Patterns of Corrective Feedback and Uptake in an Adult ESL Classroom

By Iliana Panova, R. Lyster. 2002

648 citations recorded by the source corpus.

Subfields: Language and Linguistics, Literature and Literary Theory

View Paper: https://www.semanticscholar.org/paper/1e157b243830378e47eaa587fa51c43152383d2d

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

In Literature and Literary Theory

Citations in the corpus

DIFFERENTIAL EFFECTS OF PROMPTS AND RECASTS IN FORM-FOCUSED INSTRUCTION (2004, background): “This section introduces a distinction between two very different types of feedback, which have been observed in immersion classrooms ~Lyster & Ranta, 1997! and presented as complementary teacher moves with different purposes for different learners in different contexts ~Lyster, 2002a, 2002b!+ Notwit”
Teachers' Choice and Learners' Preference of Corrective Feedback Types (2008, methodology): “In the previous studies (Lyster & Ranta, 1997; Moroishi, 2001; Panova & Lyster, 2002), teachers most frequently used recasts (utterances involving the reformulation of learners’ erroneous utterances) as CF.”
INTERPRETING RECASTS AS LINGUISTIC EVIDENCE: The Roles of Linguistic Target, Length, and Degree of Change (2007, background): “…corrections, although at lower levels than has been claimed by research based on uptake and repair ~e+g+, Lyster, 1998a, 1998b; Lyster & Ranta, 1997; Panova & Lyster, 2002!+ The learners in this study typically reported this type of interpretation in a context in which recasts played the dual role…”
Anniversary article Interactional feedback in second language teaching and learning: A synthesis and analysis of current research (2016, background): “It can promote the automatization of already known forms if they occur as self-repair in response to elicitation moves (McDonough, 2005; Panova & Lyster, 2002; Swain, 1995).”
IMPLICIT AND EXPLICIT CORRECTIVE FEEDBACK AND THE ACQUISITION OF L2 GRAMMAR (2006, background): “…interest in the role of corrective feedback in SLA in the last decade+ A number of descriptive studies based on data collected in classrooms ~e+g+, Panova & Lyster, 2002; Sheen, 2004! and on data collected in a laboratory-type setting ~e+g+, Iwashita, 2003; Mackey, Oliver, & Leeman, 2003;…”
PEER INTERACTION AND CORRECTIVE FEEDBACK FOR ACCURACY AND FLUENCY DEVELOPMENT (2012, background): “The benefi ts of prompts have instead been attributed to the opportunities they provide to learners to self-correct their initial erroneous utterances (e.g., R. Ellis, Basturkmen, & Loewen, 2001 ; Lyster & Ranta, 1997 ; Panova & Lyster, 2002 ).”
CORRECTIVE FEEDBACK AND WORKING MEMORY CAPACITY IN INTERACTION-DRIVEN L2 LEARNING (2012, background): “Considering that recasts are not as effective in eliciting modifi ed output as prompts such as metalinguistic feedback (see Lyster & Ranta, 1997 ; Panova & Lyster, 2002 ), the blocking of modifi ed output opportunities in the present study may have affected the metalinguistic group far more than…”
AT THE INTERFACE: DYNAMIC INTERACTIONS OF EXPLICIT AND IMPLICIT LANGUAGE KNOWLEDGE (2005, background): “…not provide recasts unless there is a serious communication problem, and recasts are not necessarily attended to ~Lyster, 1998; Lyster & Ranta, 1997; Panova & Lyster, 2002!+ However, on occasion, a recast can provide that “slightest nudge” ~Scott Kelso, 2002! that puts the dynamic system into a…”
Metatalk in a Pair Work Activity: Level of Engagement and Implications for Language Development (2008, background): “However, as Panova and Lyster (2002) point out, a repetition may be quite mechanical with little attention invested in the act.”