Learner Uptake in Focus on Form Episodes: Evidence from an EFL Classroom Setting
Keywords:
learner uptake, Focus on Form (FoF), Focus on Form Episodes (FFE), EFL, corrective feedbackAbstract
This study examines learner uptake within Focus on Form (FoF) episodes in an English as a Foreign Language (EFL) context. Uptake — defined as students’ observable responses to form-focused instruction — has been widely employed as an indicator of instructional effectiveness in second language research. Although uptake has been documented extensively in ESL settings, comparatively less attention has been directed toward EFL environments, and even less toward how learners at different proficiency levels respond differently to incidental attention to form. The present study addresses this gap by implementing a FoF instructional approach across eight sessions in four classes at a private English language school in Iran. Focus on Form Episodes (FFEs) were identified and analysed to document the nature and frequency of uptake occurrences. A novel distinction between Immediate Uptake (IU) and Delayed Uptake (DU) is introduced and discussed in relation to preemptive and reactive FFE types. Findings reveal that uptake occurred in approximately 30% of all FFEs, with advanced learners demonstrating notably higher uptake rates than intermediate learners, suggesting the pedagogical relevance of learner proficiency in FoF implementation. The findings are discussed in light of recent research on incidental focus on form, corrective feedback timing, and computer-mediated instructional contexts, and implications for both classroom pedagogy and future research design are outlined.
Downloads
References
1. Swain M. Communicative competence: Some roles of comprehensible input and comprehensible output in its development. In: Gass SM, Madden CG, editors. Input in Second Language Acquisition: Newbury House; 1985. p. 235-53.
2. Nunan D, Carter R. The Cambridge Guide to Teaching English to Speakers of Other Languages: Cambridge University Press; 2001.
3. Skehan P. A Cognitive Approach to Language Learning: Oxford University Press; 1998.
4. Long MH. Focus on form: A design feature in language teaching methodology. In: de Bot K, Ginsberg RB, Kramsch C, editors. Foreign Language Research in Cross-Cultural Perspective: John Benjamins; 1991. p. 39-52.
5. Doughty C, Williams J. Focus on Form in Classroom Second Language Acquisition: Cambridge University Press; 1998.
6. Long MH, Robinson P. Focus on form: Theory, research, and practice. In: Doughty CJ, Williams J, editors. Focus on Form in Classroom Second Language Acquisition: Cambridge University Press; 1998. p. 15-41.
7. Ellis R, Basturkmen H, Loewen S. Preemptive focus on form in the ESL classroom. TESOL Quarterly. 2001;35(3):407-32. doi: 10.2307/3588029.
8. Schmidt RW. The role of consciousness in second language learning. Applied Linguistics. 1990;11(2):129-58. doi: 10.1093/applin/11.2.129.
9. Schmidt RW. Consciousness and foreign language learning: A tutorial on the role of attention and awareness in learning. In: Schmidt R, editor. Attention and Awareness in Foreign Language Learning: University of Hawai'i Press; 1995. p. 1-65.
10. Shintani N. Input-Based Tasks in Foreign Language Instruction for Young Learners: John Benjamins; 2016.
11. Spada N, Tomita Y. Interactions between type of instruction and type of language feature: A meta-analysis. Language Learning. 2010;60(2):263-308. doi: 10.1111/j.1467-9922.2010.00562.x.
12. Ellis R. Introduction: Investigating form-focused instruction. Language Learning. 2001;51(Supplement 1):1-46. doi: 10.1111/j.1467-1770.2001.tb00013.x.
13. Ellis R, Basturkmen H, Loewen S. Learner uptake in communicative ESL lessons. Language Learning. 2001;51(2):281-318. doi: 10.1111/1467-9922.00156.
14. Nassaji H, Fotos S. Teaching Grammar in Second Language Classrooms: Integrating Form-Focused Instruction in Communicative Context: Routledge; 2011.
15. Chaudron C. A descriptive model of discourse in the corrective treatment of learners' errors. Language Learning. 1977;27(1):29-46. doi: 10.1111/j.1467-1770.1977.tb00290.x.
16. Lyster R, Ranta L. Corrective feedback and learner uptake: Negotiation of form in communicative classrooms. Studies in Second Language Acquisition. 1997;19(1):37-66. doi: 10.1017/S0272263197001034.
17. Loewen S. Uptake in incidental focus on form in meaning-focused ESL lessons. Language Learning. 2004;54(1):153-88. doi: 10.1111/j.1467-9922.2004.00251.x.
18. Mackey A, Philip J. Conversational interaction and second language development: Recasts, responses, and red herrings? The Modern Language Journal. 1998;82(3):338-56. doi: 10.1111/j.1540-4781.1998.tb01211.x.
19. Panova I, Lyster R. Patterns of corrective feedback and uptake in an adult ESL classroom. TESOL Quarterly. 2002;36(4):573-95. doi: 10.2307/3588241.
20. Wilang JD, Teo A. Predictors of successful uptake following different corrective feedback types in EFL classrooms. PASAA: Journal of Language Teaching and Learning in Thailand. 2018;55:1-28.
21. Zhang C, Bowen NEJA, Thomas N. Oral corrective feedback and learner uptake: An analysis of Chinese high-school teachers' practices in a national teaching competition. Classroom Discourse. 2025:437-60. doi: 10.1080/19463014.2025.2474233.
22. Gholami L. Oral corrective feedback and learner uptake in L2 classrooms: Non-formulaic vs. formulaic errors. Language Teaching Research. 2024;28(3):860-89. doi: 10.1177/13621688211021560.
23. Long MH. The role of the linguistic environment in second language acquisition. In: Ritchie WC, Bhatia TK, editors. Handbook of Second Language Acquisition: Academic Press; 1996. p. 413-68.
24. Mackey A, Gass SM. Pushing the methodological boundaries in interaction research: An introduction to the special issue. Studies in Second Language Acquisition. 2006;28(2):169-78. doi: 10.1017/S0272263106060086.
25. Nassaji H. The Interactional Feedback Dimension in Instructed Second Language Learning: Linking Theory, Research, and Practice: Bloomsbury Academic; 2015.
26. Pouresmaeil A, Gholami J. Incidental focus-on-form in a free discussion language class: Types, linguistic foci and uptake rate. The Language Learning Journal. 2019;47(5):653-65. doi: 10.1080/09571736.2017.1364783.
27. Pouresmaeil A, Vali M. The effects of incidental focus on form on learning vocabulary, grammar, and pronunciation. Language Teaching Research. 2023. doi: 10.1177/13621688231185419.
28. Fu M, Li S. The effects of immediate and delayed corrective feedback on L2 development. Studies in Second Language Acquisition. 2022;44(1):2-34. doi: 10.1017/S0272263120000388.
29. Cheng X, Zhang LJ. Investigating synchronous and asynchronous written corrective feedback in a computer-assisted environment: EFL learners' linguistic performance and perspectives. Computer Assisted Language Learning. 2024:1-30. doi: 10.1080/09588221.2024.2315070.
30. Uludag O. Exploring the relationship between teachers' beliefs and practices of oral corrective feedback in synchronous computer-mediated communication. Heliyon. 2024;10(4):e29507. doi: 10.1016/j.heliyon.2024.e29507.
31. Asiri AS, Khadawardi HA. Teachers' perceptions of electronic corrective feedback and its impact on EFL learners' uptake. Arab World English Journal. 2024;10:204-18. doi: 10.24093/awej/call10.14.
32. Al-wossabi SAN. EFL learners' negotiation on form during synchronous computer-mediated communication: The role of corrective feedback in EFL learners' uptake. Theory and Practice in Language Studies. 2026;16(4):1175-86. doi: 10.17507/tpls.1604.13.
Downloads
Published
Submitted
Revised
Accepted
Issue
Section
License
Copyright (c) 2025 Hamid Reza Karim, Sarimah Shamsudin (Author)
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial 4.0 International License.
