Uptake in Incidental Focus on Form in Meaning‐Focused ESL Lessons

By S. Loewen. 2004

234 citations recorded by the source corpus.

Subfields: Developmental and Educational Psychology, Language and Linguistics

View Paper: https://www.semanticscholar.org/paper/554a4527b25804b5406e7ed9f28b71b2fa91141a

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

1. Masatoshi Sato
2. R. Lyster
3. S. Loewen
4. A. Ammar
5. Leila Ranta
6. Hossein Nassaji
7. Andrea Révész
8. Reiko Yoshida

In Language and Linguistics

1. Masatoshi Sato
2. R. Lyster
3. S. Loewen
4. Hossein Nassaji
5. A. Ammar
6. Leila Ranta
7. Reiko Yoshida
8. Andrea Révész

Citations in the corpus

• COUNTERPOINT PIECE: THE CASE FOR VARIETY IN CORRECTIVE FEEDBACK RESEARCH (2013, background): “The extent to which learners modify their output after different types of CF in classrooms is an empirical question that can be answered by analyses of video recordings of treatment sessions (e.g., Yang & Lyster, 2010 ) or audio recordings of language-related episodes (e.g., Loewen, 2004 ).”
• TASK COMPLEXITY, FOCUS ON FORM, AND SECOND LANGUAGE DEVELOPMENT (2009, background): “External factors discussed in the literature include the learning context (e.g., Ellis et al., 2001 ; Loewen, 2004 ; Lyster & Mori, 2006 ; Sheen, 2004 ), the type of linguistic feature targeted (e.g., Jeon, 2007 ; Long), and the manner of recasting (Doughty & Varela, 1998 ; Han, 2002 ; Loewen &…”
• Teachers' Choice and Learners' Preference of Corrective Feedback Types (2008, background): “Many studies (Ellis et al., 2001; Loewen, 2004; Lyster, 1998b; Moroishi, 2002; Ohta, 2000, 2001) have investigated the relationship between recasts and learners’ uptake (responses to CF immediately after the CF).1 However, teachers’ choices of CF types have not been explored from the teachers’…”
• Prompts and recasts: Differential effects on second language morphosyntax (2008, background): “In his revised interaction hypothesis, Long (1996) contends that recasts can be effective in promoting second language (L2) development because they juxtapose the learner’s incorrect rendition and the teacher’s or native speaker’s reformulation.”
• INCIDENTAL FOCUS ON FORM AND SECOND LANGUAGE LEARNING (2005, background): “…production+ Studies have found varying levels of successful uptake, including 27% ~Lyster & Ranta!, approximately 35% ~Oliver, 1995!, 74% ~Ellis et al+!, and 47–75% ~Loewen, 2004!+ These studies acknowledged that uptake is not necessarily indicative of L2 acquisition; nevertheless, uptake might…”
• Interaction and instructed second language acquisition (2018, background): “These are the primary discourse moves that have been investigated in research studies that examine the occurrence of negotiation (e.g. Ellis, Basturkmen & Loewen 2001a; Loewen 2004; Gass, Mackey & Ross-Feldman 2005).”
• PEER INTERACTION AND CORRECTIVE FEEDBACK FOR ACCURACY AND FLUENCY DEVELOPMENT (2012, methodology): “…which interactional moves were most closely related to L2 development, a multiple regression analysis was originally thought to be appropriate (see Loewen, 2004 ; Loewen & Philp, 2006 ); however, simple bivariate correlational analyses were chosen because of the high correlations between some…”
• INTERACTIONAL FEEDBACK AND INSTRUCTIONAL COUNTERBALANCE (2006, methodology): “…et al+, 2001! and that formrelated episodes successfully lead to learner repair, whereas message-related episodes are sometimes never resolved ~Loewen, 2004!+ Second, our study adopts two coding schemes to compare two different instructional settings+ First, we use Lyster and Ranta’s ~1997!…”