ONE SIZE FITS ALL?: Recasts, Prompts, and L2 Learning

By A. Ammar, N. Spada. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 2006

508 citations recorded by the source corpus.

Subfields: Developmental and Educational Psychology, Language and Linguistics

View Paper: https://www.semanticscholar.org/paper/3ddbf838d8d09aa3018fe874b39c21cd37c54686

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

Citations in the corpus

Oral corrective feedback in second language classrooms (2012, background): “For example, with young learners, Ammar & Spada (2006) investigated the effects of recasts and prompts on the acquisition of possessive determiners by French-speaking ESL learners.”
Position paper: Moving task-based language teaching forward (2017, background): “Some researchers (e.g. Lyster 2004; Ammar & Spada 2006) investigated the relative effects of input-providing feedback (e.g. recasts) versus output-prompting feedback (e.g. clarification requests, metalinguistic feedback and elicitation).”
Raising language awareness in peer interaction: a cross-context, cross-methodology examination (2012, background): “…is CF that can disconfirm (or confirm) the learners’ linguistic hypotheses, which, at the same time, raises their language awareness and thus allows them to re-examine their hypotheses (Ammar & Spada, 2006; Lyster, 2004; Lyster & Izquierdo, 2009; McDonough, 2005; Ohta, 2001; Sato & Lyster, 2007).”
PEER INTERACTION AND CORRECTIVE FEEDBACK FOR ACCURACY AND FLUENCY DEVELOPMENT (2012, methodology): “…variable considered to mediate CF effectiveness is CF type, comprising two 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…”
Anniversary article Interactional feedback in second language teaching and learning: A synthesis and analysis of current research (2016, background): “Lyster (2004) and Ammar and Spada (2006) compared the effects of recasts and prompts in combination with form-focused instruction (FFI) and found that the group who received prompts outperformed those receiving recasts, although in Lyster it was mainly on written tests. Lyster and Izquierdo (2009) c”
The Routledge handbook of English language teaching (2018, background): “In the former, the path of motion is encoded in the verb (e.g. enter/exit verbs of Latin origin), whereas in the latter the manner of motion is encoded with the path expressed by a prepositional/adverbial phrase (e.g. walk into/walked out of the room ).”
Form‐Focused Instruction: Isolated or Integrated? (2008, background): “Ammar and Spada (2006) found that French-speaking children who were already more proficient in using possessive determiners his and her were able to take advantage of integrated instruction, whether in the form of recasts (where the teacher provides the correct”
ORAL FEEDBACK IN CLASSROOM SLA (2010, background): “Seven studies were selected for recasts (i.e., Ammar & Spada, 2006; T ab le 2 .”
The impact of CLIL on affective factors and vocabulary learning (2015, methodology): “To control for the test–retest effect, we decided to follow the procedure used by Ammar and Spada (2006). Different sets of pictures were used for each testing session (pre-test, immediate post-test, and delayed post-test).”