Laboratory and classroom studies assess the effects of recasts and different CF types differentially¶

Claim · All claims
Evidence · 1 study · review r? · q2
Currency · newest study 2013 · not yet checked against its sources · not reviewed by a person

Subclaims¶

q2 i? The review distinguishes laboratory studies assessing recast effects from classroom studies assessing the effects of different types of CF. → Roy Lyster 2013

Evidence¶

Roy Lyster 2013¶

Roy Lyster, Kazuya Saito, and Masatoshi Sato. (2013). Oral corrective feedback in second language classrooms. Language Teaching, Volume 46, Issue 1. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0261444812000365

q2 · i? · review · r?

The review organizes its effectiveness evidence in two strands: "laboratory studies assessing the effects of recasts" and classroom studies assessing "the effects of different types of CF". This separation signals that recast effects are examined under controlled and ecologically valid conditions respectively.

"A brief review of laboratory studies assessing the effects of recasts is then presented before we focus on classroom studies assessing the effects of different types of CF."

Discussion¶

Related Claims¶

• Corrective feedback on second-language errors has a significant effect on L2 development that is maintained on delayed tests — related
• The literature is supportive of recasts, but recast effectiveness varies with the language area and learner knowledge, focus, and aptitudes — related
• Theoretical perspectives support corrective feedback while contentious issues remain about uptake, instruction, and CF's purpose — related
• Declarative memory predicts immediate UGJT posttest gains for irregular past tense only under recasts — related
• Learner repair following feedback differed by setting: prompts yielded the largest proportion of repair in French immersion, recasts in Japanese immersion — related
• The frequency of oral corrective feedback differs across instructional contexts — related