Error Correction: Students’ Versus Teachers’ Perceptions

By D. Lasagabaster, J. Sierra. 2005

95 citations recorded by the source corpus.

Subfields: Language and Linguistics, Literature and Literary Theory

View Paper: https://www.semanticscholar.org/paper/fd18b33ab33718b5c0a57ad1bd60f6d88e2b2965

How researchers see this paper

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

In Language and Linguistics

1. Masatoshi Sato
2. Kazuya Saito
3. R. Lyster
4. S. Loewen
5. Hossein Nassaji
6. Reiko Yoshida
7. R. Ellis
8. K. Rajagopalan

In Literature and Literary Theory

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

Citations in the corpus

• Teachers' Choice and Learners' Preference of Corrective Feedback Types (2008, background): “In Lasagabaster and Sierra (2005) , both teachers and learners perceived CF as more effective when the teachers take more time, provide longer explanations and use different types of CF.”
• Oral corrective feedback in second language classrooms (2012, background): “…to be twofold: first, they believe that CF can break the communicative flow and thus have an adverse effect on communicativeness (Brown 2009); second, they believe that CF can induce language anxiety because learners may lose face by being corrected in front of others (Lasagabaster & Sierra 2005).”
• Interaction and instructed second language acquisition (2018, background): “Such positive beliefs may incline learners to be more receptive to interaction in the classroom, thereby increasing its benefits (see also Lasagabaster & Sierra 2005; Brown 2009).”