Oral corrective feedback in second language classrooms

By R. Lyster, Kazuya Saito, Masatoshi Sato. Language Teaching, 2012

615 citations recorded by the source corpus.

Subfields: Education, Language and Linguistics, Literature and Literary Theory

View Paper: https://www.semanticscholar.org/paper/54610e2fe73dea2d5f97cd609f77860b07fb0d37

How researchers see this paper

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

In Education

In Language and Linguistics

In Literature and Literary Theory

Citations in the corpus

Anniversary article Interactional feedback in second language teaching and learning: A synthesis and analysis of current research (2016, background): “As noted earlier, Mackey and Philp (1998) found that learners developed their knowledge of question formation despite producing little amount of modified output following recasts (5%).”
Feedback‐Seeking Behavior in Language Learning: Basic Components and Motivational Antecedents (2019, background): “In fact, the two recent state-of-the-art reviews written by leading CF experts (i.e., Lyster et al., 2013; Nassaji, 2016) make almost no mention of any motivational influence on the effectiveness of CF (cf. Bitch-ener, 2017).”
The Routledge handbook of English language teaching (2018, methodology): “In short, exploring and understanding the conceptual motivations in language usages may help make language learning more interesting and effective (see Langacker, 2008).”
Interaction and instructed second language acquisition (2018, background): “…by different characteristics (e.g. Gass 2003; Keck et al. 2006; Russell & Spada 2006; Mackey & Goo 2007; Li, 2010; Lyster & Saito 2010; Plonsky & Gass 2011; Mackey et al. 2012; Goo & Mackey 2013; Lyster & Ranta 2013; Lyster et al. 2013; Plonsky & Brown 2015; Ziegler 2016a; Brown 2016; Kim 2017).”
COMMUNICATIVE FOCUS ON FORM AND SECOND LANGUAGE SUPRASEGMENTAL LEARNING (2014, background): “Given that some L2 learners have difficulty perceiving recasts as teachers’ correction of linguistic errors or confirmation of message comprehensibility (Lyster et al., 2013), the teachers in the current study were specifically asked to recast only individual words that had been mispronounced with a”
COUNTERPOINT PIECE: THE CASE FOR VARIETY IN CORRECTIVE FEEDBACK RESEARCH (2013, background): “Of interest to pursue in this regard is that variety of CF—rather than quantity—may play a major role in its effectiveness (see Lyster et al., 2013 ).”
The type and linguistic foci of oral corrective feedback in the L2 classroom: A meta-analysis (2016, background): “However, Lyster et al. (2013) point out that learners may be more perceptive of CF targeted at lexis and phonology, as these errors could more likely inhibit comprehensibility and therefore may prove more salient.”