Camouflaged Uptake Following Incidental Focus-on-Form Episodes

Zahra Gholami (Kharazmi University)
Leila Gholami (Arizona State University)

Article ID: 2281



The efficacy of focus-on-form (FonF) within the context of communicatively-oriented language activities is measured via uptake. Uptake is defined as learners’ verbal responses immediately following either preemptive or reactive FonF instruction (Loewen, 2004).The present study investigated what is (not) meant and (not) measured through this definition of uptake. Drawing on the audio-recorded analysis of 20 hours of communicatively–oriented interactions in an intermediate IELTS class with two teachers, this study investigates the frequency of preemptive and reactive incidental FonF, and the subsequent occurrence of uptake in an English as a foreign language context. This study also provided an in-depth qualitative analysis of these classes through field notes, learner notes, and video-recorded data to explore the instances of uptake moves that were not captured through audio-recorded data. The quantitative findings of this study demonstrated a very low and disappointing uptake rate. Furthermore, the study did not find a significant difference between reactive and preemptive FonF in terms of uptake rate. Nonetheless, the qualitative data revealed a myriad of uptake instances not observable via the initial data analysis. Based on these findings, a new definition of uptake is suggested, which includes camouflaged uptake and learners’ immediate oral responses to FonF. Since uptake is used to gauge the efficacy of incidental FonF in primarily meaning–oriented classes, it is concluded that audio-recorded data just show the tip of the iceberg as far as the uptake rate is concerned. Thus, second language acquisition researchers are recommended to employ multiple indices to examine the effectiveness of FonF instruction.


Camouflaged uptake rate; EFL; Incidental focus on form; Reactive FonF; Preemptive FonF; Uptake rate

Full Text:



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

[2] De Courcy, M. 2002. Learners’ experiences of immersion education: Case studies of French and Chinese. Multilingual Matters, Clevedon, England.

[3] Ellis, R. 2001. Investigating form-focused instruction. Language Learning 5 (11), 1-46.

[4] Ellis, R. 2005. Principles of instructed language learning. Asian EFL Journal, 7 (3). Retrieved on April 10, 2006 from

[5] Ellis, R., Basturkmen, H., & Loewen, S. 2001a. Learner uptake in communicative ESL lessons. Language Learning 5 (12), 281-318.

[6] Ellis, R., Basturkmen, H., & Loewen, S. 2001b. Preemptive focus on form in the ESL classroom. TESOL Quarterly 353, 407-432.

[7] Ellis, R., H. Basturkmen and Loewen, S. 2002. Doing focus on form. System 30, 419-432.

[8] Gass, S. 2003. Input and interaction. In: C. J. Doughty and M. H. Long. Malden (Eds.), Handbook of Second Language Acquisition. Blackwell, MA, pp. 224-255.

[9] Gass, S., & Varonis, E. (1986). Sex differences in nonnative speaker/nonnative speaker interactions. In R. Day (Ed.), Talking to learn: Conversation in second language acquisition (pp. 327-351). Rowley, MA: Newbury House.

[10] Hatch, E. 1978. Acquisition of syntax in a second language. In: J. Richards (Ed.), Understanding second and foreign language learning. Newbury House, Rowley, MA, pp. 34-70.

[11] Lightbown, P. 1998. The importance of timing in focus on form. In: C. Doughty & J. Williams (Eds.), Focus on form in classroom second language acquisition. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, pp. 177–196.

[12] Loewen, S. 2004a. Uptake in incidental focus on form in meaning-focused ESL lessons. Language Learning 54, 153-188.

[13] Loewen, S. 2004b. The occurrence and characteristics of student-initiated focus on form. In: Reinders, H., Anderson, H., Hobbs, M. & Jones-Parry, J. (Eds.), Supporting independent learning in the 21st century. Proceedings of the inaugural conference of the Independent Learning Association . Independent Learning Association Oceania, Auckland, pp. 86-93. Retrieved on April 16, 2005 from

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

[15] 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. John Benjamins, Amsterdam, pp. 39-52.

[16] 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, vol. 2. Second Language Acquisition. Academic Press, New York, pp. 413-468.

[17] 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. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, pp. 15-41.

[18] Lyster, R. 1998a. Negotiation of form, recasts, and explicit correction in relation to error types and learner repair in immersion classrooms. Language Learning 48, 183-218.

[19] Lyster, R. 1998b. Recasts, repetition, and ambiguity in L2 classroom discourse. Studies in Second Language Acquisition 20, 51-81.

[20] Lyster, R. 2002. The importance of differentiating negotiation of form and meaning in classroom interaction. In: P. Burmeister, T. Piske, & A. Rohde (Eds.), An integrated view of language development: Papers in honor of Henning Wode Trier. Wissenschaftlicher Verlag Trier, Germany, pp. 381-397.

[21] Lyster, R. 2004. Differential effects of prompts and recasts in form-focused instruction. Studies in Second Language Acquisition 26, 399-432.

[22] Lyster, R., & Ranta, L. 1997. Corrective feedback and learner uptake: Negotiation of form in communicative classrooms. Studies in Second Language Acquisition 19, 37-6.

[23] Mackey, A., Oliver, R., & Leeman, J. 2003. Interactional input and the incorporation of feedback: An exploration of NS–NNS and NNS–NNS adult and child dyads. Language Learning 53, 35-66.

[24] Mackey, A., & Philp, J. 1998. Conversational interaction and second lan¬guage development: Recasts, responses and red herrings? The Modern Language Journal 82, 338–356.

[25] O’connell, S. 2002. Focus on IELTS. Longman, Essex.

[26] Ohta, A. S. (2000). Re-thinking recasts: A learner centered examination of corrective feedback in the Japanese language classroom. In J. K. Hall Sc L. S. Verplaeste (Eds.), The construction of second and foreign language learning through classroom (pp. 41-77). Erlbaum.

[27] Oliver, R. 1995. Negative feedback in child NS-NNS conversation. Studies in Second Language Acquisition 17, 459-481.

[28] Oliver, R. 2000. Age differences in negotiation and feedback in classroom and pairwork. Language Learning 50, 119-151.

[29] Pica, T. 2002 Subject matter content: how does it assist the interactional and linguistic needs of classroom language learners? The Modern Language Journal 86, 1-19.

[30] Swain, M. 1985. Large-scale communicative language testing: A case study. In: Y.P. Lee, et al. (Eds.), New directions in language testing. Pergamon Press, Oxford. pp. 35-46.

[31] Swain, M. 1995. Three functions of output in second language learning. In: G. Cook & B. Seildlhofer (Eds.), Principles and practice in applied linguistics: Studies in honor of H. G. Widdowson. Oxford University Press, Oxford, pp.125-144.

[32] Swain, M. 1998. Focus on form through conscious reflection. In: Doughty, C., Williams, J. (Eds.), Focus on Form in Classroom Second Language Acquisition. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, pp. 64–81.

[33] Varonis, E., & Gass, S. 1985. Non-native/non-native conversations: A model for negotiation of meaning. Applied Linguistics 6, 71-90.

[34] Williams, J. 1999. Learner-generated attention to form. Language Learning 49, 583-625.


  • There are currently no refbacks.
Copyright © 2020 Leila Gholami

Creative Commons License
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial 4.0 International License.