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-cd9895bd7-dzt6s Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-27T12:19:20.317Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

Part VI - Contexts of Corrective Feedback and Their Effects

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  26 February 2021

Edited by
Hossein Nassaji  and
Eva Kartchava
Hossein Nassaji
Affiliation:
University of Victoria, British Columbia
Eva Kartchava
Affiliation:
Carleton University, Ottawa
Get access

Summary

A summary is not available for this content so a preview has been provided. Please use the Get access link above for information on how to access this content.
Image of the first page of this content. For PDF version, please use the ‘Save PDF’ preceeding this image.'
Type
Chapter
Information
The Cambridge Handbook of Corrective Feedback in Second Language Learning and Teaching , pp. 471 - 558
Publisher: Cambridge University Press
Print publication year: 2021

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

References

Alcón Soler, E. & García Mayo, M. P. (2008). Incidental focus on form and learning outcomes with young foreign language classroom learners. In Philp, J., Oliver &, R. Mackey, A. (eds.), Second language acquisition and the younger learner: Child’s play? (pp. 173–192). Amsterdam: John Benjamins.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Amrhein, H. R. & Nassaji, H. (2010). Written corrective feedback: What do learners and teachers prefer and why? Canadian Journal of Applied Linguistics, 13(2), 95–127.Google Scholar
Choi, S. & Li, S. (2012). Corrective feedback and learner uptake in a child ESOL classroom. RELC Journal, 43(3), 331–351.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dabaghi, A. & Basturkmen, H. (2009). The effectiveness of implicit and explicit error correction on learners’ performance. System, 37(1), 82–98.Google Scholar
Dalton-Puffer, C. (2011). Content and language integrated learning: From practice to principles. Annual Review of Applied Linguistics, 31, 182–204.Google Scholar
Dalton-Puffer, C. & Nikula, T. (2014). Content and language integrated learning (guest editorial). The Language Learning Journal, 42(2), 117–122.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
De Graaff, R., Koopman, G. J., Anikina, Y. & Westhoff, G. (2007). An observation tool for effective L2 pedagogy in content and language integrated learning (CLIL). International Journal of Bilingual Education and Bilingualism, 10(5), 603–624.Google Scholar
Ellis, R., Basturkmen, H. & Loewen, S. (2001). Learner uptake in communicative ESL lessons. Language Learning, 51(2), 281–318.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(2), 339–368.Google Scholar
Enever, J. (2018). Policy and politics in global primary English. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Fujii, A., Ziegler, N. & Mackey, A. (2016). Peer interaction and metacognitive instruction in the EFL classroom. In Sato, M. & Ballinger, S. (eds.), Peer interaction and second language learning: Pedagogical potential and research agenda (pp. 63–89). Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
García Mayo, M. P. (2017). Learning foreign languages in primary school: Research insights. Bristol: Multilingual Matters.Google Scholar
Goo, J. (2012). Corrective feedback and working memory capacity in interaction-driven SL learning. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 34(3), 445–474.Google Scholar
Goo, J. & Mackey, A. (2013). The case against the case against recasts. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 35(1), 127–165.Google Scholar
Gurzynski-Weiss, L. & Révész, A. (2012). Tasks, teacher feedback, and learner modified output in naturally occurring classroom interaction. Language Learning, 62(3), 851–879.Google Scholar
Havranek, G. & Cesnik, H. (2001). Factors affecting the success of corrective feedback. In Foster-Cohen, S. & Nizegorodzew, A. (Eds.), EUROSLA Yearbook Volume 1 (pp.99–122). Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
Jafarigohara, M. & Gharbavib, A. (2014). Recast or prompt: Which one does the trick? Procedia- Social and Behavioral Sciences, 98, 695–703.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kartchava, E. & Ammar, A. (2014). The noticeability and effectiveness of corrective feedback in relation to target type. Language Teaching Research, 18(4), 428–452.Google Scholar
Lasagabaster, D. & Sierra, J. M. (2010). Immersion and CLIL in English: More differences than similarities. ELT Journal, 64(4), 376–395.Google Scholar
Lee, E. (2013). Corrective feedback preferences and learner repair among advanced ESL learners. System, 41(2), 217–230.Google Scholar
Li, S. (2017). Student and teacher beliefs and attitudes about oral corrective feedback. In Nassaji, H. & Kartchava, E. (eds.), Corrective feedback in second language teaching and learning (pp. 143–157). New York; London: Routledge.Google Scholar
Llinares, A. & Lyster, R. (2014). The influence of context on patterns of corrective feedback and learner uptake: A comparison of CLIL and immersion classrooms. The Language Learning Journal, 42(2), 181–194.Google Scholar
Lochtman, K. (2002). Oral corrective feedback in the foreign language classroom: How it affects interaction in analytic foreign language teaching. International Journal of Educational Research, 37(3), 271–283.Google Scholar
Lochtman, K. (2007). Die mündliche Fehlerkorrektur in CLIL und im traditionellen Fremdsprachenunterricht: Ein Vergleich. In Dalton-Puffer, C. & Smit, U. (eds.), Empirical perspectives on CLIL classroom discourse (pp. 119–138). Frankfurt: Peter Lang.Google Scholar
Lorenzo, F., Casal, S. & Moore, P. (2010). The effects of content and language integrated learning in European education: Key findings from the Andalusian bilingual sections evaluation project. Applied Linguistics, 31(3), 418–442.Google Scholar
Lyster, R. (1998). Recasts, repetition and ambiguity in L2 classroom discourse. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 20(1), 51–80.Google Scholar
Lyster, R. (2004). Differential effects of prompts and recasts in form-focused instruction. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 26(3), 399–432.Google Scholar
Lyster, R. (2007). Learning and teaching languages through content: A counterbalanced approach. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
Lyster, R. & Mori, H. (2006). Interactional feedback and instructional counterbalance. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 28(2), 269–300.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lyster, R. & Ranta, L. (1997). Corrective feedback and learner uptake: Negotiation of form in communicative classrooms. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 19(1), 37–66.Google Scholar
Lyster, R. & Saito, K. (2010). Oral feedback in classroom SLA. A meta-analysis. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 32(2), 265–302.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 (pp. 407–472). Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Mackey, A., Gass, S. & McDonough, K. (2000). How do learners perceive interactional feedback? Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 22(4), 471–497.Google Scholar
Mackey, A. & Philp, J. (1998). Conversational interaction and second language development: Recasts, responses, and red herrings? Modern Language Journal, 82(3), 338–356.Google Scholar
Mifka-Profozic, N. (2014). Effectiveness of implicit negative feedback in a foreign language classroom. EUROSLA Yearbook, 14, 111–142.Google Scholar
Milla, R. (2017). Corrective feedback episodes in CLIL and EFL classrooms: Teachers’ and learners’ beliefs and classroom behaviour. Unpublished doctoral thesis. University of the Basque Country (UPV/EHU), Vitoria, Spain.Google Scholar
Milla, R. & García Mayo, M. P. (2014). Corrective feedback episodes in oral interaction: A comparison of a CLIL and an EFL classroom. International Journal of English Studies, 14(1), 1–20.Google Scholar
Mori, R. (2002). Teachers’ beliefs and corrective feedback. JALT Journal, 24(1), 48–69.Google Scholar
Mori, R. (2011). Teacher cognition in corrective feedback in Japan. System, 39(4), 451–467.Google Scholar
Muñoz, C. (2007). CLIL: Some thoughts on its psycholinguistic principles. Revista Española de Lingüística Aplicada (Models and practice in CLIL) Vol. Extra 1, 17–26.Google Scholar
Nabei, T. & Swain, M. (2002). Learner awareness of recasts in classroom interaction: A case study of an adult EFL learner’s second language learning. Language Awareness. 11(1), 43–63.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Nassaji, H. (2007). Elicitation and reformulation and their relationship with learner repair in dyadic interaction. Language Learning, 57(4), 511–548.Google Scholar
Nassaji, H. (2011). Correcting students’ written grammatical errors: The effect of negotiated versus nonnegotiated feedback. Studies in Second Language Learning and Teaching, 1(3), 315–334.Google Scholar
Nassaji, H. (2013). Participation structure and incidental focus on form in adult ESL classrooms. Language Learning, 63(4), 835–869.Google Scholar
Nassaji, H. (2016). Anniversary article: Interactional feedback in second language teaching and learning: A synthesis and analysis of current research. Language Teaching Research, 20(4), 535–562.Google Scholar
Nassaji, H. (2019). The effects of recasts versus prompts on learning a complex target structure. In DeKeyser, R. & Botana, G. P. (eds.), (Doing) SLA research with implications for the classroom (reconciling methodological demands and pedagogical applicability) (pp. 107–126). Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
Nassaji, H. & Fotos, S. (2011). Teaching grammar in second language classrooms: Integrating form-focused instruction in communicative context. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
Nassaji, H. & Kartchava, E. (eds.). (2017). Corrective feedback in second language teaching and learning. Research, theory, applications, implications. New York; London: Routledge.Google Scholar
Oliver, R. & Grote, E. (2010). The provision and uptake of different types of recasts in child and adult ESL learners: What is the role of age and context? Australian Review of Applied Linguistics, 33(3), 26.1–26.22.Google Scholar
Panova, I. & Lyster, R. (2002). Patterns of corrective feedback and uptake in an adult ESL classroom. TESOL Quarterly, 36(4), 573–595.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(1), 99–126.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Pinter, A. (2011). Children learning second languages. Houndsmills: Palgrave Macmillan.Google Scholar
Rassaei, S. (2014). Scaffolded feedback, recasts and L2 development: A sociocultural perspective. Modern Language Journal, 98(1), 417–431.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
Samar, G. R. & Shayestefar, P. (2009). Corrective feedback in EFL classrooms: Learner negotiation strategies and uptake. Journal of English Language Teaching and Learning, 212, 107–134.Google Scholar
Sato, M. (2017). Oral peer corrective feedback. Multiple theoretical perspectives. In Nassaji, H. & Kartchava, E. (eds.), Corrective feedback in second language teaching and learning. Research, theory, applications, implications (pp. 19–34). New York; London: Routledge.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sato, M. & Ballinger, S. (2012). Raising learner awareness in peer interaction. A cross-context, cross-method examination. Language Awareness, 21(1–2), 157–179.Google Scholar
Sato, M. & Loewen, S. (2019). Towards evidence-based second language pedagogy: Research proposals and pedagogical recommendations. In Sato, M. & Loewen, S. (eds.), Evidence-based second language pedagogy: A collection of instructed second language acquisition studies (pp. 1–24). New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
Schmidt, R. (1990). The role of consciousness in L2 learning. Applied Linguistics, 11(2), 129–158.Google Scholar
Sheen, Y. (2004). Corrective feedback and learner uptake in communicative classrooms across instructional settings. Language Teaching Research, 8(3), 263–300.Google Scholar
Sheen, Y. (2006). Exploring the relationship between characteristics of recasts and learner uptake. Language Teaching Research, 10(4), 361–392.Google Scholar
Sheen, Y. (2008). Recasts, language anxiety, modified output, and L2 learning. Language Learning, 58(4), 835–874.Google Scholar
Spada, N. & Fröhlich, M. (1995). COLT. Communicative orientation of language teaching observation scheme: Coding conventions and applications. Sydney: National Centre for English Language Teaching and Research.Google Scholar
Tedick, D. J. & Cammarata, L. (2012). Content and language integration in K-12 contexts: Learner outcomes, teacher practices and stakeholder perspectives. Foreign Language Annals, 45(1), 28–53.Google Scholar
Vygotsky, L. S. (1978). Mind in society: The development of higher psychological processes. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.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(2), 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(4), 1134–1169.Google Scholar
Yoshida, R. (2008). Teachers’ choice and learners’ preference of corrective-feedback types. Language Awareness, 17(1), 78–93.Google Scholar

References

* denotes synthesized within-subjects comparative studies.

^ denotes synthesized between-subjects comparative studies.

^Abrams, Z. I. (2003). The effect of synchronous and asynchronous CMC on oral performance in German. Modern Language Journal, 87(2), 157–167.Google Scholar
^Baralt, M. (2010). Task complexity, the Cognition Hypothesis, and interaction in CMC and FTF environments. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Georgetown University, Washington, DC.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(4), 689–725.Google Scholar
Baralt, M. & Leow, R. (2015). Uptake, task complexity, and L2 development in SLA: An online perspective. In Leow, R., Cerezo, L. & Baralt, M. (eds.), A psycholinguistic approach to technology and language learning (pp. 199–218). Boston: De Gruyter Mouton.Google Scholar
^Beauvois, M. H. (1998). Write to speak: The effects of electronic communication on the oral achievement of fourth semester French students. In Muyskens, J. A. (ed.), New ways of learning and teaching: Focus on technology and foreign language education (pp. 93–115). Boston: Heinle & Heinle.Google Scholar
^Blake, C. (2009). Potential of text-based internet chats for improving oral fluency in a second language. Modern Language Journal, 93(2), 227–240.Google Scholar
*Böhlke, O. (2003a). Adjective production by learners of German in chatroom and face-to-face discussions. Die Unterrichtspraxis/Teaching German, 36(1), 67–73.Google Scholar
*Böhlke, O. *(2003b). A comparison of student participation levels by group size and language stages during chatroom and face-to-face discussions in German. CALICO Journal, 21(1), 67–87.Google Scholar
^Chang, Y.-Y. (2007). The potential of synchronous text-based computer-mediated communication for second language acquisition. Issues in Information Systems, 8(2), 355–361.Google Scholar
^de la Fuente, M. J. (2003). Is SLA interactionist theory relevant to call? A study on the effects of computer-mediated interaction in L2 vocabulary acquisition. Computer Assisted Language Learning, 16(1), 47–81.Google Scholar
*Fernández-García, M. & Martínez Arbelaiz, A. (2003). Learners’ interactions: A comparison of oral and computer-assisted written conversations. ReCALL, 15(1), 113–136.Google Scholar
Fischer, R. (2012). Diversity in learner usage patterns. In Stockwell, G. (ed.), Computer-assisted language learning: Diversity in research and practice (pp. 14–32). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
*Fitze, M. (2006). Discourse and participation in ESL face-to-face and written electronic conferences. Language Learning & Technology, 10(1), 67–86.Google Scholar
^Freiermuth, M. R. (2001). Native speakers or non-native speakers: Who has the floor? Online and face-to-face interaction in culturally mixed small groups. Computer Assisted Language Learning, 14(2), 169–199.Google Scholar
*Freiermuth, M. R. & Jarrell, D. (2006). Willingness to communicate: Can online chat help? International Journal of Applied Linguistics, 16(2), 189–212.Google Scholar
Fujii, A., Ziegler, N. & Mackey, A. (2016). Peer interaction and metacognitive instruction in the EFL classroom. In Sato, M. & Ballinger, S. (eds.), Peer interaction and second language learning: Pedagogical potential and research agenda (pp. 63–89). Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
Godwin-Jones, R. (2016). Augmented reality and language learning: From annotated vocabulary to place-based mobile games. Language Learning & Technology, 20(3), 9–19.Google Scholar
Guichon, N. & Cohen, C. (2016). Multimodality and CALL. In Farr, F. & Murray, L. (eds.), The Routledge handbook of language learning and technology (pp. 509–521). London: 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), 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(6), 1393–1420.Google Scholar
*Hamano-Bunce, D. (2011). Talk or chat? Chatroom and spoken interaction in a language classroom. ELT Journal, 65(4), 426–436.Google Scholar
Handley, Z. (2018). Replication research in computer-assisted language learning: Replication of Neri et al. (2008) and Satar & Ӧzdener (2008). Language Teaching, 51(3), 417–429.Google Scholar
^Hirotani, M. (2009). Synchronous versus asynchronous CMC and transfer to Japanese oral performance. CALICO Journal, 26(2), 413–438.Google Scholar
*Kaneko, A. (2009). Comparing computer mediated communication (CMC) and face-to-face (FTF) communication for the development of Japanese as a foreign language. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, The University of Western Australia.Google Scholar
Kartchava, E. & Nassaji, H. (2019). Noticeability of corrective feedback in three dimensional virtual environments and face-to-face classroom contexts. In Leow, R. (ed.), Depth of processing in instructed second language acquisition (pp. 407–420). New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
*Kern, R. G. (1995). Restructuring classroom interaction with network computers: Effects on quantity and characteristics of language production. Modern Language Journal, 79(4), 457–476.Google Scholar
*Kim, H. Y. (2014). Learning opportunities in synchronous computer-mediated communication and face-to-face interaction. Computer Assisted Language Learning, 27(1), 26–43.Google Scholar
*Kim, H. Y. *(2017). Effect of modality and task type on interlanguage variation. ReCALL, 29(2), 219–236.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
^Kost, C. (2004). An investigation of the effects of synchronous computer-mediated communication (CMC) on interlanguage development in beginning learners of German: Accuracy, proficiency, and communication strategies. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, University of Arizona, Tucson.Google Scholar
*Lai, C. & Zhao, Y. (2006). Noticing and text-based chat. Language Learning & Technology, 10(3), 102–120.Google Scholar
Lamy, M.-N. (2012). Diversity in modalities. In Stockwell, G. (ed.), Computer-assisted language learning: Diversity in research and practice (pp. 109–126). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
^Loewen, S. & Reissner, S. (2009). A comparison of incidental focus on form in the second language classroom and chatroom. Computer Assisted Language Learning, 22(2), 101–114.Google Scholar
Loewen, S. & Sato, M. (2018). Interaction and instructed second language acquisition. Language Teaching, 51(3), 285–329.Google Scholar
^Loewen, S. & Wolff, D. (2016). Peer interaction in F2F and CMC contexts. In Sato, M. & Ballinger, S. (eds.), Peer interaction and second language learning: Pedagogical potential and research agenda (pp. 163–184). Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
Mackey, A. & Goo, J. M. (2007). Interaction research in SLA: A meta-analysis and research synthesis. In Mackey, A. (ed.), Input, interaction and corrective feedback in L2 learning (pp. 379–452). New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Nassaji, H. (2011). Immediate learner repair and its relationship with learning targeted forms in dyadic interaction. System, 39(1), 17–29.Google Scholar
^Nguyen, L. V. & White, C. (2011). The nature of “talk” in synchronous computer-mediated communication in a Vietnamese tertiary EFL context. International Journal of Computer-Assisted Language Learning and Teaching, 1(3), 14–36.Google Scholar
Ortega, L. (1997). Processes and outcomes in networked classroom interaction: Defining the research agenda for L2 computer-assisted classroom discussion. Language Learning & Technology, 1(1), 82–93.Google Scholar
Ortega, L. (2009). Interaction and attention to form in L2 text-based computer-mediated communication. In Mackey, A. & Polio, C. (eds.), Multiple perspectives on interaction (pp. 226–253). New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
Oswald, F. L. & Plonsky, L. (2010). Meta-analysis in second language research: Choices and challenges. Annual Review of Applied Linguistics, 30, 85–110.Google Scholar
Parlak, Ö. & Ziegler, N. (2016). The impact of recasts on the development of primary stress in a synchronous computer-mediated environment. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 39(2), 257–285. DOI:10.1017/s0272263116000310.Google Scholar
^Payne, J. S. & Whitney, P. J. (2002). Developing L2 oral proficiency through synchronous CMC: Output, working memory, and interlanguage development. CALICO Journal, 20(1), 7–32.Google Scholar
Pienemann, M. & Johnston, M. (1987). Factors influencing the development of language proficiency. In Nunan, D. (Ed.), Applying second language acquisition research (pp. 45–147). Adelaide: National Curriculum Resource Centre, AMEP.Google Scholar
*Pyun, O. C. (2003). Effects of networked language learning: A comparison between synchronous online discussions and face-to-face discussions. (Unpublished master’s thesis), Ohio State University, Columbus, OH.Google Scholar
Rassaei, E. (2017). Video chat vs. face-to-face recasts, learners’ interpretations and L2 development: A case of Persian EFL learners. Computer Assisted Language Learning, 30(1–2), 133–148. DOI:10.1080/09588221.2016.1275702.Google Scholar
Reinhardt, J. (2019). Gameful second and foreign language teaching and learning: Theory, research, and practice. London: Palgrave Macmillan.Google Scholar
*Rouhshad, A. & Storch, N. (2016). Focus on mode: Patterns of interaction in face-to-face and computer-mediated contexts. In Sato, M. & Ballinger, S. (eds.), Peer interaction and second language learning: Pedagogical potential and research agenda (pp. 267–289). Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
*Rouhshad, A., Wigglesworth, G. & Storch, N. (2016). The nature of negotiations in face-to-face versus computer-mediated communication in pair interactions. Language Teaching Research, 20(4), 514–534.Google Scholar
*Salaberry, M. R. (2000). L2 morphosyntactic development in text-based computer-mediated communication. Computer Assisted Language Learning, 13(1), 5–27.Google Scholar
Sato, M. (2013). Beliefs about peer interaction and peer corrective feedback: Efficacy of classroom intervention. Modern Language Journal, 97(3), 611–633.Google Scholar
Sato, M. & Ballinger, S. (eds.). (2016). Peer interaction and second language learning:Pedagogical potential and research agenda. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
*Sauro, S. (2012). L2 performance in text-chat and spoken discourse. System, 40(3), 335–348.Google Scholar
*Sim, T., Har, K. & Luan, N. (2010). Low proficiency learners in synchronous computer-assisted and face-to-face interactions. The Turkish Online Journal of Educational Technology, 9(3), 61–75.Google Scholar
Smith, B. (2005). The relationship between negotiated interaction, learner uptake, and lexical acquisition in task-based computer-mediated communication. TESOL Quarterly, 39(1), 33–58.Google Scholar
^Sullivan, N. & Pratt, E. (1996). A comparative study of two ESL writing environments: A computer-assisted classroom and a traditional oral classroom. System, 29(4), 491–501.Google Scholar
*Tan, L. L., Wigglesworth, G. & Storch, N. (2010). Pair interactions and mode of communication: Comparing face-to-face and computer mediated communication. Australian Review of Applied Linguistics, 33(3), 1–24.Google Scholar
Toth, P. D. & Davin, K. J. (2016). The sociocognitive imperative of L2 pedagogy. Modern Language Journal, 100(S1), 148–168.Google Scholar
*Vandergriff, I. (2006). Negotiating common ground in computer-mediated versus face-to-face discussions. Language Learning & Technology, 10(1), 110–138.Google Scholar
*Warschauer, M. (1996). Comparing face-to-face and electronic discussion in the second language classroom. CALICO Journal, 13(2–3), 7–26.Google Scholar
*Yilmaz, Y. (2012). The relative effects of explicit correction and recasts on two target structures via two communication modes. Language Learning, 62(4), 1134–1169.Google Scholar
*Yilmaz, Y. & Yuksel, D. (2011). Effects of communication mode and salience on recasts: A first exposure study. Language Teaching Research, 15(4), 457–477.Google Scholar
*Yuksel, D. & Inan, B. (2014). The effects of communication mode on negotiation of meaning and its noticing. ReCALL, 26(3), 333–354.Google Scholar
*Zeng, G. (2017). Collaborative dialogue in synchronous computer-mediated communication and face-to-face communication. ReCALL, 29(3), 257–275.Google Scholar
Zeng, G. & Takatsuka, S. (2009). Text-based peer-peer collaborative dialogue in a computer-mediated learning environment in the EFL context. System, 37(3), 434–446.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ziegler, N. & Mackey, A. J. (2017). Interactional feedback in computer-mediated communication: A review and state of the art. In Nassaji, H. & Kartchava, E. (eds.), Corrective feedback in second language teaching and learning: Research, theory, applications, implications (pp. 80–94). London: Routledge.Google Scholar

References

Abdous, M., Camarena, M. M. & Facer, B. R. (2009). MALL technology: Use of academic podcasting in the foreign language classroom. ReCALL, 21(1), 76–95.Google Scholar
Abraham, L. B. (2008). Computer-mediated glosses in second language reading comprehension and vocabulary learning: A meta-analysis. Computer Assisted Language Learning, 21(3), 199–226.Google Scholar
Ally, M. (2013). Mobile learning: From research to practice to impact education. Learning and Teaching in Higher Education: Gulf Perspectives, 10(2), 1–10.Google Scholar
Ally, M., McGreal, R., Schafer, S., Tin, T. & Cheung, B. (2007). Use of mobile learning technology to train ESL adults. In Proceedings of the Sixth International Conference on Mobile Learning (pp. 7–12). Melbourne.Google Scholar
Ally, M. & Samaka, M. (2016). Guidelines for design and implementation of mobile learning. In B. H. Khan (ed.), Revolutionizing modern education through meaningful e-learning implementation (pp. 161–176). IGI Global. http://doi:10.4018/978-1-5225-0466-5.ch009.Google Scholar
Belz, J. A. & Kinginger, C. (2003). Discourse options and the development of pragmatic competence by classroom learners of German: The case of address forms. Language Learning, 53(4), 591–647.Google Scholar
Blake, R. J. (2000). Computer mediated communication: A window on L2 Spanish interlanguage. Language Learning & Technology, 4(1), 120–136.Google Scholar
Brown, E. (ed.). (2001). Mobile learning explorations at the Stanford Learning Lab. Speaking of Computers (issue 55, January 8). https://tomprof.stanford.edu/posting/289.Google Scholar
Burston, J. (2014). MALL: The pedagogical challenges. Computer Assisted Language Learning, 27(4), 344–357.Google Scholar
Chapelle, C. (2008). Computer assisted language learning. In Spolsky, B. & Hult, F. M. (eds.), The handbook of educational linguistics (pp. 585–595). Oxford: Blackwell.Google Scholar
Comas-Quinn, A., Mardomingo, R. & Valentine, C. (2009). Mobile blogs in language learning: making the most of informal and situated learning opportunities. ReCALL, 21(1), 96–112.Google Scholar
Demouy, V. & Kukulska‐Hulme, A. (2010) On the spot: Using mobile devices for listening and speaking practice on a French language programme, Open Learning: The Journal of Open, Distance and e-Learning, 25(3), 217–232.Google Scholar
Doughty, C. & Varela, E. (1998). Communicative focus on form. In Doughty, C. & Williams, J. (eds.), Focus on form in classroom second language acquisition (pp. 114–138). New York: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Ellis, R. (2006). Researching the effects of form-focused instruction on L2 acquisition. AILA Review, 19(1), 18–41.Google Scholar
Felix, U. (2005a). What do meta-analyses tell us about CALL effectiveness? ReCALL, 17(2), 269–288.Google Scholar
Felix, U. (2005b). Analyzing recent CALL effectiveness research – Towards a common agenda. Computer Assisted Language Learning, 18(1–2), 1–32.Google Scholar
Golonka, E. M., Bowles, A. R., Frank, V. M., Richardson, D. L. & Freynik, S. (2014). Technologies for foreign language learning: A review of technology types and their effectiveness. Computer Assisted Language Learning, 27(1), 70–105.Google Scholar
Grhurovic, M., Chapelle, C. & Shelley, M. (2013). A meta-analysis of effectiveness studies on computer technology-supported language learning. ReCALL, 25(2), 165–198.Google Scholar
Herring, S. C. (2007). A faceted classification scheme for computer-mediated Discourse. Language@Internet, 4, article 1. www.languageatinternet.org/articles/2007/761.Google Scholar
Hsu, H-Y., Wang, S-K. & Comac, L. (2008). Using audioblogs to assist English-language learning: an investigation into student perception. Computer Assisted Language Learning, 21(2), 181–198.Google Scholar
Kern, R. (2006). Perspectives on technology in learning and language teaching. TESOL Quarterly, 40(1), 183–210.Google Scholar
Kessler, G. (2009). Student-initiated attention to form in wiki-based collaborative writing. Language Learning & Technology, 13(1), 79–95.Google Scholar
Kim, H-S. (2013). Emerging mobile apps to improve English listening skills. Multimedia-Assisted Language Learning, 16(2), 11–30.Google Scholar
Kim, S. (2014). Developing autonomous learning for oral proficiency using digital storytelling. Language Learning and Technology, 18(2), 20–35.Google Scholar
Kukulska-Hulme, A., Norris, L. and Donohue, J. (2015). Mobile pedagogy for English language teaching: A guide for teachers. London: British Council.Google Scholar
Kukulska-Hulme, A. & Shield, L. (2008). Overview of mobile assisted language learning: From content delivery to supported collaboration and interaction. ReCALL, 20(3), 271–289.Google Scholar
Lee, L. (2010). Exploring wiki-mediated collaborative writing: A case study in an elementary Spanish course. Calico Journal, 27(2), 260–276.Google Scholar
Li, A. & Hegelheimer, V. (2013). Mobile-assisted grammar exercises: Effects of self-editing in L2 writing. Language Learning and Technology, 17(3), 135–156.Google Scholar
Li, C. (2009). SMS-based vocabulary learning for ESL students. Master’s thesis, Auckland University of Technology, New Zealand. http://aut.researchgateway.ac.nz/bitstream/handle/10292/746/LiC.pdf?sequence=4&isAllowed=y.Google Scholar
Liakin, D., Cardoso, W. & Liakina, N. (2014). Learning L2 pronunciation with a mobile speech recognizer: French /y/. CALICO, 32(1), 1–25.Google Scholar
Liakin, D., Cardoso, W. & Liakina, N. (2017a). The pedagogical use of mobile speech synthesis (TTS): focus on French liaison. Computer Assisted Language Learning, 30(3–4), 325–342.Google Scholar
Liakin, D., Cardoso, W. & Liakina, N. (2017b). Mobilizing instruction in a second-language context: Learners’ perceptions of two speech technologies. Languages, 2(3), 11, 1–21. https://doi.org/10.3390/languages2030011.Google Scholar
Lin, H. (2015). Computer-mediated communication (CMC) in L2 oral proficiency development: A meta-analysis. ReCALL, 27(3), 261–287.Google Scholar
Liu, M., Moore, Z., Graham, L. & Lee, S. (2002). A look at the research in computer-based technology use in second language learning: A review of literature from 1990–2000. Journal of Research on Technology in Education, 34(3), 250–273.Google Scholar
Long, M. (1996). The role of the linguistic environment in second language acquisition. In Ritchie, W. C. & Bhatia, T. K. (eds.), Handbook of language acquisition. Vol. II: Second Language Acquisition (pp. 413–468). New York: Academic Press.Google Scholar
Mak, B. & Coniam, D. (2008). Using wikis to enhance and develop writing skills among secondary school students in Honk Kong. System, 36(3), 437–455.Google Scholar
Nassaji, H. & Kartchava, E. (eds.). (2017). Corrective feedback in second language teaching and learning: Research, theory, applications, implications. New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
Noriega, H. S. R. (2016). Mobile learning to improve writing in ESL teaching. TEFLIN Journal, 27(2), 182–202.Google Scholar
Palalas, A. (2011). Mobile-assisted learning: Designing for your students. In Thouësny, S. & Bradley, L. (eds.), Second language teaching and learning with technology: Views of emergent researchers (pp. 71–94). Dublin: Research-publishing.net.Google Scholar
Pellettieri, J. (2000). Negotiation in cyberspace: The role of chatting in the development of grammatical competence. In Warschauer, M. & Kern, R. G. (eds.), Network-based language teaching: Concepts and practice (pp. 59–86). New York: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Prensky, M. (2001). Digital natives, digital immigrants part 1. On the Horizon, 9(5), 1–2.Google Scholar
Prensky, M. (2005). Listen to the natives. Educational Leadership, 63(4), 8–13.Google Scholar
Procter-Legg, E., Cacchione, A. & Petersen, S. A. (2012). LingoBee and social media: Mobile language learners as social networkers. Paper presented at the International Association for Development of the Information Society (IADIS) International Conference on Cognition and Exploratory Learning in Digital Age (CELDA) (Madrid, Spain, Oct 19-21, 2012).Google Scholar
Reinders, H. & White, C. (2010). The theory and practice of technology in materials development and task design. In N. Harwood, (ed.), Contemporary computer assisted language learning (pp. 359–375). London: Continuum Books.Google Scholar
Reynolds, B. L. & Anderson, T. A. F. (2015). Extra-dimensional in-class communications: Action research exploring text chat support of face-to-face writing. Computers and Composition, 35, 52–64.Google Scholar
Schmidt, R. & Frota, S. (1986). Developing basic conversational ability in second language: A case study of an adult learner of Portuguese. In R. Day, (ed.), Talking to learn: Conversation in second language acquisition (pp. 237–326). Rowley, MA: Newbury House.Google Scholar
Shi, Z., Luo, G. & He, L. (2017). Mobile-assisted language learning using WeChat instant messaging. International Journal of Emerging Technologies in Learning, 12(2), 16–26.Google Scholar
Shih, R.-C., Lee, C. & Cheng, T.-F. (2015). Effects of English spelling learning experience through a mobile LINE app for college students. Procedia – Social and Behavioral Sciences, 174, 2634–2638.Google Scholar
Stockwell, G. & Hubbard, P. (2013). Some emerging principles for mobile-assisted language learning. Monterey, CA: The International Research Foundation for English Language Education. www.tirfonline.org/english-in-the-workforce/mobile-assisted-language-learning.Google Scholar
Sung, Y., Chang, K. & Yang, J. (2015). How effective are mobile devices for language learning? A meta-analysis. Educational Research Review, 16(Complete), 68–84.Google Scholar
Swain, M. (1993). The output hypothesis: Just speaking and writing aren’t enough. Canadian Modern Language Review, 50(1), 158–164.Google Scholar
Sykes, J. M., Oskoz, A. & Thorne, S. L. (2008). Web 2.0, Synthetic immersive environments, and mobile resources for language education. CALICO Journal, 25(3), 528–546.Google Scholar
Taj, I. H., Sulan, N. B., Sipra, M. A. & Ahmad, W. (2016). Impact of mobile assisted language learning (MALL) on EFL: A meta-analysis. Advances in Language and Literary Studies, 7(2), 76–83.Google Scholar
Taylor, A. M. (2006). The effects of CALL versus traditional L1 glosses on L2 reading comprehension. CALICO Journal, 23(2), 309–318.Google Scholar
Thornton, P. & Houser, C. (2005). Using mobile phones in English education in Japan. Journal of Computer Assisted Learning, 21(3), 217–228.Google Scholar
Vandergriff, I. (2016). Second-language discourse in the digital world: Linguistic and social practices in and beyond the networked classroom. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
Warschauer, M. (1996). Comparing face-to-face and electronic communication in the second language classroom. CALICO Journal, 13(2), 7–26.Google Scholar
Wu, Q. (2015). Pulling mobile assisted language learning (MALL) into the mainstream: MALL in broad practice. PLoS ONE, 10(5), e0128762.Google Scholar
Xu, Q., Dong, X. Q. & Jiang, J. (2017). EFL learners’ perceptions of mobile-assisted feedback on oral production. TESOL Quarterly, 51(2), 408–417.Google Scholar
Xu, Q. & Peng, H. (2017). Investigating mobile-assisted oral feedback in teaching Chinese as a second language. Computer Assisted Language Learning, 30(3–4), 173–182.Google Scholar
Young, E. H. & West, R. E. (2018). Speaking practice outside the classroom: A literature review of asynchronous multimedia-based oral communication in language learning. EuroCALL Review, 26(1), 59–78.Google Scholar
Zhang, H., Song, W. & Burston, J. (2011). Reexamining the effectiveness of vocabulary learning via mobile phones. Turkish Online Journal of Educational Technology, 10(3), 203–214.Google Scholar
Zhao, Y. (2003). Recent developments in technology and language learning: A literature review and meta-analysis. CALICO Journal, 21(1), 7–27.Google Scholar
Ziegler, N. (2016). Synchronous computer-mediated communication and interaction: A meta-analysis. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 38(3), 553–586.Google Scholar

References

Allen, P., Swain, M., Harley, B. & Cummins, J. (1990). Aspects of classroom treatment: Toward a more comprehensive view of second language education. In Harley, B., Allen, P., Cummins, J. & Swain, M. (eds.), The development of second language proficiency (pp. 57–81). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Ammar, A. & Spada, N. (2006). One size fits all? Recasts, prompts and L2 learning. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 28(4), 543–574.Google Scholar
Ballinger, S. (2013). Towards a cross-linguistic pedagogy: Biliteracy and reciprocal learning strategies in French immersion. Journal of Immersion and Content-Based Language Education, 1(1), 131–148.Google Scholar
Ballinger, S., Lyster, R., Sterzuk, A. & Genesee, F. (2017). Context-appropriate cross-linguistic pedagogy: Considering the role of language status in immersion. Journal of Immersion and Content-Based Language Education, 5(1), 30–57.Google Scholar
Burger., S. & Chrétien, S. (2001). The development of oral production in content-based second language courses at the University of Ottawa. Canadian Modern Language Review, 58(1), 84–102.Google Scholar
Cammarata, L. (ed.). (2016). Content-based foreign language teaching: Curriculum and pedagogy for developing advanced thinking and literacy skills. New York: Routledge/Taylor & Francis.Google Scholar
Cammarata, L. & Tedick, D. (2012). Balancing content and language in instruction: The experience of immersion teachers. Modern Language Journal, 96(2), 251–269.Google Scholar
Cenoz, J. (2015). Content-based instruction and content and language integrated learning: the same or different?’ Language, Culture and Curriculum, 28(1), 8–24.Google Scholar
Cenoz, J., Genesee, F. & Gorter, D. (2014). Critical analysis of CLIL: Taking stock and looking forward. Applied Linguistics, 35(3), 243–262.Google Scholar
Dafouz, E. & Camacho-Miñano, , M. (2016). Exploring the impact of English-medium instruction on university student academic achievement: The case of accounting. English for Specific Purposes, 44, 57–67.Google Scholar
Dafouz, E. & Smit, U. (2014). Towards a dynamic conceptual framework for English-medium education in multilingual settings. Applied Linguistics, 37(3), 397–415.Google Scholar
Dalton-Puffer, C. (2007). Discourse in content and language integrated learning (CLIL) classrooms. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
Dalton-Puffer, C. (2011). Content and language integrated learning: From practice to principles? Applied Linguistics, 31, 182–204.Google Scholar
Dalton-Puffer, C., Llinares, A., Lorenzo, F. & Nikula, T. (2014). “You can stand under my umbrella”: Immersion, CLIL and bilingual education. A response to Cenoz, Genesee & Gorter (2013). Applied Linguistics, 35(2), 213–218.Google Scholar
Dalton-Puffer, C., Nikula, T. & Smit, U. (2010). Language use and language learning in CLIL: Current findings and contentious issues. In Dalton-Puffer, C., Nikula, T. & Smit, U. (eds.), Language use and language learning in CLIL classrooms (pp. 279–291). Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
Doughty, C. & Williams, J. (1998). Focus on form in classroom second language acquisition. New York: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Ellis, R. (2017). Oral corrective feedback in L2 classrooms: What we know so far. In Nassaji, H. & Kartchava, E. (eds.), Corrective feedback in second language teaching and learning (pp. 3–18). New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
Fortune, T. & Tedick, D. (2015). Oral proficiency development of K–8 Spanish immersion students. Modern Language Journal, 99(4), 637–655.Google Scholar
Fortune, T., Tedick, D. & Walker, C. (2008). Integrated language and content teaching: Insights from the classroom. In Fortune, T. & Tedick, D. (eds.), Pathways to multilingualism: Evolving perspectives on immersion education (pp. 71–96). Clevedon: Multilingual Matters.Google Scholar
García Mayo, M. P. & Bastarrechea, M. (2017). CLIL and SLA: Insights from an interactionist perspective. In Llinares, A. & Morton, T. (Eds.), Applied linguistics perspectives on CLIL (pp. 33–50). Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
Gass, S. & Mackey, A. (2006). Input, interaction and output: An overview. AILA Review, 19(1), 3–17.Google Scholar
Genesee, F., & Linholm-Leary, K. (2013). Two case studies of content-based language education. Journal of Immersion and Content-Based Language Education, 1(1): 3–33.Google Scholar
Helgerson, E. (2017). The effects of supporting target language use in immersion. Unpublished master’s thesis, McGill University, Montreal, QC.Google Scholar
Hermes, M. (2007). Moving toward the language: Reflections on teaching in an indigenous immersion school. Journal of American Indian Education, 46(3), 54–71.Google Scholar
Hermes, M. & Kawai’ae’a, K. (2014). Revitalizing indigenous languages through indigenous immersion education. Journal of Immersion and Content-Based Language Education, 2(2), 303–322.Google Scholar
Hickey, T. (2007). Children’s language networks and teachers’ input in minority language immersion: What goes in may not come out. Language and Education, 21(1), 46–65.Google Scholar
Hornberger, N. (2006). Voice and biliteracy in indigenous language revitalization: Contentious educational practices in Quechua, Guarani, and Maori contexts. Journal of Language, Identity & Education, 5(4), 277–292.Google Scholar
Howatt, A. (1984). Language teaching traditions: 1884 revisited. ELT Journal, 38(4), 279–282.Google Scholar
Huang, J. (2006). Understanding factors that influence Chinese English teachers’ decision to implement communicative activities in teaching. The Journal of ASIA TEFL, 3(4), 165–191.Google Scholar
Koike, D. & Pearson, L. (2005). The effect of instruction and feedback in the development of pragmatic competence. System, 33(3), 481–501.Google Scholar
Lantolf, J. (2000). Introducing sociocultural theory. In Lantolf, J. (ed.), Sociocultural theory and second language learning (pp. 1–26). Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Lasagabaster, D. (2001). Bilingualism, immersion programmes and language learning in the Basque Country. Journal of Multilingual and Multicultural Development, 22(5), 401–425.Google Scholar
Lasagabaster, D. & Sierra, J. M. (2010). Immersion and CLIL in English: More differences than similarities. ELT Journal, 64, 367–375.Google Scholar
Lee, J. (2007). Corrective feedback and learner uptake in English immersion classrooms at the primary level in Korea. English Teaching, 62(4), 311–334.Google Scholar
Lightbown, P. (2008). Transfer appropriate processing as a model for classroom second language acquisition. In Han, Z. (ed.), Understanding second language process (pp. 27–44). Clevedon: Multilingual Matters.Google Scholar
Lightbown, P. & Spada, N. (2013). How languages are learned. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Lindholm-Leary, K. (2001). Dual language education. Clevedon: Multilingual Matters.Google Scholar
Lindholm-Leary, K. & Genesee, F. (2014). Student outcomes in one-way, two-way, and indigenous immersion language immersion education. Journal of Immersion and Content-Based Language Education, 2(2), 165–180.Google Scholar
Llinares, A. & Lyster, R. (2014). The influence of context on patterns of corrective feedback and learner uptake: A comparison of CLIL and immersion classrooms. Language Learning Journal, 42(2), 181–194.Google Scholar
Lochtman, K. (2002). Oral corrective feedback in the foreign language classroom: How it affects interaction in analytic foreign language teaching. International Journal of Educational Research, 37, 271–283.Google Scholar
Lochtman, K. (2007). Die mündliche Fehlerkorrektur in CLIL und im traditionellen Fremdsprachenunterricht: Ein Vergleich. In Dalton-Puffer, C. & Smit, U. (eds.), Empirical perspectives on CLIL classroom discourse (pp. 119–138). Frankfurt: Peter Lang.Google Scholar
Loewen, S. (2004). Uptake in incidental focus on form in meaning-focused ESL lessons. Language Learning, 54(1), 153–188.Google Scholar
Long, M. (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
Long, M. & 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
Lyster, R. (1987). Speaking immersion. Canadian Modern Language Review, 43(4), 701–717.Google Scholar
Lyster, R. (1998). Recasts, repetition and ambiguity in L2 classroom discourse. Studies in Second Language Acquisition 20(1), 51–80.Google Scholar
Lyster, R. (2004). Differential effects of prompts and recasts in form-focused instruction. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 26(3), 399–432.Google Scholar
Lyster, R. (2017). Content-based language teaching. In Loewen, S. & Sato, M. (eds.), The Routledge handbook of instructed second language acquisition (pp. 87–107). New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
Lyster, R. (2018). Content-based language teaching. New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
Lyster, R. & Ballinger, S. (2011). Content-based language teaching: Convergent concerns across divergent contexts. Language Teaching Research, 15(3), 279–288.Google Scholar
Lyster, R. & Mori, H. (2006). Interactional feedback and instructional counterbalance. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 28(2), 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(1), 37–66.Google Scholar
Lyster, R., Saito, K. & Sato, M. (2013). Oral corrective feedback in second language classrooms. Language Teaching, 46(1), 1–40.Google Scholar
Macaro, E., Curle, S., Pun, J., An, J. & Dearden, J. (2018). A systematic review of English-medium instruction in higher education. Language Teaching, 51(1), 36–76.Google Scholar
Mariotti, C. (2006). Negotiated interactions and repair. VIEWS Vienna English Working Papers, 15, 33–41.Google Scholar
May, S. & Hill, R. (2005). Māori-medium education: Current issues and challenges. International Journal of Bilingual Education and Bilingualism, 8(5), 377–403.Google Scholar
Met, M. (1998). Curriculum decision-making in content-based second language teaching. In Cenoz, J. & Genesee, F. (eds.), Beyond bilingualism: Multilingualism and multilingual education (pp. 35–63). Clevedon: Multilingual Matters.Google Scholar
Milla, R. & García Mayo, M. P. (2014). Corrective feedback episodes in oral interaction: A comparison of a CLIL and an EFL classroom. International Journal of English Studies, 14(1), 1–20.Google Scholar
Morton, T. & Llinares, A. (2017). Content and language integrated learning (CLIL): Type of programme or pedagogical model? In Llinares, A. & Morton, T. (eds.), Applied linguistics perspectives on CLIL (pp. 1–18). Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
Nassaji, H. & Swain, M. (2000). A Vygotskyan perspective on corrective feedback in L2: The effect of random versus negotiated help on the learning of English articles. Language Awareness, 9(1), 34–51.Google Scholar
Netten, J. & Spain, W. (1989). Student-teacher interaction patterns in the French immersion classroom: Implications for level of achievement in French language proficiency. Canadian Modern Language Review, 45(3), 485–501.Google Scholar
Nishimuro, M. & Borg, S. (2013). Teacher cognition and grammar teaching in a Japanese high school. JALT Journal, 35(1), 29–50.Google Scholar
Oliver, R., Sato, M., Ballinger, S. & Pan, L. (2019). Content and Language Integrated Learning classes for child Mandarin L2 learners: A longitudinal observational study. In Sato, M. & Loewen, S. (eds.), Evidence-based second language pedagogy: A collection of instructed second language acquisition studies (pp. 81–102). New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
Pahissa, I. & Tragant, E. (2009). Grammar and the non-native secondary school teacher in Catalonia. Language Awareness, 18(1), 47–60.Google Scholar
Palmer, D., Ballinger, S. & Peter, L. (2014). Classroom interaction in one-way, two-way, and indigenous immersion contexts. Journal of Immersion and Content-Based Language Education, 2(2), 225–240.Google Scholar
Pérez-Cañado, M. L. (2012). CLIL research in Europe: Past, present, and future. International Journal of Bilingual Education and Bilingualism, 15(3), 315–341.Google Scholar
Pérez-Cañado, M. L (2016). Teacher training needs for bilingual education: in-service teacher perceptions. International Journal of Bilingual Education and Bilingualism, 19(3), 266–295.Google Scholar
Peter, L. (2014). Language ideologies and Cherokee revitalization: Impracticality, legitimacy, and hope. Journal of Immersion and Content-Based Language Education, 2(1), 96–118.Google Scholar
Philp, J., Adams, R. & Iwashita, N. (2014). Peer interaction and second language learning. New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
Pica, T. (2002). Subject matter content: How does it assist the interactional and linguistic needs of second language learners? Modern Language Journal, 86, 1–19.Google Scholar
Potowski, K. (2007). Language and identity in a dual immersion school. Clevedon: Multilingual Matters.Google Scholar
Salomone, A. (1992). Immersion teachers’ pedagogical beliefs and practices: Results of a descriptive analysis. In Bernhardt, E. (ed.), Life in language immersion classrooms (pp. 9–44). Clevedon: Multilingual Matters.Google Scholar
Sato, M. (2011). Constitution of form-orientation: Contributions of context and explicit knowledge to learning from recasts. Canadian Journal of Applied Linguistics, 14(1), 1–28.Google Scholar
Sato, M. (2017). Oral peer corrective feedback: Multiple theoretical perspectives. In Nassaji, H. & Kartchava, E. (eds.), Corrective feedback in second language teaching and learning: Research, theory, applications, implications (pp. 19–34). New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
Sato, M. & Ballinger, S. (2016). Understanding peer interaction: Research synthesis and directions. In Sato, M. & Ballinger, S. (eds.), Peer interaction and second language learning: Pedagogical potential and research agenda (pp. 1–30). Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
Sato, M. & Lyster, R. (2012). Peer interaction and corrective feedback for accuracy and fluency development: Monitoring, practice, and proceduralization. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 34(4), 591–626.Google Scholar
Sheen, Y. (2004). Corrective feedback and learner uptake across instructional settings. Language Teaching Research, 8(3), 263–300.Google Scholar
Spack, R. (1997). The acquisition of academic literacy in a second language: A longitudinal case study. Written Communication, 14(1), 3–62.Google Scholar
Spada, N. (2007). Communicative language teaching: Current status and future projects. In Cummins, J. & Davison, C. (eds.), International handbook of English language teaching (pp. 271–288). New York: Springer.Google Scholar
Swain, M. (2001). Integrating language and content teaching through collaborative tasks. Canadian Modern Language Review, 58(1), 44–64.Google Scholar
Swain, M. & Johnson, R. (1997). Immersion education: A category within second language education. In Swain, M. and Johnson, R. (eds.), Immersion education: International Perspectives (pp. 1–16). New York: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Swain, M. & Lapkin, S. (1998). Interaction and second language learning: Two adolescent French immersion students working together. Modern Language Journal, 82(3), 320–337.Google Scholar
Swain, M. & Lapkin, S. (2002). Talking it through: Two French immersion learners’ response to reformulation. International Journal of Educational Research, 37(3–4), 285–304.Google Scholar
Tedick, D. & Zilmer, C. (2018). Teacher perceptions of immersion professional development experiences emphasizing language-focused content instruction. Journal of Immersion and Content-Based Language Education, 6(2), 269–294.Google Scholar
Van Kampen, E., Meirink, J., Admiraal, W. & Berry, A. (2017). Do we all share the same values on content and language integrated learning (CLIL)? Specialist and practitioner perceptions of ‘ideal’ CLIL pedagogies in the Netherlands. International Journal of Bilingual Education and Bilingualism. DOI:10.1080/13670050.2017.1411332.Google Scholar
Wilson, W. & Kamana, K. (2011). Insights from indigenous language immersion in Hawai’i. In Tedick, D. J., Christian, D. & Williams Fortune, T. (eds.), Immersion Education: Practices, Policies, Possibilities (pp.36–57). Tonawanda, NY: Multilingual Matters.Google Scholar
Yaghoubinejad, H., Zarrinabadi, N. & Nejadansari, D. (2017). Culture-specificity of teacher demotivation: Iranian junior high school teachers caught in the newly-introduced CLT trap! Teachers and Teaching, 23(2), 127–140.Google Scholar
Yang, J. (2016). Learners’ oral corrective feedback preferences in relation to their cultural background, proficiency level, and types of error. System, 61, 75–86.Google Scholar

Save book to Kindle

To save this book to your Kindle, first ensure [email protected] 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
×