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
Items 201–300 of 827
The role of extensive recasts in error detection and correction by adult ESL students
Hawkes, L., & Nassaji, H. (2016) · Studies in Second Language Learning and Teaching · doi:10.14746/ssllt.2016.6.1.2 · Cited by 16
Rimfeld, K., Dale, P. S., & Plomin, R. J. (2015) · Translational Psychiatry · doi:10.1038/tp.2015.128 · Cited by 16
Behney, J., & Gass, S. M. (2021) · Cambridge University Press eBooks · doi:10.1017/9781108870627 · Cited by 21
IMPLICITNESS AND EXPLICITNESS IN COGNITIVE ABILITIES AND CORRECTIVE FEEDBACK
Yılmaz, Y., & Grañena, G. (2021) · Studies in Second Language Acquisition · doi:10.1017/s0272263120000601 · Cited by 18
When Preschoolers Interact with an Educational Robot, Does Robot Feedback Influence Engagement?
de Haas, M., Vogt, P., & Krahmer, E. (2021) · Multimodal Technologies and Interaction · doi:10.3390/mti5120077 · Cited by 16
Connecting feedback, classroom research and Didaktik perspectives
Svanes, I. K., & Skagen, K. (2017) · Journal of Curriculum Studies · doi:10.1080/00220272.2016.1140810 · Cited by 14
Receptivity to Instructional Feedback
Lipnevich, A. A., & Lopera-Oquendo, C. (2022) · European Journal of Psychological Assessment · doi:10.1027/1015-5759/a000733 · Cited by 17
How do Spanish EFL learners perceive grammar instruction and corrective feedback?
Agudo, J. D. D. M. (2015) · Southern African Linguistics and Applied Language Studies · doi:10.2989/16073614.2015.1061890 · Cited by 16
Replication in interaction and working memory research: Révész (2012) and Goo (2012)
Gass, S. M., & Valmori, L. (2015) · Language Teaching · doi:10.1017/s0261444815000038 · Cited by 14
Frear, D. (2012) · ResearchSpace (University of Auckland) · Cited by 15
Ibarrola, A. L. (2023) · Trends in language acquisition research · doi:10.1075/tilar.32 · Cited by 15
The Relative Effectiveness of Corrective Feedback in Classroom Interaction
Lyster, R. (2015) · The Handbook of Classroom Discourse and Interaction · doi:10.1002/9781118531242.ch13 · Cited by 16
Self-citationGholami, L. (2021) · Language Awareness · doi:10.1080/09658416.2021.1943421 · Cited by 14
Proactive and reactive focus on form and gestures in EFL classrooms in Japan
Kamiya, N. (2012) · System · doi:10.1016/j.system.2012.09.005 · Cited by 16
Interaction, Feedback and Task Research in Second Language Learning : Methods and Design
Mackey, A. (2020) · Cited by 15
Corrective Feedback in L2 Speech Production
Li, S. (2018) · Wiley eBooks · doi:10.1002/9781118784235.eelt0247 · Cited by 18
Learner spoken output and teacher response in second versus foreign language classrooms
Vold, E. T. (2022) · Language Teaching Research · doi:10.1177/13621688211068610 · Cited by 22
Bayesian Approaches to Imputation, Hypothesis Testing, and Parameter Estimation
Ross, S. J., & Mackey, B. (2015) · Language Learning · doi:10.1111/lang.12118 · Cited by 14
Feedback in an ASR-based CALL system for L2 syntax: a feasibility study
Bodnar, S., de Vries, B. P., Catia Cucchiarini, A., Strik, H., & van Hout, R. W. N. M. (2011) · ISCA Workshop on Speech and Language Technology in Education (SLaTE) · doi:10.21437/slate.2011-19 · Cited by 14
Riazantseva, A. (2012) · System · doi:10.1016/j.system.2012.07.005 · Cited by 14
Implicit and explicit instruction in L2 learning: Norris & Ortega (2000) revisited and updated
Goo, J., Grañena, G., Yılmaz, Y., & Novella, M. Á. (2015) · Cited by 14
Input and output grammar instruction in tutorial CALL with a complex grammatical structure
Collentine, J., & Collentine, K. (2015) · CALICO Journal · doi:10.1558/cj.v32i2.24548 · Cited by 13
Heppt, B., Henschel, S., Hardy, I., & Gabler, K. (2022) · European Journal of Psychology of Education · doi:10.1007/s10212-022-00653-6 · Cited by 29
Oral corrective feedback on lexical errors: a systematic review
Tan, X., Reynolds, B. L., & Ha, X. V. (2022) · Applied Linguistics Review · doi:10.1515/applirev-2022-0053 · Cited by 20
Ellis, R. (2011) · eSpace (Curtin University) · Cited by 14
Teachers’ and Students’ Beliefs and Perspectives about Corrective Feedback
Kim, Y., & Mostafa, T. (2021) · Cambridge University Press eBooks · doi:10.1017/9781108589789.027 · Cited by 17
Gholami, L., & Gholami, J. (2018) · Language Teaching Research · doi:10.1177/1362168818783442 · Cited by 14
Experimental Perspectives on Classroom Interaction
Long, M. (2015) · Wiley eBooks · doi:10.1002/9781118531242.ch4 · Cited by 14
Evidence-Based Practices of English Language Teaching: A Meta-Analysis of Meta-Analyses
Alsowat, H. H. (2020) · English Language Teaching · doi:10.5539/elt.v13n11p75 · Cited by 16
The effects of feedback timing on L2 development in written SCMC
Kourtali, N., & Borges, L. (2023) · Computer Assisted Language Learning · doi:10.1080/09588221.2023.2171066 · Cited by 13
A Data-Driven Critical Review of Second Language Acquisition in the Past 30 Years
Chen, M.-L. (2018) · Publications · doi:10.3390/publications6030033 · Cited by 15
Toth, P. D. (2022) · Language Learning · doi:10.1111/lang.12490 · Cited by 16
Synchronous computer-mediated communication and interaction: A research synthesis and meta-analysis
Ziegler, N. (2013) · DigitalGeorgetown (Georgetown University Library) · Cited by 11
Chapelle, C. A., Schmidgall, J. E., López, A. A., Blood, I., Wain, J., Cho, Y., Hutchison, A. C., Lee, H., & Dursun, A. (2018) · ETS Research Report Series · doi:10.1002/ets2.12232 · Cited by 16
The effects of recasts on L2 grammar: a meta-analysis
Rassaei, E. (2022) · Language Learning Journal · doi:10.1080/09571736.2022.2097298 · Cited by 18
Corrective Feedback in SLA: Theoretical Relevance and Empirical Research
Chen, J., Lin, J., & Jiang, L. (2016) · English Language Teaching · doi:10.5539/elt.v9n11p85 · Cited by 14
Affective Damage to Oral Corrective Feedback among Students in Libyan Secondary Schools
Elsaghayer, M. (2014) · IOSR Journal of Research & Method in Education (IOSRJRME) · doi:10.9790/7388-04627482 · Cited by 16
Corrective feedback via e-mail on the correct use of past tense among Iranian EFL learners
Alipanahi, F., & Mahmoodi, R. (2015) · South African Journal of Education · doi:10.15700/saje.v35n4a1159 · Cited by 11
Formulaic focus-on-form episodes in adult EFL communicative interactions
Gholami, L., Karimi, M. N., & Atai, M. R. (2017) · System · doi:10.1016/j.system.2017.06.015 · Cited by 13
Effects of corrective feedback on L2 acquisition of tense-aspect verbal morphology
Mifka‐Profozic, N. (2015) · Language Interaction and Acquisition · doi:10.1075/lia.6.1.05mif · Cited by 12
The interplay between corrective feedback timing and foreign language anxiety in L2 development
Rassaei, E. (2023) · Language Teaching Research · doi:10.1177/13621688231195141 · Cited by 19
Task-Based Language Assessment
Norris, J. M., & East, M. (2021) · Cambridge University Press eBooks · doi:10.1017/9781108868327.029 · Cited by 15
Educationally Designed Game Environments and Feedback
Frederik Cornillie, B. (2017) · Springer eBooks · doi:10.1007/978-3-319-02237-6_28 · Cited by 15
Nassaji, H., Bozorgian, H., & Golbabazadeh, E. (2023) · System · doi:10.1016/j.system.2023.102993 · Cited by 20
Corrective feedback and working memory capacity
Goo, J. (2016) · Bilingual processing and acquisition · doi:10.1075/bpa.3.13goo · Cited by 12
Thomas, K. E. (2018) · Modern Language Journal · doi:10.1111/modl.12470 · Cited by 14
Oral Accuracy, Field Dependent/Independent Cognitive Styles and Corrective Feedback
Darabad, A. M. (2013) · International Journal of English Language Education · doi:10.5296/ijele.v1i1.3273 · Cited by 12
Bryfonski, L. (2023) · Journal of Second Language Pronunciation · doi:10.1075/jslp.22051.bry · Cited by 12
Rassaei, E. (2019) · Computer Assisted Language Learning · doi:10.1080/09588221.2019.1671461 · Cited by 12
Teacher feedback to support oral language learning for young dual language learners
Cheatham, G. A., Jimenez‐Silva, M., & Park, H. (2015) · Early Child Development and Care · doi:10.1080/03004430.2014.1003552 · Cited by 12
A multi-factor study of the development of English receptive skills by young Danish children
Cadierno, T., Hansen, M. B., Lauridsen, J. T., Eskildsen, S. W., Fenyvesi, K., & Jensen, S. H. (2022) · Bilingualism Language and Cognition · doi:10.1017/s1366728921001085 · Cited by 17
Comparing Learners’ and Teachers’ Beliefs About Form-Focused Instruction
Pawlak, M. (2013) · Second language learning and teaching · doi:10.1007/978-3-319-00044-2_9 · Cited by 12
The role of language analytic ability in the effectiveness of different feedback timing conditions
Arroyo, D. C., & Yılmaz, Y. (2017) · AILA applied linguistics series · doi:10.1075/aals.16.04arr · Cited by 12
Ellis, R., Skehan, P., Li, S., Shintani, N., & Lambert, C. (2019) · Cambridge University Press eBooks · doi:10.1017/9781108643689.010 · Cited by 11
McDonough, K., Trofimovich, P., Dao, P., & Abashidze, D. (2018) · Language Teaching · doi:10.1017/s0261444818000368 · Cited by 12
Corrective Feedback Interventions and EFL Learners’ Pronunciation: A Case of –s or –es Ending Words
Darabad, A. M. (2014) · International Journal of Learning and Development · doi:10.5296/ijld.v4i1.5010 · Cited by 11
Corrective Feedback and Multimodality: Rethinking Categories in Telecollaborative Learning
Freschi, A. C., & Cavalari, S. M. S. (2020) · TESL Canada Journal · doi:10.18806/tesl.v37i2.1335 · Cited by 13
Jakonen, T. (2014) · Jyväskylä University Digital Archive (University of Jyväskylä) · Cited by 11
Sun, S. H. (2013) · KU ScholarWorks (The University of Kansas) · Cited by 11
The Effect of Explicit and Implicit Corrective Feedback on Eliminating Pronunciation Errors
Pawlak, M. (2012) · Second language learning and teaching · doi:10.1007/978-3-642-24019-5_7 · Cited by 13
EAP corrective feedback in an EMI setting: Student and teacher beliefs
Weekly, R., Pollard, A., & Macpherson, J. (2022) · Journal of English for Academic Purposes · doi:10.1016/j.jeap.2022.101157 · Cited by 18
Özmen, K. S., & Aydın, H. Ü. (2015) · The Australian journal of teacher education · doi:10.14221/ajte.2015v40n12.10 · Cited by 13
Adaptive Corrective Feedback in Second Language Learning
de Vries, B. P., Catia Cucchiarini, A., Strik, H., & van Hout, R. W. N. M. (2011) · Communications in computer and information science · doi:10.1007/978-3-642-20074-8_1 · Cited by 16
What Effect Does Reading Academic Articles on Oral Corrective Feedback Have on ESL Teachers?
Kamiya, N. (2015) · TESOL Journal · doi:10.1002/tesj.210 · Cited by 12
Advanced ESL Students' Prior EFL Education and Their Perceptions of Oral Corrective Feedback
Lee, E. J. E. (2018) · Journal of International Students · doi:10.32674/jis.v6i3.357 · Cited by 10
Realizing Corrective Feedback in Task-Based Chatbots Engineered for Second Language Learning
Shin, D., Lee, J. H., & Noh, W. I. (2024) · RELC Journal · doi:10.1177/00336882231221902 · Cited by 10
Sippel, L., & Martin, I. A. (2022) · International Review of Applied Linguistics in Language Teaching · doi:10.1515/iral-2021-0175 · Cited by 10
Ha, X. V., Murray, J., & Reynolds, B. L. (2024) · International Journal of Applied Linguistics · doi:10.1111/ijal.12556 · Cited by 13
Mixed corrective feedback and the acquisition of third person ‘-s’
Sarandi, H. (2017) · Language Learning Journal · doi:10.1080/09571736.2017.1400579 · Cited by 12
Focused versus Unfocused Corrective Feedback
van Beuningen, C. (2021) · Cambridge University Press eBooks · doi:10.1017/9781108589789.015 · Cited by 11
Sok, S., & Shin, H. W. (2025) · TESOL Quarterly · doi:10.1002/tesq.70001 · Cited by 21
Cardoso, W., Collins, L., & Cardoso, W. (2021) · Frontiers in Communication · doi:10.3389/fcomm.2021.662934 · Cited by 11
Demir, Y., & Özmen, K. S. (2017) · Brock Education Journal · doi:10.26522/brocked.v26i2.609 · Cited by 11
Karimpour, S., Namaziandost, E., & Behbahani, H. K. (2024) · Journal of Educational Computing Research · doi:10.1177/07356331241296889 · Cited by 10
RetractedAlmusharraf, A. M., Aljasser, A., Mahdi, H. S., Al‐Nofaie, H., & Ghobain, E. A. (2024) · Humanities and Social Sciences Communications · doi:10.1057/s41599-024-02632-2 · Cited by 11
A comparative study on lexical and syntactic features of ESL versus EFL learners’ writing
Zhang, C., & Kang, S. (2022) · Frontiers in Psychology · doi:10.3389/fpsyg.2022.1002090 · Cited by 11
QUALCHE RIFLESSIONE SULLA DIDATTICA DI L2 ISPIRATA ALLA RECENTE RICERCA ACQUISIZIONALE
Chini, M. (2012) · Riviste UNIMI (Università degli studi di Milano) · doi:10.13130/2037-3597/1912 · Cited by 5
Roles for Corrective Feedback in Second Language Instruction
Lyster, R. (2018) · The Encyclopedia of Applied Linguistics · doi:10.1002/9781405198431.wbeal1028.pub2 · Cited by 9
Self-citation(2024) · Bilingual processing and acquisition · doi:10.1075/bpa.19.c4 · Cited by 9
CORRECTIVE FEEDBACKS INTERACTION IN CLT-ADOPTED CLASSROOMS
Liskinasih, A. (2016) · Indonesian Journal of Applied Linguistics · doi:10.17509/ijal.v6i1.2662 · Cited by 15
Technology-Mediated Task-Based Language Teaching
González‐Lloret, M., & Ziegler, N. (2021) · Cambridge University Press eBooks · doi:10.1017/9781108868327.019 · Cited by 18
Enseignement centré sur la forme et acquisition du genre grammatical en français L2
Lyster, R. (2010) · eScholarship@McGill (McGill) · Cited by 9
Self-citationInvestigating Learner Engagement with Oral Corrective Feedback: Aims, Methodology, Outcomes
Pawlak, M. (2013) · Second language learning and teaching · doi:10.1007/978-3-319-00461-7_5 · Cited by 10
Schenck, A. D. (2020) · Asian-Pacific Journal of Second and Foreign Language Education · doi:10.1186/s40862-020-00097-9 · Cited by 15
The Adoption of Task-Based Language Teaching in Diverse Contexts
Newton, J. (2021) · Cambridge University Press eBooks · doi:10.1017/9781108868327.036 · Cited by 9
Kim, J. H. (2019) · Language Teaching Research · doi:10.1177/1362168819859910 · Cited by 10
German Learners' Beliefs About Peer Interaction and Peer Feedback
Sippel, L. (2020) · Die Unterrichtspraxis/Teaching German · doi:10.1111/tger.12135 · Cited by 9
Teaching Languages to Adolescent Learners
Erlam, R., Philp, J., & Feick, D. (2021) · Cambridge University Press eBooks · doi:10.1017/9781108869812 · Cited by 13
Rod Ellis's essential bookshelf: Focus on form
Ellis, R. (2022) · Language Teaching · doi:10.1017/s026144482200012x · Cited by 13
Amoroso, L. W. (2018) · Palgrave Macmillan UK eBooks · doi:10.1057/978-1-137-59900-1_22 · Cited by 8
Acquisition of Grammar by Instructed Learners
DEKEYSER, R. M., & Botana, G. P. (2013) · Wiley eBooks · doi:10.1002/9781118584347.ch25 · Cited by 8
Quinn, P. G. (2021) · Cambridge University Press eBooks · doi:10.1017/9781108589789.016 · Cited by 10
Guzmán-Alcón, I. (2019) · English Language Teaching · doi:10.5539/elt.v12n2p88 · Cited by 8
Zhang, J., Cao, X., & Zheng, N. (2022) · Frontiers in Psychology · doi:10.3389/fpsyg.2022.869468 · Cited by 12
The Effects of Phonemic Awareness Instructions on L2 Listening Comprehension: A Meta-Analysis
Choe, S., Lee, K., & So, Y. (2020) · The Journal of AsiaTEFL · doi:10.18823/asiatefl.2020.17.4.9.1294 · Cited by 15
THE OCCURRENCE AND PERCEPTION OF LISTENER VISUAL CUES DURING NONUNDERSTANDING EPISODES
McDonough, K., Trofimovich, P., Lu, L., & Abashidze, D. (2019) · Studies in Second Language Acquisition · doi:10.1017/s0272263119000238 · Cited by 8
Thai English Teachers’ Understanding of “Postmethod Pedagogy”: Case Studies of University Lecturers
Saengboon, S. (2013) · English Language Teaching · doi:10.5539/elt.v6n12p156 · Cited by 8
Corrective Feedback in Second versus Foreign Language Contexts
Mayo, M. D. P. G., & Milla, R. (2021) · Cambridge University Press eBooks · doi:10.1017/9781108589789.023 · Cited by 9
Spoken grammar practice in an ASR-based CALL system
de Vries, B. P., Bodnar, S., Catia Cucchiarini, A., Strik, H., & van Hout, R. W. N. M. (2013) · ISCA Workshop on Speech and Language Technology in Education (SLaTE) · doi:10.21437/slate.2013-10 · Cited by 7
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
