The noticeability and effectiveness of corrective feedback in relation to target type

Kartchava, Eva; Ammar, Ahlem

doi:10.1177/1362168813519373

Cited by 48 publications

(44 citation statements)

References 58 publications

(97 reference statements)

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…More easily noticed and lead to more uptake (Ammar and Spada 2006;Kartchava and Ammar 2014;Mackey and Oliver 2002;Nassaji 2007;Trofimovich et al 2007) . Elicitations create more engagement (Lyster 2004;Nassaji 2007) .…”

Section: Effectiveness Of Promptsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Oral corrective feedback: teachers’ concerns and researchers’ orientation

Sepehrinia

Mehdizadeh

2016

The Language Learning Journal

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Studies on oral corrective feedback have been mainly directed towards cognitive factors. Practical aspects of error correction have been ignored to a large extent. The present study attempted to fill this gap by investigating teachers' practice and beliefs about oral error correction and the priorities they set for themselves and comparing the results with the recent research findings to find the areas of mismatch between the two domains. Seven teachers were observed, each on two occasions, which made 14 classroom observations overall. Interviews were also conducted with the observed and 30 more teachers. The collected data were analysed using descriptive statistics and content analysis of the interviews. The results indicated that teachers' concerns and priorities were different from those examined in experimental studies, being more affective and practice-oriented in nature. There were also inconsistencies between teachers' beliefs and practice. The results suggested the need to inform teachers about the cognitive aspects of error correction in teacher education programmes and to redress the balance between emotional and cognitive aspects of error correction.

show abstract

Section: Effectiveness Of Promptsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Oral corrective feedback: teachers’ concerns and researchers’ orientation

Sepehrinia

Mehdizadeh

2016

The Language Learning Journal

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Other studies also show that the length of instruction may be a decisive variable. For example Erlam and Loewen (2010) applied one-hour of CF instruction and Kartchava and Ammar's (2014a) feedback sessions took only two hours and none of these studies found a positive effect for CF on the acquisition process.…”

Section: ) L1mentioning

confidence: 99%

The Effects of Explicit Recasts and Output-only Prompts on Learning L2 Grammar

Sarandi¹,

Çeli̇k²

2018

HUJE

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

This quasi-experimental study investigates the potential benefits of two types of corrective feedback strategies, explicit recasts and output-only prompts, on the acquisition of English third person '-s'. Thirty-six language learners in three intact classes from a university in Istanbul were assigned into two experimental groups and a control group and completed communicative tasks that made the use of the target language necessary. The explicit recast was operationalized as repetition of erroneous utterances followed by supra-segmental manipulation where stress and intonation were employed to make the corrective force of recasts salient. Output-only prompts were operationalized as repetition and elicitation. Acquisition was measured through untimed grammaticality judgment tests (UGJT) and oral narration tasks that were administered prior to the instructions, immediately after the instructions and 10 days later. The analysis of data revealed a clear advantage of explicit recast on the oral measures of the immediate posttest, and to lesser extent, the delayed posttest. The findings suggested that, at least in some EFL contexts, explicit recasts might have a more positive impact on the acquisition process than output-only prompts.

show abstract

“…In another respect, Kartchiva and Ammar (2014) found that the effects of CF were associated with target types. For example, in their experiment they found that learners were quicker on the uptake of feedback on past tense errors than on problems with questions in the past.…”

Section: Previous Studiesmentioning

confidence: 99%

Corrective Feedback on Pronunciation: Students’ and Teachers’ Perceptions

Huang¹,

Jia²

2016

IJEL

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The aim of this research was to find out similarities and differences between teacher and student perceptions of corrective feedback (CF) on pronunciation for students' presentations in advanced English class through a group interview and a questionnaire survey. Both teachers and students agreed that CF is not only important but necessary since junior and senior students still have pronunciation problems and the best time to provide CF is soon after presentation. However, they differed in concern about students' self-respect, the types of errors that should receive CF and preference for the types of CF. In particular, students' eagerness to learn exceeded their concern about self-respect. Teachers turned to offer CF to repeated errors, while students would like to receive more than teachers could offer. Moreover, teachers regarded prompt as being more effective, whereas students preferred recast to prompt considering the latter to be more demanding though they held similar views about explicit correction. It is suggested that taking into consideration both teachers' and students' perceptions of CF would help improve senior and junior students' pronunciation.

show abstract

The noticeability and effectiveness of corrective feedback in relation to target type

Cited by 48 publications

References 58 publications

Oral corrective feedback: teachers’ concerns and researchers’ orientation

Oral corrective feedback: teachers’ concerns and researchers’ orientation

The Effects of Explicit Recasts and Output-only Prompts on Learning L2 Grammar

Corrective Feedback on Pronunciation: Students’ and Teachers’ Perceptions

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About