COUNTERPOINT PIECE: THE CASE FOR VARIETY IN CORRECTIVE FEEDBACK RESEARCH

By R. Lyster, Leila Ranta. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 2013

127 citations recorded by the source corpus.

Subfields: Language and Linguistics, Literature and Literary Theory

View Paper: https://www.semanticscholar.org/paper/0111c63da549dd591939fa96ae9dbb3f9805270f

How researchers see this paper

The researchers whose trusted networks rank it highest, strongest advocate first. Every researcher gets a different order.

In Language and Linguistics

1. Hossein Nassaji
2. Masatoshi Sato
3. S. Loewen
4. R. Ellis
5. R. Lyster
6. Kazuya Saito
7. Younghee Sheen
8. Andrea Révész

In Literature and Literary Theory

1. Hossein Nassaji
2. Masatoshi Sato
3. S. Loewen
4. R. Ellis
5. R. Lyster
6. Kazuya Saito
7. Younghee Sheen
8. Xavier Gutiérrez

Citations in the corpus

• Position paper: Moving task-based language teaching forward (2017, background): “In other words, he advocates a variety of feedback strategies – a view echoed by Ellis (2009) and Lyster & Ranta (2013).”
• Anniversary article Interactional feedback in second language teaching and learning: A synthesis and analysis of current research (2016, background): “Lyster and Ranta (2013) argued that using different types of prompts ‘may be considered more pedagogically sound and also methodologically valid in comparative studies’ (p. 175).”
• Interaction and instructed second language acquisition (2018, background): “…investigation have been used to support the superiority of both input-providing feedback (e.g. Long 2007; Goo & Mackey 2013) and output-prompting feedback (e.g. Lyster 2004; Lyster & Ranta 2013), although some studies have also found similar effects between the two (e.g. Loewen & Nabei 2007).”