Teaser-level only
These posts couldn’t be read in full: the site redirects many post URLs to its homepage. The claims below are the posts’ own teaser lines. Don’t cite them until you’ve read the full post or the original study. Open each one in your browser; it may load for you.
| Topic | Teaser claim | Post |
|---|---|---|
| Vocabulary tasks | Gap-fill vs sentence writing vs composition (Di Zou). “Things may not be as straightforward as they seem.” | Leo Selivan, 2017 |
| Lexical coverage | How much vocabulary TED Talks require; whether the topic changes it (Nurmukhamedov 2017) | Schmidt, 2018 |
| L1 use | L2-only explanations of target vocabulary improved acquisition more than L1 use | Stephen Bruce, 2016 |
| Written CF | There is a lack of evidence proving written corrective feedback is effective, and why (2 parts) | Part 1 · Part 2 |
| Reading fluency | Repeated reading of a level-appropriate text builds word recognition and may aid comprehension | Schmidt, 2017 |
| Teacher education | Bridging the theory–practice gap | Slagoski, 2017 |
| TBLT critique | A critical review of recent trends | Clare Maas, 2018 |
| Syllabus | The structural syllabus as a checklist (R. Ellis’s modular syllabus) | Mura Nava, 2018 |
| Shadowing | Who benefits from shadowing, and how | Clare Maas, 2017 |
| Translation | Is translation a helpful teaching tool? | Stephen Bruce, 2018 |
(Claude) On written CF the research debate is live: Truscott (1996) argued that grammar correction is harmful, while Ferris (1999) and Bitchener & Ferris (2012) reported benefits for focused feedback. Read the post against that background.