaching Research 00(0)

I Introduction
The observation that second language (L2) learners cannot develop high levels of accu-
racy through purely meaning-based instruction has led researchers to propose that some
degree of attention to form is necessary in order for language acquisition to take place
(e.g. R. Ellis, 2001, 2003; Leow, 2015; Loewen, 2018, 2019; Long, 1991, 2015, 2016;
Spada & Lightbown, 2008). Attention to form can occur in a number of ways, two of
which, focus on form (FonF) and focus on forms (FonFs), have received considerable
attention by researchers (e.g. L. Gholami, 2022; L. Gholami & Gholami, 2020; Loewen,
2004, 2005; Nassaji, 2010, 2013; Pawlak, 2007; Pouresmaeil & Gholami, 2019, 2022,
2023; R. Sheen, 2005; Williams, 2001). While in FonFs language is viewed as an object
to be mastered, and thus the focus is mainly on developing conscious knowledge of lin-
guistic forms, FonF views language as a tool for communication and integrates any
attention to form into meaning-oriented communicative tasks (R. Ellis, 2001; Loewen,
2018). Depending on the number of linguistic forms targeted, FonF is further divided
into ‘planned’ FonF (focusing on a limited number of preselected linguistic forms) and
‘incidental’ FonF (focusing on a wide range of linguistic forms arising incidentally in the
course of communication) (R. Ellis, 2001; Loewen, 2018).
Previous research has revealed that incidental FonF occurs frequently in communicative
classes and addresses various linguistic forms (e.g. L. Gholami, 2022; L. Gholami &
Gholami, 2020; Llinares & Lyster, 2014; Loewen, 2004; Nassaji, 2013; Pouresmaeil &
Gholami, 2019). Empirical research has also shown that a good proportion of the linguistic
forms addressed by FonF episodes (FFEs) is retained by learners (e.g. L. Gholami, 2022;
Loewen, 2005; Nassaji, 2010, 2013; Williams, 2001). However, to date, not much research
has been carried out to investigate the extent to which FFEs with different linguistic foci
lead to L2 development. That is, while previous research has revealed beneficial effects for
incidental FonF in general, not much is known about its effects on learning different lin-
guistic forms. Thus, in an attempt to provide a finer-grained picture of the effectiveness of
incidental FonF, the present study investigates the effects of incidental FonF on learning
different components of language (vocabulary, grammar, and pronunciation).

II Focus on form
In his seminal paper, Long (1991) defined FonF as any attempt that ‘overtly draws stu-
dents’ attention to linguistic elements as they arise incidentally in lessons whose overrid-
ing focus is on meaning or communication’ (pp. 45–46). Closely associated with his
interaction hypothesis, Long’s original definition of FonF required it to occur in the form
of implicit corrective feedback, such as recasts, when the need arose incidentally in
response to communication breakdown. This primary definition of FonF has, however,
been expanded by a number of researchers to also include planned attempts (planned
FonF) to practice preselected linguistic forms (usually one or two) through focused com-
municative tasks (R. Ellis, 2001; R. Ellis et al., 2002). FonF has also included incidental
attempts to draw learners’ attention to form in the course of communication even when
there is no breakdown in comprehension. This is what R. Ellis (2001) and R. Ellis et al.
(2002) refer to as ‘incidental FonF’ and categorize it into reactive attempts, as when cor-
rective feedback is provided on learners’ errors, and preemptive attempts, as when the
Pouresmaeil and Vali 3

teacher or a learner initiates attention to form without any apparent occurrence of errors.
The present study operationalized incidental FonF based on R. Ellis’s (2001) and R. Ellis
et al.’s (2002) definition.
Theoretically, FonF is supported by interactionist-cognitive theories of learning (R.
Ellis, 2012), such as the Noticing Hypothesis and the Interaction Hypothesis. Schmidt’s
(1990, 1993) noticing hypothesis proposes that in order for language acquisition to take
place, learners need to notice the input and the linguistic features within it. However, as
VanPatten (1990, 1996) argues, it is extremely difficult for L2 learners to simultaneously
attend to both meaning and form, and that they opt to attend to either of them depending
on the demands of the task. With meaning-focused instruction, it is the meaning which is
generally attended to by learners as it is central to the task. FonF, however, provides the
learners with some time-out from meaning to attend to form and thus provides them with
some opportunities to notice the linguistic features within a meaning-primary instruc-
tional context. Attention to form in this way could occur through either ‘negotiation of
meaning’ or ‘negotiation of form’. Negotiation of meaning, which is central to Long’s
interaction hypothesis, takes place when two or more interlocutors fail to achieve mutual
understanding because of failure in comprehension in the course of interaction. The fun-
damental idea is that through negotiation of meaning learners are provided with both
positive and negative evidence, which could result in correction and opportunities for
output (Long, 1996). Negotiation of form, on the other hand, occurs when there is no
problem in comprehension, but in accuracy in the course of communication (R. Ellis
et al., 2002). What is central here is that through negotiation of meaning and form, the
problematic areas are highlighted for learners, allowing them to compare their L2 knowl-
edge with the provided input, which in turn makes them notice the gaps in their interlan-
guage (R. Ellis, 2001, 2016; Long, 2016). According to Long (2016), noticing the gaps
in this way is most effective as it occurs in the course of communication when learners
are developmentally ready. Similarly, Doughty (2001) argues in favor of FonF on the
grounds that it promotes the form-function mapping, which she sees as necessary for L2
development.

1 Controversy over the effectiveness of FonF

The efficacy of FonF, however, is not without controversy. The controversy, as also
stated by Storch (2018), basically stems from how L2 acquisition is thought to take
place. There are generally three positions on how an L2 is acquired. The first position,
advocated by Krashen (1981, 1993), Schwartz (1993), and Truscott (1999), views L2
acquisition to occur in much the same way as L1 acquisition. The advocates of this posi-
tion argue that all learners need to acquire L2 is positive evidence (comprehensible input)
and that negative evidence in any form and explicit instruction of linguistic forms is
unnecessary and even harmful. These researchers argue that instruction, at best, may lead
to development of some explicit knowledge of simple structures, which cannot be proce-
duralized for automatic access. Thus, they adhere to the non-interface position, which
puts that explicit knowledge does not convert to implicit knowledge. This view, however,
is challenged mainly by research contextualized in French Immersion Program (Swain,
1985), which showed that L2 learners’ interlanguage was grammatically flawed even
after many years of exposure to L2. Therefore, as stated at the beginning of the article,
4 Language Teaching Research 00(0)

there is now a general consensus among researchers on the facilitative role of instruction.
Thus, today, the controversy is mainly on when and how instruction should take place,
rather than whether there should be some form of instruction. There are generally two
positions regarding how L2 instruction should be carried out: FonF and FonFs.
While the proponents of FonF (e.g. Doughty, 2001; Long, 1991, 2015, 2016) consider
L2 acquisition as a by-product of communication where learners notice linguistic gaps in
their interlanguage, the opponents of FonF (e.g. R. Sheen, 2003; Swan, 2005), drawing
on Skill Acquisition Theory, argue that in order for L2 acquisition to take place, learners
need to receive systematic treatment of linguistic features in the form of explicit instruc-
tion. This instruction is followed by some form-based activities and then abundant com-
municative practice (FonFs), which facilitates the development of procedural knowledge
for automatic retrieval. These researchers do not, however, neglect the facilitative role of
corrective feedback as long as it is combined with explicit instruction. Thus, the propo-
nents of FonFs stick to the strong interface position, which puts that explicit knowledge
has the potential to convert to implicit knowledge. The advocates of FonF, on the other
hand, contend that FonF facilitates the development of implicit knowledge as it occurs in
the course of interaction while the primary attention is on meaning and communication.
The main idea is that, through FonF, the linguistic features of language and the meaning
they realize become salient to learners while they are striving for communication. This,
in turn, affords optimal opportunities for the occurrence of form-function mapping
(Doughty, 2001), which is seen as essential in acquiring implicit L2 knowledge (Doughty,
2001; N. C. Ellis, 2002, 2005, 2015).
Today, there is ample evidence on the beneficial effects of FonF, mostly in the form of
corrective feedback provided on a limited number of linguistic structures, without being
coupled with any explicit instruction (e.g. Ammar & Spada, 2006; Canals et al., 2021; R.
Ellis, 2007; Han, 2002; Kartchava & Ammar, 2014; S. Li, 2014; H. Li & Iwashita, 2021;
Yang & Lyster, 2010; Yilmaz, 2012). The efficacy of FonF in these studies could, how-
ever, be partly due to the intensive treatment of errors through provision of corrective
feedback. Thus, in essence, these studies provide support for the effectiveness of planned
FonF. Incidental FonF, however, has not received as much attention as planned FonF as
far as L2 development is concerned. Moreover, although a good number of studies on
corrective feedback have addressed the acquisition of different linguistic targets (e.g. R.
Ellis, 2007; Kartchava & Ammar, 2014; S. Li, 2014; H. Li & Iwashita, 2021; Mackey,
2006; Yang & Lyster, 2010; Yilmaz, 2012), the linguistic forms examined all belonged to
one specific linguistic category (e.g. different morphosyntactic features). Not many FonF
studies have investigated the acquisition of linguistic forms belonging to different linguis-
tic categories (lexis, grammar, and pronunciation). Thus, in addition to focusing on inci-
dental FonF, the present study also examines its effects on developing learners’ accuracy
with regard to grammar, vocabulary, and pronunciation. The limited number of studies on
the effects of incidental FonF on L2 development are reviewed in the following section.

2 Studies on incidental FonF

Incidental FonF has received considerable attention by researchers in the area of form-
focused instruction (FFI). A good number of studies have been carried out on the
Pouresmaeil and Vali 5

frequency of FonF occurrence and the rate of uptake following FFEs (e.g. R. Ellis et al.,
2001a, 2001b; L. Gholami, 2021; L. Gholami & Gholami, 2020; Loewen, 2004; Nassaji,
2010, 2013; Pouresmaeil & Gholami, 2019; Wang & Li, 2021). These studies have
revealed that incidental FFEs occur frequently in both English as a foreign language
(EFL) and English as a second language (ESL) contexts (one FFE per 1.6–2.6 minutes)
with a rather high rate of uptake (50%–73%). However, as some researchers have noted,
although uptake, which is defined as learners’ subsequent production of the target form
or acknowledgement of the provision of corrective feedback, may indicate that learners
have noticed the FFEs, it cannot be taken as any direct evidence of L2 development (R.
Ellis et al., 2001a; Nassaji, 2011). Thus, in an attempt to investigate whether incidental
FonF has any effects on learning, some researchers have made use of individualized
posttests designed based on the FFEs related to each individual learner. Using individual-
ized posttests, Williams (2001), for example, tested the retention rate of grammatical and
lexical FFEs across different proficiency levels with eight learners. She found the reten-
tion rate to range from 50% to 94% for lexical FFEs and 40%–94% for grammatical
FFEs, with higher-proficiency learners achieving better scores. In another study, Loewen
(2005) investigated the effectiveness of incidental FonF in developing learners’ L2
knowledge and found that learners were able to recall the targeted linguistic forms in the
FFEs correctly 60% of the time one day after their occurrence and 50% of the time two
weeks later. In a study on reactive incidental FonF, Loewen and Philp (2006) examined
the effectiveness of recasts provided in the course of meaning-oriented interactions. The
results indicated that recasts were effective at least 50% of the time as measured by
immediate and delayed posttests. The study also found that recasts whose corrective
force was highlighted in a way or another (for example by declarative intonation, short-
ened length, or stress) were more effective than the more implicit forms. In another study
on reactive incidental FonF, Nassaji (2009) investigated the effectiveness of recasts and
elicitations and the role of feedback explicitness. The findings revealed that both correc-
tive feedback types were equally effective, with more explicit forms of each corrective
feedback type being more effective. The effects of explicitness were, however, more
evident in the case of recasts.
In a more comprehensive study, Nassaji (2010) explored the effectiveness of reactive
and preemptive incidental FonF in a university context. The study found that, in total, the
learners responded correctly to 58% of the tested FFEs, with preemptive FFEs receiving
a higher rate of correct responses than reactive ones. Moreover, similar to William’s
(2001) study, Nassaji also found a higher rate of accuracy for more proficient learners on
the posttest. In a separate analysis of the data, Nassaji (2013) investigated the effective-
ness of incidental FonF based on the type of student-teacher participation structure. The
findings indicated that the learners gave correct answers to 69%, 66%, and 48% of the
test items designed out of the FFEs occurring in small group, one on one, and whole-
class interactions, respectively. In another study, Kim and Nassaji (2018) examined the
role of learner extraversion as an individual difference in incidental FonF effectiveness
across two proficiency levels (intermediate and advanced). The results revealed the accu-
racy rate on the posttest to be 27% for the advanced class and 33% for the intermediate
class, with no significant correlation between extraversion and incidental FonF effective-
ness in either of the classes. The authors discussed the lower accuracy rates compared to
6 Language Teaching Research 00(0)

similar studies in terms of the type of FFEs, which were mostly reactive and in the form
of recasts. As the authors explained, reactive FFEs, particularly when provided in the
form of recasts, are less salient than preemptive FFEs and, thus, might go unnoticed by
the learners.
In a more recent and innovative study, L. Gholami (2022) explored the effectiveness
of incidental FonF in relation to formulaic and non-formulaic forms with a group of
advanced EFL learners. Formulaic forms included linguistic features such as idioms,
lexical bundles, collocations, and compounds, whereas non-formulaic features encom-
passed grammar, vocabulary, pronunciation, and spelling. The study showed overall
retention rates of 69% and 42% on the immediate and delayed posttests, respectively.
Regarding formulaicity, the study found that although formulaic FFEs were followed by
uptake more frequently compared to non-formulaic FFEs, learners produced more cor-
rect answers to test items designed based on non-formulaic forms than formulaic ones on
both the immediate posttest (83% vs. 54%) and delayed posttest (78% vs. 9%). Drawing
on Wray’s (2002) needs-only analysis model, L. Gholami (2022) argued that unlike L1
learners who treat combination of words holistically, L2 learners tend to segmentalize
formulaic forms and store them as separate bits in their mental lexicon. This, in turn, may
pose a challenge to L2 learners to retrieve the whole formulaic form, given that many of
these forms are semantically and syntactically arbitrary and, thus, cannot be accounted
for by grammar rules.
Studies on incidental FonF have greatly contributed to our understanding of its effi-
cacy. These studies have shown that incidental FonF occurs frequently in meaning-ori-
ented classes, and that it has beneficial effects on L2 development. Overall, the following
conclusions could be drawn based on the findings of previous studies:

•• Incidental FonF occurs frequently in meaning-oriented classes.

•• Learners notice a significant number of FFEs occurring in the course of
communication.
•• Incidental FonF is facilitative of developing learners’ L2 knowledge.
•• Preemptive FFEs are generally more beneficial than reactive FFEs due to their
higher saliency, and explicit forms of reactive FFEs are more beneficial than
implicit forms.
•• Learners with a higher level of proficiency tend to benefit more from incidental
FonF than those with lower levels of proficiency.
•• Incidental FonF is more effective in relation to non-formulaic forms than formu-
laic forms.

What, however, remains to be further investigated is the contribution of incidental

FonF to developing learners’ L2 knowledge in relation to different linguistic catego-
ries. While previous studies have mostly focused on FFEs with different linguistic
foci, they have not distinguished between their retention rates (except Williams,
2001). A number of studies on noticing, however, have shown that FonF, in general,
and corrective feedback (particularly recasts), in particular, is more noticeable when
provided on lexical and phonological forms than when provided on morphosyntactic
Pouresmaeil and Vali 7

features (e.g. L. Gholami & Gholami, 2020; Kim & Han, 2007; Lyster, 2001; Mackey
et al., 2000; Pouresmaeil & Gholami, 2019; Y. Sheen, 2006). Similarly, some research
on planned FonF has revealed that recasts are generally more effective in developing
lexical knowledge than grammatical knowledge, although it is not always the case
for all morphosyntactic features (Jeon, 2007). These studies suggest that corrective
feedback provided on lexical and phonological errors may be generally more effec-
tive than feedback on morphosyntactic features. One reason proposed for this sug-
gestion is the learners’ higher perception of the corrective force of feedback provided
on these linguistic forms than on morphosyntactic forms. This proposition, however,
needs to be further investigated in incidental FonF as it may not necessarily be the
case in this type of intervention (for example, see Williams, 2001). This may be
mainly due to the fact that incidental FonF is not merely limited to (one type of) cor-
rective feedback. Furthermore, as noted previously, uptake and noticing should not
necessarily be taken as evidence of L2 acquisition taking place. Moreover, meta-
analysis research on the role of interaction in L2 development has revealed that
although learners benefit more from interaction targeting lexical forms in the short
term, in the long run, interaction targeting grammatical forms appears to be more
beneficial (Mackey & Goo, 2007).
One further limitation of previous studies on incidental FonF concerns their outcome
measures. The tests used in these studies to gauge learning tapped only one knowledge
aspect (mostly explicit knowledge for grammatical FFEs and receptive knowledge for
lexical FFEs). Thus, our knowledge of the effectiveness of incidental FonF is mostly
limited to its effects on developing one knowledge aspect. Moreover, as also acknowl-
edged by a number of researchers (e.g. L. Gholami, 2022; Loewen & Philp, 2006), previ-
ous studies did not completely account for learners’ prior knowledge of the targeted
forms in FFEs. These studies have presumed learners’ queries on linguistic forms
(learner-initiated FFEs) or their erroneous utterances (reactive FFEs) as indication of
linguistic gaps. While this can be true in the case of learner-initiated preemptive FFEs,
not all erroneous utterances can necessarily indicate actual gaps in learners’ interlan-
guage. Such utterances may indeed be random mistakes (L. Gholami & Gholami, 2020;
Nassaji, 2009), or lack of implicit knowledge (R. Ellis, 2004). In an attempt to address
these gaps in the literature, the present study investigated whether incidental FonF has
differential effects on developing learners’ accuracy with regard to grammar, vocabulary,
and pronunciation. As explained later, attempts were also made to design test items based
on FFEs addressing actual gaps in learners’ interlanguage. Finally, in order to provide a
better picture of the effectiveness of incidental FonF, the study made use of different
types of outcome measures. More specifically, the present study sought to find answers
to the following questions:

•• Research question 1: What is the retention rate of grammatical, lexical, and

phonological incidental FFEs in the short and long terms?
•• Research question 2: Does incidental focus on form have a differential effect
on developing learners’ knowledge of target forms from different linguistic
categories?
8 Language Teaching Research 00(0)

III Method
1 Participants
This study was conducted in a free discussion EFL class at a private language school
with 12 male and female learners (male = 4 and female = 8), within the age range of 20–
36 years, with an average of 25 years. Prior to the study, an announcement was made on
the need for participants for a study to be conducted in a free discussion class. Initially,
15 learners volunteered to take part in the study. However, only the learners with an
upper-intermediate level of proficiency were selected as the participants of the study. It
was assumed that learners with lower levels of proficiency would not be able to contrib-
ute much to the class discussions. The proficiency of the learners in English was meas-
ured through running the Oxford Placement Test (D. Allan, 2004), and only the learners
who scored 135–149 out of 200 were selected as the participants of the study. This score
range (135–149) is specified as indicating an upper-intermediate level of proficiency
based on the guidelines of the test. However, to further ascertain the proficiency level of
the learners in English, the opinion of the teaching staff was also elicited. The teachers
also confirmed the results of the placement test as truly indicating the learners’ profi-
ciency level. All learners were L1 speakers of Azeri or Kurdish and were fluent in Persian
as their second language. The instructor of the class was a 31-year-old teacher, who held
an MA in TESOL and had 14 years of teaching experience, 10 years of which related to
running free discussion classes. All participants agreed to take part in the study voluntar-
ily by signing informed consent forms.

2 Instruments
One mini-sized video-recorder was used to record the whole-class interactions occurring
in class. In addition, in order to ascertain the novelty of FFEs to learners, uptake sheets,
adopted from J. Gholami and Basirian (2011), were distributed among the learners each
session. These sheets were in the form of organized charts on which the learners were
asked to write down any linguistic forms they noticed during the class discussions and to
indicate whether the form was novel to them in the respective section (see Appendix 1).
Finally, to measure any learning, immediate and delayed individualized posttests were
designed for each learner based on the grammatical, lexical, and phonological FFEs.

3 Data collection procedures

Data for the present study were collected through classroom observation, analysing
learners’ uptake sheets, and running individualized posttests. Four two-hour sessions of
a free discussion class were observed and video-recorded during four successive days,
yielding a total of eight hours of meaning-oriented whole-class interactions. In order to
make the class run naturally, the teacher was not informed about the aim of the study. He
was merely told that the study was to explore the interactions occurring in class. Thus, he
was not required to manipulate the occurrence of any attention to form. Likewise, the
learners were not aware that they would be tested on any linguistic forms.
Pouresmaeil and Vali 9

In addition to the video-recording, the first author attended the class each session as
an unobtrusive observer and took filed notes of the FFEs occurring in class. These field
notes were later used along with the video-recordings to identify the FFEs with more
precision. After identifying the FFEs, instances of FFEs the learners did not have prior
knowledge about were also identified. This was done through analysing the learners’
verbal reports on their uptake sheets. Finally, individualized posttests were designed
based on the FFEs the learners reported to have no previous knowledge of on their uptake
sheets and were administered to each learner at two intervals. Below are thorough expla-
nations about how the FFEs were identified and measured in terms of effectiveness.

4 Identification of FFEs
After each session, instances of FFEs were identified based on the transcriptions of the
video-recordings and the field notes. An FFE, which was the basic unit of analysis, was
defined as the discourse from the point ‘where the attention to linguistic form starts to the
point where it ends, due to a change in topic back to message or sometimes another focus
on form’ (R. Ellis et al., 2001a, p. 294). Thus, in practice, an FFE started when corrective
feedback was provided on a learner’s erroneous utterance or when a learner or the teacher
queried a linguistic form and ended by either a learner uptake, shift of attention back to
message, or another FFE. FFEs were also categorized based on their linguistic foci. For
the purpose of the present study, three linguistic categories were identified: grammar,
lexis, and pronunciation.
To check the reliability of coding the FFEs, a random sample of 50% of the FFEs was
also coded by a trained research assistant. The Cohen’s kappa coefficient obtained was
97% for coding the linguistic foci of the FFEs (grammatical, lexical, and phonological).

5 Measuring the effectiveness of incidental FonF

Because of the unpredictability of the focused linguistic items, it is not possible to meas-
ure the effectiveness of incidental FonF through a pretest–posttest design (R. Ellis et al.,
2001a; Nassaji, 2013). This, however, is not to overlook the importance of learners’
previous knowledge of the FFEs. As noted by Nassaji (2016), designing tests based on
the FFEs the learners already have good knowledge of does not seem plausible. Thus,
researchers have mostly used individualized posttests designed based on the FFEs the
learners engaged in. These researchers have assumed the learners’ production errors or
request for linguistic information as an indication of their lack of knowledge with regard
to the particular linguistic form. While this assumption could be true about some FFEs,
the point of caution, as noted previously, is that not all erroneous utterances necessarily
reflect actual gaps in learners’ L2 knowledge. In other words, the learners’ erroneous
utterance can simply be a mistake, not an error (L. Gholami & Gholami, 2020; Nassaji,
2009). Indeed, previous research has indicated that learners may already have good
knowledge of a considerable proportion of the FFEs (Pouresmaeil & Gholami, 2019),
indicating that the occurrence of many errors are simply mistakes or at worst, lack of
implicit knowledge. Thus, in the present study, attempts were made to design test items
based on the FFEs the learners had no or little knowledge about. To this end, the learners
10 Language Teaching Research 00(0)

were asked to indicate whether any linguistic features (vocabulary, grammar, and pro-
nunciation) they noticed were novel to them in the specified section on the provided
uptake sheets. They did so by simply ticking ‘Yes’ (indicating the form was novel) or
‘No’ (indicating the form was not novel).
After identifying the FFEs which were novel to the learners, individualized posttests
were developed for each linguistic category, and were administered on two occasions:
one immediate (1–4 days after the FFEs) and one delayed (15–18 days after the FFEs).
Depending on the linguistic foci of the FFEs, the tests took different formats: Untimed
Grammaticality Judgement Test (UGJT) and Oral Elicited Imitation Test (OEIT) for
grammatical FFEs, Vocabulary Knowledge Scale (VKS) for lexical FFEs, and
Pronunciation Test (PT) for phonological FFEs. Each learner was invited to a quiet room
and was given the tests in the following order:

1. OEIT
2. PT, sentence section
3. PT, word section
4. VKS
5. UGJT

Below is a thorough description of each testing measure.

a UGJT. This test measured the learners’ explicit knowledge of the grammatical FFEs.
UGJTs were designed based on the FFEs with a grammatical focus and were provided in
the form of sentences, each having one grammatical error, which was the focus of the
FFE that occurred in class. The test also included some distractor items, which were not
focused on by any FFEs. The learners were informed in their L1 that each sentence
included one grammatical error and were asked to find and correct it. Example 1 illus-
trates a sample UGJT item, designed based on a grammatical FFE presented in Extract 1.

Example 1: Sample UGJT item

Please read the following sentences. Each sentence has one grammatical error. Find the error
and correct it. There are not any spelling or punctuation errors.

I look forward to meet him.

Extract 1: FFE

S: I look forward to meet him, and I’m so happy.

T: You look forward to meeting him, not meet.

S: Meeting?

T: Yes. Meeting. Look forward to meeting someone.

S: Oh! Look forward to meeting him.

Pouresmaeil and Vali 11

b OEIT. OEIT, developed by Erlam (2006), is a test of implicit knowledge which is

based on asking the learners to repeat statements including the target form. Erlam pro-
vided arguments and statistical evidence which proved that provided the learners’ pri-
mary focus is on meaning, there is a delay between the presentation of the stimuli and
repetition, and the test is time-pressured, OEIT can provide evidence of learners’ implicit
knowledge of the target structure.
In the present study, the OEIT test items included statements designed based on the
FFEs with a grammatical focus as well as some distractor items. The statements were
presented to the learners on audiotape only once and in real time. To ensure a primary
focus on meaning, following Loewen et al. (2009), the learners were provided with a
Beliefs Questionnaire and were asked to first indicate whether they agreed with each
statement by ticking one of the three boxes of ‘agree’, ‘disagree’, or ‘not applicable’ and
then repeat the statement in correct English. All target items and half of the distractors
were grammatically incorrect, but the learners were not informed about this. To ensure
that the learners would perform in the test as expected, they practiced the test with four
sample items in advance. Example 2 illustrates a sample OEIT test item, designed based
on a grammatical FFE presented in Extract 2.

Example 2: Sample OEIT test item

Please listen to the following sentences and indicate whether you agree with each one on the
questionnaire. You have to repeat the sentence in correct English after checking the box on the
questionnaire. You will hear each sentence only once.

I only study hard when someone makes me to study.

Extract 2: FFE

S: I only study hard when someone makes me to study.

T: When someone makes you study. No ‘to’ after ‘make’.

S: So, when someone makes me study?

T: Yes.

S: Aha.

c VKS. VKS is a five-level self-report vocabulary knowledge scale developed by Pari-

bakht and Wesche (1993), aiming to measure learners’ different levels of lexical knowl-
edge (ranging from total unfamiliarity to ability to use the word in a sentence). In the
present study, the same VKS was used with a minor revision to measure learners’ recep-
tive and productive knowledge of the lexical items the FFEs focused on. The revision
concerned the fifth level of the scale, which originally asked the learners to only use the
given word in a sentence. However, in this study, the learners were required to first write
the definition of the word and then use it in a sentence. This decision was made in order
to make sure whether the learners knew the correct meaning of the given words if they
12 Language Teaching Research 00(0)

chose the fifth level. Example 3 illustrates a sample VKS item, designed based on the
lexical FFE presented in Extract 3.

Example 3: Sample VKS item

Please choose the most appropriate option based on how well you know each given word.

Permanent
1. I have never seen this word.
2. I have seen this word, but I don’t know what it means.
3 I have seen this word before, and I think it means . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . (synonym
or translation)
4 I know this word. It means . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . (synonym or translation)
5 I know this word. It means . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . (synonym or translation)
And I can use it in a sentence: . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  .
........

Extract 3: FFE

S: What is ‫ دائمی‬/ˈdɑːemiː/ in English?

T: Permanent.

S: I think you should have a permanent job when you are 40.

d PT. The retention rate of the phonological FFEs was measured through running the
PT, which included two sections: sentence section and word section. In the sentence sec-
tion, which preceded the word section, the learners were asked to read aloud a list of
sentences containing the targeted words in the phonological FFEs, whereas in the word
section, the learners were asked to read aloud the same targeted words in isolation. Simi-
lar to the other tests, the PT also included a number of distractor items. Examples 4 and
5 illustrate sample PT items, which were designed based on the phonological FFE pre-
sented in Extract 4.

Example 4: Sample PT item, sentence section

Please read aloud the following sentences.

The main obstacle is money.

Example 5: Sample PT item, word section

Please read aloud the following words.

obstacle
Pouresmaeil and Vali 13

Extract 4: FFE

S: The main obstacle (pronounced as /ˈɔːbstækəl/) is money.

T: obstacle (pronounced as /ˈɑːbstəkəl/), obstacle

S: Yeah, obstacle (pronounced as /ˈɑːbstəkəl/).

6 Scoring of the tests

Learners’ responses in each outcome measure were marked as either correct or
incorrect.

a OEIT. Learners’ responses in this test were marked as correct only if they repeated the
statement in correct English. However, if they failed to repeat the statement or did not
correct the error, their response was marked as incorrect.

b UGJT. Learners’ responses in this test were considered as correct if they corrected the
error in each item. However, if they left an item unanswered, or if they failed to correct
the error, their response was marked as incorrect.

c VKS. The VKS included five scales, one of which the learners were required to
choose based on how they perceived their knowledge to be regarding the given lexical
items. For the purposes of this study, learners’ responses in categories 1 and 2 were con-
sidered as evidence of not having either receptive or productive knowledge of the lexical
item. In categories 3–5, however, following Paribakht and Wesche (1993), learners’ self-
report of the vocabulary knowledge was considered as demonstrated knowledge rather
than perceived knowledge. In category 3, if the translation or synonym was correct, the
response was scored as category 4, which showed learners’ receptive knowledge of the
words. If, however, it was wrong, the response was scored as category 2. Similarly, learn-
ers’ responses in category 4 were considered as evidence of having receptive knowledge
if the synonym or translation they provided was correct. However, if the definition they
provided was wrong, their response was scored as category 2. Learners’ ability to use the
lexical items productively was measured via category 5. If the learners provided the cor-
rect definition of the word and used it correctly in a sentence, their response was consid-
ered as evidence of having productive knowledge, which also presumed having receptive
knowledge of the word. If, however, they chose this category, but the definition they
provided for the word was wrong, their response was scored as category 2, even if they
used the word in a sentence.

d PT. Learners’ responses in this test in either section (words and sentences) were
marked as correct only if they pronounced the target words correctly.
To check the reliability of scoring, a second rater also scored a random sample of 50%
of learners’ responses to the test items. The Cohen’s kappa coefficient indicated a relia-
bility of 98%.
14 Language Teaching Research 00(0)

7 Data analysis
To account for the accuracy rate on both immediate and delayed posttests, raw frequen-
cies were calculated. In addition, to see if there was a significant difference between the
scores of the immediate and delayed posttests, Pearson’s Chi-square analysis was per-
formed on the raw frequencies since the data consisted of frequency counts of categorical
data. The Alpha level was set at p < .05. All statistical analyses were performed using
Statistical Package for the Social Sciences (SPSS), version 18.

IV Results
Overall, 475 FFEs occurred in the observed free discussion EFL class, 322 of which were
reported to be novel to the learners. Table 1 shows the frequency of FFEs in each linguis-
tic category. As revealed in Table 1, the highest number of novel FFEs pertained to
vocabulary and then to phonological FFEs. The majority of the grammatical FFEs, how-
ever, were not novel to the learners.
This study was, however, mainly concerned with the retention rate of FFEs. For com-
parison purposes with studies in the literature, first the results with regard to the retention
rate of FFEs in total are presented. These results illustrate learners’ performance as meas-
ured by the UGJT, category 4 of the VKS, and the word section of the PT. Table 2 pre-
sents the overall retention rate of FFEs.
As presented in Table 2, the learners could recall the linguistic elements addressed in
half of the FFEs on both the immediate and delayed posttests, with no significant differ-
ence between the two tests as indicated by the Chi square test, x2 (1, n = 644) = .22, p = .63,
phi = .02.
With respect to vocabulary, a total of 245 lexical FFEs were tested on both the imme-
diate and delayed post-tests. Table 3 presents the results in this regard.

Table 1. Frequency of focus on form episodes (FFEs) in different linguistic categories.

Linguistic category Frequency of FFEs Frequency of novel FFEs

Vocabulary 298 245 (82%)
Grammar 95 26 (27%)
Pronunciation 82 51 (62%)
Total 475 322 (68%)

Table 2. Retention rate of focus on form episodes (FFEs) in total.

Immediate posttest Delayed posttest

Number of FFEs tested 322 322
Number of FFEs answered correctly (%) 167 (52%) 160 (50%)
Pouresmaeil and Vali 15

Table 3. Retention rate of lexical focus on form episodes (FFEs).

Immediate posttest Delayed posttest

Number of FFEs tested 245 245
Number of FFEs known correctly (%) 122 (50%) 116 (47%)
Productive knowledge (%) 92 (76%) 91 (78%)

Table 4. Retention rate of grammatical focus on form episodes (FFEs) as measured by a

Untimed Grammaticality Judgement Test (UGJT) (explicit knowledge).

Immediate posttest Delayed posttest

Number of FFEs tested 26 26
Number of FFEs answered correctly (%) 13 (50%) 13 (50%)

Table 5. Retention rate of grammatical focus on form episodes (FFEs) as measured by an Oral
Elicited Imitation Test (OEIT) (implicit knowledge).

Immediate posttest Delayed posttest

Number of FFEs tested 26 26
Number of FFEs answered correctly (%) 8 (31%) 10 (38%)

As revealed in Table 3, the learners could recall the meaning of half of the lexical
items addressed in the lexical FFEs in the short term and to a slightly lower extent in the
long term. It was also found that the learners had productive knowledge of the vast
majority of the learned lexical items in both the short and long terms. The Chi square
analysis indicated no significant difference between the retention rates on the immediate
and delayed posttests, x2 (1, n = 490) = .21, p = .65, phi = .02.
To measure the retention rate of grammatical FFEs, 26 FFEs with a focus on grammar
were tested on the immediate and delayed posttests. The results are presented in Tables 4
and 5 with regard to learners’ explicit and implicit knowledge, respectively.
As shown in Table 4, the learners developed explicit knowledge of half of the gram-
matical forms addressed through incidental FonF in both the short and long terms, with
obviously no significant difference between the immediate and delayed posttest results as
revealed by the Chi square test, x2 (1, n = 52) = .000, p = 1.000, phi = .000. Regarding the
learners’ implicit knowledge, as Table 5 reveals, the learners developed implicit knowl-
edge of around one-third of the grammatical forms addressed by FFEs in both the short
and long terms. The Chi square test revealed no significant difference between the reten-
tion rates on the immediate and delayed posttests, x2 (1, n = 52) = .08, p = .77, phi = .08.
With respect to phonological FFEs, a total of 51 FFEs with a focus on pronunciation
were tested as separate words as well as inside sentences on both the immediate and
delayed posttests. Tables 6 and 7 present the results regarding the retention rate of pho-
nological FFEs as tested in the form of separate words and sentences, respectively.
16 Language Teaching Research 00(0)

Table 6. Retention rate of phonological focus on form episodes (FFEs) at the word level.

Immediate posttest Delayed posttest

Number of FFEs tested 51 51
Number of FFEs pronounced correctly (%) 32 (63%) 31 (61%)

Table 7. Retention rate of phonological focus on form episodes (FFEs) at the sentence level.

Immediate posttest Delayed posttest

Number of FFEs tested 51 51
Number of FFEs pronounced correctly (%) 29 (57%) 28 (55%)

As Table 6 reveals, the learners pronounced the majority of the words correctly when
presented in isolation in both the short and long terms, with no significant difference
between their performance on the immediate and delayed posttests, x2 (1, n = 102) = .000,
p = 1.000, phi = .02. The results were almost the same when the words were pronounced
inside sentences. The learners pronounced almost the same number of words correctly
when presented inside sentences. The Chi square test also revealed no significant differ-
ence between the immediate and delayed posttest results, x2 (1, n = 102) = .000, p = 1.000,
phi = .02.

V Discussion
This study was primarily concerned with the effectiveness of incidental FonF through
measuring the retention rate of FFEs which were novel to the learners. To this end, first,
the frequency of FFEs, in general, and the number of novel FFEs, in particular, was cal-
culated in relation to each linguistic category. The results indicated that lexical FFEs
occurred much more frequently than grammatical and phonological FFEs. This finding
is in line with that of Pouresmaeil and Gholami (2019) and R. Ellis et al. (2001b) and
indicates that the teacher and the learners in the investigated context were primarily con-
cerned with lexical forms. One reason for this finding could be the significance of lexical
forms in the course of communication. Lexical items generally have a higher communi-
cative value than other linguistic forms and further contribute to the act of communica-
tion (Laufer & Goldstein, 2004; Scrivener, 2011). Since the investigated class was
meaning-oriented and had a primary focus on communication, lexical forms have
received more attention by the teacher and the learners compared to other linguistic
forms. Furthermore, as R. Ellis et al. (2001b) state, lexical FFEs typically involve
requests for the meaning of words and can easily fit into communicative activities with-
out interrupting the flow of communication unduly. This can also account for why lexical
FFEs occurred more frequently than grammatical and phonological FFEs in the investi-
gated meaning-oriented class.
Regarding the novelty of FFEs, the results indicated that while the majority of lexical
and phonological FFEs were novel to the learners, only a small number of grammatical
Pouresmaeil and Vali 17

FFEs addressed actual linguistic gaps in the learners’ interlanguage. This finding indi-
cates that the majority of the learners’ utterances which were grammatically flawed were
indeed mistakes rather than errors. Such erroneous utterances might be the result of
learners’ lack of implicit/procedural knowledge of the grammatical structure rather than
a complete linguistic gap. This finding further highlights the importance of ascertaining
the novelty of FFEs in designing posttests as discussed before. Nevertheless, an interest-
ing area of research could be to investigate whether/the extent to which incidental FonF
would contribute to developing learners’ implicit knowledge of grammatical structures
about which the learners already have some explicit knowledge.
Regarding the retention rate of linguistic forms addressed by FFEs, the results indi-
cated that the learners could recall the linguistic elements addressed in half of the FFEs
in both the short and long terms. This finding points to a rather high retention rate of
FFEs, which might be associated with L2 learning. Given that the test items were
designed based on the FFEs which the learners presumably had no previous knowledge
of further highlights the beneficial effects of this type of instruction. It should, however,
be noted that the act of note-taking might have increased the learners’ engagement with
the FFEs, possibly allowing them to further process the noticed forms.1 This, in turn,
might have led to a higher retention rate. However, to determine whether the act of note-
taking was indeed a contributing factor, further research with and without the incorpora-
tion of note-taking activities is required.
The overall retention rates found in this study are roughly in line with those of
Williams (2001), Loewen (2005), Nassaji (2010, 2013), and L. Gholami (2022), all of
which (except L. Gholami, 2022) occurred in ESL contexts. Some researchers (e.g. Y.
Sheen, 2004) argue that learners may benefit more from FonF in EFL contexts where
they are more oriented to attending to linguistic forms. The findings of this study, along
with those of L. Gholami (2022), however, suggest that incidental FonF is equally effec-
tive irrespective of the context in which it occurs. One reason for this finding may be the
micro-level context of this study, which was highly communicative and meaning-ori-
ented. Indeed, an informal interview conducted after the second posttest revealed that the
learners mostly viewed the main objective of the class to improve their fluency and com-
municative skills. Thus, it could be argued that what is more important than the macro-
level context (e.g. EFL vs. ESL) is the characteristics of the classroom in that context.
This postulation is also echoed by Pouresmaeil and Gholami (2019) and Wang and Li
(2021), who found no significant difference in the overall uptake and repair rate follow-
ing corrective feedback between EFL and ESL contexts, arguing that similar classroom
characteristics and objectives, such as improving communicative competence, in EFL
and ESL contexts may result in similar uptake and repair rates.
What, however, distinguishes this study from those in the literature is its focus on the
retention rate of FFEs with different linguistic foci. As far as vocabulary is concerned, the
findings indicated that the learners could recall the meaning of half of the lexical items
addressed by FFEs. They could also use the vast majority of the learned lexical items in
sentences. The findings were even more encouraging with regard to pronunciation. The
learners were able to pronounce over 60% of the target words correctly on the immediate
posttest and to a slightly lower extent on the delayed posttest. The results were quite simi-
lar for grammatical FFEs. The learners developed explicit knowledge of 50% of
18 Language Teaching Research 00(0)

the grammatical forms addressed by FFEs. This finding points to a rather equal effect of
incidental FonF on developing learners’ knowledge with regard to different linguistic cat-
egories in this study. It, however, runs contrary to what Jeon (2007) states about the learn-
ability of linguistic forms. Jean argues that lexical items generally have a higher
communicative value and perceptual salience compared to morphosyntactic features,
which in turn enhance their learnability. Similarly, studies on noticing have mostly
revealed a higher rate of noticing and uptake following lexical and phonological forms.
However, this study found FFEs to be almost equally effective irrespective of the linguis-
tic foci. While not neglecting the higher communicative value of lexical forms and their
importance in the act of communication compared to morphosyntactic features as
explained before, it seems that factors other than merely communicative value may also
play a role in the effectiveness of focusing on different linguistic forms. One reason for
this rather contradictory finding could be the explicitness of FFEs. In Jeon’s (2007) study,
as well as many comparative studies on noticing different linguistic features (e.g. Kim &
Han, 2007; Lyster, 2001; Mackey et al., 2000; Pouresmaeil & Gholami, 2019; Y. Sheen,
2006), attention to (grammatical) form, occurred in the form of implicit corrective feed-
back, such as recasts. In such cases, the further saliency of lexical forms compared to
morphosyntactic features might contribute to learners’ further noticing of lexical items
(Harley, 1995; Nassaji, 2010). However, saliency may not be considered as an advantage
as far as attention to form occurs explicitly. As Nassaji (2010) argues, ‘when FonF is more
direct and explicit, students are more likely to notice the linguistic forms’ (p. 926).
Previous studies on explicitness of corrective feedback have also revealed that explicit
forms of a specific type of corrective feedback are generally more beneficial than its
implicit forms (Loewen & Philp, 2006; Nassaji, 2009). Similarly, in the present study,
attention to grammatical and phonological forms occurred mostly through explicit forms
of reactive FonF. Further analysis of the data revealed that although the majority of the
grammatical and phonological FFEs were reactive (as opposed to lexical FFEs which
were mostly preemptive and explicit), they were almost entirely of the explicit type of
corrective feedback, with the teacher writing the FFEs on the board (and thus further
enhancing the noticeability of the linguistic forms). Therefore, in essence, there was not a
significant difference in the explicitness of the reactive (grammatical and phonological)
and preemptive (lexical) FFEs. This might explain why the learners benefited from FonF
on different linguistic categories to almost the same extent and promises some pedagogi-
cal and theoretical implications. Based on this finding, it might be suggested that, in terms
of noticing and learning, the explicitness of FFEs compensates for the lower communica-
tive value of the linguistic forms, which has been proposed as a factor impacting learning.
This, however, should not be taken as suggesting no difference in the noticeability of
different linguistic items in general nor should it be assumed that there is no difference in
the importance of different linguistic features in the act of communication. Obviously,
different linguistic forms vary in saliency and communicative value. Lexical items, for
instance, are generally more salient to notice than morphosyntactic features and have a
higher communicative value compared to other linguistic forms. The higher contribution
of lexical items to the act of communication may prioritize treatment of lexical errors
compared to morphosyntactic errors. L2 teachers, thus, should consider the significance
of different linguistic items in a communicative act when treating different errors in a
meaning-oriented activity. Our findings, however, point to the role of explicitness of FFEs
Pouresmaeil and Vali 19

in the extent to which incidental FonF may be effective when treating errors which may
possibly go unnoticed due to their lower communicative value. We are, however, aware
that due to the lack of a comparative group, which was inevitable based on the nature of
the study, this suggestion might be premature and warrants further research.
Another finding of the study concerns the contribution of grammatical FFEs to devel-
oping learners’ explicit and implicit knowledge. The finding that incidental FonF con-
tributed to development of explicit knowledge more than to implicit knowledge may be
simply due to the ease in developing explicit knowledge compared to implicit knowl-
edge. However, that the learners further developed implicit knowledge over time,
although not statistically significant, may be due to the extra time required for internal
processing, which is considered essential for the conversion of intake to implicit knowl-
edge (Gass, 1997; Nassaji & Fotos, 2004; VanPatten, 1996). This finding is in line with
that of Mackey and Goo (2007), who also found further delayed effects of interaction on
the acquisition of grammatical features in their meta-analytical study. Some interaction
researchers have suggested that interaction targeting grammatical forms may show fur-
ther effects in the long run (e.g. Mackey & Goo, 2007; Mackey et al., 2000). Our findings
provide some support to this suggestion.

VI Conclusions and limitations

The present study was an attempt to further our knowledge of the effectiveness of inci-
dental FonF. While further corroborating the findings of previous studies in the literature,
the study revealed that incidental FonF had an almost equal effect on developing learn-
ers’ knowledge of different linguistic categories. The reason for this finding was pro-
posed to be the explicitness of the FFEs. However, further research is warranted to
ascertain whether the explicitness of the FFEs was the sole contributing factor. The study
also found that incidental FonF was more effective in developing learners’ explicit
knowledge than their implicit knowledge, although there was nonsignificant evidence of
further improvement of implicit knowledge in the long run. Overall, given that attention
to form was transient with a focus on a rather wide range of linguistic features with mini-
mum interruption in the course of communication, drawing attention to form through
incidental FonF could be regarded as a beneficial technique to be implemented by L2
teachers in communicative classes.
This study, however, has some limitations, which provide some avenues for further
research. Firstly, the study was conducted with a rather small number of participants.
Thus, any claims based on the findings of this study are supposed to be suggestive. More
studies with a larger number of participants are required before we can safely generalize
the results. Another limitation of the study concerns its relatively short observation
period. Longer observation hours would possibly provide more instances of different
types of FFEs with different linguistic foci, which would in turn provide more items to
test. One more limitation of the study concerns the lack of novel test items in the out-
come measures. Future studies may incorporate test items which do not repeat the exact
words occurring in FFEs. Such novel test items would possibly provide us with a better
picture of the ability of learners to use the target forms in novel situations, which might
be more indicative of L2 development compared to retention rates. Future research may
also investigate the effects of different categories of incidental FonF (i.e. reactive and
20 Language Teaching Research 00(0)

preemptive) on developing learners’ knowledge of different linguistic features. Finally,

it is suggested that interested researchers explore the role of individual differences, such
as language analytic ability, working memory capacity, anxiety, motivation, etc., in
learners’ ability to benefit from incidental FonF provided on different linguistic targets
including vocabulary, pronunciation, and grammar.

Funding
The author(s) received no financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this
article.

ORCID iD
Amin Pouresmaeil https://orcid.org/0000-0002-0636-3326

Note
1. An anonymous reviewer suggested that asking the learners to indicate whether the forms were
novel to them might have sensitized them toward the target structures. While we admit that
the act of note-taking could have increased the learners’ engagement with the FFEs, allow-
ing them to further process the noticed forms, we do not believe indicating the novelty of the
forms would have sensitized them toward the forms as the learners were neither aware of the
aim of the study nor did they know that they would be tested on the forms. Furthermore, in
order to minimize any potential memory effects, distractor items, encompassing half of the
total number of items, were included in each test section.

References
Allan, D. (2004). Oxford placement test. Oxford University Press.
Ammar, A., & Spada, N. (2006). One size fits all? Recasts, prompts, and L2 learning. Studies in
Second Language Acquisition, 28, 543–574.
Canals, L., Granena, G., Yilmaz, Y., & Malicka, A. (2021). The relative effectiveness of
immediate and delayed corrective feedback in video-based computer-mediated com-
munication. Language Teaching Research. Epub ahead of print 25 October 2021. DOI:
10.1177/13621688211052793
Doughty, C. (2001). Cognitive underpinning of focus on form. In Robinson, P. (Ed.), Cognition
and second language instruction (pp. 206–257). Cambridge University Press.
Ellis, N.C. (2002). Frequency effects in language processing: A review with implications for theo-
ries of implicit and explicit language acquisition. Studies in Second Language Acquisition,
24, 143–188.
Ellis, N.C. (2005). At the interface: Dynamic interactions of explicit and implicit language knowl-
edge. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 27, 305–352.
Ellis, N.C. (2015). Implicit AND explicit language learning: Their dynamic interface and com-
plexity. In Rebuschat, P. (Ed.), Implicit and explicit learning of languages (pp. 3–23). John
Benjamins.
Ellis, R. (2001). Introduction: Investigating form-focused instruction. Language Learning, 51,
1–46.
Ellis, R. (2003). Task-based language learning and teaching. Oxford University Press.
Ellis, R. (2004). The definition and measurement of L2 explicit knowledge. Language Learning,
54, 227–275.
Pouresmaeil and Vali 21

Ellis, R. (2007). The differential effects of corrective feedback on two grammatical structures. In
Mackey, A. (Ed.), Conversational interaction in second language acquisition: A collection of
empirical studies (pp. 339–360). Oxford University Press.
Ellis, R. (2012). Language teaching research and language pedagogy. Wiley-Blackwell.
Ellis, R. (2016). Focus on form: A critical review. Language Teaching Research, 20, 405–428.
Ellis, R., Basturkmen, H., & Loewen, S. (2001a). Learner uptake in communicative ESL lessons.
Language Learning, 51, 281–318.
Ellis, R., Basturkmen, H., & Loewen, S. (2001b). Pre-emptive focus-on-form in the ESL class-
room. TESOL Quarterly, 35, 407–432.
Ellis, R., Basturkmen, H., & Loewen, S. (2002). Doing focus on form. System, 30, 419–432.
Erlam, R. (2006). Elicited imitation as a measure of L2 implicit knowledge: An empirical valida-
tion study. Applied Linguistics, 27, 461–491.
Gass, S.M. (1997). Input, interaction, and the second language learner. Lawrence Erlbaum.
Gholami, J., & Basirian, M. (2011). (Mis)conceptions regarding teacher-generated preemptive
attention to form. Teaching English Language and Literature, 5, 1–30.
Gholami, L. (2021). Oral corrective feedback and learner uptake in L2 classrooms: Non-formulaic
versus formulaic errors. Language Teaching Research. Epub ahead of print 8 June 2021.
DOI: 10.1177/13621688211021560
Gholami, L. (2022). The efficacy of incidental attention to formulaic and nonformulaic forms in
focus on form. The Modern Language Journal, 106, 449–468.
Gholami, L., & Gholami, J. (2020). Uptake in incidental focus-on-form episodes concerning for-
mulaic language in advanced adult EFL classes. Language Teaching Research, 24, 189–219.
Han, Z. (2002). A study of the impact of recasts on tense consistency in L2 output. TESOL
Quarterly, 36, 543–572.
Harley, B. (1995). Lexical issues in language learning. John Benjamins.
Jeon, K.S. (2007). Interaction-driven L2 learning: Characterizing linguistic development. In
Mackey, A. (Ed.), Conversational interaction in second language acquisition: A collection of
empirical studies (pp. 379–403). Oxford University Press.
Kartchava, E., & Ammar, A. (2014). The noticeability and effectiveness of corrective feedback in
relation to target type. Language Teaching Research, 18, 428–452.
Kim, J., & Han, Z. (2007). Recasts in communicative EFL classes: Do teacher intent and learner
interpretation overlap? In Mackey, A. (Ed.), Conversational interaction in second language
acquisition: A series of empirical studies (pp. 269–297). Oxford University Press.
Kim, J., & Nassaji, H. (2018). Incidental focus on form and the role of learner extraversion.
Language Teaching Research, 22, 698–718.
Krashen, S. (1981). Second language acquisition and second language learning. Pergamon.
Krashen, S. (1993). The effect of formal grammar teaching: Still peripheral. TESOL Quarterly,
26, 409–411.
Laufer, B., & Goldstein, Z. (2004). Testing vocabulary knowledge: Size, strength, and computer
adaptiveness. Language Learning, 54, 399–436.
Leow, R. (2015). Explicit learning in the L2 classroom: A student-centered approach. Routledge.
Li, H., & Iwashita, N. (2021). The role of recasts and negotiated prompts in an FL learning con-
text in China with non-English major university students. Language Teaching Research, 25,
209–233.
Li, S. (2014). The interface between feedback type, L2 proficiency, and the nature of the linguistic
target. Language Teaching Research, 18, 373–396.
Llinares, A., & Lyster, R. (2014). The influence of context on patterns of corrective feedback and
learner uptake: A comparison of CLIL and immersion classrooms. The Language Learning
Journal, 42, 181–194.
22 Language Teaching Research 00(0)

Loewen, S. (2004). Uptake in incidental focus on form in meaning-focused ESL lessons. Language
Learning, 54, 153–188.
Loewen, S. (2005). Incidental focus on form and second language learning. Studies in Second
Language Acquisition, 27, 361–386.
Loewen, S. (2018). Focus on form versus focus on forms. In Liontas, J.I. (Ed.), The TESOL ency-
clopedia of English language teaching (pp. 1–6). Wiley.
Loewen, S. (2019). Instructed second language acquisition. In Chapelle, C.A. (Ed.), The encyclo-
pedia of applied linguistics (pp. 1–3). Wiley.
Loewen, S., Erlam, R., & Ellis, R. (2009). The incidental acquisition of third person –s as implicit
and explicit knowledge. In Ellis, R., Loewen, S., Elder, C., Reinders, H., Erlam, R., & Philp,
J. (pp. 262–280). Multilingual Matters.
Loewen, S., & Philp, J. (2006). Recasts in the adult English L2 classroom: Characteristics, explic-
itness, and effectiveness. The Modern Language Journal, 90, 536–556.
Long, M.H. (1991). Focus on form: A design feature in language teaching methodology. In De
Bot, K., Ginsberg, R., & C. Kramsch (Eds.), Foreign language research in cross-cultural
perspective (pp. 39–52). John Benjamins.
Long, M.H. (1996). The role of linguistic environment in second language acquisition. In Ritchie,
C., & T.K. Bhatia (Eds.), Handbook of language acquisition (pp. 413–468). Academic Press.
Long, M.H. (2015). Second language acquisition and task-based language teaching. Wiley-
Blackwell.
Long, M.H. (2016). In defense of tasks and TBLT: Nonissues and real issues. Annual Review of
Applied Linguistics, 36, 5–33.
Lyster, R. (2001). Negotiation of form, recasts, and explicit correction in relation to error types and
learner repair in immersion classrooms. Language Learning, 51, 265–301.
Mackey, A. (2006). Feedback, noticing, and instructed second language learning. Applied
Linguistics, 27, 405–430.
Mackey, A., Gass, S., & McDonough, K. (2000). How do learners perceive interactional feed-
back? Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 22, 471–497.
Mackey, A., & Goo, J. (2007). Interaction research in SLA: A meta-analysis and research syn-
thesis. In Mackey, A. (Ed.), Conversational interaction in second language acquisition: A
collection of empirical studies (pp. 407–449). Oxford University Press.
Nassaji, H. (2009). Effects of recasts and elicitations in dyadic interaction and the role of feedback
explicitness. Language Learning, 59, 411–452.
Nassaji, H. (2010). The occurrence and effectiveness of spontaneous focus on form in adult ESL
classrooms. The Canadian Modern Language Review, 66, 907–933.
Nassaji, H. (2011). Immediate learner repair and its relationship with learning targeted forms in
dyadic interaction. System, 39, 17–29.
Nassaji, H. (2013). Participation structure and incidental focus on form in adult ESL classrooms.
Language Learning, 63, 835–869.
Nassaji, H. (2016). Anniversary article: Interactional feedback in second language teaching and
learning: A synthesis and analysis of current research. Language Teaching Research, 20,
535–562.
Nassaji, H., & Fotos, S. (2004). Current developments in research on the teaching of grammar.
Annual Review of Applied Linguistics, 24, 126–145.
Paribakht, T.S., & Wesche, M.B. (1993). Reading comprehension and second language develop-
ment in a comprehension-based ESL program. TESL Canada Journal, 11, 9–29.
Pawlak, M. (2007). Comparing the effect of focus on form and focus on forms in teaching English
third conditional. In Pawlak, M. (Ed.), Exploring focus on form in language teaching: Special
Pouresmaeil and Vali 23

issue of Studies in Pedagogy and Fine Arts (pp. 171–194). Faculty of Pedagogy and Fine
Arts, Kalisz Adam Michiewicz University.
Pouresmaeil, A., & Gholami, J. (2019). Incidental focus-on-form in a free discussion language
class: Types, linguistic foci and uptake rate. The Language Learning Journal, 47, 653–665.
Pouresmaeil, A., & Gholami, J. (2022). The relative effects of focus on form versus focus on forms
on learning the second conditional in English. Instructed Second Language Acquisition, 6,
57–80.
Pouresmaeil, A., & Gholami, J. (2023). The effects of oral incidental focus on form on developing
vocabulary knowledge. Teaching English as a Second or Foreign Language – TESL-EJ, 26,
1–17.
Schmidt, R. (1990). The role of consciousness in second language learning. Applied Linguistics,
11, 129–158.
Schmidt, R. (1993). Awareness and second language acquisition. Annual Review of Applied
Linguistics, 13, 206–226.
Schwartz, B. (1993). On explicit and negative data effecting and affecting competence and linguis-
tic behavior. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 15, 147–163.
Scrivener, J. (2011). Learning teaching: The essential guide to English language teaching. 3rd
edition. Macmillan.
Sheen, R. (2003). Focus on form: A myth in the making? ELT Journal, 57, 225–233.
Sheen, R. (2005). Focus on forms as a means of improving accurate oral production. In Housen,
A., & M. Pierrard (Eds.), Investigations in instructed second language acquisition (pp. 271–
310). Mouton de Gruyter.
Sheen, Y. (2006). Exploring the relationship between characteristics of recasts and learner uptake.
Language Teaching Research, 10, 361–392.
Sheen, Y. (2004). Corrective feedback and learner uptake in communicative classrooms across
instructional settings. Language Teaching Research, 8, 263–300.
Spada, N., & Lightbown, P. (2008). Form-focused instruction: Isolated or integrated? TESOL
Quarterly, 42, 181–207.
Storch, N. (2018). Meaning-focused versus form-focused instruction. In Liontas, J.I. (Ed.), The
TESOL encyclopedia of English language teaching (pp. 1–6). Wiley Blackwell.
Swain, M. (1985). Communicative competence: Some roles of comprehensible input and com-
prehensible output in its development. In Gass, S., & C. Madden (Eds.), Input in second
language acquisition (pp. 235–253). Newbury House.
Swan, M. (2005). Legislation by hypothesis: The case of task-based instruction. Applied
Linguistics, 26, 376–401.
Truscott, J. (1999). What’s wrong with oral grammar correction. The Canadian Modern Language
Review, 55, 437–456.
VanPatten, B. (1990). Attending to content and form in the input: An experiment in consciousness.
Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 12, 287–301.
VanPatten, B. (1996). Input processing and grammar instruction in second language acquisition.
Ablex.
Wang, W., & Li, S. (2021). Corrective feedback and learner uptake in American ESL and Chinese
EFL classrooms: A comparative study. Language, Culture and Curriculum, 34, 35–50.
Williams, J. (2001). The effectiveness of spontaneous attention to form. System, 29, 325–340.
Wray, A. (2002). Formulaic language and the lexicon. Cambridge University Press.
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, 235–263.
Yilmaz, Y. (2012). The relative effects of explicit correction and recasts on two target structures
via two communication modes. Language Learning, 62, 1134–1169.
24 Language Teaching Research 00(0)

Appendix 1. Sample uptake sheet.