Doughty, C. J. and Long, M. H. (2003). Optimal psycholinguistic environments for distance foreign language learning. Language Learning & Technology, 7(3), 50–80.Google Scholar

Granena, G. (2016). Individual versus interactive task-based performance through voice-based computer-mediated communication. Language Learning & Technology, 20(3), 40–59.Google Scholar

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

Long, M. H., Lee, J., and Hillman, K. K. (2019). Task-based language learning. In. Schwieter, J. W. and Benati, A., eds. The Cambridge handbook of language learning. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, pp. 500–26.Google Scholar

Robinson, P., Mackey, A., Gass, S. M., and Schmidt, R. W. (2012). Attention and awareness in second language acquisition. In Gass, S. M. and Mackey, A., eds. The Routledge handbook of second language acquisition. Abingdon: Routledge, pp. 247–67.Google Scholar

Yilmaz, Y. (2013). The relative effectiveness of mixed, explicit and implicit feedback. System, 41, 691–705.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Arroyo, D. and Yilmaz, Y. (2018). An open for replication study: The role of feedback timing in synchronous computer-mediated communication. Language Learning, 68(1), 942–72.Google Scholar

Braidi, S. M. (2002). Reexamining the role of recasts in native-speaker/nonnative-speaker interactions. Language Learning, 52(1), 194–211.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Carroll, S. (2001). Input and evidence: The raw material of second language acquisition Philadelphia: John Benjamins.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Cronbach, L. J. and Snow, R. E. (1977). Aptitudes and instructional methods: A handbook for research on interactions. New York: Irvington.Google Scholar

DeKeyser, R. M. (2000). The robustness of critical period effects in second language acquisition. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 22(4), 499–533.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

DeKeyser, R. M. and Larson-Hall, J. (2005). What does the critical period really mean? In Kroll, J. F. and de Groot, A. M. B., eds. Handbook of bilingualism: Psycholinguistic approaches. Oxford: Oxford University Press, pp. 89–108.Google Scholar

De la Fuente, M. J. (2006). Classroom L2 vocabulary acquisition: Investigating the role of pedagogical tasks and form-focused instruction. Language Teaching Research, 10(3), 263–95.Google Scholar

Doughty, C. J. (2001). Cognitive underpinnings of focus on form. In Robinson, P., ed. Cognition and second language instruction. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, pp. 206–57.Google Scholar

Doughty, C. J. (2003). Instructed SLA: Constraints, compensation, and enhancement. In Doughty, C. J. and Long, M. H., eds. Handbook of second language acquisition. New York: Basil Blackwell, pp. 256–310.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

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

Ellis, R., Loewen, S., and Erlam, R. (2006). Implicit and explicit corrective feedback and the acquisition of L2 grammar. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 28(2), 339–68.Google Scholar

Goldschneider, J. M. and DeKeyser, R. (2001). Explaining the ‘natural order of L2 morpheme acquisition’ in English: A meta-analysis of multiple determinants. Language Learning, 51, 1–50.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Goo, J. (2012). Corrective feedback and working memory capacity in interaction-driven L2 learning. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 34(3), 445–74.Google Scholar

Goo, J., Granena, G., Yilmaz, Y., and Novella, M. (2015). Implicit and explicit instruction in L2 learning: Norris & Ortega (2000) revisited and updated. In Rebuschat, P., ed. Implicit and explicit learning of languages. Amsterdam: John Benjamins, pp. 443–83.Google Scholar

Goo, J., and Mackey, A. (2013). The case against the case against recasts. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 35(1), 127–65.Google Scholar

Granena, G. (2013a). Individual differences in sequence learning ability and second language acquisition in early childhood and adulthood. Language Learning, 63(4), 665–703.Google Scholar

Granena, G. (2013b). Cognitive aptitudes for second language learning and the LLAMA Language Aptitude Test. In Granena, G. and Long, M. H., eds. Sensitive periods, language aptitude, and ultimate L2 attainment. Amsterdam: John Benjamins, pp. 105–29.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Granena, G. and Long, M. H. (2013). Age of onset, length of residence, aptitude and ultimate L2 attainment in three linguistic domains. Second Language Research, 29(3), 311–43.Google Scholar

Granena, G. and Yilmaz, Y. (2018). Aptitude-treatment interaction in L2 learning: A research synthesis. Studies in English Education, 4, 803–30.Google Scholar

Henderson, C. (2021). The effect of feedback timing on L2 Spanish vocabulary acquisition in synchronous computer-mediated communication. Language Teaching Research, 25(2), 185–208.Google Scholar

Hyltenstam, K. and Abrahamsson, N. (2003). Maturational constraints in SLA. In Doughty, C. J. and Long, M. H., eds. The handbook of second language acquisition. Oxford: Blackwell, pp. 539–88.Google Scholar

Iwasaki, J. and Oliver, R. (2003). Chat-line interaction and negative feedback. Australian Review of Applied Linguistics, 17, 60–73.Google Scholar

Laufer, B. (2006). Comparing focus on form and focus on forms in second-language vocabulary learning. Canadian Modern Language Review, 63, 149–66.Google Scholar

Li, S. (2010). The effectiveness of corrective feedback in SLA: A meta-analysis. Language Learning, 60, 309–65.Google Scholar

Loewen, S. and Nabei, T. (2007). Measuring the effects of oral corrective feedback on L2 knowledge. In Mackey, A., ed. Conversational interaction in second language acquisition. Oxford: Oxford University Press, pp. 361–77.Google Scholar

Loewen, S. and Philp, J. (2006). Recasts in the adult L2 classroom: Characteristics, explicitness and effectiveness. The Modern Language Journal, 90, 536–56.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Long, M. H. (1981). Input, interaction and second language acquisition. Annals of the New York Academy of Sciences, 379, 259–78.Google Scholar

Long, M. H. (1983). Native speaker/non-native speaker conversation and the negotiation of comprehensible input. Applied Linguistics, 4, 126–41.Google Scholar

Long, M. H. (1985). Input and second language acquisition theory. In Gass, S. and Madden, C., eds. Input in second language acquisition. Rowley: Newbury House, pp. 377–93.Google Scholar

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

Long, M. H. (1996). The role of the linguistic environment in second language acquisition. In Ritchie, W. and Bhatia, T. K., eds. Handbook of second language acquisition. New York: Academic Press, pp. 413–68.Google Scholar

Long, M. H. (2000). Focus on form in task-based language teaching. In Lambert, R. L. and Shohamy, E., eds. Language policy and pedagogy. Philadelphia: John Benjamins, pp. 179–92.Google Scholar

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

Long, M. H. (2009). Methodological principles in language teaching. In Long, M. H. and Doughty, C. J., eds. Handbook of language teaching. Oxford: Blackwell, pp. 373–94.Google Scholar

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

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

Long, M. H., Lee, J., and Hillman, K. K. (2019). Task-based language learning. In. Schwieter, J. W. and Benati, A., eds. The Cambridge handbook of language learning. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, pp. 500–26.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. and Izquierdo, J. (2009). Prompts versus recasts in dyadic interaction. Language Learning, 59, 453–98.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Lyster, R. and Ranta, L. (1997). Corrective feedback and learner uptake. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 19, 37–66.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

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

Mackey, A. and Goo, J. (2007). Interaction research in SLA: A meta-analysis and research synthesis. In Mackey, A., ed. Conversational interaction in SLA: A collection of empirical studies. Oxford: Oxford University Press, pp. 408–52.Google Scholar

Meisel, J. M. (2011). Bilingual language acquisition and theories of diachronic change: Bilingualism as cause and effect of grammatical change. Bilingualism: Language and Cognition, 14, 121–45.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Norris, J. M. and Ortega, L. (2000). Effectiveness of instruction: A research synthesis and quantitative meta-analysis. Language Learning, 50, 417–528.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Ortega, L. and Long, M. H. (1997). The effects of models and recasts on object topicalization and adverb placement in L2 Spanish. Spanish Applied Linguistics, 1, 65–86.Google Scholar

Pica, T. (2005). Classroom learning, teaching, and research: A task‐based perspective. The Modern Language Journal, 89(3), 339–52.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Pinker, S. (1989). Learnability and cognition. Cambridge, MA: Massachusetts Institute of Technology Press.Google Scholar

Ranta, L. and Lyster, R. (2007). A cognitive approach to improving immersion students’ oral language abilities: The awareness-practice-feedback sequence. In DeKeyser, R., ed. Practice in a second language: Perspectives from applied linguistics and cognitive psychology. New York: Cambridge University Press, pp. 141–60.Google Scholar

Rassei, E. (2015). Oral corrective feedback, language anxiety and L2 development. System, 49, 98–109.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Reber, A. S. and Allen, R. (2000). Individual differences in implicit learning:Implications for the evolution of consciousness. In Kunzendorf, R. G. and Wallace, B., eds, Individual differences in conscious experience. Amsterdam: Benjamins, pp. 227–47.Google Scholar

Rebuschat, P. (2008). Implicit learning of natural language syntax. Unpublished PhD Dissertation. University of Cambridge, UK.Google Scholar

Rebuschat, P. and Williams, J. N. (2006). Dissociating implicit and explicit learning of natural language syntax. Paper presented at the Conference of the Cognitive Science Society.Google Scholar

Rebuschat, P. and Williams, J. (2009). Implicit learning of word order. In N. A. Taatgen and H. van Rijn, eds. Proceedings of the Annual Meeting of the Cognitive Science Society, 31, 425–430Google Scholar

Révész, A. (2009). Task complexity, focus on form, and second language development. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 31, 437–70.Google Scholar

Révész, A. and Han, Z. (2006). Task content familiarity, task type, and efficacy of recasts. Language Awareness, 15, 160–79.Google Scholar

Robinson, P. (2003). Attention and memory during SLA. In Doughty, C. J. and Long, M. H., eds. Handbook of second language acquisition. Oxford: Blackwell, pp. 630–78.Google Scholar

Russell, J. and Spada, N. (2006). The effectiveness of corrective feedback for the acquisition of L2 grammar. In Norris, J. D. and Ortega, L., eds. Synthesizing research on language learning and teaching. Philadelphia: John Benjamins, pp. 133–64.Google Scholar

Schmidt, R. W. (1990). The role of consciousness in second language learning. Applied Linguistics, 11, pp. 129–58.Google Scholar

Sheen, Y., (2004). Corrective feedback and learners’ 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, 361–92.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. Oxford: Oxford University Press, pp. 301–22.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. Oxford: Oxford University Press, pp. 301–22.Google Scholar

Shintani, N. (2013). The effect of focus on form and focus on forms instruction on the acquisition of productive knowledge of L2 vocabulary by young beginning-level learners. TESOL Quarterly, 47, 16–62.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Shintani, N. (2015). The incidental grammar acquisition in focus on form and focus on forms instruction for young beginner learners. TESOL Quarterly, 49, 115–40.Google Scholar

Swain, M. and Lapkin, S. (1991). Additive bilingualism and French immersion education: The roles of language proficiency and literacy. In Reynolds, A. G., ed. Bilingualism, multiculturalism, and second language learning: The McGill conference in honour of Wallace E. Lambert. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum, pp. 203–16.Google Scholar

Trofimovich, P., Ammar, A., and Gatbonton, E. (2007). How effective are recasts? The role of attention, memory, and analytical ability. In Mackey, A., ed. Conversational interaction in second language acquisition. Oxford: Oxford University Press, pp. 144–71.Google Scholar

White, L. (1991). Adverb placement in second language acquisition: Some positive and negative evidence in the classroom. Second Language Research, 7, 133–61.Google Scholar

Wilkins, D. A. (1976). Notional syllabuses. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar

Williams, J. (1999). Memory, attention, and inductive learning. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 21, 1–48.Google Scholar

Williams, J. N. (2005). Learning without awareness. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 27, 269–304.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Yilmaz, Y. (2012). The relative effects of explicit correction and recasts on two target structures via two communication modes. Language Learning, 62, 1134–69.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Yilmaz, Y. (2013). The relative effectiveness of mixed, explicit and implicit feedback. System, 41, 691–705.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Yilmaz, Y. (2016a). The effectiveness of explicit correction under two different feedback exposure conditions. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 38, 65–96.Google Scholar

Yilmaz, Y. (2016b). The linguistic environment, interaction and negative feedback. Brill Research Perspectives in Multilingualism and Second Language Acquisition, 1, 45–86.Google Scholar

Yilmaz, Y. and Granena, 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, 147–61.Google Scholar

Yilmaz, Y. and Koylu, Y. (2016). The interaction between feedback exposure condition and phonetic coding ability. In Granena, G., Jackson, D. O., and Yilmaz, Y., eds. Cognitive individual differences in second language processing and acquisition. Amsterdam: John Benjamins, pp. 303–26.Google Scholar

Yilmaz, Y. and Sagdic, A. (2019). The interaction between inhibitory control and corrective feedback timing. International Journal of Applied Linguistics, 170, 204–27.Google Scholar

Ahmadian, M. J. and García Mayo, M. del P. (2018), eds. Recent perspectives on task-based language learning and teaching. Boston/Berlin: De Gruyter Mouton.Google Scholar

Doughty, C. and Long, M. H. (2003). Optimal psycholinguistic environments for distance foreign language learning. Language Learning and Technology, 7, 50–80.Google Scholar

González-Lloret, M. (2016). A practical guide to integrating technology into task-based language teaching. Washington DC: Georgetown University Press.Google Scholar

González-Lloret, M. and Ortega, L. (2014), eds. Technology-mediated TBLT: Researching technology and tasks. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Lai, C. and Li, G. (2011). Technology and task-based language teaching: A critical review. CALICO Journal, 28, 498–521.Google Scholar

Long, M. H. (2016). In defense of tasks and TBLT: Nonissues and real issues. Annual Review of Applied Linguistics, 36, 5–33.Google Scholar

Long, M. (2015). Second language acquisition and task-based language teaching. 1st ed. Malden, MA: Wiley-Blackwell.Google Scholar

Plonsky, L. and Ziegler, N. (2016). The CALL-SLA interface: Insights from a second-order synthesis. Language Learning & Technology, 20, 17–37.Google Scholar

Van den Branden, K., Bygate, M., and Norris, J. (2009), eds. Task-based language teaching: A reader. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar

Ziegler, N. (2016). Taking technology to task: Technology-mediated TBLT, performance, and production. Annual Review of Applied Linguistics, 36, 136–63.Google Scholar

Adams, R. and Nik, A. N. M. A. (2014). Prior knowledge and second language task production in text chat. In González-Lloret, M. and Ortega, L., eds. Technology-mediated TBLT: researching technology and tasks. Amsterdam: John Benjamins, pp. 51–78.Google Scholar

Adams, R., Amani, S., Newton, J., and Nik Mohd Alwi, N. A. (2014). Planning and production in computer-mediated communication (CMC) writing. In Byrnes, H. and Manchón, R. M., eds. Task-based language teaching. Vol. 7. Amsterdam: John Benjamins, pp. 137–61.Google Scholar

Adams, R., Nik, A. N. A. M., and Newton, J. (2015). Task complexity effects on the complexity and accuracy of writing via chat. Second Language Writing, 29, 64–81.Google Scholar

Alley, M., Samaka, M., Impagliazzo, J., Mohamed, A., and Robinson, M. (2014). Workplace learning using mobile technology: A case study in the Oil and Gas industry. In Bayyurt, Y., Kalz, M., and Specht, M., eds. Communications in computer and information science. Vol. 479. Berlin: Springer, pp. 250–57.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

Baralt, M. (2014). Task complexity and task sequencing in traditional versus online language classes. In Baralt, M., Gilabert, R., and Robinson, P. J., eds. Task sequencing and instructed second language learning. London and New York: Bloomsbury Academic, pp. 59–122.Google Scholar

Benson, P. (2011). Teaching and researching: Autonomy in language learning. Harlow: Pearson Education Limited.Google Scholar

Black, R. W. (2005). Access and affiliation: The literacy and composition practices of English-language learners in an online fanfiction community. Journal of Adolescent & Adult Literacy, 49, 118–28.Google Scholar

Blake, R. (2008). Brave new digital classroom: Technology and language learning. Washington DC: Georgetown University Press.Google Scholar

Blyth, C. (2018). Immersive technologies and language learning. Foreign Language Annals, 51, 225–32.Google Scholar

Bonner, E. and Reinders, H. (2018). Augmented and virtual reality in the language classroom: Practical ideas. Teaching English with Technology, 18(3), 33–53.Google Scholar

Canto, S., de Graff, R., and Jauregui, K. (2014). Collaborative tasks for negotiation of intercultural meaning in virtual worlds and video-web communication. In González-Lloret, M. and Ortega, L., eds. Technology-mediated TBLT: researching technology and tasks. Amsterdam: John Benjamins, pp. 183–212.Google Scholar

Collentine, K. (2010). Measuring complexity in task-based synchronous computer-mediated communication. In Thomas, M. and Reinders, H., eds. Task-based language learning and teaching with technology. London and New York: Continuum, pp. 105–30.Google Scholar

Collentine, K. (2011). Learner autonomy in a task-based 3rd world and production. Language Learning & Technology, 15(3), 50–67.Google Scholar

Cornillie, F., Thorne, S. L., and Desmet, P. (2012). ReCALL special issue: Digital games for language learning: challenges and opportunities. ReCALL, 24, 243–56.Google Scholar

Doughty, C. and Long, M. H. (2003). Optimal psycholinguistic environments for distance foreign language learning. Language Learning and Technology, 7, 50–80.Google Scholar

Duff, P. A. (2012). Identity, agency, and second language acquisition. In Gass, S. M. and Mackey, A., eds. The Routledge handbook of second language acquisition. New York: Routledge, pp. 410–26.Google Scholar

Dyson, L. E. (2014). A vodcast project in the workplace: understanding students’ learning processes outside the classroom. In Bayyurt, Y., Kalz, M., and Specht, M. eds. Communications in computer and information science. Vol. 479. Berlin: Springer, pp. 258–71.Google Scholar

Elola, I. and Oskoz, A. (2010). Collaborative writing: Fostering foreign language and writing conventions development. Language Learning & Technology, 14, 30–49.Google Scholar

Gadelha, R. (2018). Revolutionizing education: The promise of virtual reality. Childhood Education, 94(1), 40–43.Google Scholar

Gee, J. P. (2005). Semiotic social spaces and affinity spaces: from the Age of Mythology to today’s schools. In Barton, D. and Tusting, K., Beyond communities of practice: language power and social context. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, pp. 214–32.Google Scholar

González-Lloret, M. (2014). The need for needs analysis in technology-mediated TBLT. In González-Lloret, M. and Ortega, L., eds. Technology-mediated TBLT: Researching technology and tasks. Amsterdam: John Benjamins, pp. 23–50.Google Scholar

González-Lloret, M. (2019a). Task-Based Language Teaching and L2 Pragmatics. In Taguchi, N., ed., Routledge handbook of SLA and pragmatics. London: Routledge, pp. 338–52.Google Scholar

González-Lloret, M. (2019b). Technology and L2 pragmatics learning. Annual Review of Applied Linguistics, 39, 113–27.Google Scholar

González-Lloret, M. and Diez-Ortega, M. (2020). Gaming alone or together: L2 beginner-level gaming practices. Perspectiva, 38(2), 1–21.Google Scholar

González-Lloret, M. and Ortega, L. (2014). Towards technology-mediated TBLT: An introduction. In González-Lloret, M. and Ortega, L., eds. Technology-mediated TBLT: researching technology and tasks. Amsterdam: John Benjamins, pp. 1–22.Google Scholar

Granena, G. (2016). Individual versus interactive task-based performance through voice-based computer-mediated communication. Language Learning & Technology, 20, 40–59.Google Scholar

Grgurovic, M., Chapelle, C. A., and Shelley, M. (2013). A meta-analysis of effectiveness studies on computer technology-supported language learning. ReCALL, 25, 165–98.Google Scholar

Gurzynski-Weiss, L. and 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, 1393–420.Google Scholar

Holden, C. and Sykes, J. M. (2012). Mentira: Prototyping language-based locative gameplay. In Dikkers, S., Martin, J., and Coulter, B., eds. Mobile media learning: amazing uses of mobile devices for teaching and learning. Pittsburgh, PA: ETC Press, pp. 111–31.Google Scholar

Hsu, H. C. (2012). Investigating the effects of planning on L2 text-chat performance. CALICO Journal, 29, 619–38.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Hsu, H. C. (2015). The effect of task planning on L2 performance and L2 development in text-based synchronous computer-mediated communication. Applied Linguistics, 32, 1–28.Google Scholar

Jeong, N.-S. (2011). The effects of task type and group structure on meaning negotiation in synchronous computer-mediated communication. In Plonsky, L. and Schierloh, M., eds. Selected proceedings of the 2009 Second Language Research Forum. Somerville, MA: Cascadilla Proceedings Project, pp. 51–69.Google Scholar

Keller-Lally, A. M. (2006). Effect of task-type and group size on foreign language learner output in synchronous computer-mediated communication. PhD dissertation. University of Texas at Austin, Ann Arbor.Google Scholar

Kost, C. (2011). Investigating writing strategies and revision behavior in collaborative writing projects. CALICO Journal, 28, 606–20.Google Scholar

Kukulska-Hulme, A. (2013). Re-skilling language learners for a mobile world. The International Research Foundation for English Language Education (TIRF), Monterey, USA. Retrieved from: www.tirfonline.org/english-in-the-workforce/mobile-assisted-language-learning/re-skilling-language-learners-for-a-mobile-world/.Google Scholar

Kukulska-Hulme, A., Lee, H., and Norris, L. (2017). Mobile learning revolution: Implications for language pedagogy. In Chapelle, C. A. and Sauro, S., eds. The handbook of technology and second language teaching and learning. Oxford: Wiley & Sons, pp. 217–33.Google Scholar

Lai, C. (2017). Autonomous language learning with technology: Beyond the classroom. London: Bloomsbury.Google Scholar

Lai, C. and Li, G. (2011). Technology and task-based language teaching: A critical review. CALICO Journal, 28, 498–521.Google Scholar

Lai, C., Fei, F., and Roots, R. (2008). The contingency of recasts and noticing. CALICO Journal, 26, 70–90.Google Scholar

Lai, C. and Zheng, D. (2018). Self-directed use of mobile devices for language learning beyond the classroom. ReCALL, 30(3), 299–318.Google Scholar

Lee, L. (2012). Exploring wiki-mediated collaborative writing: A case study in an elementary Spanish course. CALICO Journal, 27, 260–76.Google Scholar

Lin, H. (2014). Establishing an empirical link between computer-mediated communication (CMC) and SLA: A meta-analysis of the research. Language Learning & Technology, 18, 120–47.Google Scholar

Meyer, L. (2016). Students explore the earth and beyond with virtual field trips. THE Journal, 43(3), 22–25.Google Scholar

Michelson, K. and Dupuy, B. (2014). Multi‐storied lives: Global simulation as an approach to developing multiliteracies in an intermediate French course. L2 Journal, 6, 21–49.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Nielson, K. (2013). Online language learning in the workplace: Maximizing efficiency, effectiveness, and time-on-task. Proceedings from the International Conference of E-Learning in the Workplace. June 12–14, New York.Google Scholar

Nik, A. N. A. M. (2010). Examining the language learning potential of a task-based approach to synchronous computer-mediated communication. Unpublished PhD dissertation. Victoria University of Wellington, New Zealand.Google Scholar

Nik, A. N. M. A., Adams, R., and Newton, J. (2012). Writing to learn via text chat: Task implementation and focus on form. Journal of Second Language Writing, 21, 23–39.Google Scholar

Ortega, L. (2009). Interaction and attention to form in L2 text-based computer-mediated communication. In Mackey, A. and Polio, C., eds. Multiple perspectives on interaction in SLA: Research in honor of Susan M. Gass. New York: Erlbaum/Routledge/Taylor & Francis.Google Scholar

Oskoz, A. and Elola, I. (2014). Promoting foreign language collaborative writing through the use of Web 2.0 tools and tasks. In González-Lloret, M. and Ortega, L., eds. Technology-mediated TBLT: researching technology and tasks. Amsterdam: John Benjamins, pp. 115–48.Google Scholar

Payne, S. and Whitney, P. J. (2002). Developing L2 oral proficiency through synchronous CMC: Output, working memory, and interlanguage development. CALICO Journal, 20, 7–32.Google Scholar

Peterson, M. (2006). Learner interaction management in an avatar and chat-based virtual world. Computer Assisted Language Learning, 19, 79–103.Google Scholar

Peterson, M. (2010). Massively multiplayer online role-playing games as arenas for second language learning. Computer Assisted Language Learning, 23, 429–39.Google Scholar

Plonsky, L. and Ziegler, N. (2016). The CALL-SLA interface: Insights from a second-order synthesis. Language Learning & Technology, 20, 17–37.Google Scholar

Smith, B. (2003). Computer–mediated negotiated interaction: An expanded model. The Modern Language Journal, 87(1), 38–57.Google Scholar

Rama, P. S., Black, R. W., van Es, E., and Warschauer, M. (2012). Affordances for second language learning in World of Warcraft. ReCALL, 24, 322–38.Google Scholar

Reinders, H. and Pegrum, M. (2017). Supporting language learning on the move: an evaluative framework for mobile language learning resources.’ In Tomlinson, B., ed. SLA research and materials development for language learning. New York: Routledge, pp. 219–31.Google Scholar

Reinders, H. and Wattana, S. (2012). Talk to me! Games and students’ willingness to communicate. In Reinders, H., ed. Digital games in language learning and teaching. London: Palgrave Macmillan, pp. 156–88.Google Scholar

Reinders, H. and Wattana, S. (2014). Can I say something? The effects of digital game play on willingness to communicate. Language Learning & Technology, 18, 101–123.Google Scholar

Reinhardt, J. (2019). Gameful second and foreign language teaching and learning. Basingstoke and New York: Palgrave Macmillan.Google Scholar

Robinson, P. (2011). Second language task complexity, the Cognition Hypothesis, language learning, and performance. In Robinson, P., ed. Researching task complexity: Task demands, task-based language learning and performance. Amsterdam: John Benjamins, pp. 3–38.Google Scholar

Satar, H. M. and Özdener, N. (2008). The effects of synchronous CMC on speaking proficiency and anxiety: Text versus voice chat. The Modern Language Journal, 92, 596–613.Google Scholar

Sauro, S. (2004). Cyberdiscursive tug-of-war: Learner repositioning in a multimodal CMC environment. Working Papers in Educational Linguistics, 19, 55–72.Google Scholar

Sauro, S. (2014). Lessons from the fandom: Technology-mediated tasks for language learning. In González-Lloret, M. and Ortega, L., eds. Technology-mediated TBLT: researching technology and tasks. Amsterdam: John Benjamins, pp. 239–62.Google Scholar

Scholz, K. and Schulze, M. (2017). Digital-gaming trajectories and second language development. Language Learning & Technology, 21, 99–119.Google Scholar

Schwienhorst, K. (2012). Learner autonomy and CALL environments. New York: Routledge.Google Scholar

Shekary, M. and Tahririan, M. H. (2006). Negotiation of Meaning and Noticing in Text-Based Online Chat. The Modern Language Journal, 90, 557–73.Google Scholar

Smith, B. (2012). Eye tracking as a measure of noticing: A study of explicit recasts in SCMC. Language Learning and Technology, 16, 53–81.Google Scholar

Smith, B. and Gorsuch, G. (2004). Synchronous computer-mediated communication captured by usability lab technologies: New interpretations. System, 32, 553–75.Google Scholar

Sydorenko, T., Hellermann, J., Thorne, S. L. and Howe, V. (2019). Mobile Augmented Reality and Language‐Related Episodes. TESOL Quarterly, 53(3), 712–40.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Sykes, J. M. (2008). A dynamic approach to social interaction: Synthetic immersive Environments & Spanish pragmatics. PhD dissertation. University of Minnesota. ProQuest Dissertations & Theses Global. Retrieved from: http://search.proquest.com/docview/304582040?accountid=27140.Google Scholar

Sykes, J. M. (2014). TBLT and synthetic immersive environments: What can in-game task restarts tell us about design and implementation? In González-Lloret, M. and Ortega, L., eds. Technology-mediated TBLT. Amsterdam: John Benjamins, pp. 149–82.Google Scholar

Sykes, J. M. and Reinhardt, J. (2012). Language at play: Digital games in second and foreign language teaching and learning. New York: Pearson-Prentice Hall.Google Scholar

Sylvén, L. K. and Sundqvist, P. (2012). Gaming as extramural English L2 learning and L2 proficiency among young learners. ReCALL, 24, 302–21.Google Scholar

Taguchi, N., Li, Q., and Tang, X. (2017). Learning Chinese formulaic expressions in a scenario‐based interactive environment. Foreign Language Annals, 50(4), 641–60.Google Scholar

Thorne, S. L. (2008). Transcultural communication in open internet environments and massively multiplayer online games. In Magnan, S. S., ed. Mediating discourse online. Amsterdam: John Benjamins, pp. 305–27.Google Scholar

Thorne, S. L. and Black, R. (2008). Language and literacy development in computer-mediated contexts and communities. Annual Review of Applied Linguistics, 27, 133–60.Google Scholar

Thorne, S. L., Fischer, I., and Lu, X. (2012). The semiotic ecology and linguistic complexity of an online game world. ReCALL, 24(3), 279–301.Google Scholar

Thorne, S. and Payne, J. S. (2005). Evolutionary trajectories, Internet-mediated expression, and language education. CALICO Journal, 22, 371–97.Google Scholar

Van den Branden, K., Bygate, M., and Norris, J. (2009). Task-based language teaching: Introducing the reader. In Van den Branden, K., Bygate, M., and Norris, J., eds. Task-based language teaching: A reader. Amsterdam: John Benjamins, pp. 1–13.Google Scholar

Wang, S. and Vásquez, C. (2012). Web 2.0 and second language learning: What does the research tell us? CALICO Journal, 29, 412–30.Google Scholar

Winke, P. (2013, October). Supporting teachers’ efforts in implementing technology-mediated tasks. Presented at the Task-based Language Teaching conference, Banff, Alberta, Canada.Google Scholar

Yeh, E. and Wan, G. (2019). The use of virtual worlds in foreign language teaching and learning. In Information Resources Management Association, ed. Virtual reality in education: Breakthroughs in research and practice. Hershey, PA: IGI Global, pp. 645–92.Google Scholar

Yilmaz, Y. (2011). Task effects on focus on form in synchronous computer-mediated communication. The Modern Language Journal, 95, 115–132.Google Scholar

Yilmaz, Y. and Granena, G. (2010). The effects of task type in synchronous computer-mediated communication. ReCALL, 22, 20.Google Scholar

Yuksel, D. and Inan, B. (2014). The effects of communication mode on negotiation of meaning and its noticing. ReCALL, 26(3), 333–54.Google Scholar

Ziegler, N. (2016a). Synchronous computer-mediated communication and interaction: A meta-analysis. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 38(3), 553–86.Google Scholar

Ziegler, N. (2016b). Taking technology to task: Technology-mediated TBLT, performance, and production. Annual Review of Applied Linguistics, 36, 136–63.Google Scholar

Ziegler, N. (2017). The contingency of recasts, learners’ noticing, and L2 development: Insights on saliency from multiple modalities. In Gass, S., Spinner, P., and Behney, J., eds. Salience and SLA. New York: Routledge, pp. 269–90.Google Scholar

Ziegler, N. (2018). Pre-task planning in L2 text-chat: Examining learners’ process and performance. Language Learning & Technology, 22(3), 193–213.Google Scholar

Ziegler, N. and Phung, H. (2019) Technology-mediated task-based interactions: The role of modality. International Journal of Applied Linguistics, 170, 251–76.Google Scholar

Doughty, C. and Long, M. H. (2003). Optimal psycholinguistic environments for distance foreign language learning. Language Learning and Technology, 7, 50–80.Google Scholar

Faria, A. M., Bergey, R., and Lishinski, A. (2019). Using technology to support English language learners in higher education: A study of Voxy’s effect on English language proficiency. American Institutes for Research Technical Report. Retrieved from https://air.org/system/files/downloads/report/Using-Technology-to-Support-ELLs-in-Higher-Education-Voxy-January-2019.pdf.Google Scholar

González-Lloret, M. and Nielson, K. (2014). Evaluating TBLT: The case of a task-based Spanish program. Language Teaching Research, 19(5), 545-49.Google Scholar

González-Lloret, M. and Ortega, L. (2014). Towards technology-mediated TBLT: An introduction. In González-Lloret, M. and Ortega, L., eds. Technology-mediated TBLT: researching technology and tasks. Amsterdam: John Benjamins, pp. 1–22.Google Scholar

Lai, C. and Li, G. (2011). Technology and task-based language teaching: A critical review, CALICO Journal, 28(2), 498–521.Google Scholar

Long, M. H. (2005). Second language needs analysis. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar

Nielson, K. (2014). Evaluation of an online, task-based Chinese course. In Gonzalez-Lloret, M. and Ortega, L., eds. Technology-mediated TBLT: Researching technology and tasks. Amsterdam: John Benjamins, pp. 295–321.Google Scholar

Van den Branden, K., Van Gorp, K., and Verhelst, M. (2007), eds. Tasks in action: task-based language education from a classroom-based perspective. Cambridge: Cambridge Scholars Publishing.Google Scholar

Doughty, C. and Long, M. H. (2003). Optimal psycholinguistic environments for distance foreign language learning. Language Learning and Technology, 7, 50–80.Google Scholar

González-Lloret, M. and Ortega, L. (2014). Towards technology-mediated TBLT: An introduction. In González-Lloret, M. and Ortega, L., eds. Technology-mediated TBLT: researching technology and tasks. Amsterdam: John Benjamins, pp. 1–22.Google Scholar

Faria, A.M., Bergey, R., and Lishinski, A. (2019). Using technology to support English language learners in higher education: A study of Voxy’s effect on English language proficiency. American Institutes for Research Technical Report. Retrieved from https://air.org/system/files/downloads/report/Using-Technology-to-Support-ELLs-in-Higher-Education-Voxy-January-2019.pdf.Google Scholar

Gonzalez-Lloret, M. and Ortega, L. (2014), eds. Technology-mediated TBLT: Researching technology and tasks. Amsterdam: John BenjaminsGoogle Scholar

Nielson, K. (2018). Case Study: “English for Software Engineering” The conception and creation of an e-learning English-Language course tailored to learners’ real-world needs. International Journal of Advanced Corporate Learning, 11(2), 27–29.Google Scholar

Nielson, K., Breen, A., Tyson, N., and Kirkham, K. (2016). US Patent number 9,262,935. Washington DC: US Patent and Trademark Office.Google Scholar

Nielson, K. Breen, A., Tyson, N., and Kirkham, K. (2017). US Patent number 9,666,098. Washington DC: US Patent and Trademark Office.Google Scholar

Hermes, M. and King, K. (2019). Task-based language learning for Ojibwe: A case study of two intermediate adult language learners. In McCarty, T., Nicholas, S. E., and Wigglesworth, G., eds. A world of Indigenous languages: Politics, pedagogies and prospects for language reclamation. Blue Ridge Summit, PA: Multilingual Matters, pp. 134–52.Google Scholar

Henze, R. and Davis, K. (1999). Introduction to authenticity and identity: Lessons from indigenous language education. Anthropology & Education Quarterly, 30(1), 3–21.Google Scholar

Hornberger, N. H. (2008), ed. Can schools save indigenous languages? Policy and practice on four continents. New York: Palgrave Macmillan.Google Scholar

Penfield, S. D. and Tucker, B. V. (2011). From documenting to revitalizing an endangered language: Where do applied linguists fit? Language and Education, 25(4), 291–305.Google Scholar

Riestenberg, K. J. and Sherris, A. (2018). Task-based teaching of indigenous languages: Investment and methodological principles in Macuiltianguis Zapotec and Salish Qlipse revitalization. Canadian Modern Language Review, 74(3), 434–59.Google Scholar

White, F. (2006). Rethinking Native American language revitalization. The American Indian Quarterly, 30(1), 91–109.Google Scholar

Beam de Azcona, R. (2016). Zapotecan languages. Oxford Research Encyclopedia of Linguistics. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar

De Korne, H. (2016). Imagining convivial multilingualism: Practices, ideologies and strategies in diidxazá/Isthmus Zapotec indigenous language education. PhD dissertation. University of Pennsylvania.Google Scholar

Dorian, N. C. (1994). Purism vs. compromise in language revitalization and language revival. Language in Society, 23, 479–94.Google Scholar

Ellis, R. (2003). Task-based language learning and teaching. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar

Ellis, R. (2009). Task-based language teaching: Sorting out the misunderstandings. International Journal of Applied Linguistics, 19(3), 221–46.Google Scholar

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

Gass, S. M. (2003). Input and interaction. In Doughty, C. J. and Long, M. H., eds. The handbook of second language acquisition. Oxford: Blackwell, pp. 224–55.Google Scholar

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

Hermes, M. and King, K. (2013). Ojibwe language revitalization, multimedia technology, and family language learning. Language Learning & Technology, 17(1), 125–44.Google Scholar

Hermes, M. and King, K. (2019). Task-Based language learning for Ojibwe: A case study of two intermediate adult language learners. In McCarty, T., Nicholas, S. E., and Wigglesworth, G., eds. A world of Indigenous languages: Politics, pedagogies and prospects for language reclamation. Blue Ridge Summit, PA: Multilingual Matters, pp. 134–52.Google Scholar

Kiyosawa, K. G. and Donna, B. (2010). Salish applicatives. Leiden: Brill Academic Publishers.Google Scholar

Long, M. H. (2009). Methodological principles in language teaching. In Long, M. H. and Doughty, C. J., eds. Handbook of language teaching. Oxford: Blackwell, pp. 373–94.Google Scholar

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

Long, M. H. (2016). In defense of tasks and TBLT: Nonissues and real issues. Annual Review of Applied Linguistics, 36, 5–33.Google Scholar

Long, M. H. (1996). The role of the linguistic environment in second language acquisition. In Ritchie, W. C. and Bhatia, T. K., eds. Handbook of research on language acquisition. Vol. 2. New York: Academic Press, pp. 413–68.Google Scholar

Pica, T. (2005). Classroom learning, teaching, and research: A task-based perspective. Modern Language Journal, 89, 339–352Google Scholar

Pica, T., Kang, H., and Sauro, S. (2006). Information gap tasks: Their multiple roles and contributions to interaction research methodology. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 28(2),301–38.Google Scholar

Riestenberg, K. (2020a). Meaningful interaction and affordances for language learning at a Zapotec revitalization program. The Language Learning Journal, 48(3) 316–30Google Scholar

Riestenberg, K. (2020b). Supporting rich input and meaningful interaction in language teaching for revitalization: Lessons from Macuiltianguis Zapotec. In Silva, W. and Riestenberg, K., eds. Collaborative approaches to the challenges of language documentation and conservation: Proceedings of the 2018 Symposium on American Indian Languages. Language Documentation & Conservation Special Publication No. 20. Honolulu: University of Hawai‘i Press, 73–88.Google Scholar

Riestenberg, K. J. and Grupo Cultural Tagayu’ (2019). Teaching Macuiltianguis Zapotec Collection of Kate Riestenberg and Grupo Cultural Tagayu’. The Archive of the Indigenous Languages of Latin America. ailla.utexas.org.Google Scholar

Riestenberg, K. J. and Sherris, A. (2018). Task-based teaching of indigenous languages: Investment and methodological principles in Macuiltianguis Zapotec and Salish Qlipse revitalization. Canadian Modern Language Review, 74(3), 434–59.Google Scholar

Sherris, A. (2008). Integrated content and language instruction. Cal Digest. Washington DC: Center for Applied Linguistics. Retrieved from: http://www.cal.org/siop/pdfs/digests/integrated-contentand-language-instruction.pdf.Google Scholar

Sherris, A. (2010). Coaching language teachers. Cal Digest. Washington DC: Center for Applied Linguistics. Retrieved from: http://www.cal.org/siop/pdfs/digests/coaching-language-teachers.pdf.Google Scholar

Sherris, A., Pete, T., and Haynes, E. (2015). Literacy and language instruction: Flathead Salish metaphor and a task-based pedagogy for its revitalisation. In Piirainen, E. and Sherris, A., eds. Language endangerment: Disappearing metaphors and shifting conceptualizations. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar

Sherris, A., Pete, T., Thompson, L., and Haynes, E. (2013). Task-based language teaching practices that support Salish revitalisation. In Jones, M. C. and Ogilvie, S., eds. Keeping languages alive: Documentation, pedagogy, and revitalisation. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, pp. 155–66.Google Scholar

Spolsky, B. (1995). Conditions for language revitalisation: A comparison of the cases of Hebrew and Maori. Current Issues in Language and Society, 2(3),177–201.Google Scholar

Thomason, S. G. (2006). Salishan languages. In Brown, K., ed. Encyclopedia of language and linguistics. 2nd ed. Oxford: Elsevier, pp. 732–33.Google Scholar

Van den Branden, K. (2006). Task based language education. From theory to practice. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar

Wood, R. J. (2014). Language socialization, revitalisation and ideologies in the Salish-Pend d’Oreille community. Unpublished doctoral dissertation. University of Montana, Missoula, MT.Google Scholar

Yano, Y., Long, M. H., and Ross, S. (1994). The effects of simplified and elaborated texts on foreign language reading comprehension. Language Learning, 44(2), 189–219.Google Scholar

Doughty, C. J. (2015). Accountability of foreign language programs. The Modern Language Journal, 99(2), 412–15.Google Scholar

Doughty, C. J. and Long, M. H. (2003). Optimal psycholinguistic environments for distance foreign language learning. Language Learning and Technology, 7, 50–80.Google Scholar

González-Lloret, M. (2016). A practical guide to integrating technology into task-based language teaching. Washington DC: Georgetown University Press.Google Scholar

González-Lloret, M. and Ortega, L. (2014), eds. Technology-mediated TBLT: Researching technology and tasks. Amsterdam:John Benjamins.Google Scholar

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

Long, M. H. (1991). Focus on form: A design feature in language teaching methodology. Foreign Language Research in Cross-cultural Perspective, 2(1), 39–52.Google Scholar

Long, M. H. (2005). Second language needs analysis. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar

Long, M. H. (2015). Second language acquisition and task-based language teaching. 1st ed. Malden, MA: Wiley-Blackwell.Google Scholar

Robinson, P. (2011). Second language task complexity, the Cognition Hypothesis, language learning, and performance. In Robinson, P., ed. Researching task complexity: Task demands, task-based language learning and performance. Amsterdam: John Benjamins, pp. 3–38.Google Scholar