Researching the Effects of Form-Focussed Instruction on L2 Acquisition

By R. Ellis. 2006

232 citations recorded by the source corpus.

Subfields: Language and Linguistics, Literature and Literary Theory

View Paper: https://www.semanticscholar.org/paper/39f3282fd09010375b574b6548ceeb15e64ec4b7

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. K. Rajagopalan
2. Kazuya Saito
3. Masatoshi Sato
4. R. Lyster
5. R. Ellis
6. Hossein Nassaji
7. Yingli Yang
8. S. Loewen

In Literature and Literary Theory

1. Kazuya Saito
2. Masatoshi Sato
3. K. Rajagopalan
4. R. Lyster
5. R. Ellis
6. Hossein Nassaji
7. Yingli Yang
8. S. Loewen

Citations in the corpus

• ORAL FEEDBACK IN CLASSROOM SLA (2010, background): “explicit, we followed suggestions by Ellis ( 2006 ), Loewen and Nabei (2007), and Lyster ( 2002 ) that clarifi cation requests and repetition are more implicit than elicitation and metalinguistic clues.”
• Corrective Feedback and Teacher Development (2009, background): “In the case of oral CF, two key distinctions figure: (1) explicit vs. implicit CF (e.g., Carrol & Swain, 1993; Aljaafreh & Lantolf, 1994) and (2) input-providing vs. output-prompting CF (Lyster, 2004; Ellis, 2006).”
• The Routledge handbook of English language teaching (2018, background): “In short, exploring and understanding the conceptual motivations in language usages may help make language learning more interesting and effective (see Langacker, 2008).”
• Research into practice: Grammar learning and teaching (2015, unknown): “1 For summaries, see Nassaji & Fotos (2004), Ellis (2006), & Spada (2011).”
• EFFECTS OF FORM-FOCUSED PRACTICE AND FEEDBACK ON CHINESE EFL LEARNERS’ ACQUISITION OF REGULAR AND IRREGULAR PAST TENSE FORMS (2010, background): “An alternative and more categorical way of classifying feedback types is to distinguish between input-providing CF and output-pushing CF (Ellis, 2006 ): Input-providing CF supplies the correct reformulation through recasts and explicit correction; outputpushing CF withholds the correct…”
• PEER INTERACTION AND CORRECTIVE FEEDBACK FOR ACCURACY AND FLUENCY DEVELOPMENT (2012, unknown): “…dimensions: (a) outputeliciting versus input-providing feedback (see Ammar & Spada, 2006 ; de Bot, 1996 ; Sheen & Ellis, 2011 ; Yang & Lyster, 2010 ) and (b) explicitness versus implicitness (see R. Ellis, 2006 , 2009a ; R. Ellis & Sheen, 2006 ; Nicholas, Lightbown, & Spada, 2001 ; Sato, 2011 ).”
• Oral corrective feedback in second language classrooms (2012, background): “The classification of prompts along this continuum from implicit to explicit is tentatively based on suggestions by Ellis (2006) and Loewen & Nabei (2007) that clarification requests and repetition might be considered more implicit than elicitation and metalinguistic clues, but note that Li (2010)…”
• Effects of Instruction on L2 Pronunciation Development: A Synthesis of 15 Quasi- Experimental Intervention Studies (2012, background): “However, other researchers such as Ellis and Long proposed slightly different notions of FonF with respect to explicitness of form-focused instruction (for further discussion, see Ellis, 2006).”
• Effects of Form-Focused Instruction and Corrective Feedback on L2 Pronunciation Development of /ɹ/ by Japanese Learners of English (2012, methodology): “In preparation for the proposed research, the first author administered an “expert judgment” questionnaire (see Ellis, 2006; Robinson, 1996) to a sample of 120 teachers of English in Japan comprising both NSs and NNSs of English, asking them to rank 25 pronunciation problems, which included a…”
• Examining the role of explicit phonetic instruction in native-like and comprehensible pronunciation development: an instructed SLA approach to L2 phonology (2011, methodology): “This instructional notion draws on transfer appropriate processing theory whereby learning language form through meaningful activities will help learners improve their retrieval in future communication settings rather than metalinguistic knowledge learned in decontextualised contexts such as mechani”