The DOI matches its Crossref record, with a small difference in title or year; 98 of the 98 references it cites were found in a registry or an index; 4 of the 27 sources its claims cite were checked for support.
ORAL FEEDBACK IN CLASSROOM SLA: A Meta-Analysis
Open accessAbstract
To investigate the pedagogical effectiveness of oral corrective feedback (CF) on target language development, we conducted a meta-analysis that focused exclusively on 15 classroom-based studies ( N = 827). The analysis was designed to investigate whether CF was effective in classroom settings and, if so, whether its effectiveness varied according to (a) types of CF, (b) types and timing of outcome measures, (c) instructional setting (second vs. foreign language classroom), (d) treatment length, and (e) learners’ age. Results revealed that CF had significant and durable effects on target language development. The effects were larger for prompts than recasts and most apparent in measures that elicit free constructed responses. Whereas instructional setting was not identified as a contributing factor to CF effectiveness, effects of long treatments were larger than those of short-to-medium treatments but not distinguishable from those of brief treatments. A simple regression analysis revealed effects for age, with younger learners benefiting from CF more than older learners.
Overview
AI snapshot
Written from the paper’s full text.
TL;DR
This meta-analysis synthesized 15 classroom-based quasi-experimental studies (N = 827) to assess whether oral corrective feedback (CF) improves second language development and how its effects vary by feedback type, outcome measure, setting, treatment length, and learner age. CF produced significant and durable gains, with prompts generally outperforming recasts and younger learners benefiting more than older learners.
Key findings
- CF had a medium-to-large overall effect in classroom settings: between-group contrasts averaged d = 0.74 (43 d values), while within-group contrasts averaged d = 0.91 (33 d values); control groups showed d = 0.39, and CF groups did not overlap with controls in confidence intervals.
- Prompts were more effective than recasts in within-group contrasts (prompts d = 1.14 vs. recasts d = 0.70); between-group effects were prompts d = 0.83, recasts d = 0.53, and explicit correction d = 0.84, with explicit correction not significantly distinguishable from either prompts or recasts.
- Effects did not decline significantly from immediate to delayed posttests: between-group immediate d = 0.63 and delayed d = 0.84; within-group immediate d = 0.84 and delayed d = 1.01.
- Free constructed-response measures showed the largest effects (between-group d = 0.97; within-group d = 1.25), followed by constrained constructed-response measures (d = 0.70; d = 0.86) and metalinguistic judgments (d = 0.45; d = 0.70); long treatments exceeded short-to-medium treatments between groups (d = 1.13 vs. d = 0.57), and age was negatively related to CF effects (26.2% of between-group variance, 16.4% of within-group variance).
Methods
- The authors conducted a meta-analysis of published quasi-experimental CF studies conducted in L2 classrooms, excluding laboratory-based and observational studies; 15 studies with 827 learners met inclusion criteria.
- Searches covered databases such as ERIC and LLBA and major journals, using keywords including feedback, corrective feedback, recasts, prompts, explicit correction, negotiation, and pre/post design.
- Effect sizes were calculated as Cohen’s d for between-group and within-group contrasts, with 95% confidence intervals; coded variables included CF type (recasts, explicit correction, prompts), posttest timing (immediate vs. delayed), outcome measure type (free constructed response, constrained constructed response, metalinguistic judgment), setting (second vs. foreign language), treatment length (brief <1 hr, short-to-medium 1–3 hr, long >7 hr), and learner age (analyzed continuously via simple regression).
Limitations
- The authors state that results should be interpreted cautiously and tentatively because of the small N, broad confidence intervals and standard deviations, and the inclusion of multiple effect sizes from the same sample studies.
- The authors also note that only published work was included, raising the file-drawer problem because non-significant studies may remain unpublished; they did not retrieve fugitive literature.
- Evident from the text: several categories were very small (e.g., within-group explicit correction n = 3, k = 4; long treatments n = 3; brief within-group contrasts not calculated; selected-response measures n = 1, k = 8 and not interpreted), and the authors caution that more classroom studies comparing CF types are needed before firm conclusions.
Model-written summary. Check it against the paper before relying on it.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
Claims the paper makes
46 Own result · 22 Own interpretation · 11 Sources not found · 7 Own method · 7 No basis given · 4 Couldn’t confirm · 2 No full text of the sources · 2 Not checked yet · accuracy not yet measured
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“The effects were larger for prompts than recasts and most apparent in measures that elicit free constructed responses.”
§ ORAL FEEDBACK IN CLASSROOM SLA A Meta-Analysis > Abstract
plaincorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Whereas instructional setting was not identifi ed as a contributing factor to CF effectiveness”
§ ORAL FEEDBACK IN CLASSROOM SLA A Meta-Analysis > Abstract
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“effects of long treatments were larger than those of short-to-medium treatments”
§ ORAL FEEDBACK IN CLASSROOM SLA A Meta-Analysis > Abstract
plaincorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“but not distinguishable from those of brief treatments”
§ ORAL FEEDBACK IN CLASSROOM SLA A Meta-Analysis > Abstract
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“The effects were larger for prompts than recasts and most apparent in measures that elicit free constructed responses.”
§ ORAL FEEDBACK IN CLASSROOM SLA A Meta-Analysis > Abstract
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“A simple regression analysis revealed effects for age, with younger learners benefi ting from CF more than older learners.”
§ ORAL FEEDBACK IN CLASSROOM SLA A Meta-Analysis > Abstract
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
The paper states this without a source or data behind it here, so there is nothing to check it against. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“more apparent in free constructed-response measures than other types of measures”
§ ORAL FEEDBACK IN CLASSROOM SLA A Meta-Analysis > CONCLUSION
hedgedcorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“the analysis of confidence intervals found the differential effectiveness of prompts to be signifi cantly larger than that of recasts in the within-group contrasts”
- Also stated in: § CONCLUSION · plain
“In comparison to the control groups, the prompt groups made signifi cantly more progress than the recast groups between pretests and posttests.”
§ ORAL FEEDBACK IN CLASSROOM SLA A Meta-Analysis > Types of CF
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
- Also stated in: § CONCLUSION · plain
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“The between-group contrasts for CF effects created 43 d values, with a mean effect size of 0.74 ( SD = 0.47) and confi dence intervals (CIs) above zero (0.58-0.90), which demonstrates that the impact of CF is signifi cant in L2 classrooms with medium-to-large effects.”
§ ORAL FEEDBACK IN CLASSROOM SLA A Meta-Analysis > Effects of CF
boosteddirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“the mean effect size of free constructed-response measures is 0.97 ( n = 5, k = 13, CI = ± 0.29, SD = 0.51)”
§ ORAL FEEDBACK IN CLASSROOM SLA A Meta-Analysis > Types of Outcome Measures
plainn = 5- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
- Probably not a substantial claim. 18
- It may state two separate claims as one. 26
- The quote only partly states this claim. 2
The cited sources that could be checked couldn’t confirm or dispute this claim.
In the paper
“The standard deviation of any single group was considered particularly susceptible to sampling error, due to the small sample sizes of most studies within research domain”
§ ORAL FEEDBACK IN CLASSROOM SLA A Meta-Analysis > CONCLUSION
What the sources say
- Could not verifycites Norris and Ortega's (2000) sourceExperimental — accuracy not yet measured
The supplied passages and the passages retrieved under this DOI are labeled as a different work, “Self-Monitoring and Self-Reflection in an English Blended Learning Environment.” Its Limitations section mentions a small sample in that study, but no passage addresses single-group standard deviations or their susceptibility to sampling error. Searches for the claim’s wording and for sampling error, standard deviation, and small sample sizes did not verify the attribution to Norris and Ortega. (LLM, conf=0.76)
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim.
- Could not verify
The cited sources that could be checked couldn’t confirm or dispute this claim.
In the paper
“However, it might be the case that length of instruction alone is not a reliable index for SLA processes, as suggested by Norris and Ortega's ( 2000 ) acknowledgement that the small differences they observed between shorter and longer term treatments were likely due to a number of study variables”
§ ORAL FEEDBACK IN CLASSROOM SLA A Meta-Analysis > Length of Instruction
What the sources say
- Could not verifycites Norris and Ortega's ( 2000 ) sourceExperimental — accuracy not yet measured
The supplied passages and further indexed results are labeled “Self-Monitoring and Self-Reflection in an English Blended Learning Environment,” not the cited Norris and Ortega paper. Searches for shorter versus longer treatments and instructional duration returned no passage addressing the attributed acknowledgement. The claim cannot be verified from the available copy. (LLM, conf=0.76)
hedged- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Could not verify
The cited sources that could be checked couldn’t confirm or dispute this claim.
In the paper
“Norris and Ortega ( 2000 ) noted that many studies employed outcome measures that favor the effectiveness of explicit treatments because these measures required”
§ ORAL FEEDBACK IN CLASSROOM SLA A Meta-Analysis > Outcome Measures
What the sources say
- Could not verifycites Norris and Ortega ( 2000 ) sourceExperimental — accuracy not yet measured
The supplied passages and additional searches return text headed “Self-Monitoring and Self-Reflection in an English Blended Learning Environment,” rather than passages from Norris and Ortega’s synthesis. Searches for explicit treatments, declarative knowledge, and the claimed outcome-measure bias found no passage addressing the claim, so the indexed copy cannot verify it. (LLM, conf=0.78)
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Could not verify
The cited sources that could be checked couldn’t confirm or dispute this claim.
In the paper
“The usefulness of meta-analysis as a trustworthy tool for research synthesis has been widely recognized in the area of instructed SLA studies since Norris and Ortega's ( 2000 ) seminal study”
§ ORAL FEEDBACK IN CLASSROOM SLA A Meta-Analysis > THE PRESENT STUDY
What the sources say
- Could not verifycites Norris and Ortega's (2000) sourceExperimental — accuracy not yet measured
The passages supplied and retrieved under this DOI are headed “Self-Monitoring and Self-Reflection in an English Blended Learning Environment,” rather than the cited Norris and Ortega paper. Searches for “meta-analysis” and its use in instructed SLA returned no relevant passage, so this copy cannot verify the claimed recognition of the method since their study. (LLM, conf=0.78)
boosted- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Could not verify
The paper states this without a source or data behind it here, so there is nothing to check it against. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“It should be noted, however, that the instructional treatments employed in the 15 studies differ in substantial ways”
§ ORAL FEEDBACK IN CLASSROOM SLA A Meta-Analysis > METHOD Data Selection
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Rests on an assumption: The 15 included classroom studies are sufficiently comparable in their instructional treatments to be combined in one meta-analysis despite substantial differences.
The paper states this without a source or data behind it here, so there is nothing to check it against. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Whereas recasts and prompts in the studies included in this metaanalysis were generally delivered in the context of communicatively driven teacher-student interaction, explicit correction was operationalized with slightly less consistency and across a broader spectrum of instructional activities.”
§ ORAL FEEDBACK IN CLASSROOM SLA A Meta-Analysis > Data Computation
plaincorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Results revealed that CF had signifi cant and durable effects on target language development.”
§ ORAL FEEDBACK IN CLASSROOM SLA A Meta-Analysis > Abstract
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one. The quote only partly states this claim.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Whereas explicit correction did not prove signifi cantly different from either recasts or promptsneither in between-nor within-group contrasts”
§ ORAL FEEDBACK IN CLASSROOM SLA A Meta-Analysis > Types of CF
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“The analysis of confidence intervals shows that the effects of free constructed-response measures are signifi cantly larger than those of metalinguistic judgments in the between-group contrast, and the difference between these two measures almost reached signifi cance, with slight overlapping confidence intervals in the within-group contrasts.”
§ ORAL FEEDBACK IN CLASSROOM SLA A Meta-Analysis > Types of Outcome Measures
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
The paper states this without a source or data behind it here, so there is nothing to check it against. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“it is effective to employ CF in response to students' nontargetlike production because it contributes to target language development over time.”
§ ORAL FEEDBACK IN CLASSROOM SLA A Meta-Analysis > CONCLUSION
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Whereas the value of brief treatments remains unclear, the analysis of confi dence intervals shows that long treatments (0.82-1.44) are signifi cantly more effective than short-to-medium treatments (0.44-0.70) in the between-group contrasts”
- Also stated in: § CONCLUSION · hedged
“The effects of long treatments proved to be signifi cantly larger than those of short-to-medium treatments but not distinguishable from brief treatments, thus preventing any conclusions about length of instruction”
§ ORAL FEEDBACK IN CLASSROOM SLA A Meta-Analysis > Length of Treatment
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
- Also stated in: § CONCLUSION · hedged
In the paper
“Our results are different from those of Mackey and Goo ( 2007 ), who found much larger effects for recasts ( d = 0.96)”
§ ORAL FEEDBACK IN CLASSROOM SLA A Meta-Analysis > CF Types
What the sources say
- Not matchedcites Mackey and Goo ( 2007 )
Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one. The quote only partly states this claim.
- Not matched
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Taken together, with confi dence intervals above zero, recasts, prompts, and explicit correction are all signifi cantly effective in L2 classrooms both in the between-and within-group contrasts.”
§ ORAL FEEDBACK IN CLASSROOM SLA A Meta-Analysis > Types of CF
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Both immediate and delayed effects of CF thus exhibit medium-to-large effect sizes, with overlapping confi dence intervals as illustrated in Figure 4 , which indicates that there is no signifi cant decline in gains between immediate and delayed posttests.”
- Also stated in: § Durability · plain
“which shows that CF has an immediate impact on L2 performance and that the magnitude of the effectiveness does not decline signifi cantly during the interval between the CF treatment and delayed posttests.”
§ ORAL FEEDBACK IN CLASSROOM SLA A Meta-Analysis > Immediate and Delayed Effects of CF
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
- Also stated in: § Durability · plain
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“The means indicate large effect sizes for free constructed-response measures and medium-to-large effect sizes for constrained constructedresponse measures and metalinguistic judgments.”
§ ORAL FEEDBACK IN CLASSROOM SLA A Meta-Analysis > Types of Outcome Measures
hedged- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Recasts, explicit correction, and prompts are compared here because their defi nitions are suffi ciently categorical to allow for relatively clear comparisons.”
§ ORAL FEEDBACK IN CLASSROOM SLA A Meta-Analysis > CF Types
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim.
In the paper
“Prompts range from implicit to explicit but are distinguishable from recasts and explicit correction in terms of what Ortega ( 2009 ) called demand -that is, “the degree of conversational urgency exerted upon interlocutors to react to the negative feedback” (p.75).”
§ ORAL FEEDBACK IN CLASSROOM SLA A Meta-Analysis > CF Types
What the sources say
- Not matchedcites Ortega (2009)
Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Not matched
In the paper
“Russell and Spada found that CF is facilitative of L2 development; they identifi ed a very large effect size of 1.16.”
§ ORAL FEEDBACK IN CLASSROOM SLA A Meta-Analysis > CORRECTIVE FEEDBACK
What the sources say
- Not matchedcites Russell and Spada (2006)
Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
- Not matched
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“the comparison of prompts that withhold correct forms with other CF types that provide correct forms has considerable ecological validity because teachers are able to make online decisions about whether to withhold or to provide correct forms in response to students' errors”
§ ORAL FEEDBACK IN CLASSROOM SLA A Meta-Analysis > CF Types
plaincorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
What the paper did — it cites no source for this, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“all 15 CF studies in the current meta-analysis included control groups; therefore, no baseline groups (i.e., using least attentionfocused groups when there is no control group) for between-group differences had to be chosen, which enabled an independent analysis of between-and within-group contrasts.”
§ ORAL FEEDBACK IN CLASSROOM SLA A Meta-Analysis > Data Computation
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
What the paper did — it cites no source for this, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“The classifi cation of prompts at discrete points along this continuum is rather crude and open to further refi nement”
§ ORAL FEEDBACK IN CLASSROOM SLA A Meta-Analysis > Data Computation
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: fails — It may be too vague to check against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. It may be too vague to check against evidence. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Rests on an assumption: The classification of corrective feedback types into recasts, explicit correction, and prompts is reliable enough for meta-analytic comparison.
In the paper
“They reported medium effect size values for classroom studies ( d = 0.57 for immediate posttests and d = 0.76 for long delayed posttests) and much larger effect sizes for laboratory studies ( d = 0.96 for immediate posttests and d = 1.20 for long delayed posttests).”
§ ORAL FEEDBACK IN CLASSROOM SLA A Meta-Analysis > Research Setting
What the sources say
- Not matchedcites Mackey and Goo (2007)
Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
plaincorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
- Not matched
In the paper
“Similarly, Mackey and Goo discovered that providing CF in L2 interaction has a medium effect size of 0.71 in immediate posttests and a large effect size of 1.09 in delayed posttests.”
§ ORAL FEEDBACK IN CLASSROOM SLA A Meta-Analysis > CORRECTIVE FEEDBACK
What the sources say
- Not matchedcites Mackey and Goo (2007)
Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
- Not matched
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“In terms of linguistic evidence, therefore, explicit correction provides both negative and positive evidence, recasts provide positive evidence and possibly also negative evidence, and prompts provide only negative evidence.”
§ ORAL FEEDBACK IN CLASSROOM SLA A Meta-Analysis > CF Types
hedged- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it. It may state two separate claims as one.
None of the sources cited for this claim could be matched to a paper in Crossref, so there is nothing to check it against.
In the paper
“Learners in laboratory settings may be more sensitive to CF because variables such as intensity and consistency are well controlled for; in the case of classroom settings, teachers may have diffi culty delivering CF following specifi c linguistic targets in a consistent manner (Ellis & Sheen; Nicholas et al.).”
§ ORAL FEEDBACK IN CLASSROOM SLA A Meta-Analysis > Research Setting
What the sources say
- Not matchedcites Ellis & Sheen
Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
- Not matchedcites Nicholas et al.
Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
hedgedconditional- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
- Not matched
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“the distinguishing feature of prompts in this classifi cation pertains less to their varying degrees of implicitness or explicitness and more to their common trait of withholding correct reformulations.”
§ ORAL FEEDBACK IN CLASSROOM SLA A Meta-Analysis > Data Computation
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“the overall impact of CF in classroom settings might be greater for younger learners than for older learners”
§ ORAL FEEDBACK IN CLASSROOM SLA A Meta-Analysis > CONCLUSION
hedgedconditional- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: fails — The paper may give no reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it. The paper may give no reason why it holds.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Unlike a narrative review of CF effectiveness, the meta-analysis approach adopted here to synthesize previous studies entails a statistical procedure that permits meaningful comparisons of their multifaceted results.”
§ ORAL FEEDBACK IN CLASSROOM SLA A Meta-Analysis > THE PRESENT STUDY
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: fails — It may be too vague to check against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. It may be too vague to check against evidence.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“It may be the case that when CF is provided in this way, with relative intensity during form-focused activities designed to elicit target forms in the context of oral interaction, its effects are suffi ciently robust not only to appear immediately after the instructional treatment but also to be sustained over time, which in the present analysis ranged from 2-6 weeks.”
§ ORAL FEEDBACK IN CLASSROOM SLA A Meta-Analysis > Durability
hedgedconditional- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
What the paper did — it cites no source for this, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“However, it is important to emphasize the need to interpret the results with caution and to consider them tentative, given the obvious limitations: the small N , the relatively broad range of confi dence intervals and standard deviations in all contexts, and the inclusive contribution of several k from one sample study.”
§ ORAL FEEDBACK IN CLASSROOM SLA A Meta-Analysis > DISCUSSION
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. It may state two separate claims as one.
What the paper did — it cites no source for this, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Although the data need to be interpreted with caution due to the small number of child and adult CF studies”
§ ORAL FEEDBACK IN CLASSROOM SLA A Meta-Analysis > Age
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“classroom learners appear to benefi t from the positive evidence available in recasts as well as from the opportunities they provide to infer negative evidence, but these learners seem to benefi t even more from the negative evidence available in prompts and from the greater demand they impose for producing modifi ed output.”
§ ORAL FEEDBACK IN CLASSROOM SLA A Meta-Analysis > CF Types
hedgedconditional- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“This result could be attributed to test-retest effects or to the fact that even participants in control groups, by virtue of being in classroom settings, also received instruction but without intentionally designed CF treatments.”
§ ORAL FEEDBACK IN CLASSROOM SLA A Meta-Analysis > Overall Effects of CF
hedgedconditional- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it. It may state two separate claims as one.
In the paper
“we attribute this to differences in the inclusion criteria between the two studies: Our study included only classroom studies ( n = 15) in the meta-analysis, whereas Mackey and Goo included CF studies conducted in both laboratory ( n = 15) and classroom settings ( n = 5).”
§ ORAL FEEDBACK IN CLASSROOM SLA A Meta-Analysis > CF Types
What the sources say
- Not matchedcites Mackey and Goo ( 2007 )
Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
plaindirectn = 15- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
- Not matched
In the paper
“The fact that studies accepted for publication tend to have statistically signifi cant results gives rise to the so-called fi le-drawer problem whereby studies without statistical significance remain unpublished (see Lipsey & Wilson, 2001 , for details).”
§ ORAL FEEDBACK IN CLASSROOM SLA A Meta-Analysis > METHOD Data Selection
What the sources say
- Not matchedcites Lipsey & Wilson, 2001
Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
- Not matched
In the paper
“As Mitchell and Myles ( 2004 ) argued,”
§ ORAL FEEDBACK IN CLASSROOM SLA A Meta-Analysis > SL Versus FL Settings
What the sources say
- Not matchedcites Mitchell and Myles ( 2004 )
Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Not matched
What the paper did — it cites no source for this, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“However, such explanations are speculative, due to the small N and relatively large confidence intervals and standard deviations.”
§ ORAL FEEDBACK IN CLASSROOM SLA A Meta-Analysis > Outcome Measures
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“which indicates that prompts might be more effective than recasts for younger learners, whereas prompts and recasts might be similarly effective for older learners”
§ ORAL FEEDBACK IN CLASSROOM SLA A Meta-Analysis > CONCLUSION
hedgedconditional- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Results showed that, irrespective of instructional settings, CF is facilitative of L2 development and that its impact is sustained at least until delayed posttests.”
§ ORAL FEEDBACK IN CLASSROOM SLA A Meta-Analysis > CONCLUSION
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
None of the sources cited for this claim have been checked yet.
In the paper
“This fi nding suggests either that distinctions between SL and FL settings are too fl uid to yield distinguishable results (see Berns, 1990 ;Block, 2003 ) or that cognitive processes triggered by CF are similar across instructional settings.”
§ ORAL FEEDBACK IN CLASSROOM SLA A Meta-Analysis > SL Versus FL Settings
What the sources say
- Not matchedcites Berns, 1990
Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
- Not checked — no full text of the sourcecites Block, 2003
hedged- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. It may state two separate claims as one.
- Not matched
The paper relies on this without support.
The 15 included classroom studies are sufficiently comparable in their instructional treatments to be combined in one meta-analysis despite substantial differences.
“It should be noted, however, that the instructional treatments employed in the 15 studies differ in substantial ways”
The paper relies on this without support.
The classification of corrective feedback types into recasts, explicit correction, and prompts is reliable enough for meta-analytic comparison.
“The classifi cation of prompts at discrete points along this continuum is rather crude and open to further refi nement”
The authors state this as an assumption.
Results from laboratory-based studies cannot predict the pedagogical effectiveness of corrective feedback in classrooms.
“Based on the premise that results of laboratory-based studies cannot predict the pedagogical effectiveness of CF, the current meta-analysis included only classroom quasi-experimental CF studies to assess the pedagogical value of CF techniques in L2 classrooms.”
Claims other papers make about this one
Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?
The cited source says what the claim attributes to it.
In the citing paper
“however, corrective feedback is also a central component of the interactionist approach.”
From Interaction and instructed second language acquisition (2018) · cites this paper as Lyster & Saito 2010
The cited source says what the claim attributes to it.
In the citing paper
“They reported that both recasts and prompts are effective in promoting acquisition but the effect size for prompts (0.83) was appreciably larger than that for recasts (0.53).”
From Focus on form: A critical review (2016) · cites this paper as Lyster and Saito's (2010)
Statistics that don’t add up
Each reported p-value recomputed from its test statistic and degrees of freedom.
Rated minor: it would not touch a result — a value no result rests on, a p-value that stays on the same side of the significance level, or a conflict that is clerical, resolved elsewhere in the paper, or outside its own findings.
In the paper
“F (1, 41) = 14.573, p < .0001”
§ ORAL FEEDBACK IN CLASSROOM SLA A Meta-Analysis > Age
Reported p < .0001 · recomputed p < .001
Statistics recomputed
Every reported test result, recomputed from its test statistic and degrees of freedom. A result shows as not adding up only once an independent check has confirmed it.
- Doesn’t add upF(1, 41) = 14.573reported p < .0001 · recomputed p < .001
“F (1, 41) = 14.573, p < .0001”
- ConsistentF(1, 31) = 6.075reported p < .02 · recomputed p = .019
“F (1, 31) = 6.075, p < .02”
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
Each contradiction between two passages listed here was confirmed by an independent check.
Rated minor: it would not touch a result — a value no result rests on, a p-value that stays on the same side of the significance level, or a conflict that is clerical, resolved elsewhere in the paper, or outside its own findings.
In the paper
§ ORAL FEEDBACK IN CLASSROOM SLA A Meta-Analysis > Immediate and Delayed Effects of CF
“Ten CF studies generated 16 d values at delayed posttests, with a mean effect size of 0.84 (CI = ± 0.21, SD = 0.45).”
§ ORAL FEEDBACK IN CLASSROOM SLA A Meta-Analysis > CONCLUSION
“| Delayed | 10 | 18 | 0.84 | 0.63 | 1.05 | 0.45 |”
Rated minor: it would not touch a result — a value no result rests on, a p-value that stays on the same side of the significance level, or a conflict that is clerical, resolved elsewhere in the paper, or outside its own findings.
In the paper
§ ORAL FEEDBACK IN CLASSROOM SLA A Meta-Analysis > Types of Outcome Measures
“the mean effect size of metalinguistic judgments as 0.70 ( n = 6, k = 31, CI = ± 0.21, SD = 0.60).”
§ ORAL FEEDBACK IN CLASSROOM SLA A Meta-Analysis > CONCLUSION
“| MJ | 6 | 21 | 0.70 | 0.49 | 0.91 | 0.60 |”
Rated minor: it would not touch a result — a value no result rests on, a p-value that stays on the same side of the significance level, or a conflict that is clerical, resolved elsewhere in the paper, or outside its own findings.
In the paper
§ ORAL FEEDBACK IN CLASSROOM SLA A Meta-Analysis > Effects of CF
“with a mean effect size of 0.74 ( SD = 0.47) and confi dence intervals (CIs) above zero (0.58-0.90)”
§ ORAL FEEDBACK IN CLASSROOM SLA A Meta-Analysis > CONCLUSION
“| General effects of CF | 15 | 43 | 0.74 | 0.58 | 0.86 | 0.47 |”
Citations
Cites
Statistical Power Analysis for the Behavioral Sciences
Muller, K. E., & Cohen, J. (1989) · Technometrics · doi:10.2307/1270020 · Cited by 99,603
Statistical power analysis for the behavioral sciences
Cohen, J. (1990) · Computers Environment and Urban Systems · doi:10.1016/0198-9715(90)90050-4 · Cited by 65,417
(2000) · Cited by 9,198
Second Language Acquisition and Second Language Learning
Bernhardt, E. B., & Krashen, S. D. (1989) · Modern Language Journal · doi:10.2307/326882 · Cited by 4,605
The Role of the Linguistic Environment in Second Language Acquisition
Long, M. H. (1996) · Handbook of Second Language Acquisition · doi:10.1016/b978-012589042-7/50015-3 · Cited by 3,927
Task-based Language Learning and Teaching
Ellis, R. (2003) · Asian Journal of English Language Teaching · doi:10.65961/ajelt-2003-1-009 · Cited by 3,601
TASK-BASED LANGUAGE LEARNING AND TEACHING
Mackey, A. (2004) · Studies in Second Language Acquisition · doi:10.1017/s0272263104293056 · Cited by 2,842
CORRECTIVE FEEDBACK AND LEARNER UPTAKE: Negotiation of Form in Communicative Classrooms
Lyster, R., & Ranta, L. (1997) · Studies in Second Language Acquisition · doi:10.1017/s0272263197001034 · Cited by 2,629 · cited 3×
“Lyster and Ranta ( 1997 ) defi ned recasts as “the teacher’s reformulation of all or part of a student’s utterance, minus the error” (p. 46).”
BackgroundMethodSelf-citation(1998) · Cited by 2,572
Effectiveness of L2 instruction: A research synthesis and quantitative meta-analysis
Norris, J. M., & Ortega, L. (2000) · Language Learning · doi:10.1111/0023-8333.00136 · Cited by 2,569 · cited 9×
“On the one hand, Norris and Ortega ( 2000 ) showed that the effectiveness of L2 instruction appeared to decrease gradually between immediate and delayed posttests, but they included various types of instruction (e.g., focus-on-form, focus-on-forms, and focus-on-meaning instruction).”
BackgroundMethodResultInfluential
Research works printed but not linked: 11
- Mackey, 2007, Conversational interaction in SLA: A collection of empirical studies
- Ellis, 1994, Down the garden path: Another look at negative feedback, JALT Journal, 16, 9
- Long, 2007, Problems in SLA
- 10.1002/9780470756492 · DOI
- Doughty, 1998, Focus on forms in classroom second language acquisition
- Herron, 1988, Learning grammatical structures in a foreign language: Modeling versus feedback, The French Review, 61, 910
- Kim, 2001, Explicit vs. implicit corrective feedback, The Korean TESOL Journal, 4, 57
- Long, 1998, Focus on form in classroom second language acquisition, 15
- Russell, 2006, Synthesizing research on language learning and teaching, 133
- Loewen, 2007, Conversational interaction in second language acquisition: A collection of empirical studies, 361
- Sheen, 2007, Conversational interaction in second language acquisition: A collection of empirical studies, 301
Cited by
Sorted by citations
How Big Is “Big”? Interpreting Effect Sizes in L2 Research
Plonsky, L., & Oswald, F. L. (2014) · Language Learning · doi:10.1111/lang.12079 · Cited by 1,960
The Power of Feedback Revisited: A Meta-Analysis of Educational Feedback Research
Wisniewski, B., Zierer, K., & Hattie, J. (2020) · Frontiers in Psychology · doi:10.3389/fpsyg.2019.03087 · Cited by 1,199
“…produced inconsistent results of feedback on cognitive variables (Kulik and Kulik, 1988; Bangert-Drowns et al., 1991; Azevedo and Bernard, 1995; Kluger and DeNisi, 1996; Lyster and Saito, 2010) and significant heterogeneity remains within the sub-group defined by this moderator in our analysis.”
BackgroundOral corrective feedback in second language classrooms
Lyster, R., Saito, K., & Sato, M. (2013) · Language Teaching · doi:10.1017/s0261444812000365 · Cited by 741
Self-citationL2 Reading Comprehension and Its Correlates: A Meta‐Analysis
Jeon, E., & Yamashita, J. (2014) · Language Learning · doi:10.1111/lang.12034 · Cited by 570
Evidence on the Effectiveness of Comprehensive Error Correction in Second Language Writing
van Beuningen, C., de Jong, N. H., & Kuiken, F. (2011) · Language Learning · doi:10.1111/j.1467-9922.2011.00674.x · Cited by 516
Focus on form: A critical review
Ellis, R. (2016) · Language Teaching Research · doi:10.1177/1362168816628627 · Cited by 417
Interaction and instructed second language acquisition
Loewen, S., & Sato, M. (2018) · Language Teaching · doi:10.1017/s0261444818000125 · Cited by 377
Saito, K., & Lyster, R. (2011) · Language Learning · doi:10.1111/j.1467-9922.2011.00639.x · Cited by 434
Self-citationTask-Based Language Teaching: Theory and Practice
Ellis, R., Skehan, P., Li, S., Shintani, N., & Lambert, C. (2019) · doi:10.1017/9781108643689 · Cited by 407
Saito, K., & Plonsky, L. (2019) · Language Learning · doi:10.1111/lang.12345 · Cited by 375
Self-citationELF Awareness in English Language Teaching: Principles and Processes
Sifakis, N. C. (2017) · Applied Linguistics · doi:10.1093/applin/amx034 · Cited by 309
Task-based language teaching theory and practice
Ellis, R., Skehan, P., Li, S., Shintani, N., & Lambert, C. (2020) · Cited by 284
THE CASE AGAINST THE CASE AGAINST RECASTS
Goo, J., & Mackey, A. (2013) · Studies in Second Language Acquisition · doi:10.1017/s0272263112000708 · Cited by 271
Quantitative Research Methods, Study Quality, and Outcomes: The Case of Interaction Research
Plonsky, L., & Gass, S. (2011) · Language Learning · doi:10.1111/j.1467-9922.2011.00640.x · Cited by 267
PEER INTERACTION AND CORRECTIVE FEEDBACK FOR ACCURACY AND FLUENCY DEVELOPMENT
Sato, M., & Lyster, R. (2012) · Studies in Second Language Acquisition · doi:10.1017/s0272263112000356 · Cited by 298
Self-citationTask Complexity, Focus on L2 Constructions, and Individual Differences: A Classroom‐Based Study
Révész, A. (2011) · Modern Language Journal · doi:10.1111/j.1540-4781.2011.01241.x · Cited by 245
Meta-analysis in Second Language Research: Choices and Challenges
Oswald, F. L., & Plonsky, L. (2010) · Annual Review of Applied Linguistics · doi:10.1017/s0267190510000115 · Cited by 237
van Beuningen, C. (2010) · International Journal of English Studies · doi:10.6018/ijes/2010/2/119171 · Cited by 264
COUNTERPOINT PIECE: THE CASE FOR VARIETY IN CORRECTIVE FEEDBACK RESEARCH
Lyster, R., & Ranta, L. (2013) · Studies in Second Language Acquisition · doi:10.1017/s027226311200071x · Cited by 239
Self-citationNassaji, H. (2016) · Language Teaching Research · doi:10.1177/1362168816644940 · Cited by 239
SYNCHRONOUS COMPUTER-MEDIATED COMMUNICATION AND INTERACTION
Ziegler, N. (2015) · Studies in Second Language Acquisition · doi:10.1017/s027226311500025x · Cited by 246
Implicit and explicit instruction in L2 learning: Norris & Ortega (2000) revisited and updated
Goo, J., Granena, G., Yilmaz, Y., & Novella, M. (2015) · Studies in Bilingualism · doi:10.1075/sibil.48.18goo · Cited by 224
Baker, A. (2013) · TESOL Quarterly · doi:10.1002/tesq.99 · Cited by 253
Twenty-five years of research on oral and written corrective feedback in System
Li, S., & Vuono, A. (2019) · System · doi:10.1016/j.system.2019.05.006 · Cited by 271
Yılmaz, Y. (2012) · Applied Linguistics · doi:10.1093/applin/ams044 · Cited by 214
Working Memory and the Observed Effectiveness of Recasts on Different L2 Outcome Measures
Révész, A. (2012) · Language Learning · doi:10.1111/j.1467-9922.2011.00690.x · Cited by 199
Saito, K., Trofimovich, P., & Isaacs, T. (2015) · Applied Linguistics · doi:10.1093/applin/amv047 · Cited by 229
Self-citationThe type and linguistic foci of oral corrective feedback in the L2 classroom: A meta-analysis
Brown, D. (2014) · Language Teaching Research · doi:10.1177/1362168814563200 · Cited by 223
Pronunciation teaching practices in communicative second language classes
Foote, J. A., Trofimovich, P., Collins, L., & Urzúa, F. S. (2013) · Language Learning Journal · doi:10.1080/09571736.2013.784345 · Cited by 239
Beyond form-focused instruction: Reflections on past, present and future research
Spada, N. M. (2010) · Language Teaching · doi:10.1017/s0261444810000224 · Cited by 209
Sato, M., & Loewen, S. (2018) · Language Learning · doi:10.1111/lang.12283 · Cited by 195
The Effects of the Timing of Corrective Feedback on the Acquisition of a New Linguistic Structure
Li, S., Zhu, Y., & Ellis, R. (2016) · Modern Language Journal · doi:10.1111/modl.12315 · Cited by 198
Eye tracking as a measure of noticing: A study of explicit recasts in SCMC
Smith, B. (2012) · Language Learning & Technology · doi:10.64152/10125/44300 · Cited by 177
van de Ridder, J. M. M., McGaghie, W. C., Stokking, K. M., & ten Cate, O. T. J. (2015) · Medical Education · doi:10.1111/medu.12744 · Cited by 154
Zhang, L. J., & Rahimi, M. (2014) · System · doi:10.1016/j.system.2014.01.012 · Cited by 183
Task-Based Versus Task-Supported Language Instruction: An Experimental Study
Li, S., Ellis, R., & Zhu, Y. (2016) · Annual Review of Applied Linguistics · doi:10.1017/s0267190515000069 · Cited by 151
Oral corrective feedback, foreign language anxiety and L2 development
Rassaei, E. (2015) · System · doi:10.1016/j.system.2015.01.002 · Cited by 163
Scaling Up Intervention Studies to Investigate Real-Life Foreign Language Learning in School
Meurers, D., Kuthy, K. D., Nuxoll, F., Rudzewitz, B., & Ziai, R. (2019) · Annual Review of Applied Linguistics · doi:10.1017/s0267190519000126 · Cited by 149
Beliefs about peer interaction and peer corrective feedback: Efficacy of classroom intervention
Sato, M. (2013) · The Modern Language Journal · doi:10.1111/j.1540-4781.2013.12035.x · Cited by 142
Yılmaz, Y. (2012) · Language Learning · doi:10.1111/j.1467-9922.2012.00726.x · Cited by 154
An A–Z of Applied Linguistics Research Methods
Loewen, S., & Plonsky, L. (2016) · doi:10.1007/978-1-137-40322-3 · Cited by 156
The Cambridge Handbook of Task-Based Language Teaching
Nuzzo, E., & Velásquez, D. C. (2021) · Cambridge University Press eBooks · doi:10.1017/9781108868327 · Cited by 138
Investigating mobile-assisted oral feedback in teaching Chinese as a second language
Xu, Q., & Peng, H. (2017) · Computer Assisted Language Learning · doi:10.1080/09588221.2017.1297836 · Cited by 139
Saito, K., & Akiyama, Y. (2017) · Language Learning · doi:10.1111/lang.12184 · Cited by 123
Self-citationRévész, A., Sachs, R., & Hama, M. (2014) · Language Learning · doi:10.1111/lang.12061 · Cited by 126
Rahimi, M., & Zhang, L. J. (2015) · System · doi:10.1016/j.system.2015.09.006 · Cited by 118
Saito, Y., & Saito, K. (2016) · Language Teaching Research · doi:10.1177/1362168816643111 · Cited by 138
Self-citationShintani, N., Li, S., & Ellis, R. (2013) · Language Learning · doi:10.1111/lang.12001 · Cited by 117
The relationship between adult EFL teachers' oral feedback practices and their beliefs
Roothooft, H. (2014) · System · doi:10.1016/j.system.2014.07.012 · Cited by 128
Yılmaz, Y., & Grañena, G. (2015) · Bilingualism Language and Cognition · doi:10.1017/s136672891400090x · Cited by 117
Plonsky, L., & Brown, D. (2014) · Second language Research · doi:10.1177/0267658314536436 · Cited by 116
Yılmaz, Y. (2013) · System · doi:10.1016/j.system.2013.07.020 · Cited by 109
Trends in Language Acquisition Research
Abbot‐Smith, K. (2013) · Trends in language acquisition research · doi:10.1075/tilar · Cited by 98
Frederik Cornillie, B., Clarebout, G., & Desmet, P. (2012) · ReCALL · doi:10.1017/s0958344012000146 · Cited by 99
Raising language awareness in peer interaction: a cross-context, cross-methodology examination
Sato, M., & Ballinger, S. (2012) · Language Awareness · doi:10.1080/09658416.2011.639884 · Cited by 111
The impact of a professional development program on EFL teachers’ beliefs about corrective feedback
Ha, X. V., & Murray, J. (2020) · System · doi:10.1016/j.system.2020.102405 · Cited by 86
Oral corrective feedback: Pre-service English as a second language teachers’ beliefs and practices
Kartchava, E., Gatbonton, E., Ammar, A., & Trofimovich, P. (2018) · Language Teaching Research · doi:10.1177/1362168818787546 · Cited by 81
Corrective feedback: Beliefs and practices of Vietnamese primary EFL teachers
Ha, X. V., & Murray, J. (2020) · Language Teaching Research · doi:10.1177/1362168820931897 · Cited by 91
The Roles of Recasts, Task Complexity, and Aptitude in Child Second Language Development
Kourtali, N., & Révész, A. (2019) · Language Learning · doi:10.1111/lang.12374 · Cited by 86
A teacher’s first language use in form-focused episodes in Spanish as a foreign language classroom
Nakatsukasa, K., & Loewen, S. (2015) · Language Teaching Research · doi:10.1177/1362168814541737 · Cited by 82
The Effectiveness of Extensive Versus Intensive Recasts for Learning L2 Grammar
Nassaji, H. (2017) · Modern Language Journal · doi:10.1111/modl.12387 · Cited by 83
Fu, T., & Nassaji, H. (2016) · Studies in Second Language Learning and Teaching · doi:10.14746/ssllt.2016.6.1.8 · Cited by 82
Spoken grammar practice and feedback in an ASR-based CALL system
de Vries, B. P., Catia Cucchiarini, A., Bodnar, S., Strik, H., & van Hout, R. W. N. M. (2014) · Computer Assisted Language Learning · doi:10.1080/09588221.2014.889713 · Cited by 92
Tasks, Teacher Feedback, and Learner Modified Output in Naturally Occurring Classroom Interaction
Gurzynski‐Weiss, L., & Révész, A. (2012) · Language Learning · doi:10.1111/j.1467-9922.2012.00716.x · Cited by 80
Saito, K. (2013) · Language Learning · doi:10.1111/lang.12015 · Cited by 75
Self-citationVAN DE GUCHTE, M., BRAAKSMA, M., RIJLAARSDAM, G., & BIMMEL, P. (2015) · The Modern Language Journal · doi:10.1111/modl.12211 · Cited by 75
THE EFFECTS OF IMMEDIATE AND DELAYED CORRECTIVE FEEDBACK ON L2 DEVELOPMENT
Fu, M., & Li, S. (2020) · Studies in Second Language Acquisition · doi:10.1017/s0272263120000388 · Cited by 103
Nonverbal behavior and corrective feedback in nine ESL university-level classrooms
Wang, W., & Loewen, S. (2015) · Language Teaching Research · doi:10.1177/1362168815577239 · Cited by 80
Scaffolded Feedback, Recasts, and L2 Development: A Sociocultural Perspective
Rassaei, E. (2014) · Modern Language Journal · doi:10.1111/j.1540-4781.2014.12060.x · Cited by 92
Ha, X. V., Nguyen, L. T., & Bui, H. P. (2021) · Heliyon · doi:10.1016/j.heliyon.2021.e07550 · Cited by 113
Gooch, R. M., Saito, K., & Lyster, R. (2016) · System · doi:10.1016/j.system.2016.06.007 · Cited by 86
Self-citationPlonsky, L., & Oswald, F. L. (2011) · Wiley eBooks · doi:10.1002/9781444347340.ch14 · Cited by 80
A comparison of EFL teachers’ and students’ attitudes to oral corrective feedback
Roothooft, H., & Breeze, R. (2016) · Language Awareness · doi:10.1080/09658416.2016.1235580 · Cited by 92
Feedback on Second Language Pronunciation: A Case Study of EAP Teachers’ Beliefs and Practices
Baker, A., & Burri, M. (2016) · The Australian journal of teacher education · doi:10.14221/ajte.2016v41n6.1 · Cited by 67
Rouhshad, A., Wigglesworth, G., & Storch, N. (2015) · Language Teaching Research · doi:10.1177/1362168815584455 · Cited by 78
Factors Influencing Spanish Instructors’ In‐Class Feedback Decisions
Gurzynski‐Weiss, L. (2016) · Modern Language Journal · doi:10.1111/modl.12314 · Cited by 67
Corrective Feedback and Learner Uptake in a Child ESOL Classroom
Choi, S.-Y., & Li, S. (2012) · RELC Journal · doi:10.1177/0033688212463274 · Cited by 68
Teacher vs. Peer Oral Corrective Feedback in the German Language Classroom
Sippel, L., & Jackson, C. N. (2015) · Foreign Language Annals · doi:10.1111/flan.12164 · Cited by 68
ATTENTION TO IRREGULAR VERBS BY BEGINNING LEARNERS OF GERMAN
Godfroid, A., & Uggen, M. S. (2013) · Studies in Second Language Acquisition · doi:10.1017/s0272263112000897 · Cited by 39
The interface between feedback type, L2 proficiency, and the nature of the linguistic target
Li, S. (2013) · Language Teaching Research · doi:10.1177/1362168813510384 · Cited by 73
Towards a cross-linguistic pedagogy
Ballinger, S. (2013) · Journal of Immersion and Content-Based Language Education · doi:10.1075/jicb.1.1.06bal · Cited by 79
Optimizing Second Language Practice in the Classroom: Perspectives from Cognitive Psychology
Suzuki, Y., Nakata, T., & DEKEYSER, R. M. (2019) · Modern Language Journal · doi:10.1111/modl.12582 · Cited by 67
Couper, G. (2019) · System · doi:10.1016/j.system.2019.04.003 · Cited by 62
2. Peer interaction and metacognitive instruction in the EFL classroom
Fujii, A., Ziegler, N., & Mackey, A. (2016) · Language learning and language teaching · doi:10.1075/lllt.45.03fuj · Cited by 65
THE ROLE OF EXPOSURE CONDITION IN THE EFFECTIVENESS OF EXPLICIT CORRECTION
Yılmaz, Y. (2015) · Studies in Second Language Acquisition · doi:10.1017/s0272263115000212 · Cited by 59
Parlak, Ö., & Ziegler, N. (2017) · Studies in Second Language Acquisition · doi:10.1017/s0272263116000310 · Cited by 58
Teaching email requests in the academic context: a focus on the role of corrective feedback
Nguyen, T. T. M., Ha, T. T., Nguyen, A. T., et al. (2015) · Language Awareness · doi:10.1080/09658416.2015.1010543 · Cited by 58
Learner beliefs and corrective feedback in telecollaboration: A longitudinal investigation
Akiyama, Y. (2017) · System · doi:10.1016/j.system.2016.12.007 · Cited by 72
The noticeability and effectiveness of corrective feedback in relation to target type
Kartchava, E., & Ammar, A. (2014) · Language Teaching Research · doi:10.1177/1362168813519373 · Cited by 62
The relationship between stated beliefs and classroom practices of oral corrective feedback
Kamiya, N. (2014) · Innovation in Language Learning and Teaching · doi:10.1080/17501229.2014.939656 · Cited by 56
Ha, X. V., & Nguyen, L. T. (2021) · Frontiers in Psychology · doi:10.3389/fpsyg.2021.697160 · Cited by 85
Rassaei, E. (2017) · Computer Assisted Language Learning · doi:10.1080/09588221.2016.1275702 · Cited by 64
(2014) · TSpace (University of Toronto) · Cited by 53
Li, S. (2013) · ELT Journal · doi:10.1093/elt/cct076 · Cited by 51
Learners' Beliefs as Mediators of What Is Noticed and Learned in the Language Classroom
Kartchava, E., & Ammar, A. (2013) · TESOL Quarterly · doi:10.1002/tesq.101 · Cited by 58
Participation Structure and Incidental Focus on Form in Adult ESL Classrooms
Nassaji, H. (2013) · Language Learning · doi:10.1111/lang.12020 · Cited by 50
Investigating the Pedagogical Potential of Recasts for L2 Vowel Acquisition
Saito, K., & Lyster, R. (2012) · TESOL Quarterly · doi:10.1002/tesq.25 · Cited by 52
Self-citationPractice for Second Language Learning: Don’t Throw out the Baby with the Bathwater
DEKEYSER, R. M. (2010) · International Journal of English Studies · doi:10.6018/ijes/2010/1/114021 · Cited by 57
An experimental study of corrective feedback during video-conferencing
Monteiro, K. (2014) · Language learning & technology · doi:10.64152/10125/44384 · Cited by 48
Lee, A. H., & Lyster, R. (2016) · Language Learning · doi:10.1111/lang.12167 · Cited by 55
Self-citation
Metadata
- Authors
- Lyster, R., & Saito, K.
- Affiliations
- McGill University (CA)
- Corresponding author
- Lyster, Roy
- Saito, Kazuya
- ORCID
- Saito, Kazuya
- Venue
- Studies in Second Language Acquisition
- Publisher
- Cambridge University Press (CUP)
- Published
- 2010-04-23
- Volume
- 32
- Issue
- 2
- Pages
- 265-302
- ISSN
- 0272-2631 (ISSN-L)
- 1470-1545
- OpenAlex
- W2130372131
- Cited by
- 838
- References
- 95
- Citations by year
- 2026: 36 · 2025: 33 · 2024: 46 · 2023: 59 · 2022: 83 · 2021: 124 · 2020: 67 · 2019: 66 · 2018: 50 · 2017: 37 · 2016: 44 · 2015: 53 · 2014: 35 · 2013: 44 · 2012: 38
- FWCI
- 294.41
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- Locations
- Studies in Second Language Acquisition (publishedVersion)
- eScholarship@McGill (McGill) (submittedVersion)
- Funders
- Social Sciences and Humanities Research Council of Canada
- Topics
- Social Sciences › Arts and Humanities › Language and Linguistics › EFL/ESL Teaching and Learning
- Social Sciences › Psychology › Developmental and Educational Psychology › Second Language Acquisition and Learning
- Social Sciences › Education › Student Assessment and Feedback
- Keywords
- oral corrective feedback, second language acquisition, prompting, recasts, treatment duration, learner age
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
A language model drew the claims from the paper on 2026-09-30, under version 3 of the claim definition (model deepseek-v4.1-flash, prompt extract-v3).
A second model labelled each claim on 2026-09-30 (model jev-1.13-20260917, definition revision gold-guideline-v0.2).
Cited sources are checked with a language model’s help (gpt-6-sol).
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review
