Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
CoChat
Sign Up
Cited by 569

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 5 of the 5 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

Patterns of Corrective Feedback and Uptake in an Adult ESL Classroom

Open access
Panova, Iliana, Lyster, Roy·2002·TESOL Quarterly
DOI 10.2307/3588241
Open this paper in CoChat — free account

Abstract

This article begins by synthesizing findings from observational classroom research on corrective feedback and then presents an observational study of patterns of error treatment in an adult ESL classroom. The study examines the range and types of feedback used by the teacher and their relationship to learner uptake and immediate repair of error. The database consists of 10 hours of transcribed interaction, comprising 1,716 student turns and 1,641 teacher turns, coded in accordance with the categories identified in Lyster and Ranta's (1997) model of corrective discourse. The results reveal a clear preference for implicit types of reformulative feedback, namely, recasts and translation, leaving little opportunity for other feedback types that encourage learner-generated repair. Consequently, rates of learner uptake and immediate repair of error are low in this classroom. These results are discussed in relation to the hypothesis that L2 learners may benefit more from retrieval and production processes than from only hearing target forms in the input.

Overview

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.2307/3588241

Cites

5 of 5 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Verification

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Citations

Cites

Show all 5 references

Cited by

Metadata

Authors
Panova, I., & Lyster, R.
Venue
TESOL Quarterly
Publisher
JSTOR
Published
2002
Volume
36
Issue
4
Pages
573
ISSN
0039-8322 (ISSN-L)
DOI
10.2307/3588241
OpenAlex
W2011907483
Cited by
569
References
5
FWCI
46.95
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
green

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.

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

Data sources

Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.

Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).

Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.