ORAL FEEDBACK IN CLASSROOM SLA

By R. Lyster, Kazuya Saito. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 2010

491 citations recorded by the source corpus.

Subfields: Developmental and Educational Psychology, Language and Linguistics, Literature and Literary Theory

View Paper: https://www.semanticscholar.org/paper/3b641377dc6657f21f555d964a635480ec854cd7

How researchers see this paper

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

In Developmental and Educational Psychology

In Language and Linguistics

In Literature and Literary Theory

Citations in the corpus

Domain definition and search techniques in meta-analyses of L2 research (Or why 18 meta-analyses of feedback have different results) (2015, background): “For example, some focused on written feedback (Truscott, 2007), some on oral feedback (Lyster and Saito, 2010), others on both (Russell and Spada, 2006).”
Task Complexity, Focus on L2 Constructions, and Individual Differences: A Classroom-Based Study. (2011, background): “…attention to identifying task design characteristics that may induce interactional elements hypothesized to promote the nowdocumented link between interaction and second language development (Keck, Iberri-Shea, Tracy-Ventura, & Wa-Mbaleka, 2006; Li, 2010; Lyster & Saito, 2010; Mackey & Goo, 2007).”
Anniversary article Interactional feedback in second language teaching and learning: A synthesis and analysis of current research (2016, result): “…many individual studies and in a number of reviews and meta-analyses (e.g. Ellis & Sheen, 2006; Goo & Mackey, 2013; Li, 2010; Lyster & Ranta, 2013; Lyster & Saito, 2010; Lyster, Saito, & Sato, 2012; Mackey & Goo, 2007; Nassaji, 2015, 2016; Nicholas, Lightbown, & Spada, 2001; Russell & Spada,…”
Using Listener Judgments to Investigate Linguistic Influences on L2 Comprehensibility and Accentedness: A Validation and Generalization Study (2015, methodology): “…D ow nloaded from corrective feedback techniques as recasts (reformulation of an erroneous utterance without the error) or prompts (elicitation of the correct utterance) targeting phonological, lexical, and grammatical errors in learners’ speech (Lyster and Saito 2010).”
Raising language awareness in peer interaction: a cross-context, cross-methodology examination (2012, background): “Burgeoning evidence suggests that CF is an effective teaching technique (Li, 2010; Lyster & Saito, 2010; Mackey & Goo, 2007; Russell & Spada, 2006).”
The Routledge handbook of English language teaching (2018, background): “According to CL, language learning is essentially the learning of these three types of meaningful constructions.”
Corrective Feedback in L2 Writing: Theoretical Perspectives, Empirical Insights, and Future Directions (2010, background): “…CF can foster L2 development, and despite the fact that the efficacy of oral CF is well documented (see for example meta-analyses by Li, 2010, Lyster & Saito, 2010, and Mackey & Goo, 2007), the usefulness of written error correction has been and remains a topic of considerable debate (see…”
Oral corrective feedback in second language classrooms (2012, background): “…recast Didactic recast Explicit correction Explicit correction + metalinguistic explanation REFORMULATIONS Figure 1 CF Types (adapted from Lyster & Saito 2010; Sheen & Ellis 2011) prompts provide only negative evidence, whereas recasts provide not only positive but also negative…”