Skip to main content Accessibility help

We use cookies to distinguish you from other users and to provide you with a better experience on our websites. Close this message to accept cookies or find out how to manage your cookie settings.

Close cookie message
×
Hostname: page-component-848d4c4894-p2v8j Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-05-06T07:35:11.636Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

10 - Interaction in L2 Learning

from Part III - Skill Development

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  25 June 2019

By
Jaemyung Goo
Edited by
John W. Schwieter  and
Alessandro Benati
John W. Schwieter
Affiliation:
Wilfrid Laurier University
Alessandro Benati
Affiliation:
American University of Sharjah, United Arab Emirates
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. 233 - 257
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.CrossRefGoogle 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.CrossRefGoogle 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.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.CrossRefGoogle 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.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.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.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.CrossRefGoogle 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.CrossRefGoogle 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.Google Scholar
Gass, S. M., & Mackey, A. (2006). Input, interaction and output: An overview. AILA Review, 19, 3–17.CrossRefGoogle 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.Google Scholar
Gass, S. M., & Varonis, E. (1994). Input, interaction, and second language production. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 16, 282–302.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.CrossRefGoogle 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.Google Scholar
Goo, J., & Mackey, A. (2013). The case against the case against recasts. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 35, 127–165.CrossRefGoogle 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.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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kim, Y. (2012). Task complexity, learning opportunities and Korean EFL learners’ question development. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 34, 627–658.CrossRefGoogle 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.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.CrossRefGoogle 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.CrossRefGoogle 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.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.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.CrossRefGoogle 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.CrossRefGoogle 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.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.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.CrossRefGoogle 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

Save book to Kindle

To save this book to your Kindle, first ensure coreplatform@cambridge.org is added to your Approved Personal Document E-mail List under your Personal Document Settings on the Manage Your Content and Devices page of your Amazon account. Then enter the ‘name’ part of your Kindle email address below. Find out more about saving to your Kindle.

Note you can select to save to either the @free.kindle.com or @kindle.com variations. ‘@free.kindle.com’ emails are free but can only be saved to your device when it is connected to wi-fi. ‘@kindle.com’ emails can be delivered even when you are not connected to wi-fi, but note that service fees apply.

Find out more about the Kindle Personal Document Service.

Available formats
×

Save book to Dropbox

To save content items to your account, please confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your account. Find out more about saving content to Dropbox.

Available formats
×

Save book to Google Drive

To save content items to your account, please confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your account. Find out more about saving content to Google Drive.

Available formats
×