When is corrective feedback most likely to succeed

By Gertraud Havranek. 2002

146 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/bf75bd4a4664f37af5a841e1098a0ba2efa79b00

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. R. Lyster
2. R. Ellis
3. Younghee Sheen
4. Masatoshi Sato
5. S. Loewen
6. Hossein Nassaji
7. Dan Brown
8. T. Egi

In Language and Linguistics

1. R. Lyster
2. Masatoshi Sato
3. Younghee Sheen
4. Hossein Nassaji
5. R. Ellis
6. S. Loewen
7. Kazuya Saito
8. T. Egi

In Literature and Literary Theory

1. R. Lyster
2. Masatoshi Sato
3. R. Ellis
4. Hossein Nassaji
5. S. Loewen
6. Younghee Sheen
7. Kazuya Saito
8. T. Egi

Citations in the corpus

• LEARNERS' INTERPRETATIONS OF RECASTS (2006, unknown): “L2 learning; evidence for their positive impact comes from an increasing range of studies conducted in both experimental and classroom contexts ~Ayoun, 2001; Braidi, 2002; Doughty & Varela, 1998; Han, 2002; Havranek, 2002; Iwashita, 2003; Leeman, 2003; Long, Inagaki, & Ortega, 1998; Mackey & Philp, ”
• Implicit and Explicit Knowledge in Second Language Learning, Testing and Teaching (2009, background): “Although reactive FoF feedback that is accompanied by some kind of metalinguistic explanation has been found to account for a proportion of teacher feedback moves (Havranek, 2002; Loewen & Philp, 2006; Lyster & Ranta, 1997), little attention has been paid in FoF studies to the quality of this feedba”
• Uptake, Modified Output, and Learner Perceptions of Recasts: Learner Responses as Language Awareness (2010, background): “found that particular types of learner uptakes, specifically repair and modified output, were pre dictive of subsequent L2 learning (Havranek, 2002; Loewen, 2005; McDonough, 2004, 2005; McDonough & Mackey, 2006; Nobuyoshi & Ellis, 1993; Shekary 8c Tahririan, 2006).”
• INTERACTIONAL FEEDBACK AND INSTRUCTIONAL COUNTERBALANCE (2006, background): “…FI classrooms ~Lyster, 1998b; Lyster & Ranta, 1997!, JI classrooms ~Mori, 2000, 2002!, ESL classrooms ~Panova & Lyster, 2002!, EFL classrooms ~Havranek, 2002; Sheen, 2004; Tsang, 2004!, and German foreign language classrooms ~Lochtman, 2002!+ The error treatment sequence begins with a…”
• SYNTACTIC PRIMING AND ESL QUESTION DEVELOPMENT (2008, background): “…responses to interactional feedback, with several studies reporting positive associations between learners’ responses and developmental outcomes ~e+g+, Havranek, 2002; Loewen & Philp, 2006; McDonough, 2005; McDonough & Mackey, 2006!+ Most of this research has investigated learners’ responses to…”
• The type and linguistic foci of oral corrective feedback in the L2 classroom: A meta-analysis (2016, background): “Several studies have adopted more refined coding of error sequences, for example, accounting for length of exchanges (Havranek, 2002; Loewen & Philp, 2006; Margolis, 2007).”
• The role of teacher’s corrective feedback in improving Iranian EFL learners’ writing accuracy over time: is learner’s mother tongue relevant? (2009, background): “There are a lot of studies that support the efficacy of focusing on form and providing corrective feedback in improving the L2 learners’ proficiency (Carroll & Swain, 1993; Foster & Skehan, 1996; Havranek, 2002; Lyster, 2004; Nassaji & Swain, 2000; Yuan & Ellis, 2003, to name a few).”