Skill Development

Part III - Skill Development

Published online by Cambridge University Press: 25 June 2019

Edited by

John W. Schwieter and

Alessandro Benati

Show author details

John W. Schwieter: Affiliation:
Wilfrid Laurier University
Alessandro Benati: Affiliation:
American University of Sharjah, United Arab Emirates

Book contents

Get access

Summary

Cognitive interactionists claim that interaction provides valuable opportunities for learners to refine and restructure their interlanguage by drawing their focal attention to linguistic code features during negotiation for meaning (see Gass, 1997, 2003; Gass & Mackey, 2006, 2015; Long, 1996, 2007; Mackey, 2012; Mackey, Abbuhl, & Gass, 2012; Pica, 1994, 1996). Negotiated interaction activates cognitive learning processes that involve processing (modified) input, receiving corrective feedback (CF), and producing (modified) output, during which learner attention is directed to L2 linguistic features, leading to noticing and in turn L2 development. Over two decades of empirical research designed to explore the link between interaction and actual learning has yielded abundant evidence that clearly indicates that interaction precipitates L2 learning (see Mackey, 2012 for a review of interaction research; Keck et al., 2006 and Mackey & Goo, 2007 for meta-analytic reviews of early interaction-acquisition studies).

Type: Chapter
Information: The Cambridge Handbook of Language Learning , pp. 231 - 362

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1017/9781108333603 [Opens in a new window]

Publisher: Cambridge University Press

Print publication year: 2019

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Adams, R., Nuevo, A.-M., & Egi, T. (2011). Explicit and implicit feedback, modified output, and SLA: Does explicit and implicit feedback promote learning and learner–learner interactions? The Modern Language Journal, 95(S), 42–63.Google Scholar

Ahmadian, M. J. (2012). The relationship between working memory capacity and L2 oral performance under task-based careful online planning condition. TESOL Quarterly, 46, 165–175.Google Scholar

Albert, A. (2011). When individual differences come into play: The effect of learner creativity on simple and complex task performance. In Robinson, P. (ed.), Second language task complexity: Researching the Cognition Hypothesis of language learning and performance (pp. 239–265). Amsterdam: John Benjamins.CrossRef Google Scholar

Ammar, A. (2008). Prompts and recasts: Differential effects on second language morphosyntax. Language Teaching Research, 12, 183–210.Google Scholar

Ammar, A., & Spada, N. (2006). One size fits all? Recasts, prompts, and L2 learning. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 28, 543–574.Google Scholar

Bao, M., Egi, T., & Han, Y. (2011). Classroom study on noticing and recast features: Capturing learner noticing with uptake and stimulated recall. System, 39, 215–228.CrossRef Google Scholar

Baralt, M. (2013). The impact of cognitive complexity on feedback efficacy during online versus face-to-face interactive tasks. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 35, 689–725.Google Scholar

Brown, D. (2016). The type and linguistic foci of oral corrective feedback in the L2 classroom: A meta-analysis. Language Teaching Research, 20, 436–458.Google Scholar

Chaudron, C. (1977). A descriptive model of discourse in the corrective treatment of learners’ errors. Language Learning, 27, 29–46.Google Scholar

Doughty, C. (2001). Cognitive underpinnings of focus on form. In Robinson, P. (ed.), Cognition and second language instruction (pp. 206–257). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRef Google Scholar

Doughty, C., & Williams, J. (eds.) (1998). Focus on form in classroom second language acquisition. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar

Egi, T. (2007). Interpreting recasts as linguistic evidence: The roles of linguistic target, length, and degree of change. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 29, 511–537.Google Scholar

Egi, T. (2010). Uptake, modified output, and learner perceptions of recasts: Learner responses as language awareness. The Modern Language Journal, 94, 1–21.CrossRef Google Scholar

Ellis, R. (2007). The differential effects of corrective feedback on two grammatical structures. In Mackey, A. (ed.), Conversational interaction in second language acquisition: A collection of empirical studies (pp. 339–360). Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar

Ellis, R. (2015). Understanding second language acquisition (2nd edn.). Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar

Ellis, R., Basturkmen, H., & Loewen, S. (2001). Learner uptake in communicative ESL lessons. Language Learning, 51, 281–318.Google Scholar

Ellis, R., & He, X. (1999). The roles of modified input and output in the incidental acquisition of word meanings. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 21, 285–301.Google Scholar

Ellis, R., Loewen, S., & Erlam, R. (2006). Implicit and explicit corrective feedback and the acquisition of L2 grammar. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 28, 339–368.Google Scholar

Ellis, R., Tanaka, Y., & Yamazaki, A. (1994). Classroom interaction, comprehension and the acquisition of L2 word meanings. Language Learning, 44(3), 449–491.Google Scholar

Foster, P. (1998). A classroom perspective on the negotiation of meaning. Applied Linguistics, 19, 1–23.Google Scholar

Foster, P., & Ohta, A. S. (2005). Negotiation for meaning and peer assistance in second language classrooms. Applied Linguistics, 26, 402–430.Google Scholar

Gass, S. M. (1997). Input, Interaction, and the Second Language Learner. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.Google Scholar

Gass, S. M. (2003). Input and interaction. In Doughty, C. J. & Long, M. H. (eds.), The handbook of second language acquisition (pp. 224–255). Oxford: Blackwell.CrossRef Google Scholar

Gass, S. M., & Mackey, A. (2006). Input, interaction and output: An overview. AILA Review, 19, 3–17.Google Scholar

Gass, S. M., & Mackey, A. (2015). Input, interaction, and output in second language acquisition. In VanPatten, B. & Williams, J. (eds.), Theories in second language acquisition (pp. 180–206). New York: Routledge.Google Scholar

Gass, S. M., Mackey, A., & Ross-Feldman, L. (2005). Task-based interactions in classroom and laboratory settings. Language Learning, 55, 575–611.CrossRef Google Scholar

Gass, S. M., & Varonis, E. (1994). Input, interaction, and second language production. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 16, 282–302.CrossRef Google Scholar

Gilabert, R., Baron, J., & Llanes, M. (2009). Manipulating task complexity across task types and its influence on learners’ interaction during oral performance. International Review of Applied Linguistics, 47, 367–395.Google Scholar

Goo, J. (2012). Corrective feedback and working memory capacity in interaction-driven L2 learning. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 34, 445–474.Google Scholar

Goo, J. (2016). Corrective feedback and working memory capacity: A replication. In Granena, G., Jackson, D. O., & Yilmaz, Y. (eds.), Cognitive individual differences in second language processing and acquisition (pp. 279–302). Amsterdam: John Benjamins.CrossRef Google Scholar

Goo, J., & Mackey, A. (2013). The case against the case against recasts. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 35, 127–165.Google Scholar

Gooch, R., Saito, K., & Lyster, R. (2016). Effects of recasts and prompts on L2 pronunciation development: Teaching English /ɹ/ to Korean adult EFL learners. System, 60, 117–127.Google Scholar

Gurzynski-Weiss, L. (2016). Factors influencing Spanish instructors’ in-class feedback decisions. The Modern Language Journal, 100, 255–275.Google Scholar

Gurzynski-Weiss, L. (2017). L2 instructor individual characteristics. In Loewen, S. & Sato, M. (eds.), The Routledge handbook of instructed second language acquisition (pp. 451–467). New York: Routledge.Google Scholar

Gurzynski-Weiss, L., & Baralt, M. (2014). Exploring learner perception and use of task-based interactional feedback in FTF and CMC modes. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 36, 1–37.Google Scholar

Gurzynski-Weiss, L., & Baralt, M. (2015). Does type of modified output correspond to learner noticing of feedback? A closer look in face-to-face and computer-mediated task-based interaction. Applied Psycholinguistics, 36, 1393–1420.Google Scholar

Izumi, S., Bigelow, M., Fujiwara, M., & Fearnow, S. (1999). Testing the Output Hypothesis: Effects of output on noticing and second language acquisition. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 21, 421–452.CrossRef Google Scholar

Jeon, S. (2007). Interaction-driven L2 learning: Characterizing linguistic development. In Mackey, A. (ed.), Conversational interaction in second language acquisition (pp. 379–403). Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar

Keck, C. M., Iberri-Shea, G., Tracy-Ventura, N., & Wa-Mbaleka, S. (2006). Investigating the empirical link between task-based interaction and acquisition: A meta-analysis. In Norris, J. M. & Ortega, L. (eds.), Synthesizing research on language learning and teaching (pp. 91–131). Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar

Kim, Y. (2009). The effects of task complexity on learner–learner interaction. System, 37, 254–268.CrossRef Google Scholar

Kim, Y. (2012). Task complexity, learning opportunities and Korean EFL learners’ question development. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 34, 627–658.CrossRef Google Scholar

Kim, Y., Payant, C., & Pearson, P. (2015). The intersection of task-based interaction, task complexity, and working memory: L2 question development through recasts in a laboratory setting. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 37, 549–581.Google Scholar

Kormos, J., & Trebits, A. (2011). Working memory capacity and narrative task performance. In Robinson, P. (ed.), Second language task complexity: Researching the Cognition Hypothesis of language learning and performance (pp. 267–285). Amsterdam: John Benjamins.CrossRef Google Scholar

Leeser, M. J., & Sunderman, G. L. (2016). Methodological implications of working memory tasks for L2 processing research. In Granena, G., Jackson, D. O., & Yilmaz, Y. (eds.), Cognitive individual differences in second language processing and acquisition (pp. 279–302). Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar

Li, S. (2010). The effectiveness of corrective feedback in SLA: A meta-analysis. Language Learning, 60, 309–365.Google Scholar

Li, S. (2013). The interactions between the effects of implicit and explicit feedback and individual differences in language analytic ability and working memory. The Modern Language Journal, 97, 634–654.Google Scholar

Li, S. (2017). Cognitive differences and ISLA. In Loewen, S. & Sato, M. (eds.), The Routledge handbook of instructed second language acquisition (pp. 396–417). New York: Routledge.Google Scholar

Loewen, S. (2005). Incidental focus on form and second language learning. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 27, 361–386.Google Scholar

Loewen, S. (2015). Introduction to instructed second language acquisition. New York: Routledge.Google Scholar

Loewen, S., & Philp, J. (2006). Recasts in the adult English L2 classroom: Characteristics, explicitness, and effectiveness. The Modern Language Journal, 90, 536–556.Google Scholar

Long, M. H. (1985). Input and second language acquisition theory. In Gass, S. M. & Madden, C. G. (eds.), Input in second language acquisition (pp. 377–393). Rowley, MA: Newbury House.Google Scholar

Long, M. H. (1991). Focus on form: A design feature in language teaching methodology. In De Bot, K., Ginsberg, R. B., & Kramsch, C. (eds.), Foreign language research in cross-cultural perspective (pp. 39–52). Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar

Long, M. H. (1996). The role of the linguistic environment in second language acquisition. In Richie, W. & Bhatia, T. K. (eds.), Handbook of second language acquisition (pp. 413–468). New York: Academic Press.Google Scholar

Long, M. H. (2000). Focus on form in task-based language teaching. In Lambert, R. L. & Shohamy, E. (eds.), Language policy and pedagogy (pp. 179–192). Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar

Long, M. H. (2007). Problems in SLA. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.Google Scholar

Long, M. H. (2009). Methodological principles for language teaching. In Long, M. H. & Doughty, C. J. (eds.), The handbook of language teaching (pp. 373–394). Malden, MA: Wiley-Blackwell.Google Scholar

Long, M. H. (2015). Second language acquisition and task-based language teaching. Malden, MA: Wiley-Blackwell.Google Scholar

Long, M. H., Inagaki, S., & Ortega, L. (1998). The role of implicit negative feedback in SLA: Models and recasts in Japanese and Spanish. The Modern Language Journal, 82, 357–371.Google Scholar

Long, M. H., & Robinson, P. (1998). Focus on form: Theory, research, and practice. In Doughty, C. & Williams, J. (eds.), Focus on form in classroom second language acquisition (pp. 15–41). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar

Loschky, L. (1994). Comprehensible input and second language acquisition: What is the relationship? Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 16(3), 305–325.Google Scholar

Lyster, R. (1998a). Recasts, repetition, and ambiguity in L2 classroom discourse. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 20, 51–81.Google Scholar

Lyster, R. (1998b). Negotiation of form, recasts, and explicit correction in relation to error types and learner repair in immersion classrooms. Language Learning, 48, 183–218.Google Scholar

Lyster, R. (2004). Differential effects of prompts and recasts in form-focused instruction. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 26, 399–432.Google Scholar

Lyster, R., & Izquierdo, J. (2009). Prompts versus recasts in dyadic interaction. Language Learning, 59, 453–498.Google Scholar

Lyster, R., & Mori, H. (2006). Interactional feedback and instructional counterbalance. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 28, 269–300.Google Scholar

Lyster, R., & Ranta, L. (1997). Corrective feedback and learner uptake: Negotiation of form in communicative classrooms. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 19, 37–66.Google Scholar

Lyster, R., & Ranta, L. (2013). Counterpoint piece: The case for variety in corrective feedback research. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 35, 167–184.Google Scholar

Lyster, R., & Saito, K. (2010). Oral feedback in classroom SLA: A meta-analysis. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 32, 265–302.Google Scholar

Lyster, R., Saito, K., & Sato, M. (2013). Oral corrective feedback in second language classrooms. Language Teaching, 46, 1–40.Google Scholar

Mackey, A. (1999). Input, interaction, and second language development: An empirical study of question formation in ESL. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 21, 557–587.Google Scholar

Mackey, A. (2006). Feedback, noticing and instructed second language learning. Applied Linguistics, 27, 405–430.Google Scholar

Mackey, A. (2012). Input, interaction, and corrective feedback in L2 classrooms. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar

Mackey, A., Abbuhl, R., & Gass, S. (2012). Interactionist approach. In Gass, S. & Mackey, A. (eds.), The Routledge handbook of second language acquisition (pp. 7–24). New York: Routledge.Google Scholar

Mackey, A., Adams, R., Stafford, C., & Winke, P. (2010). Exploring the relationship between modified output and working memory capacity. Language Learning, 60, 501–533.Google Scholar

Mackey, A., Gass, S. M., & McDonough, K. (2000). How do learners perceive interactional feedback? Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 22, 471–497.Google Scholar

Mackey, A., & Goo, J. (2007). Interaction research in SLA: A meta-analysis and research synthesis. In Mackey, A. (ed.), Conversational interaction in second language acquisition: A collection of empirical studies (pp. 407–452). Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar

Mackey, A., Oliver, R., & Leeman, J. (2003). Interactional input and the incorporation of feedback: An exploration of NS–NNS and NNS–NNS adult and child dyads. Language Learning, 53, 35–66.Google Scholar

Mackey, A., & Philp, J. (1998). Conversational interaction and second language development: Recasts, responses, and red herrings? The Modern Language Journal, 82, 338–356.Google Scholar

Mackey, A., Philp, J., Egi, T., Fujii, A., & Tatsumi, T. (2002). Individual differences in working memory, noticing of interactional feedback and L2 development. In Robinson, P. (ed.), Individual differences and instructed language learning (pp. 181–209). Amsterdam: Benjamins.Google Scholar

Mackey, A., Polio, C., & McDonough, K. (2004). The relationship between experience, education and teachers’ use of incidental focus-on-form techniques. Language Teaching Research, 8, 301–327.Google Scholar

Mackey, A., & Sachs, R. (2012). Older learners in SLA research: A first look at working memory, feedback, and L2 development. Language Learning, 62, 704–740.Google Scholar

McDonough, K. (2005). Identifying the impact of negative feedback and learners’ responses on ESL question development. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 27, 79–103.Google Scholar

McDonough, K. (2007). Interactional feedback and the emergence of simple past activity verbs in L2 English. In Mackey, A. (ed.), Conversational interaction in second language acquisition: A collection of empirical studies (pp. 323–338). Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar

McDonough, K., Crawford, W. J., & Mackey, A. (2015). Creativity and EFL students’ language use during a group problem-solving task. TESOL Quarterly, 49, 188–199.Google Scholar

McDonough, K., & Mackey, A. (2006). Responses to recasts: Repetitions, primed production, and linguistic development. Language Learning, 56, 693–720.Google Scholar

Nakatsukasa, K. (2016). Efficacy of recasts and gestures on the acquisition of locative prepositions. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 38, 771–799.CrossRef Google Scholar

Nassaji, H. (2009). Effects of recasts and elicitation in dyadic interaction and the role of feedback explicitness. Language Learning, 59, 411–452.Google Scholar

Nassaji, H. (2016). Interactional feedback in second language teaching and learning: A synthesis and analysis of current research. Language Teaching Research, 20, 535–562.Google Scholar

Nassaji, H. (2017). The effectiveness of extensive versus intensive recasts for learning L2 grammar. The Modern Language Journal, 101, 353–368.Google Scholar

Nobuyoshi, J., & Ellis, R. (1993). Focused communication tasks and second language acquisition. English Language Teaching Journal, 47, 203–210.Google Scholar

Nuevo, A.-M. (2006). Task complexity and interaction: L2 learning opportunities and development. Unpublished PhD dissertation, Georgetown University, Washington, DC.Google Scholar

Nuevo, A.-M., Adams, R., & Ross-Feldman, L. (2011). Task complexity, modified output, and L2 development in leaner–learner interaction. In Robinson, P. (ed.), Second language task complexity: Researching the Cognition Hypothesis of language learning and performance (pp. 175–201). Amsterdam: John Benjamins.CrossRef Google Scholar

Oliver, R., & Mackey, A. (2003). Interactional context and feedback in child ESL classrooms. The Modern Language Journal, 87, 519–533.Google Scholar

Ortega, L. (2009). Understanding second language acquisition. London: Hodder Education.Google Scholar

Philp, J. (2003). Constraints on noticing the gap: Nonnative speakers’ noticing of recasts in NS–NNS interaction. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 25, 99–126.Google Scholar

Pica, T. (1992). The textual outcomes of native speaker–non-native speaker negotiation: What do they reveal about second language learning? In Kramsch, C. & McConnell-Ginet, S. (eds.), Text and context: Cross-disciplinary perspectives on language study (pp. 198–237). Lexington, MA: D.C. Heath and Company.Google Scholar

Pica, T. (1994). Research on negotiation: What does it reveal about second language learning conditions, processes, and outcomes? Language Learning, 44, 493–527.Google Scholar

Pica, T. (1996). Do second language learners need negotiation? International Review of Applied Linguistics in Language Teaching (IRAL), 34, 1–21.Google Scholar

Pica, T. (2002). Subject-matter content: How does it assist the interactional and linguistic needs of classroom language learners? The Modern Language Journal, 86, 1–19.Google Scholar

Pica, T., Holliday, L., Lewis, N. E., & Morgenthaler, L. (1989). Comprehensible output as an outcome of linguistic demands on the learner. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 11, 63–90.Google Scholar

Pica, T., Kanagy, R., & Falodun, J. (1993). Choosing and using communication tasks for second language instruction. In Crookes, G. & Gass, S. M. (eds.), Tasks and language learning (pp. 9–34). Clevedon: Multilingual Matters.Google Scholar

Pica, T., Young, R., & Doughty, C. (1987). The impact of interaction on comprehension. TESOL Quarterly, 21, 737–58.Google Scholar

Polio, C., Gass, S., & Chapin, L. (2006). Using stimulated recall to investigate native speaker perceptions in native–nonnative speaker interaction. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 28, 237–267.Google Scholar

Rassaei, E. (2015a). Recasts, field dependence/independence cognitive style, and L2 development. Language Teaching Research, 19, 499–518.CrossRef Google Scholar

Rassaei, E. (2015b). Oral corrective feedback, foreign language anxiety and L2 development. System, 49, 98–109.Google Scholar

Révész, A. (2009). Task complexity, focus on form, and second language development. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 31, 437–470.CrossRef Google Scholar

Révész, A. (2011). Task complexity, focus on L2 constructions, and individual differences: A classroom-based study. The Modern Language Journal, 95(S), 162–181.Google Scholar

Révész, A. (2012). Working memory and the observed effectiveness of recasts on different L2 outcome measures. Language Learning, 62, 93–132.Google Scholar

Révész, A., Sachs, R., & Hama, M. (2014). The effects of task complexity and input frequency on the acquisition of the past counterfactual construction through recasts. Language Learning, 64, 615–650.Google Scholar

Révész, A., Sachs, R., & Mackey, A. (2011). Task complexity, uptake of recasts, and L2 development. In Robinson, P. (ed.), Second language task complexity: Researching the Cognition Hypothesis of language learning and performance (pp. 203–235). Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar

Robinson, P. (2001a). Task complexity, cognitive resources, and syllabus design: A triadic framework for examining task influences on SLA. In Robinson, P. (ed.), Cognition and second language instruction (pp. 287–318). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar

Robinson, P. (2001b). Task complexity, task difficulty, and task production: Exploring interactions in a componential framework. Applied Linguistics, 22, 27–57.Google Scholar

Robinson, P. (2003). The Cognition Hypothesis, task design, and adult task-based language learning. Second Language Studies, 21, 45–105.Google Scholar

Robinson, P. (2007). Criteria for classifying and sequencing pedagogic tasks. In García Mayo, M. P. (ed.), Investigating tasks in formal language learning (pp. 7–26). Clevedon: Multilingual Matters.Google Scholar

Robinson, P. (2011a). Task-based language learning: A review of issues. Language Learning, 61(S1), 1–36.Google Scholar

Robinson, P. (2011b). Second language task complexity, the Cognition Hypothesis, language learning, and performance. In Robinson, P. (ed.), Second language task complexity: Researching the Cognition Hypothesis of language learning and performance (pp. 3–37). Amsterdam: Benjamins.Google Scholar

Sagarra, N. (2007). From CALL to face-to-face interaction: The effect of computer-delivered recasts and working memory on L2 development. In Mackey, A. (ed.), Conversational interaction in second language acquisition: A collection of empirical studies (pp. 229–248). Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar

Sagarra, N., & Abbuhl, R. (2013). Optimizing the noticing of recasts via computer-delivered feedback: Evidence that oral input enhancement and working memory help second language learning. The Modern Language Journal, 97, 196–216.Google Scholar

Sato, M., & Lyster, R. (2007). Modified output of Japanese EFL learners: Variable effects of interlocutor versus feedback types. In Mackey, A. (ed.), Conversational interaction in second language acquisition: A collection of empirical studies (pp. 123–142). Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar

Schmidt, R. (1990). The role of consciousness in second language learning. Applied Linguistics, 11, 129–158.Google Scholar

Schmidt, R. (1995). Consciousness and foreign language learning: A tutorial on the role of attention and awareness in learning. In Schmidt, R. (ed.), Attention and awareness in foreign language learning (pp. 1–63). Honolulu, HI: University of Hawai’i Press.Google Scholar

Schmidt, R. (2001). Attention. In Robinson, P. (ed.), Cognition and second language instruction (pp. 3–32). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar

Sheen, Y. (2004). Corrective feedback and learner uptake in communicative classrooms across instructional settings. Language Teaching Research, 8, 263–300.Google Scholar

Sheen, Y. (2006). Exploring the relationship between characteristics of recasts and learner uptake. Language Teaching Research, 10, 361–392.Google Scholar

Sheen, Y. (2007). The effects of corrective feedback, language aptitude, and learner attitudes on the acquisition of English articles. In Mackey, A. (ed.), Conversational interaction in second language acquisition: A collection of empirical studies (pp. 301–322). Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar

Sheen, Y. (2008). Recast, language anxiety, modified output and L2 learning. Language Learning, 58, 835–874.Google Scholar

Shehadeh, A. (1999). Non-native speakers’ production of modified comprehensible output and second language learning. Language Learning, 49, 627–675.Google Scholar

Shehadeh, A. (2001). Self- and other-initiated modified output during task-based interaction. TESOL Quarterly, 35, 433–457.Google Scholar

Swain, M. (1985). Communicative competence: Some roles of comprehensible input and comprehensible output in its development. In Gass, S. & Madden, C. G. (eds.), Input in second language acquisition (pp. 235–253). Rowley, MA: Newbury House.Google Scholar

Swain, M. (1993). The Output Hypothesis: Just speaking and writing aren’t enough. The Canadian Modern Language Review, 50, 158–164.Google Scholar

Swain, M. (1995) Three functions of output in second language learning. In Cook, G. and Seidelhofer, B. (eds.) Principle and practice in applied linguistics: Studies in honour of H. Widdowson (pp. 125–144). Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar

Swain, M. (2005). The Output Hypothesis: Theory and research. In Hinkel, E. (ed.), Handbook on research in second language teaching and learning (pp. 471–484). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.Google Scholar

Trofimovich, P., Ammar, A., & Gatbonton, E. (2007). How effective are recasts? The role of attention, memory, and analytic ability. In Mackey, A. (ed.), Conversational interaction in second language acquisition (pp. 171–195). Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar

van de Guchte, M., Braaksma, M., Rijlaarsdam, G., & Bimmel, P. (2015). Learning new grammatical structures in task-based language learning: The effects of recasts and prompts. The Modern Language Journal, 99, 246–262.Google Scholar

Van den Branden, K. (1997). Effects of negotiation on language learners’ output. Language Learning, 47, 589–636.Google Scholar

Wen, Z. (2016). Working memory and second language learning: Towards an integrated approach. Bristol: Multilingual Matters.Google Scholar

Yang, Y., & Lyster, R. (2010). Effects of form-focused practice and feedback on Chinese EFL learners’ acquisition of regular and irregular past tense forms. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 32, 235–263.Google Scholar

Yilmaz, Y. (2012). The relative effects of explicit correction and recasts on two target structures via two communication modes. Language Learning, 62, 1134–1169.Google Scholar

Yilmaz, Y. (2013a). The relative effectiveness of mixed, explicit and implicit feedback in the acquisition of English articles. System, 41, 691–705.Google Scholar

Yilmaz, Y. (2013b). Relative effects of explicit and implicit feedback: The role of working memory capacity and language analytic ability. Applied Linguistics, 34, 344–368.Google Scholar

Yilmaz, Y., & Gisela, G. (2016). The role of cognitive aptitudes for explicit language learning in the relative effects of explicit and implicit feedback. Bilingualism: Language and Cognition, 19, 147–161.Google Scholar

References

Abrahamsson, N., & Hyltenstam, K. (2009). Age of onset and nativelikeness in a second language: Listener perception versus linguistic scrutiny. Language Learning, 59, 249–306.Google Scholar

ACTFL. (2012). ACTFL proficiency guidelines. Alexandria, VA: ACTFL. Retrieved from https://www.actfl.org/publications/guidelines-and-manuals/actfl-proficiency-guidelines-2012.Google Scholar

American Academy of Arts and Sciences (2017). America’s languages: Investing in language education for the 21^st century. Cambridge, MA: American Academy of Arts and Sciences. Retrieved from https://www.amacad.org/content/Research/researchproject.aspx?i=21896.Google Scholar

Aoyama, K., Flege, J. E., Guion, S. G., Akahane-Yamada, R., & Yamada, T. (2004). Perceived phonetic dissimilarity and L2 speech learning: The case of Japanese /r/ and English /l/ and /r/. Journal of Phonetics, 32(2), 233–250.Google Scholar

Baker, W. (2015). Culture and identity through English as a lingua franca. Berlin: De Gruyter Mouton.Google Scholar

Bergeron, A., & Trofimovich, P. (2017). Linguistic dimensions of accentedness and comprehensibility: Exploring task and listener effects in second language French. Foreign Language Annals, 50(3), 547–566.Google Scholar

Best, C. T. (1993). Emergence of language-specific constraints in perception of non-native speech: A window on early phonological development. In de Boysson-Bardies, B., de Schonen, S., Jusczyk, P. W., McNeilage, P., & Morton, J. (eds.), Developmental neurocognition: Speech and face processing in the first year of life (pp. 289–304). Dordrecht: Kluwer Academic.Google Scholar

Best, C. T. (1994). The emergence of native-language phonological influences in infants: A Perceptual Assimilation Model. In Goodman, J. C. & Nusbaum, H. C. (eds.), The development of speech perception: The transition from speech sounds to spoken words (pp. 167–224). Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar

Best, C. T., & Tyler, M. D. (2007). Nonnative and second-language speech perception: Commonalities and complementarities. In Bohn, O.-S. & Munro, M. J. (eds.), Language experience in second language speech learning (pp. 13–34). Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar

Byram, M. (1997). Teaching and assessing intercultural communicative competence. Clevedon: Multilingual Matters.Google Scholar

Canale, M. (1983). From communicative competence to communicative language pedagogy. In Richards, J. & Schmidt, R. (eds.), Language and communication (pp. 2–27). London: Longman.Google Scholar

Canale, M., & Swain, M. (1980). Theoretical basis of communicative approaches to second language teaching and testing. Applied Linguistics, 1, 1–47.Google Scholar

Caspers, J. (2010). The influence of erroneous stress position and segmental errors on intelligibility, comprehensibility and foreign accent in Dutch as a second language. Linguistics in the Netherlands, 27(1), 17–29.Google Scholar

Chambers, F. (1997). What do we mean by fluency? System, 25, 535–544.Google Scholar

Chan, J. Y. H. (2018). Attitudes and identities in learning English and Chinese as a lingua franca: A bilingual learners’ perspective. Journal of Multilingual and Multicultural Development, 39(9), 759–775.Google Scholar

Crowther, D., Trofimovich, P., Isaacs, T., & Saito, K. (2015). Does a speaking task affect second language comprehensibility? The Modern Language Journal, 99, 80–95.Google Scholar

Davidson, D. E. (2010). Study abroad: When, how long, and with what results? New data from the Russian front. Foreign Language Annals, 43, 6–26.Google Scholar

Davidson, D. E., & Shaw, J. (2019). A cross-linguistic and cross-skill perspective on L2 development in study abroad. In Winke, P. and Gass, S. (eds.), Foreign language proficiency in higher education (pp. 217–242). Cham: Springer.Google Scholar

De Costa, P. I. (2012). Constructing SLA differently: The value of ELF and language ideology in an ASEAN case study. International Journal of Applied Linguistics, 22, 205–224.Google Scholar

De Costa, P. I. (2014). Cosmopolitanism and English as a lingua franca: Learning English in a Singapore school. Research in the Teaching of English, 49, 9–30.Google Scholar

DeKeyser, R. (2000). The robustness of critical period effects in second language acquisition. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 22, 499–533.Google Scholar

Dervin, F., & Risager, K. (2015). Researching identity and interculturality. New York: Routledge.Google Scholar

Derwing, T. M., & Munro, M. J. (1997). Accent, intelligibility, and comprehensibility. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 20(1), 1–16.Google Scholar

Derwing, T. M., & Munro, M. J. (2013). The development of L2 oral language skills in two L1 groups: A 7-year study. Language Learning, 63, 163–185.Google Scholar

Derwing, T. M., & Munro, M. J. (2015). Pronunciation fundamentals: Evidence-based perspectives for L2 teaching and research. Philadelphia, PA: John Benjamins.Google Scholar

Derwing, T. M., Munro, M. J., & Thomson, R. I. (2007). A longitudinal study of ESL learners’ fluency and comprehensibility development. Applied Linguistics, 29, 359–380.Google Scholar

Derwing, T. M., Munro, M. J., & Wiebe, G. (1998). Evidence in favor of a broad framework for pronunciation instruction. Language Learning, 48, 393–410.Google Scholar

Derwing, T. M., Munro, M. J., Thomson, R. I., & Rossiter, M. J. (2009). The relationship between L1 fluency and L2 fluency development. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 31(4), 533–557.Google Scholar

Derwing, T. M., Thomson, R. I., & Munro, M. J. (2006). English pronunciation and fluency development in Mandarin and Slavic speakers. System, 34, 183–193.Google Scholar

Dörnyei, Z. (2009). The L2 motivational self system. In Dörnyei, Z. & Ushioda, E. (eds.), Motivation, language identity and the L2 self (pp. 9–42). Toronto: Multilingual Matters.Google Scholar

Duff, P. A. (2014). Communicative language teaching. In Celce-Murcia, M., Brinton, D. M., & Snow, M. A. (eds.), Teaching English as a second or foreign language (4th edn., pp. 15–30). Boston, MA: National Geographic Learning/Heinle.Google Scholar

Eckman, F. (2004). From phonemic differences to constraint rankings: Research on second language phonology. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 26(4), 513–549.Google Scholar

Flege, J. E. (1995). Second language speech learning: Theory, findings, and problems. In Strange, W. (ed.), Speech perception and linguistic experience: Issues in cross-language research (pp. 233–276). Timonium, MD: York Press.Google Scholar

Flege, J. E. (1999). Age of learning and second language speech. In Birdsong, D. (ed.), Second language acquisition and the Critical Period Hypothesis (pp. 101–131). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.Google Scholar

Foley, C., & Flynn, S. (2013). The role of native language. In Herschenson, J. & Young-Scholten, M. (eds.), The Cambridge handbook of second language acquisition (pp. 97–113). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar

Foote, J. A., Holtby, A. K., & Derwing, T. M. (2011). Survey of the teaching of pronunciation in adult ESL programs in Canada, 2010. TESL Canada Journal, 29(1), 1–22.Google Scholar

Foote, J. A., Trofimovich, P., Collins, L., & Urzúa, F. S. (2016). Pronunciation teaching practices in communicative second language classes. The Language Learning Journal, 44(2), 181–196.Google Scholar

Freed, B., Segalowitz, N., & Dewey, D. (2004). Context of learning and second language fluency in French: Comparing regular classroom, study abroad, and intensive domestic immersion programs. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 26, 275–301.Google Scholar

Fulcher, G. (2014). Testing second language speaking. New York: Routledge.Google Scholar

Gass, S. (1984). Development of speech perception and speech production abilities in adult second language learners. Applied Psycholinguistics, 5(1), 51–74.Google Scholar

Gass, S., & Mackey, A. (2006). Input, interaction and output: An overview. AILA Review, 19, 3–17.Google Scholar

Gass, S., & Mackey, A. (2007). Input, interaction and output in second language acquisition. In Williams, J. and VanPatten, B. (eds.), Theories in second language acquisition (pp. 175–199). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.Google Scholar

Gatbonton, E., & Segalowitz, N. (2005). Rethinking communicative language teaching: A focus on access to fluency. Canadian Modern Language Review, 61(3), 325–353.Google Scholar

Gatbonton, E., & Trofimovich, P. (2008). The ethnic group affiliation and L2 proficiency link: Empirical evidence. Language Awareness, 17(3), 229–248.Google Scholar

Gatbonton, E., Trofimovich, P., & Magid, M. (2005). Learners’ ethnic group affiliation and L2 pronunciation accuracy:A sociolinguistic investigation. TESOL Quarterly, 39(3), 489–511.Google Scholar

Gatbonton, E., Trofimovich, P., & Segalowitz, N. (2011). Ethnic group affiliation and patterns of development of a phonological variable. The Modern Language Journal, 95(2), 188–204.Google Scholar

Gregg, K. (1996). The logical and developmental problems of second language acquisition. In Ritchie, W. C. & Bhatia, T. K. (eds). Handbook of second language acquisition (pp. 49–81). San Diego, CA: Academic Press.Google Scholar

Hardison, D. M. (2005). Second-language spoken word identification: Effects of perceptual training, visual cues, and phonetic environment. Applied Psycholinguistics, 26(4), 579–596.Google Scholar

Hardison, D. M. (2014a). Phonological literacy in L2 learning and teaching. In Levis, J. M. & Moyer, A. (eds.), Social dynamics in second language accent (pp. 195–218). Boston, MA: Walter de Gruyter.Google Scholar

Hardison, D. M. (2014b). Changes in second-language learners’ oral skills and socio-affective profiles following study abroad: A mixed-methods approach. Canadian Modern Language Review, 70(4), 415–444.Google Scholar

Hymes, D. (1971). On communicative competence. Philadelphia, PA: University of Pennsylvania Press.Google Scholar

Hymes, D. (1972). On communicative competence. In Pride, J. B. & Holmes, J. (eds.), Sociolinguistics (pp. 269–293). Harmondsworth: Penguin.Google Scholar

Isaacs, T., & Trofimovich, P. (2012). Deconstructing comprehensibility: Identifying the linguistic influences on listeners’ L2 comprehensibility ratings. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 34, 475–505.Google Scholar

Isbell, D., Park, O.-S., & Lee, K. (2019). Learning Korean pronunciation: Effects of instruction, proficiency, and L1. Journal of Second Language Pronunciation, 5(1), 13–48.Google Scholar

Khajavy, G. H., MacIntyre, P. D., & Barabadi, E. (2017). Role of the emotions and classroom environment in willingness to communicate: Applying doubly latent multilevel analysis in second language acquisition research. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 40(3), 605–624.Google Scholar

Kuhl, P. K. (2004). Early language acquisition: Cracking the speech code. Nature Reviews Neuroscience, 5, 831–843.Google Scholar

Kumaravadivelu, B. (2008). Cultural globalization and language education. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.Google Scholar

Lee, J., Jang, J., & Plonsky, L. (2015). The effectiveness of second language pronunciation instruction: A meta-analysis. Applied Linguistics, 36, 345–366.Google Scholar

Lennon, P. (1990). Investigating fluency in EFL: A quantitative approach. Language learning, 40(3), 387–417.Google Scholar

Leonard, K. R., & Shea, C. E. (2017). L2 speaking development during study abroad: Fluency, accuracy, complexity, and underlying cognitive factors. The Modern Language Journal, 101(1), 179–193.Google Scholar

LeVelle, J., & Levis, J. (2014). Understanding the impact of social factors in L2 pronunciation: Insights from learners. In Levis, J. & Moyer, A. (eds.), Social dynamics in second language accent (pp. 97–118). Boston, MA: DeGruyter Mouton.Google Scholar

Levis, J. M. (2005). Changing contexts and shifting paradigms in pronunciation teaching. TESOL Quarterly, 39, 369–377.Google Scholar

Loewen, S. (2003). Variation in the frequency and characteristics of incidental focus on form. Language Teaching Research, 7(3), 315–345.Google Scholar

Long, A. Y., & Geeslin, K. (2018). Spanish second language acquisition across the globe: What future research on non-English-speaking learners will tell us, Hispania, 100(5), 205–210.Google Scholar

Long, M. H. (1996). The role of the linguistic environment in second language acquisition. In Ritchie, W. & Bhatia, T. (eds.), Handbook of second language acquisition (pp. 413–468). San Diego, CA: Academic Press.Google Scholar

Low, E. L., & Pakir, A. (2018) World Englishes: Rethinking paradigms. New York: Routledge.Google Scholar

MacIntyre, J., Dörnyei, Z., Clément, R., & Noels, K. (1998). Conceptualizing willingness to communicate in a L2: A situational model of L2 confidence and affiliation. The Modern Language Journal, 82, 545–562.Google Scholar

Mackey, A., Abbuhl, R., & Gass, S. (2012). Interactionist approach. In Gass, S. & Mackey, A. (eds.), Handbook of second language acquisition (pp. 7–23). New York: Routledge.Google Scholar

Mackey, A., Gass, S., & McDonough, K. (2000). How do learners perceive interactional feedback? Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 22(4), 417–497.Google Scholar

Magnan, S. S., & Back, M. (2007). Social interaction and linguistic gain during study abroad. Foreign Language Annals, 40(1), 43–61.Google Scholar

Moyer, A. (2014). What’s age got to do with it? Accounting for individual factors in second language accent. Studies in Second Language Learning and Teaching, 4, 443–464.Google Scholar

Muñoz, C. (2014). Contrasting effects of starting age and input on the oral performance of foreign language learners. Applied Linguistics, 35(4), 463–482.Google Scholar

Muñoz, C., & Llanes, Á. (2014). Study abroad and changes in degree of foreign accent in children and adults. The Modern Language Journal, 98(1), 432–449.Google Scholar

Munro, M. J. (2018). How well can we predict second language learners’ pronunciation difficulties? CATESOL Journal, 30(1), 267–281.Google Scholar

Munro, M. J., & Derwing, T. M. (1999). Foreign accent, comprehensibility, and intelligibility in the speech of second language learners. Language Learning, 49(S1), 285–310.Google Scholar

Munro, M. J., Derwing, T. M., & Thomson, R. (2015). Setting segmental priorities for English learners: Evidence from a longitudinal study. International Review of Applied Linguistics in Language Teaching (IRAL), 53(1), 39–60.Google Scholar

Nagle, C. (2018). Motivation, comprehensibility, and accentedness in L2 Spanish: Investigating motivation as a time-varying predictor of pronunciation development. The Modern Language Journal, 102(1), 199–217.Google Scholar

Nation, P. (1989). Improving speaking fluency. System, 17(3), 377–384.Google Scholar

O’Brien, M. G. (2014). L2 learners’ assessment of accentedness, fluency, and comprehensibility of native and nonnative German speech. Language Learning, 64(4), 715–748.Google Scholar

Okuno, T., & Hardison, D. M. (2016). Perception–production link in L2 Japanese vowel duration: Training with technology. Language Learning & Technology, 20(2), 61–80.Google Scholar

Peng, J. E., Zhang, L., & Chen, Y. (2017). The mediation of multimodal affordances on willingness to communicate in the English as a foreign language classroom. TESOL Quarterly, 51(2), 302–331.Google Scholar

Piske, T., MacKay, I. R., & Flege, J. E. (2001). Factors affecting degree of foreign accent in an L2: A review. Journal of phonetics, 29(2), 191–215.Google Scholar

Risager, K. (2007). Language and culture pedagogy: From a national to transnational paradigm. Clevedon: Multilingual Matters.Google Scholar

Rubio, F., Hacking, J., Soneson, D., Winke, P., & Gass, S. (2018). Outcomes and observed trends from the Flagship Proficiency Initiative Paper presented at the 2018 Language Flagship Meeting, May, Philadelphia, PA.Google Scholar

Saito, K. (2012). Effects of instruction on L2 pronunciation development: A synthesis of 15 quasi-experimental intervention studies. TESOL Quarterly, 46, 842–854.Google Scholar

Saito, K., & Akiyama, Y. (2017). Linguistic correlates of comprehensibility in second language Japanese speech. Journal of Second Language Pronunciation, 3(2), 199–217.Google Scholar

Saito, K., & Lyster, R. (2012). Effects of form-focused instruction and corrective feedback on L2 pronunciation development of /ɹ/ by Japanese learners of English. Language Learning, 62(2), 595–633.Google Scholar

Saito, K., Ilkan, M., Magne, V., Tran, M., & Suzuki, S. (2018) Acoustic characteristics and learner profiles of low, mid and high-level second language fluency. Applied Psycholinguistics, 39(3), 593–617.Google Scholar

Sakai, M., & Moorman, C. (2018). Can perception training improve the production of second language phonemes? A meta-analytic review of 25 years of perception training research. Applied Psycholinguistics, 39(1), 187–224.Google Scholar

Sanz, C., & Morales-Front, A. (eds). (2018). Handbook of study abroad research and practice. New York: Routledge.Google Scholar

Segalowitz, N. (2010). Cognitive bases of second language fluency. New York: Routledge.Google Scholar

Segalowitz, N. (2016). Second language fluency and its underlying cognitive and social determinants. International Review of Applied Linguistics in Language Teaching (IRAL), 54(2), 79–95.Google Scholar

Segalowitz, N., & Freed, B. F. (2004). Context, contact, and cognition in oral fluency acquisition: Learning Spanish in at home and study abroad contexts. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 26(2), 173–199.Google Scholar

Segalowitz, N., French, L., & Guay, J. D. (2018). What features best characterize adult second language utterance fluency and what do they reveal about fluency gains in short-term immersion? Canadian Journal of Applied Linguistics/Revue canadienne de linguistique appliquée, 20(2), 90–116.Google Scholar

Sharma, B. K. (2018). Chinese as a global language: Negotiating ideologies and identities. Global Chinese, 4(1), 1–10.Google Scholar

Swain, M. (1985). Communicative competence: Some roles of comprehensible input and comprehensible output in its development. In Gass, S. & Madden, C. (eds.), Input in second language acquisition (pp. 235–256). New York: Newbury House.Google Scholar

Swain, M. (1995). Three functions of output in second language learning. In Cook, G. & Seidlhofer, B. (eds.), Principle and practice in applied linguistics: Studies in honor H. G. Widdowson (pp. 125–144). Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar

Swain, M. (2005). The Output Hypothesis: Theory and research. In Hinkle, E. (ed.), Handbook of research in second language learning and teaching (pp. 471–484). New York: Routledge.Google Scholar

Tao, L., & Taft, M. (2017). Effects of early home language environment on perception and production of speech. Bilingualism: Language and Cognition, 20(5), 1030–1044.Google Scholar

Thomson, R. I. (2011). Computer assisted pronunciation training: Targeting second language vowel perception improves pronunciation. CALICO Journal, 28, 744–765.Google Scholar

Thomson, R. I. (2012). Improving L2 listeners’ perception of English vowels: A computer-mediated approach. Language Learning, 62, 1231–1258.Google Scholar

Thomson, R. I. (2018). Measurement of accentedness, intelligibility, and comprehensibility. In Kang, O. & Ginther, A. (eds.), Assessment in second language pronunciation (pp. 11–29). New York: Routledge.Google Scholar

Thomson, R. I., Nearey, T. M., & Derwing, T. M. (2009). A modified statistical pattern recognition approach to measuring the crosslinguistic similarity of Mandarin and English vowels. The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America, 126(3), 1447–1460.Google Scholar

Trofimovich, P., & Isaacs, T. (2012). Disentangling accent from comprehensibility. Bilingualism: Language and Cognition, 15, 905–916.Google Scholar

Varonis, E. M., & Gass, S. M. (1982). The comprehensibility of nonnative speech. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 4, 114–136.Google Scholar

Werker, J. F., & Tees, R. C. (2005). Speech perception as a window for understanding plasticity and commitment in language systems of the brain. Developmental Psychobiology, 46(3), 233–251.Google Scholar

White, L. (1991). Adverb placement in second language acquisition: Some effects of positive and negative evidence in the classroom. Interlanguage Studies Bulletin, 7(2), 133–161.Google Scholar

Winke, P., & Gass, S. (2018a). Individual differences in advanced proficiency. In Malovrh, P. and Benati, A. (eds). Handbook of Advanced Language Proficiency (pp. 157–178). New York: Routledge.Google Scholar

Winke, P., & Gass, S. (2018b). When some study abroad: How returning students realign with the curriculum and impact learning. In Sanz, C. & Morales-Front, A. (eds.), Handbook of study abroad research and practice (pp. 527–543). New York: Routledge.Google Scholar

Winke, P., Gass, S., & Heidrich, E. (2019). Modern-day foreign language majors: Their goals, attainment, and fit with a 21st century curriculum. In Winke, P. & Gass, S. (eds.), Foreign language proficiency in higher education (pp. 93–113). Cham: Springer.Google Scholar

Yan, X., & Ginther, A. (2018). Listeners and raters: Similarities and differences in evaluation of accented speech. In Kang, O. & Ginther, A. (eds.), Assessment in second language pronunciation (pp. 67–88). New York: Routledge.Google Scholar

Zaykovskaya, I., Rawal, H., & De Costa, P. I. (2017). Learner beliefs for successful study abroad experience: A case study. System, 71, 113–121.Google Scholar

Zyzik, E., & Polio, C. (2008). Incidental focus on form in university Spanish literature courses. The Modern Language Journal, 92(1), 53–70.Google Scholar

References

Afflerbach, P., Pearson, P. D. & Paris, S. G. (2008). Clarifying differences between reading skills and reading strategies. The Reading Teacher, 61, 364–373.Google Scholar

Aitchison, J. (2008). Words in the mind (4th edn). London: Wiley.Google Scholar

Anderson, J. R. (1983). The architecture of cognition. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University PressGoogle Scholar

Anderson, J. R. (2000). Cognitive psychology and its implications (5th edn). New York: W. H. Freeman.Google Scholar

Bates, E., & MacWhinney, B. (1989). Functionalism and the Competition Model. In MacWhinney, B. & Bates, E. (eds.), The cross-linguistic study of sentence processing (pp. 777–780). New York: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar

Batty, A. O. (2015). A comparison of video- and audio-mediated listening tests with many-facet Rasch modelling and differential distractor functioning. Language Testing, 32(1), 3–20.Google Scholar

Bekleyen, N. (2009). Helping teachers become better English students: Causes, effects, and coping strategies for foreign language listening anxiety. System, 37(4), 664–675.Google Scholar

Bent, T., & Bradlow, A. R. (2003). The interlanguage speech intelligibility benefit. Journal of the Acoustical Society of America, 114(3), 1600–1610.Google Scholar

Best, C. T. (1995). A direct realist perspective on cross-language speech perception. In Strange, W. (ed.). Speech perception and linguistic experience: Issues in cross-language research (pp. 171–204). Timonium, MD: York Press.Google Scholar

Best, C. T., & Tyler, M. D (2007). Nonnative and second-language speech perception: Commonalities and complementarities. In Munro, M. J. & Bohn, O.-S. (eds.) Second language speech learning: The role of language experience in speech perception and production (pp. 13–34). Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar

Bloomfield, A., Wayland, S. C., Rhoades, E., Blodgett, A., Linck, J., & Ross, S. (2010). What makes listening difficult: Factors affecting second language comprehension. Report: University of Maryland.Google Scholar

Bohn, O.-S. (1995). Cross-language speech perception in adults: First language transfer doesn’t tell it all. In Strange, W. (ed.), Speech perception and linguistic experience: Issues in cross-language research (pp. 279–304). Timonium, MD: York Press.Google Scholar

Bradlow, A. R., & Bent, T. (2008). Perceptual adaptation to non-native speech. Cognition, 106(2), 707–729.Google Scholar

Braxton, M. A. (1999). Adult ESL language learning strategies: Case studies of preferred learning styles and perceived cultural influences in academic listening tasks. Unpublished PhD dissertation, Ohio State University, Columbus, OH.Google Scholar

Brown, G. (1986). Investigating listening comprehension in context. Applied Linguistics, 7(3), 284–302.Google Scholar

Brown, G. (1990). Listening to spoken English (2nd edn). Harlow: Longman.Google Scholar

Brown, G. (1995). Speakers, listeners and communication. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar

Brown, G., & Yule, G. (1983). Discourse analysis. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar

Brown, J. D., & Kondo-Brown, K. (Eds.) (2006). Perspectives on teaching connected speech to second language speakers. Mãnoa, HI: University of Hawaii.Google Scholar

Bybee, J. (2001). Phonology and language use. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar

Bybee, J. (2010). Language, usage and cognition. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar

Cauldwell, R. (2013). Phonology for listening. Birmingham: Speechinaction.Google Scholar

Cervantes, R., & Gainer, G. (1992). The effects of syntactic simplification and repetition on listening comprehension. TESOL Quarterly, 26(4), 767–770.Google Scholar

Chang, A. C.-S. (2008). Sources of listening anxiety in learning English as a foreign language. Perceptual and Motor Skills, 106(1), 21–34.Google Scholar

Chang, A. C.-S., & Read, J. (2006). The effect of listening support on the listening performance of EFL learners. TESOL Quarterly, 40, 375–397.Google Scholar

Chang, A. C.-S., & Read, J. (2008). Reducing listening test anxiety through various forms of listening support. TESL-EJ, 12(1), 1–25.Google Scholar

Chung, J. M. (1999). The effects of using video texts supported with advance organizers and captions. Foreign Language Annals, 32(3), 295–307.Google Scholar

Clopper, C. G., & Pisoni, D. B. (2004). Effects of talker variability on perceptual learning of dialects. Language and Speech, 47, 207–239.Google Scholar

Cohen, A. (1998). Strategies of language learning and language use. Harlow: Longman.Google Scholar

Coniam, D. (2001). The use of audio or video comprehension as an assessment instrument in the certification of English language teachers: A case study. System, 29, 1–14.Google Scholar

Council of Europe (2018) Common European Framework of Reference for Languages: Learning, Teaching, Assessment. Avail-able online at https://rm.coe.int/cefr-companion-volume-with-new-descriptors-2018/1680787989.Google Scholar

Crystal, D. (2003). English as a global language. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar

Cutler, A. (1990). Exploiting prosodic possibilities. In Altmann, G. (ed.), Cognitive models of speech processing: Psycholinguistic and computational perspectives (pp. 105–121). Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar

Cutler, A. (1997). The comparative perspective on spoken-language processing. Speech Communication, 21, 3–15.Google Scholar

Cutler, A. (2012). Native listening. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar

Cutler, A., & Clifton, C. (1999). Comprehending spoken language: A blueprint of the listener. In Brown, C. M. & Hagoort, P. (eds.), The neurocognition of language (pp. 123–166). Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar

Cutler, A., & Otake, T. (1994). Mora or phoneme? Further evidence for language-specific listening. Journal of Memory and Language, 33, 824–844.Google Scholar

Dąbrowska, E. (2004). Language, Mind and Brain. Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press.Google Scholar

Dörnyei, Z., & Scott, M. L. (1997). Communication strategies in a second language: Definitions and taxonomies. Language Learning, 47(1), 173–210.Google Scholar

Ericsson, K. A., & Smith, J. (eds.) (1991). Toward a general theory of expertise: Prospects and limits. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar

Faerch, G., & Kasper, G. (1983). Plans and strategies in foreign language communication. In Faerch, G. & Kasper, G. (eds.), Strategies in interlanguage communication. London: Longman.Google Scholar

Feltovich, P. J., Prietula, M. J., & Ericsson, K. A. (2006). Studies of expertise from psychological perspectives. In Ericsson, K. A., Charness, N., Feltovich, P. J., & Hoffman, R. R. (eds.), The Cambridge handbook of expertise and expert performance (pp. 41–67). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar

Field, J. (1998). Skills and strategies: Towards a new methodology for listening. ELT Journal, 54(2), 110–118.Google Scholar

Field, J. (2000). “Not waving but drowning”: A reply to Tony Ridgway. ELT Journal, 54(2), 186–195.Google Scholar

Field, J. (2001). Lexical segmentation in first and foreign language listening. Unpublished PhD dissertation, University of Cambridge.Google Scholar

Field, J. (2004). An insight into listeners problems: Too much bottom-up or too much top-down? System, 32, 363–377.Google Scholar

Field, J. (2008a). Listening in the language classroom. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar

Field, J. (2008b). Revising segmentation hypotheses in first and second language listening. System, 36, 35–51.Google Scholar

Field, J. (2008c). Bricks or mortar: Which parts of the input does a second language listener rely on? TESOL Quarterly, 42(3), 1–22.Google Scholar

Field, J. (2012). The cognitive validity of the lecture based question in the IELTS listening paper. In Taylor, L. & Weir, C. (eds.), IELTS collected papers 2: Research in reading and listening assessment (pp. 391–453). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar

Field, J. (2013). Cognitive validity. In Geranpayeh, A. & Taylor, L. (eds.), Examining listening (pp. 77–151). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar

Field, J. (2014). Myth: Pronunciation teaching needs to fix in the minds of learners a set of distinct consonant and vowel sounds. In Grant, L. (ed.), Pronunciation myths (pp. 80–106). Ann Arbor, MI: University of Michigan Press.Google Scholar

Field, J. (2015). The effects of single and double play upon listening test outcomes and cognitive processing. Report: British Council ARAGS Reports. Retrieved from http://www.britishcouncil.org/exam/aptis/research/publications.Google Scholar

Field, J. (2018). Rethinking the second language listening test: From theory to practice. Sheffield: Equinox.Google Scholar

Floccia, C., Butler, J., Goslin, J., & Ellis, L. (2009). Regional and foreign accent processing in English: Can listeners adapt? Journal of Psycholinguistic Research, 38(4), 379–412.Google Scholar

Floccia, C., Goslin, J., Girard, F., & Konopczynski, G. (2006). Does a regional accent perturb speech processing? Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 32(5), 1276–1293.Google Scholar

Fowler, C., & Magnuson, J. S. (2012). Speech perception. In Spivey, M., McRae, K., & Joanisse, M. (eds.) The Cambridge handbook of psycholinguistics (pp. 3–25). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar

Geranpayeh, A., & Taylor, L. (2008). Examining listening: Developments and issues in assessing second language listening. Cambridge ESOL Research Notes, 32, 2–5.Google Scholar

Gernsbacher, M.-A. (1990). Language comprehension as structure building. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.Google Scholar

Gilmore, A. (2004). A comparison of textbook and authentic interactions. ELT Journal, 58(4), 363–371.Google Scholar

Gilmore, A. (2011). “I Prefer Not Text”: Developing Japanese learners’ communicative competence with authentic materials. Language Learning, 61(3), 786–819.Google Scholar

Goh, C. (1998). How ESL learners with different listening abilities use comprehension strategies and tactics. Language Teaching Research, 2, 124–147.Google Scholar

Goh, C. (2000). A cognitive perspective on language learners’ listening comprehension problems. System, 28, 55–75.Google Scholar

Goh, C., & Taib, Y. (2006). Metacognitive instruction in listening for young learners. ELT Journal, 60(3), 222–232.Google Scholar

Goldinger, S. D. (1997). Words and voices: Perception and production in an episodic lexicon. In Johnson, K. & Mullennix, J. W. (eds.), Talker variability in speech processing (pp. 33–66). San Diego, CA: Academic Press.Google Scholar

Goldinger, S. D. (1998). Echoes of echoes? An episodic theory of lexical access. Psychological Review, 105, 251–279.Google Scholar

Gompel, R. P. G., & Pickering, M. (2007). Syntactic parsing. In Gaskell, G. (ed.), The Oxford handbook of psycholinguistics (pp. 289–398). Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar

Graham, S. (2006). Listening comprehension: The learner’s perspective. System, 34(2), 165–182.Google Scholar

Graham, S. (2011). Self efficacy and academic listening. Journal of English for Academic Purposes, 10(2), 113–117.Google Scholar

Green, K. P. (1998). The use of auditory and visual information during phonetic processing: Implications for theories of speech perception. In Campbell, R. & Dodd, B. (eds.) Hearing by eye II: Advances in the psychology of speechreading and audiovisual speech (pp. 3–25). Hove: Psychology Press.Google Scholar

Grellet, F. (1981). Developing reading skills. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar

Grosjean, F. (1985). The recognition of words after their acoustic offsets: Evidence and implications. Perception and Psychophysics, 38, 299–310.Google Scholar

Gruba, P. (2004). Understanding digitized second language videotext. Computer Assisted Language Learning, 17(1), 51–82.Google Scholar

Guichon, N., & McLornan, S. (2008). The effects of multimodality on L2 learners: Implications for CALL resource design. System, 36, 85–93.Google Scholar

Hansen, C., & Jensen, C. (1994). Evaluating lecture comprehension. In Flowerdew, J. (ed.) Academic listening: Research perspectives (pp. 241–268). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar

Harding, L. (2011). The use of speakers with L2 accents in academic English learning listening assessment: A validation study. Frankfurt am Main: Peter Lang.Google Scholar

Harding, L., Alderson, J. C., & Brunfaut, T. (2015). Diagnostic assessment of reading and listening in a second or foreign language: Elaborating on diagnostic principles. Language Testing, 32(3), 317–336.Google Scholar

Hawkins, S. (1999a). Auditory capacities and phonological development: Animal, baby and foreign listeners. In Pickett, J. M. (ed.) The acoustics of speech communication: Fundamentals, speech perception theory, and technology (pp. 183–197). Needham Heights, MA: Allyn and Bacon.Google Scholar

Hawkins, S. (1999b). Re-evaluating assumptions about speech perception: Interactive and integrative theories. In Pickett, J. M. (ed.) The acoustics of speech communication: Fundamentals, speech perception theory, and technology (pp. 232–288). Needham Heights, MA: Allyn and Bacon.Google Scholar

Henning, G. (1990). A study of the effects of variation of short term memory load, reading response length and processing hierarchy on TOEFL listening comprehension item performance. Princeton, NJ: ETS Report, 33.Google Scholar

Herron, C., & Seay, I. (1991). The effect of authentic oral texts on student listening comprehension in the foreign language classroom. Foreign Language Annals, 24(6), 487–495.Google Scholar

Herron, C., Cole, P., York, H., & Linden, P. (1998). A comparison study of student retention of foreign language video: Declarative versus interrogative advance organizer. The Modern Language Journal, 82(2), 237–247.Google Scholar

Horwitz, E. K. (2001). Language anxiety and achievement. Annual Review of Applied Linguistics, 21, 112–126.Google Scholar

Hulstijn, J. (2003). Connectionist models of language processing and the training of listening skills with the aid of multimedia software. Computer Assisted Language Learning, 16(5), 413–425.Google Scholar

Imai, S., Walley, A. C., & Flege, J. E. (2005) Lexical frequency and neighborhood density effects on the recognition of native and Spanish-accented words by native English and Spanish listeners. Journal of the Acoustical Society of America, 117, 896–906.Google Scholar

Jenkins, J. (2002). A sociolinguistically based, empirically researched pronunciation syllabus for English as an international language. Applied Linguistics, 23(1), 83–103.Google Scholar

Johnson, K. (2005). The “general” study of expertise. In Johnson, K. (ed.), Expertise in second language learning and teaching (pp. 11–33). Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan.Google Scholar

Johnson, K. (2008). Speaker normalisation in speech perception. In Pisoni, D. B. & Remez, R. E. (eds.), The handbook of speech perception (pp. 363–389), Oxford: Blackwell.Google Scholar

Kim, S. Y. (2000). Foreign language listening anxiety: A study of Korean students learning English. Unpublished PhD dissertation, University of Texas, Austin, TX.Google Scholar

Klatt, D. H. (1979). Speech perception: A model of acoustic-phonetic analysis and lexical access. Journal of Phonetics, 7, 279–312.Google Scholar

Laver, J. (1994). Principles of phonetics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar

Levelt, W. J. M. (1993). The architecture of normal spoken language use. In Blanken, G., Dittman, J., Grimm, H., Marshall, J., & Wallesch, C.-W. (eds.), Linguistic disorders and pathologies (pp. 1–15). Berlin: De Gruyter.Google Scholar

Lynch, T. (2006). Academic listening: Marrying top and bottom. In Martinez-Flor, A. & Uso-Juan, E. (eds.), Current trends in learning and teaching the four skills within a communicative framework (pp. 91–110). Amsterdam: Mouton.Google Scholar

Lynch, T. (2009). Teaching second language listening. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar

Macaro, E., Graham, S., & Vanderplank, R. (2007). A review of listening strategies: Focus on sources of knowledge and on success. In Cohen, A. D. & Macaro, E. (eds.), Language learner strategies (pp. 165–185). Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar

Major, R. C., Fitzmaurice, S. F., Bunta, F., & Balasubramian, C. (2002). The effects of nonnative accents on listening comprehension: Implications for ESL assessment. TESOL Quarterly, 36(2), 173–190.Google Scholar

Major, R. C., Fitzmaurice, S. F., Bunta, F., & Balasubramian, C. (2005). Testing the effects of regional, ethnic and international dialects of English on listening comprehension. Language Learning, 55(1), 37–69.Google Scholar

Mattys, S. L., & Melhorn, J.F. (2005). How do syllables contribute to the perception of spoken English? Insight from the migration paradigm. Language and Speech, 48, 223–253.Google Scholar

McCarthy, M., & Carter, R. (1997). Written and spoken vocabulary. In Schmitt, N. & McCarthy, M. (eds.), Vocabulary: Description, acquisition and pedagogy (pp. 20–39). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar

McGurk, H., & McDonald, J. (1976). Hearing lips and seeing voices. Nature, 264, 746–748.Google Scholar

McQueen, J. M. (1998). Segmentation of continuous speech using phonotactics. Journal of Memory and Language, 39, 21–46.Google Scholar

McQueen, J. M. (2007). Eight questions about spoken word recognition. In Gaskell, G. (ed.), The Oxford handbook of psycholinguistics (pp. 37–54). Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar

Mendelsohn, D. J. (1994). Learning to listen: A strategy-based approach for the second-language learner. San Diego, CA: Dominie Press.Google Scholar

Miller, J. L. (1990). Speech perception. In Oscherson, D. N. & Lasnik, H. (eds.), An invitation to cognitive science (Vol. 1, pp. 119–157). Hillsdale NJ: Erlbaum.Google Scholar

Milton, J. (2009). Measuring second language vocabulary acquisition. Bristol: Multilingual Matters.Google Scholar

Milton, J., & Hopkins, N. (2006). Comparing phonological and orthographic vocabulary size. Canadian Modern Language Review, 63(1), 127–147.Google Scholar

Morais, J., Cary, L., Alegria, J., & Bertelson, P. (1979). Does awareness of speech as a sequence of phones arise spontaneously? Cognition, 50, 323–331.Google Scholar

Morley, J. (2001). Aural comprehension instruction: Principles and practice. In Celce-Murcia, M. (ed.). Teaching English as a second or foreign language (3rd edn., pp. 81–106). Boston, MA: Heinle & Heinle.Google Scholar

Munby, J. (1978). Communicative syllabus design. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar

Munro, M. J., Derwing, T. M., & Morton, S. (2006). The mutual intelligibility of foreign accents. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 28, 111–131.Google Scholar

Nation, I. S. P. (2001). Learning vocabulary in another language. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar

Nuttall, C. (1996). Teaching reading skills in a foreign language. Oxford: Heinemann.Google Scholar

Nygaard, L. C. (2008). Linguistic and nonlinguistic properties of speech. In Pisoni, D. B. & Remez, R. E. (eds.), The handbook of speech perception (pp. 390–413), Oxford: Blackwell.Google Scholar

Nygaard, L. C., & Pisoni, D. B. (1995). Speech perception: New directions in research and theory. In Miller, J. L. & Eimas, P. D. (eds.), Speech, language and communication (pp. 63–96). San Diego, CA: Academic Press.Google Scholar

Ockey, G., & French, R. (2016). From one to multiple accents on a test of L2 listening comprehension. Applied Linguistics, 37(5), 693–715.Google Scholar

O’Malley, J. M., & Chamot, U. (1990). Learning strategies in second language acquisition. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar

Palmeri, T. J., Goldinger, S. D., & Pisoni, D. B. (1993). Episodic encoding of voice attributes and recognition memory for spoken words. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory and Cognition, 19, 309–328.Google Scholar

Pashler, H., & Johnston, J.C. (1998). Attentional limitations in dual task performance. In Pashler, H. (ed.), Attention (pp. 155–189). Hove: Psychology Press.Google Scholar

Pemberton, R. (2003). Spoken Word Recognition in a Second Language. Hong Kong: HK University of Science and Technology.Google Scholar

Pierrehumbert, J. (2001). Exemplar dynamics: Word frequency, lenition and contrast. In Bybee, J. & Hopper, P. (eds.), Frequency effects and emergent grammar (pp. 137–158). Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar

Piske, T. (2007). Implications of James E. Flege’s research for the foreign language classroom. In Munro, M. J. & Bohn, O.-S. (eds.), Second language speech learning: The role of language experience in speech perception and production (pp. 301–314). Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar

Pisoni, D. B. (1997). Some thoughts on “normalization” in speech perception. In Johnson, K. & Mullennix, J. W. (eds.), Talker variability in speech processing (pp. 33–66). San Diego, CA: Academic Press,Google Scholar

Pisoni, D. B., & Luce, P. A. (1987). Acoustic-phonetic representation in word recognition. In Frauenfelder, U. H. & Tyler, L. K. (eds.), Spoken word recognition (pp. 21–52). Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar

Richards, J. (1983). Listening comprehension: Approach, design, procedure. TESOL Quarterly, 17, 219–239.Google Scholar

Rivers, W. (1966). Listening comprehension. The Modern Language Journal, 50(4), 196–204.Google Scholar

Rost, M. (1992). Listening in language learning. Harlow: Longman.Google Scholar

Rost, M. (2002). Teaching and researching listening. Harlow: Pearson.Google Scholar

Rost, M., & Ross, S. (1991). Learner use of strategies in interaction: Typology and teachabilty. Language Learning, 41, 235–273.Google Scholar

Rubin, J. (1994). A review of second language listening comprehension research. The Modern Language Journal, 78(2), 199–211.Google Scholar

Ruhm, R., Leitner-Jones, C., Kulmhofer, A., Kiefer, T., Mlakar, H., & Itzlinger-Bruneforth, U. (2016). Playing the recording once or twice: Effects on listening test performances, International Journal of Listening, 30(1–2), 67–83.Google Scholar

Salisbury, K. (2005). The edge of expertise: Towards an understanding of listening test item writing as professional practice. Unpublished PhD dissertation, Kings College London.Google Scholar

Sebastián-Gallés, N. (2008). Cross language speech perception. In Pisoni, D. B. & Remez, R. E. (eds.), The handbook of speech perception (pp. 546–566). Oxford: Blackwell.Google Scholar

Segalowitz, N. (2010). Cognitive bases of second language fluency. New York: Routledge.Google Scholar

Segalowitz, N. (2016). Automaticity. In Robinson, P. (ed.), The Routledge encyclopaedia of second language acquisition (pp. 53–57). Abingdon: Routledge.Google Scholar

Sherman, J. (1997). The effect of question preview in listening comprehension tests. Language Testing, 14, 185–213.Google Scholar

Shockey, L. (2003). Sound patterns of spoken English. Oxford: Blackwell.Google Scholar

Staehr, L. S. (2009). Vocabulary knowledge and advanced listening comprehension in English as foreign language. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 31(4), 577–607.Google Scholar

Strange, W. (1999). Perception of vowels. In Pickett, J. M. (ed.), The acoustics of speech communication (pp. 153–165). Needham Heights, MA: Alleyn & Bacon.Google Scholar

Strange, W., & Shafer, V. L. (2008). Speech perception in second language learners: The re-education of selective perception. In Hansen Edwards, J. G. & Zampini, M. L. (eds.), Phonology and second language acquisition (pp. 153–191). Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar

Sueyoshi, A., & Hardison, D. M. (2005). The role of gesture and facial cues in second language listening comprehension. Language Learning, 55, 661–699.Google Scholar

Suvorov, R. (2009). Context visuals in L2 listening tests: The effects of photographs and video vs. audio-only format. In Chapelle, C. A., Jun, H. G., & Katz, I. (eds.), Developing and evaluating language learning materials. Ames, IA: Iowa State University.Google Scholar

Suvorov, R. (2015). Interacting with visuals in L2 listening tests: An eye-tracking study. Report: British Council ARAGS Reports, London. Retrieved from https://www.britishcouncil.org/sites/default/files/interacting_with_visuals_in_l2_listening_tests_suvorov.pdf.Google Scholar

Tanenhaus, M. K., & Trueswell, J. C. (1995). Sentence comprehension. In Miller, J. L. & Eimas, P. D. (eds.), Speech language and communication (pp. 217–262). San Diego, CA: Academic Press.Google Scholar

Taylor, L. (2006). The changing landscape of English: Implications for language assessment. ELT Journal, 60(1), 51–60.Google Scholar

Teichert, H. U. (1996). A comparative study using illustrations, brainstorming and questions as advance organizers. Modern Language Review, 80(4), 509–517.Google Scholar

Tsui, A., & Fullilove, J. (1998). Bottom-up or top-down processing as a discriminator of L2 listening performance. Applied Linguistics, 19, 432–451.Google Scholar

Ur, P. (1984). Teaching listening comprehension. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar

Van Zeeland, H., & Schmitt, N. (2013). Lexical coverage in L1 and L2 listening comprehension: The same or different from reading comprehension? Applied Linguistics, 34(4), 457–479.Google Scholar

Vandergrift, L. (2004). Listening to learn or learning to listen? Annual Review of Applied Linguistics, 24, 3–25.Google Scholar

Vandergrift, L. (2006). Second language listening: Listening ability or language proficiency? The Modern Language Journal, 90, 6–18.Google Scholar

Vandergrift, L., & Goh, C. C. M. (2012). Teaching and learning second language listening. New York: Routledge.Google Scholar

Vandergrift, L., Goh, C., Mareschal, C., & Tafaghodtari, M. H. (2006). The metacognitive awareness listening questionnaire: Development and validation. The Modern Language Journal, 90, 6–18.Google Scholar

Vandergrift, L., & Tafaghodtari, M. H. (2010). Teaching learners how to listen does make a difference. Language Learning, 65, 470–497.Google Scholar

Vogely, A. (1995). Perceived strategy use during performance on three authentic listening comprehension tasks. The Modern Language Journal, 79(1), 41–56.Google Scholar

Vogely, A. (1999). Addressing listening comprehension anxiety. In Young, D. J. (ed.), Affect in foreign language and second language learning (pp. 106–123). New York: McGraw-Hill.Google Scholar

Wagner, E., & Toth, P. A. (2014). Teaching and testing L2 Spanish listening using scripted vs unscripted texts. Foreign Language Annals, 47(3), 404–422.Google Scholar

Wesche, M. B., & Paribakht, T. S. (2010). Lexical inferencing in a first and second language. Bristol: Multilingual Matters.Google Scholar

Wray, A. (2002). Formulaic language and the lexicon. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar

Wu, W. M., & Stansfield, C. W. (2001). Towards authenticity of task in test development. Language Testing, 18(2), 187–206.Google Scholar

Zhang, X. (2013). Foreign language listening anxiety and listening performance: Conceptualizations and causal relationships. System, 41(1), 164–177.Google Scholar

References

Ahmadian, M., & Pashangzadeh, A. (2013). A study of the effect of using narratives on Iranian EFL learners’ reading comprehension ability. International Journal of Applied Linguistics & English Literature, 2(3), 153–162.Google Scholar

Alderson, J. C., & Urquhart, A. H. (eds.) (1984). Reading in a foreign language. London: Longman.Google Scholar

Alessi, S., & Dwyer, A. (2008). Vocabulary assistance before and during reading. Reading in a Foreign Language, 20(2), 246–263.Google Scholar

Alptekin, C., & Erçetin, G. (2010). The role of L1 and L2 working memory in literal and inferential comprehension in L2 reading. Journal of Research in Reading, 33(2), 206–219.Google Scholar

Arnold, N. (2009). Online extensive reading for advanced foreign language learners: An evaluation study. Foreign Language Annals, 42(2), 340–366.Google Scholar

Beglar, D., & Hunt, A. (2014). Pleasure reading and reading rate gains. Reading in a Foreign Language, 26(1), 29–48.Google Scholar

Beglar, D., Hunt, A., & Kite, Y. (2012). The effect of pleasure reading on Japanese university EFL learners’ reading rates. Language Learning, 62(3), 665–703.Google Scholar

Bell, J. (2008a). Reading interpretations: Indian and Bangladeshi postgraduate students’ use of extratextual framing and metacognition. The Reading Matrix, 8(1), 43–63.Google Scholar

Bell, J. (2008b). Reading between texts: Thai postgraduate students’ intertextual framing and metacognition use in reading. The Reading Matrix, 8(2), 39–54.Google Scholar

Bell, J. (2011). Reading matters: Framing and metacognition with Thai postgraduate students. The Reading Matrix, 11(2), 102–115.Google Scholar

Bernhardt, E. B. (1991). Reading development in a second language: Theoretical, research, and classroom perspectives. Norwood, NJ: Ablex.Google Scholar

Bernhardt, E. B. (2000). Second language reading as a case study of reading scholarship in the twentieth century. In Kamil, M., Mosenthal, P., Pearson, D., & Barr, R. (eds.), Handbook of reading research (Vol. 3, pp. 793–811). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.Google Scholar

Bernhardt, E. B. (2005). Progress and procrastination in second language reading. In McGroarty, M. E. (ed.), Annual review of applied linguistics (Vol. 25.1, pp. 133–150). West Nyack, NY: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar

Bernhardt, E. B. (2011). Understanding advanced second-language reading. London: Routledge.Google Scholar

Bernhardt, E. B., & Kamil, M. L. (1995). Interpreting relationships between L1 and L2 reading: Consolidating the linguistic threshold and the linguistic interdependence hypotheses. Applied Linguistics, 16(1), 15–34.Google Scholar

Bordonaro, K. (2011). Recreational reading of international students in academic libraries. The Reading Matrix, 11(3), 269–278.Google Scholar

Brantmeier, C., Callender, A., & McDaniel, M. (2011). The effects of embedded and elaborative interrogation questions on L2 reading comprehension. Reading in a Foreign Language, 23(2), 187–207.Google Scholar

Brantmeier, C., Callender, A., & McDaniel, M. (2013). The role of gender, embedded questions, and domain specific readings with learners of Spanish. Hispania, 96(3), 562–578.Google Scholar

Brantmeier, C., Callender, A., Yu, X., & McDaniel, M. (2012). Textual enhancements and comprehension with adult readers of English in China. Reading in a Foreign Language, 24(2), 158–185.Google Scholar

Brantmeier, C., Hammadou Sullivan, J., & Strube, M. (2014). Toward independent L2 readers: Effects of text adjuncts, subject knowledge, L1 reading, and L2 proficiency. Reading in a Foreign Language, 26(2), 34–53.Google Scholar

Brantmeier, C., Strube, M., & Yu, X. (2014). Scoring recalls for L2 readers of English in China: Pausal or idea units. Reading in a Foreign Language, 26(1), 114–130.Google Scholar

Charubusp, S., & Chinwonno, A. (2014). Developing academic and content area literacy: The Thai EFL context. The Reading Matrix, 14(2), 119–134.Google Scholar

Cheng, A. (2008). Analyzing genre exemplars in preparation for writing: The case of an L2 graduate student in the ESP genre-based instructional framework of academic literacy. Applied Linguistics, 29(1), 50–71.Google Scholar

Clifford, R., & Cox, T. L. (2013). Empirical validation of reading proficiency guidelines. Foreign Language Annals, 46(1), 45–61.Google Scholar

Collentine, K. (2016). The effect of reading on second language learners’ production in tasks. Hispania, 99(1), 51–65.Google Scholar

Daskalovska, N. (2014). Incidental vocabulary acquisition from reading an authentic text. The Reading Matrix, 14(2), 201–216.Google Scholar

de Saint Léger, D. (2012). Structure strategy instruction in adult L2 reading: A way toward increased autonomy? The French Review, 86(2), 333–356.Google Scholar

Elgort, I., & Warren, P. (2014). L2 vocabulary learning from reading: Explicit and tacit lexical knowledge and the role of learner and item variables. Language Learning, 64(2), 365–414.Google Scholar

Ender, A. (2016). Implicit and explicit cognitive processes in incidental vocabulary acquisition. Applied Linguistics, 37(4), 536–560.Google Scholar

Erten, I. H., & Razi, S. (2009). The effects of cultural familiarity on reading comprehension. Reading in a Foreign Language, 21(1), 60–77.Google Scholar

Fernandez de Morgado, N. (2009). Extensive reading: Students’ performance and perception. The Reading Matrix, 9(1), 31–43.Google Scholar

Fredriks, L. (2012). The benefits and challenges of culturally responsive EFL critical literature circles. Journal of Adolescent & Adult Literacy, 55(6), 494–504.Google Scholar

Garrett-Rucks, P., Howles, L., & Lake, W. M. (2015). Enhancing L2 reading comprehension with hypermedia texts: Student perceptions. CALICO Journal, 32(1), 26–51.Google Scholar

Ghiabi, S. (2014). Investigation of the effect of using a novel as an extensive reading on students’ attitudes and reading ability. International Journal of Applied Linguistics & English Literature, 3(4), 55–64.Google Scholar

Guthrie, J. T., & Greaney, V. (1991). Literacy acts. In Barr, R., Kamil, M. L., Mosenthal, P. B., & Pearson, P. D. (eds.), Handbook of reading research (Vol. 2, pp. 68–96). New York: Longman.Google Scholar

Horiba, Y. (2013). Task-induced strategic processing in L2 text comprehension. Reading in a Foreign Language, 25(2), 98–125.Google Scholar

Interagency Language Roundtable. (n.d.). Interagency Language Roundtable Language Skill Level Descriptions—Reading. Retrieved from http://www.govtilr.org/Skills/ILRscale4.htm.Google Scholar

Karimi, M. N. (2015). EFL learners’ multiple documents literacy: Effects of a strategy-directed intervention program. The Modern Language Journal, 99(1), 40–56.Google Scholar

Kasemsap, B., & Lee, H. Y.-H. (2015). L2 reading in Thailand: Vocational college students’ application of reading strategies to their reading of English texts. The Reading Matrix, 15(2), 101–117.Google Scholar

Kitajima, R. (2016). Does the advanced proficiency evaluated in oral-like written text support syntactic parsing in a written academic text among L2 Japanese learners? Foreign Language Annals, 49(3), 575–595.Google Scholar

Lee, S.-K. (2009). Topic congruence and topic interest: How do they affect second language reading comprehension? Reading in a Foreign Language, 21(2), 159–178.Google Scholar

Littlemore, J., Trautman Chen, P., Koester, A., & Barnden, J. (2011). Difficulties in metaphor comprehension faced by international students whose first language is not English. Applied Linguistics, 32(4), 408–429.Google Scholar

Lück, K. (2008). Web-based foreign language reading: Affective and productive outcomes. CALICO Journal, 25(2), 305–325.Google Scholar

Meades, J. (2016). Favourite without portfolio. [Review of the books Hitler at Home, by D. Stratigakos, and Speer: Hitler’s Architect, by M. Kitchen]. The London Review of Books. Retrieved from https://www.lrb.co.uk/v38/n03/jonathan-meades/favourite-without-portfolio.Google Scholar

Mikulec, E. (2015). Reading in two languages: A comparative miscue analysis. The Reading Matrix, 15(1), 143–157.Google Scholar

Min, H.-T. (2008). EFL vocabulary acquisition and retention: Reading plus vocabulary enhancement activities and narrow reading. Language Learning, 58(1), 73–115.Google Scholar

Mozafari, A., & Barjesteh, H. (2016). Enhancing literary competence through critically oriented reading strategies. International Journal of Applied Linguistics & English Literature, 5(7), 168–177.Google Scholar

National Governors Association for Best Practices & Council of Chief State School Officers. (2010). Supplemental information for Appendix A of the common core state standards for English language arts and literacy: New research on text complexity. Retrieved from http://www.corestandards.org/assets/E0813_Appendix_A_New_Research_on_Text_Complexity.pdf.Google Scholar

Nelson, J., Perfetti, C., Liben, D., & Liben, M. (2012). Measures of text difficulty: Testing their predictive value for grade levels and student performance. Washington, DC: Council of Chief State School Officers.Google Scholar

Papadima-Sophocleous, S. (2015). Integrating computer assisted language learning into out-of-class extended learning: The impact of iPod Touch-supported repeated reading on the oral reading fluency of English for specific academic purposes students. The Reading Matrix, 15(1), 188–205.Google Scholar

Pearson, P. D., Barr, R., Kamil, M., & Mosenthal, P. (eds.) (1984). Handbook of reading research (Vol. 1). New York: Longman.Google Scholar

Pellicer-Sánchez, A. (2016). Incidental L2 vocabulary acquisition from and while reading: An eye-tracking study. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 38, 97–130.Google Scholar

Pellicer-Sánchez, A., & Schmitt, N. (2010). Incidental vocabulary acquisition from an authentic novel: Do “things fall apart”? Reading in a Foreign Language, 22(1), 31–55.Google Scholar

Pereyra, N. (2015). Extensive reading in enhancing lexical chunks acquisition. The Reading Matrix, 15(2), 218–234.Google Scholar

Peters, E., Hulstijn, J. H., Sercu, L., & Lutjeharms, M. (2009). Learning L2 German vocabulary through reading: The effect of three enhancement techniques compared. Language Learning, 59(1), 113–151.Google Scholar

Prichard, C. (2008). Evaluating L2 readers’ vocabulary strategies and dictionary use. Reading in a Foreign Language, 20(2), 216–231.Google Scholar

Rai, M. K., Loschky, L. C., Harris, R. J., Peck, N. R., & Cook, L. G. (2011). Effects of stress and working memory capacity on foreign language readers’ inferential processing during comprehension. Language Learning, 61(1), 187–218.Google Scholar

Reynolds, B. L. (2014). A mixed-methods approach to investigating first- and second-language incidental vocabulary acquisition through the reading of fiction. Reading Research Quarterly, 50(1), 111–127.Google Scholar

Riess Karnal, A., & Vanmacher Pereira, V. (2015). Reading strategies in a L2: A study on machine translation. The Reading Matrix, 15(2), 69–79.Google Scholar

Rott, S., & Gavin, B. (2015). Comprehending and learning from Internet sources: A conceptual replication study of Goldman, Braasch, Wiley, Greasser, and Brodowinska (2012). CALICO Journal, 32(2), 323–354.Google Scholar

Schmitt, N., Jiang, X., & Grabe, W. (2011). The percentage of words known in a text and reading comprehension. The Modern Language Journal, 95(i), 26–43.Google Scholar

Shardakova, M. (2016). American learners’ comprehension of Russian textual humor. The Modern Language Journal, 100(2), 466–483.Google Scholar

Tabata-Sandom, M. (2013). The reader–text–writer interaction: L2 Japanese learners’ response toward graded readers. Reading in a Foreign Language, 25(2), 264–282.Google Scholar

Thoms, J. J. (2014). An ecological view of whole-class discussions in a second language literature classroom: Teacher reformulations as affordances for learning. The Modern Language Journal, 98(3), 724–741.Google Scholar

Uden, J., Schmitt, D., & Schmitt, N. (2014). Jumping from the highest graded readers to ungraded novels: Four case studies. Reading in a Foreign Language, 26(1), 1–28.Google Scholar

Urlaub, P. (2011). Developing literary reading skills through creative writing in German as a second language. Die Unterrichtspraxis, 44(2), 98–105.Google Scholar

Urlaub, P. (2013). Questioning the text: Advancing literary reading in the second language through web-based strategy training. Foreign Language Annals, 46(3), 508–521.Google Scholar

Uysal, H. H. (2012). Cross-cultural pragmatics of reading: The case of American and Turkish students reacting to a Turkish text. The Reading Matrix, 12(1), 12–29.Google Scholar

Wood, P. (2011). Computer assisted reading in German as a foreign language, developing and testing an NLP-based application. CALICO Journal, 28(3), 662–676.Google Scholar

Wurr, A. J., Theurer, J. L., & Kim, K. J. (2008/2009). Retrospective miscue analysis with proficient adult ESL readers. Journal of Adolescent & Adult Literacy, 52(4), 324–333.Google Scholar

Yilmaz, A. (2015). Short stories via computers in EFL classrooms: An empirical study for reading and writing skills. The Reading Matrix, 15(1), 41–53.Google Scholar

Zhao, R., & Hirvela, A. (2015). Undergraduate ESL students’ engagement in academic reading and writing in learning to write a synthesis paper. Reading in a Foreign Language, 27(2), 219–241.Google Scholar

Zyzik, E., & Polio, C. (2008). Incidental focus on form in university Spanish literature courses. The Modern Language Journal, 92 (1), 53–70.Google Scholar

References

Adams, R. (2006). L2 tasks and orientation to form: A role for modality? ITL: International Journal of Applied Linguistics, 152, 7–34.Google Scholar

Adams, R., & Ross-Feldman, L. (2008). Does writing influence learner attention to form? In Belcher, D. & Hirvela, A. (eds.), The oral–literate connection (pp. 243–266). Ann Arbor, MI: University of Michigan Press.Google Scholar

Amelohina, V., Manchón, R. M., & Nicolás-Conesa, F. (2017). The language learning potential of different types of written corrective feedback in an EFL setting: A longitudinal study in an out-of-school context. Paper presented at the EUROSLA Conference, University of Reading, UK, August.Google Scholar

Azkarai, A., & García Mayo, M. P. (2015). Task-modality and L1 use in EFL oral interaction. Language Teaching Research, 19(5), 550–571.Google Scholar

Bitchener, J. (2008). Evidence in support of written corrective feedback. Journal of Second Language Writing, 17(2), 102–118.Google Scholar

Bitchener, J. (2012). A reflection on “the language learning potential” of written CF. Journal of Second Language Writing, 22, 348–363.Google Scholar

Bitchener, J. (2016a). To what extent has the published written CF research aided our understanding of its potential for L2 development? ITL: International Journal of Applied Linguistics, 167(2), 111–131.Google Scholar

Bitchener, J. (2016b). Why written corrective feedback can contribute to L2 development: A theoretical model. Paper presented at ALAA Conference, Melbourne, Australia.Google Scholar

Bitchener, J., & Knoch, U. (2008). The value of written corrective feedback for migrant and international students. Language Teaching Research, 12(3), 409–431.Google Scholar

Bitchener, J., & Knoch, U. (2010). The contribution of written corrective feedback to language development: A ten-month investigation. Applied Linguistics, 31(2), 193–214.Google Scholar

Bitchener, J., & Storch, N. (2016). Written corrective feedback for L2 development. Bristol: Multilingual Matters.Google Scholar

Bygate, M. (2006). Areas of research that influence L2 speaking instruction. In Usó-Juan, E. & Martínez-Flor, A. (eds.), Current trends in the development and teaching of the four language skills (pp. 159–186). Berlin: Mouton De Gruyter.Google Scholar

Bygate, M. (2018). Language learning through task repetition. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar

Bygate, M., & Samuda, V. (2005). Integrative planning through the use of task-repetition. In Ellis, R. (ed.), Planning and task performance in a second language (pp. 37–74). Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar

Byrnes, H., & Manchón, R. M. (eds.) (2014a). Task-based language learning—Insights from and for L2 writing. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar

Byrnes, H., & Manchón, R. M. (2014b). Task-based language learning: Insights from and for L2 writing. An Introduction. In Byrnes, H. & Manchón, R. M. (eds.), Task-based language learning—Insights from and for L2 writing (pp. 1–27). Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar

Cumming, A. (1989). Writing expertise and second-language proficiency. Language Learning, 39(1), 81–135.Google Scholar

Cumming, A. (1990). Metalinguistic and ideational thinking in second language composing. Written Communication, 7(4), 482–511.Google Scholar

Ellis, R. (2009). The differential effects of three types of task planning on the fluency, complexity, and accuracyin L2 oral production. Applied Linguistics, 30, 474–509.Google Scholar

Ellis, R. (2012). Language teaching research & language pedagogy. Oxford: Wiley-Blackwell.Google Scholar

Ellis, R., & Yuan, F. (2005). The effects of careful within-task planning on oral and written task performance. In Ellis, R. (ed.), Planning and task performance in a second language (pp. 167–193). Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar

Ferris, D. (1999). The case for grammar correction in L2 writing classes: A response to Truscott (1996). Journal of Second Language Writing, 8, 1–10.Google Scholar

Ferris, D. (2004). The “grammar correction” debate in L2 writing: Where are we, and where do we go from here? (And what do we do in the meantime … ?). Journal of Second Language Writing, 13, 49–62.Google Scholar

Frear, M. W., & Bitchener, J. (2015). The effects of cognitive task complexity on writing complexity. Journal of Second Language Writing, 30, 45–57.Google Scholar

García Mayo, M. P., & Azkarai, A. (2016). EFL task-based interaction: Does task modality impact on language-related episodes? In Sato, M. & Ballinger, S. (eds.), Peer interaction and second language learning. Pedagogical potential and research agenda (pp. 241–266). Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar

Gass, S. (1997). Input, interaction, and the second language learner. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.Google Scholar

Genc, Z. S. (2012). Effects of strategic planning on the accuracyof oral and written tasks in the performance of Turkish EFL learners. In Shehadeh, A. & Coombe, C. A. (eds.), Task-based language teaching in foreign language contexts. Research and implementation (pp. 67–88). Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar

Gilabert, R., Manchón, R., & Vasylets, O. (2016). Mode in theoretical and empirical TBLT research: Advancing research agendas. Annual Review of Applied Linguistics, 36, 117–135.Google Scholar

Hirvela, A., & Belcher, D. (2016). Reading/writing and speaking/writing connections: The advantages of multimodal pedagogy. In Manchón, R. M. & Matsuda, P. (eds.), The handbook of second and foreign language writing (pp. 587–612). Boston, MA/Berlin: De Gruyer Mouton.Google Scholar

Hyland, K., & Shaw, P. (eds.) (2016). Handbook of English for academic purposes. London: Routledge.Google Scholar

Ishikawa, T. (2007). The effects of increasing task complexity along the +/– here-and-now dimension. In García Mayo, M. P. (ed.), Investigating tasks in formal language learning (pp. 136–156). Bristol: Multilingual Matters.Google Scholar

Jackson, D., & Suethanapornkul, S. (2013). The Cognition Hypothesis: A synthesis and meta-analysis of research on second language task complexity. Language Learning, 63, 330–367.Google Scholar

Johnson, M. D. (2017). Cognitive task complexity and L2 written syntactic complexity, accuracy, lexical complexity, and fluency: A research synthesis and meta-analysis. Journal of Second Language Writing, 37, 13–38.Google Scholar

Kang, E., & Han, Z. (2015). The efficacy of written corrective feedback in improving L2 written accuracy. The Modern Language Journal, 99(1), 1–18.Google Scholar

Kormos, J. (2011). Task complexity and linguistic and discourse features of narrative writing performance. Journal of Second Language Writing, 20(2), 148–161.Google Scholar

Kormos, J. (2014). Differences across modalities of performance: An investigation of linguistic and discourse complexity in narrative tasks. In Byrnes, H. & Manchón, R. (eds.), Task-based language learning—Insights from and for L2 writing (pp. 193–217). Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar

Kormos, J., & Trebits, A. (2012). The role of task complexity, modality, and aptitude in narrative task performance. Language Learning, 62, 439–472.Google Scholar

Kuiken, F., Mos, M., & Vedder, I. (2005). Cognitive task complexity and second language writing performance. EUROSLA Yearbook, 5(1), 195–222.Google Scholar

Kuiken, F., & Vedder, I. (2011). Task performance in L2 writing and speaking: The effect of mode. In Robinson, P. (ed.), Second language task complexity: Researching the Cognition Hypothesis of language learning and performance (pp. 91–104). Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar

Lavolette, E., Polio, C., & Kahng, J. (2015). The accuracyof computer-assisted feedback and students’ responses to it. Language Learning & Technology, 19(2), 50–68.Google Scholar

Leow, R. P. (2015). Explicit learning in the L2 classroom: A student-centered approach. New York: Routledge.Google Scholar

Li, S. (2017). The efficacy of written corrective feedback on second language development: The impact of feedback type, revision type, learning motivation and strategies. Unpublished PhD dissertation, AUT University, Auckland, New Zealand.Google Scholar

Manchón, R. M. (2011a). Writing to learn the language: Issues in theory and research. In Manchón, R. M. (ed.), Learning-to-write and writing-to-learn in an additional language (pp. 51–82). Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar

Manchón, R. M. (2011b). The language learning potential of writing in foreign language contexts: Lessons from research. In Cimasko, T. & Reichelt, M. (eds.), Foreign language writing instruction: Principles and practices (pp. 44–64). Anderson, SC: Parlor Press.Google Scholar

Manchón, R. M. (2013). Teaching writing. In Chapelle, C. (ed.), The encyclopedia of applied linguistics. Oxford: Blackwell Publishing.Google Scholar

Manchón, R. M. (2014a). The internal dimension of tasks: The interaction between task factors and learner factors in bringing about learning through writing. In Byrnes, H. & Manchón, R. M. (eds.), Task-based language learning—Insights from and for L2 writing (pp. 27–52). Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar

Manchón, R. M. (2014b). The distinctive nature of task repetition in writing: Implications for theory, research, and pedagogy. ELIA, 14, 13–41.Google Scholar

Manchón, R. M. (2017). Looking into attentional processes while writing: Research focus and research instruments. Paper presented at the EUROSLA Conference, University of Reading, UK, August.Google Scholar

Manchón, R. M., & Matsuda, P. (eds.) (2016). The handbook of second and foreign language writing. Boston, MA/Berlin: de Gruyter Mouton.Google Scholar

Manchón, R. M. & Roca de Larios, J. (2007). Writing-to-learn in instructed language learning contexts. In Soler, E. A. & Jordá, M. P. S. (eds.), Intercultural language use and language learning (pp. 101–121). Berlin: Springer.Google Scholar

Manchón, R. M., Roca de Larios, J., & Murphy, L. (2009). The temporal dimension and problem-solving nature of foreign language composing. Implications for theory. In Manchón, R. M. (ed.), Writing in foreign language contexts: Learning, teaching, and research (pp. 102–129). Bristol: Multilingual Matters.Google Scholar

Manchón, R. M., & Williams, J. (2016). L2 writing and SLA studies. In Manchón, R. M. & Matsuda, P. K. (eds.), The handbook of second and foreign language writing (pp. 567–586). Boston, MA/Berlin: de Gruyter Mouton.Google Scholar

Nitta, R., & Baba, K. (2014). Task repetition and L2 writing development: A longitudinal study from a dynamic systems perspective. In Byrnes, H. & Manchón, R. M. (eds.), Task-based language learning: Insights to and from writing (pp. 107–136). Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar

Niu, R. (2009). Effect of task-inherent production modes on EFL learners’ focus on form. Language Awareness, 18, 384–402.Google Scholar

Ong, J. & Zhang, L. (2010). Effects of task complexity on the fluency and lexical complexity in EFL students’ argumentative writing. Journal of Second Language Writing, 19(4), 218–233.Google Scholar

Ortega, L. (2012). Epilogue: Exploring L2 writing–SLA interfaces. Journal of Second Language Writing, 21, 404–415.Google Scholar

Polio, C. (2012). The relevance of second language acquisition theory to the written error correction debate. Journal of Second Language Writing, 21, 375–389.Google Scholar

Robinson, P. (2001). Task complexity, task difficulty, and task production: Exploring interactions in a componential framework. Applied Linguistics, 22, 27–57.Google Scholar

Robinson, P. (2011). Second language task complexity, the Cognition Hypothesis, language learning, and performance. In Robinson, P. (ed.), Second language task complexity. Researching the Cognition Hypothesis of language learning and performance (pp. 3–37). Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar

Roca de Larios, J., Murphy, L., Manchón, R. M., & Marín, J. (2008). The foreign language writer’s strategic behaviour in the allocation of time to writing processes. Journal of Second Language Writing, 17(1), 30–47.Google Scholar

Ross-Feldman, L. (2007). Interaction in the L2 classroom: Does gender influence learning opportunities? In Mackey, A. (ed.), Conversational interaction in second language acquisition: A collection of empirical studies (pp. 52–77). Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar

Ruiz-Funes, M. (2015). Exploring the potential of second/foreign language writing for language learning: The effects of task factors and learner variables. Journal of Second Language Writing, 28, 1–19.Google Scholar

Rummel, S. (2014). Student and teacher beliefs about written CF and the effect these bliefs have on uptake: A multiple case study of Laos and Kuwait. Unpublished PhD dissertation, AUT University, Auckland, New Zealand.Google Scholar

Sánchez, A., Manchón, R. M., & Gilabert, R. (2017). Task repetition effects across modalities. Paper presented at the TBLT Conference, University of Barcelona, Spain, March.Google Scholar

Schmidt, R. (2001). Attention. In Robinson, P. (ed.), Cognition and second language instruction (pp. 3–32). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar

Sheen, Y. (2007). The effect of focused written corrective feedback and language aptitude on ESL learners’ acquisition of articles. TESOL Quarterly, 41(2), 255–283.Google Scholar

Sheen, Y. (2010). The role of oral and written corrective feedback in SLA. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 32(2),169–179.Google Scholar

Shintani, N., & Aubrey, S. (2016). The effectiveness of synchronous and asynchronous written corrective feedback on grammatical accuracyin a computer-mediated environment. The Modern Language Journal, 100(1), 296–319.Google Scholar

Shintani, N., & Ellis, R. (2013). The comparative effect of direct written corrective feedback and metalinguistic explanation on learners’ explicit and implicit knowledge of the English indefinite article. Journal of Second Language Writing, 22, 286–306.Google Scholar

Shintani, N., Ellis, R., & Suzuki, W. (2014). Effects of written feedback and revision on learners’ accuracyin using two English grammatical structures. Language Learning, 64(1), 103–131.Google Scholar

Skehan, P. (1996). A framework for the implementation of task-based instruction. Applied Linguistics, 17(1), 38–62.Google Scholar

Skehan, P. (2009). Modelling second language performance: Integrating complexity, accuracy, fluency, and lexis. Applied Linguistics, 30, 510–532.Google Scholar

Skehan, P. (ed.) (2014). Processing perspectives on task performance. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar

Skehan, P., & Foster, P. (1999). The influence of task structure and processing conditions on narrative retellings. Language Learning, 49(1), 93–120.Google Scholar

Stefanou, C., & Révész, A. (2015). Direct written corrective feedback, learner differences, and the acquisition of second language article use for generic and specific plural reference. The Modern Language Journal, 99(2), 263–282.Google Scholar

Swain, M. (1995). Three functions of output in second language learning. In Cook, G. & Seidhofer, B. (eds.), For H. G. Widdowson: Principles and practice in the study of language. A Festschrift on the occasion of his 60th birthday (pp. 125–144). Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar

Swain, M. (2005). The Output Hypothesis: Theory and research. In Hinkel, E. (ed.), Handbook of research in second language teaching and learning (pp. 471–483). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.Google Scholar

Tavakoli, P. (2014). Storyline complexity and syntactic complexity in writing and speaking tasks. In Byrnes, H. & Manchón, R. M. (eds.), Task-based language learning—Insights from and for L2 writing (pp. 217–236). Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar

Truscott, J. (1996). The case against grammar correction in L2 writing classes. Language Learning, 46(2), 327–369.Google Scholar

Truscott, J. (1999). The case for “The case against grammar correction in L2 writing classes”: A response to Ferris. Journal of Second Language Writing, 8(2), 111–122.Google Scholar

Truscott, J. (2007). The effect of error correction on learners’ ability to write accurately. Journal of Second Language Writing, 16, 255–272.Google Scholar

Van Beuningen, C. G., De Jong, N. H., & Kuiken, F. (2008). The effect of direct and indirect corrective feedback on L2 learners’ written accuracy. ITL: International Journal of Applied Linguistics, 156, 279–296.Google Scholar

Van Beuningen, C. G., De Jong, N. H., & Kuiken, F. (2012). Evidence on the effectiveness of comprehensive error correction in second language writing. Language Learning, 62(1), 1–41.Google Scholar

Vasylets, O., Gilabert, R., & Manchón, R. M. (2017). The effects of mode and task complexity on second language production. Language Learning, 67(2), 394–430.Google Scholar

Williams, J. (2012). The potential role(s) of writing in second language development. Journal of Second Language Writing, 21, 321–331.Google Scholar

Yu, G. (2009). Lexical diversity in writing and speaking task performances. Applied Linguistics, 31, 236–259.Google Scholar

Zalbidea, J. (2017). “One task fits all”? The roles of task complexity, modality, and working memory capacity in L2 performance. The Modern Language Journal, 101(2), 335–352.Google Scholar

Book contents

Part III - Skill Development

Summary

Access options

References

References

References

References

References

References

Save book to Kindle

Save book to Dropbox

Save book to Google Drive