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-dk4vv Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-26T21:25:36.401Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

Part IV - Feedback Provider, Feedback Intensity, and Feedback Timing

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. 273 - 364
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

Adams, R. (2007). Do second language learners benefit from interacting with each other. In Mackey, A. (ed.), Conversational interaction in second language acquisition (pp. 29–51). Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Aljaafreh, A. & Lantolf, J. P. (1994). Negative feedback as regulation: Second language learning in the zone of proximal development. Modern Language Journal, 78(4), 465–483.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Anderson, J. (2005). Cognitive psychology and its implications (6th ed.). New York: Worth Publishers.Google Scholar
Brandl, K. (1995). Strong and weak students’ preferences for error feedback options and responses. Modern Language Journal, 79(2), 194–211.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Brooks, L. & Swain, M. (2009). Languaging in collaborative writing: Creation of and response to expertise. In Mackey, A. & Polio, C. (eds.), Multiple perspectives on interaction in SLA (pp. 58–89). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.Google Scholar
Brown, A. (2009). Students’ and teachers’ perceptions of effective foreign language teaching: A comparison of ideals. Modern Language Journal, 93(1), 46–60.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cathcart, R. & Olsen, J. (1976). Teachers’ and students’ preferences for correction of classroom conversation errors. In Fanselow, J. & Crymes, R. (eds.), On TESOL ’76 (pp. 41–53). Washington, DC: TESOL.Google Scholar
Choi, H. & Iwashita, N. (2016). Interactional behaviours of low-proficiency learners in small group work. In Sato, M. & Ballinger, S. (eds.), Peer interaction and second language learning: Pedagogical potential and research agenda (pp. 113–134). Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
Chu, R. (2013). Effects of peer feedback on Taiwanese adolescents’ English speaking practices and development. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, The University of Edinburgh. www.era.lib.ed.ac.uk/handle/1842/8045.Google Scholar
Coughlan, P. & Duff, P. A. (1994). Same task, different activities: Analysis of an SLA task from an activity theory perspective. In Lantolf, J. & Appel, G. (eds.), Vygotskian approaches to second language research (pp. 173–193). Westport, CT: Ablex.Google Scholar
Dao, P. (2017). Learner engagement in peer task-based interaction: Identifying the effect of interlocutor proficiency and task outcome. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Concordia University. https://spectrum.library.concordia.ca/982862/.Google Scholar
Dao, P. (2019). Effects of task goal orientation on learner engagement in task performance. International Review of Applied Linguistics in Language Teaching, 1–20. www.degruyter.com/view/j/iral?rskey=JOFBFp.Google Scholar
Dao, P. & McDonough, , K. (2017). The effect of task role on Vietnamese EFL learners’ collaboration in mixed proficiency dyads. System, 65(1), 15–24.Google Scholar
Dao, P. & McDonough, (2018). Effect of proficiency on Vietnamese EFL learners’ engagement in peer interaction. International Journal of Educational Research, 88(1), 60–72.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dao, P., Nguyen, M. X. N. & Chi, D. N. (2020). Reflective learning practice for promoting adolescent EFL learners’ attention to form. Innovation in Language Learning and Teaching, 1–16. https://doi.org/10.1080/17501229.2020.1766467.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Davis, R. (1997). Modeling the strategies we advocate. TESOL Journal, 6(4), 5–6.Google Scholar
DeKeyser, R. (1998). Exploring automatization processes. TESOL Quarterly, 30(2), 349–357.Google Scholar
DeKeyser, R. (2007). Skill acquisition theory. In VanPatten, B. & Williams, J. (eds.), Theories in second language acquisition: An introduction (pp. 97–113). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.Google Scholar
Dochy, F., Segers, M. & Sluijsmans, D. (1999). The use of self-, peer and co-assessment in higher education: A review. Studies in Higher Education, 24(3), 331–350.Google Scholar
Donato, R. (2004). Aspects of collaboration in pedagogical discourse. Annual Review of Applied Linguistics, 24, 284–302.Google Scholar
Ellis, N. C. (2005). At the interface: Dynamic interactions of explicit and implicit language knowledge. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 27(1), 305–352.Google Scholar
Ellis, R. (2010). Cognitive, social and psychological dimensions of corrective feedback. In Batstone, R. (ed.), Sociocognitive perspectives on language use and language learning (pp. 151–165). New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Ertmer, P., Richardson, J., Belland, B., Camin, D., Connolly, P., Coulthard, G., Lei, K. & Mong, C. (2007). Using peer feedback to enhance the quality of student online postings: An exploratory study. Journal of Computer Mediated Communication, 12(2), 412–433.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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gass, S. (2003). Input and interaction. In Doughty, C. & Long, M. (eds.), The handbook of second language acquisition (pp. 224–255). Oxford: Blackwell.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gass, S. & Mackey, A. (2007). Input, interaction, and output in second language acquisition. In VanPatten, B. & Williams, J. (eds.), Theories in second language acquisition: An introduction (pp. 180–206). New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
Gass, S. & Varonis, E. (1989). Incorporated repairs in nonnative discourse. In Eisenstein, M. R. (ed.), The dynamic interlanguage: Empirical studies in second language variation (pp. 71–86). New York: Plenum Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gass, S. & Varonis, E. (1994). Input, interaction and second language production. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 16(3), 283–302.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Iwashita, N. (1999). Tasks and learners’ output in nonnative–nonnative interaction. In Kanno, Kazue (ed.), The acquisition of Japanese as a second language (pp. 31–52). Amsterdam: John Benjamins.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Izumi, S. (2003). Comprehension and production processes in second language learning: In search of the psycholinguistic rationale of the output hypothesis. Applied Linguistics 24(2), 168–196. https://doi.org/10.1093/applin/24.2.145.Google Scholar
Katayama, A. (2007). Japanese EFL students’ preferences toward correction of classroom oral errors. Asian EFL Journal, 9(4), 289–305.Google Scholar
Kim, Y. & McDonough, K. (2008). The effect of interlocutor proficiency on the collaborative dialogue between Korean as second language learners. Language Teaching Research, 12(2), 211–234.Google Scholar
Kim, Y. & McDonough, K. (2011). Using pre-task modeling to encourage collaborative learning opportunities. Language Teaching Research, 15(2), 183–199.Google Scholar
Kowal, M. & Swain, M. (1994). Using collaborative language production tasks to promote students’ language awareness. Language Awareness, 3(2), 73–93.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kowal, M. & Swain, M. (1997). From semantic to syntactic processing: How can we promote metalinguistic awareness in the French immersion classroom? In Johnson, R. & Swain, M. (eds.), Immersion education: International perspective (pp. 284–309). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Krashen, S. (1982). Principles and practice in second language learning and acquisition. Oxford: Pergamon.Google Scholar
Lantolf, J. & Thorne, S. (2006). Sociocultural theory and the genesis of second language development. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Leeser, M. J. (2004). Learner proficiency and focus on form during collaborative dialogue. Language Teaching Research, 8(1), 55–81.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Liu, E., Lin, S., Chiu, C. & Yuan, S. (2001). Web-based peer review: The learner as both adapter and reviewer. IEEE Transactions on Education, 44(3), 246–251.Google Scholar
Liu, N. F. & Carless, D. (2006). Peer feedback: The learning element of peer assessment. Teaching in Higher Education, 11(3), 279–290.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Loewen, S. & Philp, J. (2006). Recasts in the adult English L2 classroom: Characteristics, explicitness, and effectiveness. Modern Language Journal, 90(4), 536–556.Google Scholar
Long, M. (1981). Input, interaction, and second-language acquisition. Annals of the New York Academy of Sciences, 379(1), 259–278.Google Scholar
Long, M. (1983). Linguistic and conversational adjustments to non-native speakers. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 5(2), 177–193.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Long, M. (1996). The role of the linguistic environment in second language acquisition. In Ritchie, W. C. & Bhatia, T. K. (eds.), Handbook of second language acquisition (pp. 413–468). New York: Academic Press.Google Scholar
Long, M. (2007). Problems in SLA. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.Google Scholar
Lynch, T. (2007). Learning from the transcripts of an oral communication task. ELT Journal, 61(4), 311–320.Google Scholar
Lyster, R. & Ranta, L. (1997). Corrective feedback and learner uptake: Negotiation of form in communicative classrooms. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 19(4), 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lyster, R., Saito, K. & Sato, M. (2013). Oral corrective feedback in second language classrooms. Language Teaching, 46(1), 1–40.Google Scholar
Mackey, A., Abbuhl, R. & Gass, S. M. (2012). Interactionist approaches. In Gass, S. & Mackey, A. (eds.), The Routledge handbook of second language acquisition (pp. 7–23). New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
Mackey, A. & Gass, S. (2015). Interaction approaches. In VanPatten, B. & Williams, J. (eds.), Theories in second language acquisition. New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
Mackey, A., McDonough, K., Fujii, A. & Tatsumi, T. (2001). Investigating learners’ reports about the L2 classroom. International Review of Applied Linguistics, 39(4), 285–308.Google Scholar
Mackey, A., Oliver, R. L. & Leeman, J. (2003). Interaction input and the incorporation of feedback: an exploration of NS–NNS and NNS–NNS adult and child dyads. Language Learning, 53(1), 35–66.Google Scholar
McDonough, K. (2004). Learner–learner interaction during pair and small group activities in a Thai EFL context. System, 32(2), 207–224.Google Scholar
Miao, Y., Badger, R. & Zhen, Y. (2006). A comparative study of peer and teacher feedback in a Chinese EFL writing class. Journal of Second Language Writing, 15(3), 179–200.Google Scholar
Morris, F. (2005). Child-to-child interaction and corrective feedback in a computer mediated L2 class. Language Learning & Technology, 9(1), 29–45.Google Scholar
Nassaji, H. (2009). The effects of recasts and elicitations in dyadic interaction and the role of feedback explicitness. Language Learning, 59(2), 411–452.Google Scholar
Nassaji, H. (2015). Interactional feedback dimension in instructed second language learning. London: Bloomsbury Publishing.Google Scholar
Nassaji, H. & Swain, M. (2000). A Vygotskian 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
Naughton, D. (2006). Cooperative strategy training and oral interaction: Enhancing small group communication in the language classroom. Modern Language Journal, 90(2), 169–184.Google Scholar
Nicol, D. (2009). Assessment for learner self-regulation: Enhancing achievement in the first year using learning technologies. Assessment and Evaluation in Higher Education, 34(3), 335–352.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Nicol, D. (2014). Guiding principles of peer review: Unlocking learners’ evaluative skills. In Kreber, C., Anderson, C., Entwistle, N. & McArthur, J. (eds.), Advances and innovations in university assessment and feedback (pp. 195–258). Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press.Google Scholar
Ohta, A. (2000). Rethinking interaction in SLA: Developmentally appropriate assistance in the zone of proximal development and the acquisition of L2 grammar. In Lantolf, J. P. (ed.), Sociocultural theory and second language learning (pp. 51–78). Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Ohta, A. (2001). Second language acquisition processes in the classroom: Learning Japanese. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.Google Scholar
Philp, J. (2016). New pathways in researching interaction. In Sato, M. & Ballinger, S. (eds.), Peer interaction and second language learning: Pedagogical potential and research agenda (pp. 377–395). Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
Philp, J., Adams, R. & Iwashita, N. (2014). Peer interaction and second language learning. New York: Taylor & Francis.Google Scholar
Philp, J. & Duchesne, S. (2016). Exploring engagement in tasks in the language classroom. Annual Review of Applied Linguistics, 36(1), 50–72.Google Scholar
Philp, J. & Mackey, A. (2010). Interaction research: What can socially informed approaches offer to cognitivists (and vice versa)? In Batstone, R. (ed.), Sociocognitive perspectives on language use and language learning (pp. 210–228). New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Philp, J., Walter, S. & Basturkmen, H. (2010). Peer interaction in the foreign language classroom: What factors foster a focus on form? Language Awareness, 19(4), 261–279.Google Scholar
Pica, T. (1994). Research on negotiation: What does it reveal about second language learning conditions, processes, and outcomes? Language Learning, 44(3), 493–527.Google Scholar
Pica, T., Lincoln-Porter, F., Paninos, D. & Linnell, J. (1996). Language learners’ interaction: How does it address the input, output, and feedback needs of L2 learners? TESOL Quarterly, 30(1), 59–84.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Poehner, M. E. (2008). Both sides of the conversation: The interplay between mediation and learner reciprocity in dynamic assessment. In Lantolf, J. P. & Poehner, M. E. (eds.), Sociocultural theory and the teaching of second languages (pp. 33–56). London: Equinox.Google Scholar
Ranta, L. & 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 (pp. 141–160). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Sato, M. (2013). Beliefs about peer interaction and peer corrective feedback: Efficacy of classroom intervention. Modern Language Journal, 97(3), 611–633.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sato, M. (2017). Oral corrective feedback: Multiple theoretical perspectives. In Nassaji, H. & Kartchava, E. (eds.), Corrective feedback in second language teaching and learning: Research, theory, applications, implications (pp. 19–35). New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
Sato, M. & Ballinger, S. (2012). Raising language awareness in peer interaction: A cross-context, cross-method examination. Language Awareness, 21(1), 157–179.CrossRefGoogle 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. & Loewen, S. (2018). Metacognitive instruction enhances the effectiveness of corrective feedback: Variable effects of feedback types and linguistic targets. Language Learning, 68(2), 507–545.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sato, M. & Lyster, R. (2007). Modified output of Japanese EFL learners: Variable effects of interlocutor vs. 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
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
Sato, M. & McDonough, K. (2019). Practice is important but how about its quality? Contextualized practice in the classroom, Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 41(1), 999–1026.Google Scholar
Sato, M. & Viveros, P. (2016). Interaction or collaboration? Group dynamics in the foreign language classroom. In Sato, M. & Ballinger, S. (eds.), Peer interaction and second language learning: Pedagogical potential and research agenda (pp. 91–112). Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
Schulz, R. A. (1996). Focus on form in the foreign language classroom: Students’ and teachers’ views on error correction and the role of grammar. Foreign Language Annals, 29(3), 343–364.Google Scholar
Segalowitz, N. (2003). Automaticity and second languages. In Doughty, C. & Long, M. H. (eds.), The handbook of second language acquisition (pp. 382–408). Malden, MA: Blackwell.Google Scholar
Sheen, Y. & Ellis, R. (2011). Corrective feedback in language teaching. In Hinkel, E. (ed.), Handbook of research in second language teaching and learning (pp. 593–610). New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
Sipple, L. (2017). The effects of peer interaction, form-focused instruction, and peer corrective feedback on the acquisition of grammar and vocabulary in L2 German. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Pennsylvania State University. https://etda.libraries.psu.edu/files/final_submissions/14444.Google Scholar
Sipple, L. & Jackson, C. N. (2015). Teacher vs. peer oral corrective feedback in the German language classroom. Foreign Language Annals, 48(4), 688–705.Google Scholar
Skehan, P. (1998). A cognitive approach to language learning. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Storch, N. (2002). Patterns of interaction in ESL pair work. Language Learning, 52(1), 119–158.Google Scholar
Storch, N. (2008). Metatalk in a pair work activity: Level of engagement and implications for language development. Language Awareness, 17(2), 95–114.Google Scholar
Storch, N. (2017). Sociocultural theory in the L2 classroom. In Loewen, S. & Sato, M. (eds.), The Routledge handbook of instructed second language acquisition (pp. 69–84). New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
Swain, M. (1995). Three functions of output in second language learning. In Cook, G. and Seidlhofer, B. (eds.), Principles and practice in applied linguistics (pp. 125–144). Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Swain, M. (1998). Focus on form through conscious reflection. In Doughty, C. and Williams, J. (eds.), Focus on form in classroom second language acquisition (pp. 61–81). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Swain, M. (2000). The output hypothesis and beyond: Mediating acquisition through collaborative dialogue. In Lantolf, J. P. (ed.), Sociocultural theory and second language learning (pp. 97–114). Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Tognini, R. (2008). Interaction in languages other than English classes in Western Australian primary and secondary schools: Theory, practice and perceptions. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Edith Cowan University, Perth, Australia.Google Scholar
Topping, K. J., Smith, E. F., Swanson, I. & Elliot, A. (2000). Formative peer assessment of academic writing between postgraduate students. Assessment and Evaluation in Higher Education, 25(2), 149–169.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Toth, P. (2008). Teacher‐ and learner‐led discourse in task‐based grammar instruction: Providing procedural assistance for L2 morphosyntactic development. Language Learning, 58(2), 237–283.Google Scholar
van Compernolle, R. A. (2015). Interaction and second language development: A Vygotskian perspective. Amsterdam; Philadelphia: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
VanPatten, B. & Benati, A. (2010). Key terms in second language acquisition. New York: Continuum International Publishing Group.Google Scholar
van Popta, E., Kral, M., Camp, G., Martens, R. & Simons, R. (2017). Exploring the value of peer feedback in online learning for the provider. Educational Research Review, 20(1), 24–34.Google Scholar
Varonis, E. & Gass, S. (1985). Non-native/non-native conversations: A model for the negotiation of meaning. Applied Linguistics, 6(1), 71–90.Google Scholar
Watanabe, Y. & Swain, M. (2007). Effects of proficiency differences and patterns of pair interaction on second language learning: Collaborative dialogue between adult ESL learners. Language Teaching Research, 11(2), 121–142.Google Scholar
Watanabe, Y. & Swain, M. (2008). Perception of learner proficiency: Its impact on the interaction between an ESL learner and her higher and lower proficiency partners. Language Awareness, 17(2), 115–130.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wertsch, J. V. (1998). Mind as action. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
Williams, J. (2001). Learner-generated attention to form. Language Learning, 51(1), 303–346.Google Scholar
Yilmaz, Y. (2011). Task effects on focus on form in synchronous computer‐mediated communication. Modern Language Journal, 95(1), 115–132.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Yoshida, R. (2008). Learners’ perception of corrective feedback in pair work. Foreign Language Annals, 41(3), 525–541.Google Scholar
Yoshida, R. (2008). Teachers’ choice and learners’ preference of corrective-feedback types. Language Awareness, 17(1), 78–93.Google Scholar
Yoshida, R. (2010). How do teachers and learners perceive corrective feedback in the Japanese language classroom? Modern Language Journal, 94(2), 293–314.Google Scholar
Young, A. & Tedick, D. (2016). Collaborative dialogue in a two-way Spanish/ English immersion classroom. In Sato, M. & Ballinger, S. (eds.), Peer interaction and second language learning: Pedagogical potential and research agenda (pp. 135–160). Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
Zhao, H. (2010). Investigating learners’ use and understanding of peer and teacher feedback on writing: a comparative study in a Chinese English writing classroom. Assessing Writing, 15(1), 3−17.Google Scholar

References

Aljaafreh, A. & Lantolf, J. P. (1994). Negative feedback as regulation and second language learning in the zone of proximal development. Modern Language Journal 78(4), 465–483.Google Scholar
Ashwell, T. (2000). Patterns of teacher response to student writing in a multiple-draft composition classroom: Is content feedback followed by form feedback the best method? Journal of Second Language Writing, 9(3), 227–258.Google Scholar
Bitchener, J. (2008). Evidence in support of written corrective feedback. Journal of Second Language Writing, 17(2), 102–118.Google Scholar
Bitchener, J. (2017). Why some L2 learners fail to benefit from written corrective feedback. In Nassaji, H. & Kartchava, E. (eds.), Corrective feedback in second language teaching and learning: Research, theory, applications, implications (pp. 129–140). New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
Bitchener, J. & Ferris, D. (2012). Written corrective feedback in second language acquisition and writing. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
Bitchener, J. & Knoch, U. (2010). The contribution of written corrective feedback to language development: A ten-month investigation. Applied Linguistics, 31(2), 193–214.Google Scholar
Bitchener, J. & Storch, N. (2016). Written corrective feedback for L2 development. Bristol: Multilingual Matters.Google Scholar
Brown, A. (2009). Students’ and teachers’ perceptions of effective foreign language teaching: A comparison of ideals. Modern Language Journal 93(1), 46–60.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(4), 436–458.Google Scholar
Bruton, A. (2009). Designing research into the effect of error correction in L2 writing: Not so straightforward. Journal of Second Language Writing, 18(2), 136–140.Google Scholar
Chandler, J. (2003). The efficacy of various kinds of error feedback for improvement in the accuracy and fluency of L2 student writing. Journal of Second Language Writing, 12(3), 267–296.Google Scholar
DeKeyser, R. (1993). The effect of error correction on L2 grammar knowledge and oral proficiency. Modern Language Journal, 77(4), 501–514.Google Scholar
Edge, J. (1989). Mistakes and correction. London: Longman.Google Scholar
Ellis, R. (2005). Principles of instructed language learning. System 33(2), 209–224.Google Scholar
Ellis, R. (2008). A typology of written corrective feedback types. ELT Journal, 63(2), 97–107.Google Scholar
Ellis, R. (2010). Epilogue: A framework for investigating oral and written corrective feedback. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 32(2), 335–349.Google Scholar
Ellis, R. (2017). Oral corrective feedback in L2 classrooms. In Nassaji, H. & Kartchava, E. (eds.), Corrective feedback in second language teaching and learning: Research, theory, applications, implications (pp. 3–18). New York: Routledge.CrossRefGoogle 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
Ellis, R. & Sheen, Y. (2006). Reexamining the role of recasts in second language acquisition. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 28(4), 575–600.Google Scholar
Ellis, R., Sheen, Y., Murakami, M. & Takashima, H. (2008). The effects of focused and unfocused written corrective feedback in an English as a foreign language context. System, 36(3), 353–371.Google Scholar
Evans, N., Hartshorn, K., McCollum, R. & Wolfersberger, M. (2010). Contextualizing corrective feedback in second language writing pedagogy. Language Teaching Research, 14(4), 445–463.Google Scholar
Fathman, A. & Whalley, E. (1990). Teacher response to student writing: Focus on form versus content. In Kroll, B. (ed.), Second language writing: Research insights for the classroom (pp. 178–190). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Ferris, D. (2004). The “grammar correction” debate in L2 writing: Where are we, and where do we go from here…? (and what do we do in the meantime?). Journal of Second Language Writing 13(1), 49–62.Google Scholar
Ferris, D. (2010). Second language writing research and written corrective feedback in SLA. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 32(2), 181–201.Google Scholar
Ferris, D. & Roberts, B. (2001). Error feedback in L2 writing classes. How explicit does it need to be? Journal of Second Language Writing, 10(3), 161–184.Google Scholar
Frear, D. & Chiu, Y. (2015). The effect of focused and unfocused indirect written corrective feedback on EFL learners’ accuracy in new pieces of writing. System, 53, 24–34.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
Hartshorn, K., Evans, N., Merrill, P., Sudweeks, R., Strong‐Krause, D. & Anderson, N. (2010). Effects of dynamic corrective feedback on ESL writing accuracy. TESOL Quarterly, 44(1), 84–109.Google Scholar
Hawkes, L. & Nassaji, H. (2016). The role of extensive recasts in error detection and correction by adult ESL students. Studies in Second Language Learning and Teaching, 6(1), 19–41.Google Scholar
Jean, G. & Simard, D. (2011). Grammar learning in English and French L2: Students’ and teachers’ beliefs and perceptions. Foreign Language Annals, 44(4), 465–492.Google Scholar
Kang, E. & Han, Z. (2015). The efficacy of written corrective feedback in improving L2 written accuracy: A meta-analysis. Modern Language Journal, 99(1), 1–18.Google Scholar
Karim, K. & Nassaji, H. (2020). The revision and transfer effects of direct and indirect comprehensive corrective feedback on ESL students’ writing. Language Teaching Research, 24(4), 519–539.Google Scholar
Kepner, C. (1991). An experiment in the relationship of types of written feedback to the development of second language writing skills. Modern Language Journal, 75(3), 305–313.Google Scholar
Lantolf, J. & Pavlenko, A. (2001). (S)econd (L)anguage (A)ctivity theory: Understanding second language learners as people. In Breen, M. (ed.), Learner contributions to language learning (pp. 141–158). London: Longman.Google Scholar
Leki, I. (1991). The preferences of ESL students for error correction in college-level writing classes. Foreign Language Annals, 24(3), 203–218.Google Scholar
Li, S. (2010). The effectiveness of corrective feedback in SLA: A meta-analysis. Language Learning, 60(2), 309–365.Google Scholar
Lightbown, P. (2008). Transfer appropriate processing as a model for class second language acquisition. In Han, Z. (ed.), Understanding second language process (pp. 27–44). Clevedon: Multilingual Matters.Google Scholar
Lyster, R. (1998). Negotiation of form, recasts, and explicit correction in relation to error types and learner repair in immersion classrooms. Language Learning, 48(2), 183–218.Google Scholar
Lyster, R. & Ranta, L. (1997). Corrective feedback and learner uptake. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 19(1), 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(1), 167–184.Google Scholar
Lyster, R. & Saito, K. (2010). Oral feedback in classroom SLA: A meta-analysis. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 32(2), 265–302.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lyster, R., Saito, K. & Sato, M. (2013). Oral corrective feedback in second language classrooms. Language Teaching, 46(1), 1–40.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. & Philp, J. (1998). Conversational interaction and second language development: Recasts, responses, and red herrings? Modern Language Journal, 82(3), 338–356.Google Scholar
Manchón, R. (2009). Broadening the perspective of L2 writing scholarship: The contribution of research on foreign language writing. In Manchón, R. M. (ed.), Writing in foreign language contexts: Learning, teaching, and research (pp. 1–19). Clevedon: Multilingual Matters.Google Scholar
Nabei, T. & Swain, M. (2002). Learner awareness of recasts in classroom interaction: A case study of an adult EFL student’s second language learning. Language Awareness, 11(1), 43–63.Google Scholar
Nassaji, H. (2011). Correcting students’ written grammatical errors: The effects of negotiated versus nonnegotiated feedback. Studies in Second Language Learning and Teaching, 1(3), 315–334.Google Scholar
Nassaji, H. (2012). Effects of recasts and elicitations in dyadic interaction and the role of feedback explicitness. Language Learning, 59(2), 411–452.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. (2017a). Oral negotiation in response to written errors. In Nassaji, H. & Kartchava, E. (Eds.), Corrective Feedback in Second Language Teaching and Learning: Research, Theory, Applications, Implications (pp. 114–128). New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
Nassaji, H. (2017b). The effectiveness of extensive versus intensive recasts for learning L2 grammar. Modern Language Journal, 101(2), 353–368.Google Scholar
Nassaji, H. & Swain, M. (2000). A Vygotskian 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
Polio, C., Fleck, C. & Leder, N. (1998). “If only I had more time”: ESL learners’ changes in linguistic accuracy on essay revisions. Journal of Second Language Writing, 7(1), 43–68.Google Scholar
Rassaei, E. (2014). Scaffolded feedback, recasts, and L2 development: A sociocultural perspective. Modern Language Journal 98(1), 417–431.Google Scholar
Russell, J. & Spada, N. (2006). The effectiveness of corrective feedback for second language acquisition: A meta-analysis of the research. In Norris, J., & Ortega, L. (eds.), Synthesizing research on language learning and teaching (pp. 131–164). Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
Schmidt, R. (1994). Deconstructing consciousness in search of useful definitions for applied linguistics. AILA Review 11, 11–26.Google Scholar
Segalowitz, N. (1997). Individual differences in second language acquisition. In De Groot, A. M. B. & Kroll, J. F. (eds.), Tutorials in bilingualism: Psycholinguistic perspectives (pp. 85–112). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.Google Scholar
Segalowitz, N. (2000). Automaticity and attentional skill in fluent performance. In Riggenbach, H. (ed.), Perspectives on fluency (pp. 200–219). Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press.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, 11(4), 361–392.Google Scholar
Sheen, Y. (2007). The effect of focused written corrective feedback and language aptitude on ESL learners’ acquisition of articles. TESOL Quarterly, 41(2), 255–283.Google Scholar
Sheen, Y. (2010). Introduction: The role of oral and written corrective feedback in SLA. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 32(2), 169–179.Google Scholar
Sheen, Y., Wright, D. & Moldawa, A. (2009). Differential effects of focused and unfocused written correction on the accurate use of grammatical forms by adult ESL learners. System 37(4), 556–569.Google Scholar
Shintani, N., Ellis, R. & Suzuki, W. (2014). Effects of written feedback and revision on learners’ accuracy in using two English grammatical structures. Language Learning, 64(1), 103–131.Google Scholar
Storch, N. (2010). Critical feedback on written corrective feedback research. International Journal of English Studies, 10(2), 29–46.Google Scholar
Truscott, J. (1996). The case against grammar correction in L2 writing classes. Language Learning, 46(2), 327–369.Google Scholar
Truscott, J. (2007). The effect of error correction on learners’ ability to write accurately. Journal of Second Language Writing, 16(4), 255–272.Google Scholar
Truscott, J. & Hsu, A. Y. (2008). Error correction, revision, and learning. Journal of Second Language Writing, 17(4), 292–305.Google Scholar
Ur, P. (1996). A course in language teaching: Practice and theory. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Van Beuningen, C. (2010). Corrective feedback in L2 writing: Theoretical perspectives, empirical insights, and future directions. International Journal of English Studies, 10(2), 1–27.Google Scholar
Van Beuningen, C. (2016). Waarom werkt de rode pen (niet altijd)? Een onderzoek naar denkprocessen en strategiegebruik van leerlingen tijdens de verwerking van correctieve feedback. [Why does(n’t) the red pen (always) work? A study into thought processes and strategy use of students during the processing of corrective feedback.] Tijdschrift Les, 34(199), 14–16.Google Scholar
Van Beuningen, C., De Jong, N. H. & Kuiken, F. (2008). The effect of direct and indirect corrective feedback on L2 learners’ written accuracy. ITL-Review of Applied Linguistics, 156, 279–296.Google Scholar
Van Beuningen, C., De Jong, N. H. & Kuiken, F. (2012). Evidence on the effectiveness of comprehensive error correction in second language writing. Language Learning, 62(1), 1–41.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Vygotsky, L. S. (1978). Mind in society: The development of higher psychological processes. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
Williams, J. (2001). The effectiveness of spontaneous attention to form. System, 29(3), 325–340.Google Scholar
Williams, J. (2012). The potential role (s) of writing in second language development. Journal of Second Language Writing, 21(4), 321–331.Google Scholar
Xu, C. (2009). Overgeneralization from a narrow focus: A response to Ellis et al. (2008) and Bitchener (2008). Journal of Second Language Writing, 18(4), 270–275.Google Scholar

References

Aljaafreh, A. L. I. & Lantolf, J. P. (1994). Negative feedback as regulation and second language learning in the Zone of Proximal Development. Modern Language Journal, 78(4), 465–483.Google Scholar
Anderson, J. (1982). Acquisition of cognitive skill. Psychological Review, 89(4), 369–406.Google Scholar
Arroyo, D. C. & Yilmaz, Y. (2018). An open for replication study: The role of feedback timing in synchronous computer-mediated communication. Language Learning, https://doi.org/10.1111/lang.12300.Google Scholar
Azad, M. H. C, Farrokhi, F. & Zohrabi, M. (2018). Corrective feedback, spoken accuracy and fluency, and the Trade-off Hypothesis. International Journal of Instruction, 11(2), 465–482.Google Scholar
Bitchener, J. & Storch, N. (2016). The cognitive perspective on written CF for L2 development. In Bitchener, J. & Storch, N. (eds.), Written corrective feedback for L2 development (pp. 10–33). Bristol: Multilingual Matters.Google Scholar
Bransford, J. D., Brown, A. L. & Cocking, R. R. (eds.). (2000). How people learn: Brain, mind, experience, and school (expanded edn.). Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. https://doi.org/10.17226/9853.Google Scholar
Carroll, S. & Swain, M. (1993). Explicit and implicit negative feedback: An empirical study of the learning of linguistic generalizations. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 15(3), 357–386.Google Scholar
Cowan, N. (1995). Attention and memory: An integrated framework. New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
DeKeyser, R. (1998). Beyond focus on form: Cognitive perspectives on learning and practising second language grammar. In Doughty, C. & Williams, J. (eds.), Focus on form in classroom second language acquisition (pp. 42–63). New York: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
DeKeyser, R. (2007). Practice in a second language: Perspectives from applied linguistics and cognitive psychology. New York: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Doughty, C. (2001). Cognitive underpinnings of focus on form. In Robinson, P. (ed.), Cognition and second language instruction (pp. 206–257). New York: Cambridge University Press.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). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Evans, N. W., Hartshorn, K. J. & Strong-Krause, D. (2011). The efficacy of dynamic written corrective feedback for university-matriculated ESL learners. System, 39(2), 229–239.Google Scholar
Farmani, R., Akbari, O. & Ghanizadeh, A. (2017). The impact of immediate and delayed error correction on Iranian EFL learner’s motivation. European Journal of Foreign Language Teaching 2(3), 76–86.Google Scholar
Gass, S. (1997). Input, interaction, and the second language learner. New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
Hartshorn, K. J., Evans, N. W., Merrill, P. F., Sudweeks, R. R., Strong-Krause, D. & Anderson, N. J. (2010). Effects of dynamic corrective feedback on ESL writing accuracy. TESOL Quarterly, 44(1), 84–109.Google Scholar
Henshaw, F. (2011). Effects of feedback timing in SLA: A computer assisted study on the Spanish subjunctive. In Sanz, C. & Leow, R. (eds.), Implicit and explicit language learning: Conditions, processes, and knowledge in SLA and bilingualism (pp. 85–99). Washington, DC: Georgetown University Press.Google Scholar
Hulstijn, J. H. & de Graaff, R. (1994). Under what conditions does explicit knowledge of a second language facilitate the acquisition of implicit knowledge? A research proposal. AILA Review, 11, 97–112.Google Scholar
Hupbach, A., Gomez, R., Hardt, O. & Nadel, L. (2007). Reconsolidation of episodic memories: A subtle reminder triggers integration of new information. Learning & Memory, 14(1–2), 47–53.Google Scholar
Kang, E. Y. & Han, Z. (2015). The efficacy of written corrective feedback in improving L2 written accuracy: A meta-analysis. Modern Language Journal, 99, 1–18.Google Scholar
Lantolf, J. P. (2000). Second language learning as a mediated process. Language Teaching, 33(2), 79–96.Google Scholar
Lavolette, E., Polio, C. & Kahng, J. (2015). The accuracy of computer-assisted feedback and students’ responses to it. Language, Learning & Technology, 19(2), 50–68.Google Scholar
Li, S. (2010). The effectiveness of corrective feedback in SLA: A meta-analysis. Language Learning, 60(2), 309–365.Google Scholar
Li, S., Ellis, R. & Zhu, Y. (2016). The effects of the timing of corrective feedback on the acquisition of a new linguistic structure. Modern Language Journal, 100(1), 276–295.Google Scholar
Long, M. H. (1977). Teacher feedback on learner error: Mapping cognitions In Brown, H. D., Yorio, C. A. & Crymes, R. H. (eds.), On TESOL ’77 (pp. 278–293). Washington, DC: TESOL.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. & 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: A collection of empirical studies (pp. 407–452). Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Morris, D. D., Bransford, J. D. & Franks, J. J. (1977). Levels of processing versus transfer appropriate processing. Journal of Verbal Learning and Verbal Behavior, 16(5), 519–533.Google Scholar
Nader, K. & Einarsson, E. O. (2010). Memory reconsolidation: An update. Annals of the New York Academy of Sciences, 1191, 27–41.Google Scholar
Nassaji, H. (2017). Oral negotiation in response to written errors. In Nassaji, H. & Kartchava, E. (eds.), Corrective feedback in second language teaching and learning: Research, theory, applications, implications (pp. 114–128). New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
National Research Council (2000). How people learn: Brain, mind, experience, and school (expanded ed.). Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. https://doi.org/10.17226/9853.Google Scholar
Quinn, P. (2014). Delayed versus immediate corrective feedback on orally produced passive errors in English. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, University of Toronto, Canada.Google Scholar
Quinn, P. & Nakata, T. (2017). The timing of oral corrective feedback. In Nassaji, H. & Kartchava, E. (eds.), Corrective feedback in second language teaching and learning: Research, theory, applications, implications (pp. 35–47). New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
Rahimi, A. & Vahid Dastjerdi, H. (2012). Impact of immediate and delayed error correction on EFL learners’ oral production: CAF. Mediterranean Journal of Social Sciences, 3(1), 45–54.Google Scholar
Ranta, L. & Lyster, R. (2007). A cognitive approach to improving immersion students’ oral language abilities: The awareness-practice-feedback sequence. In DeKeyser, R. M. (ed.), Practice in a second language: Perspectives from applied linguistics and cognitive psychology (pp. 141–160). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Rolin-Ianziti, J. (2010). The organization of delayed second language correction. Language Teaching Research, 14(2), 183–206.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 (pp. 301–322). Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Sheen, Y. (2010). Differential effects of oral and written corrective feedback in the ESL classroom. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 32(2), 203–234.Google Scholar
Shintani, N. & Aubrey, S. (2016). The effectiveness of synchronous and asynchronous written corrective feedback on grammatical accuracy in a computer-mediated environment. Modern Language Journal, 100(1), 296–319.Google Scholar
Siyyari, M. (2005). A comparative study of the effect of implicit and delayed, explicit focus on form on Iranian EFL learners’ accuracy of oral production. Unpublished MA thesis, Iran University of Science and Technology, Tehran, Iran.Google Scholar
Spada, N. & Lightbown, P. M. (2008). Form-focused instruction: Isolated or integrated? TESOL Quarterly, 42(2), 181–207.Google Scholar
Truscott, J. (1996). The case against grammar correction in L2 writing classes. Language Learning, 46(2), 327–369.Google Scholar
Van Beuningen, C. G., De Jong, N. H. & Kuiken, F. (2012). Evidence on the effectiveness of comprehensive error correction in second language writing. Language Learning, 62(1), 1–41.Google Scholar
Varnosfadrani, A. D. (2006). A comparison of the effects of implicit / explicit and immediate /delayed corrective feedback on learners’ performance in tailor-made tests. Unpublished Ph.D. thesis, University of Auckland, New Zealand.Google Scholar
Wajnryb, R. (1990). Grammar dictation. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Walker, M. P., Brakefield, T., Hobson, J. A. & Stickgold, R. (2003). Dissociable stages of human memory consolidation and reconsolidation. Nature, 425(6598), 616–620.Google Scholar
Williams, J. (2012). The potential role (s) of writing in second language development. Journal of Second Language Writing, 21(4), 321–331.Google Scholar
Yang, Y. & Lyster, R. (2010). Effects of oral production practice and feedback on EFL learners’ acquisition of regular and irregular past-tense forms. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 32(2), 235–263.Google Scholar

References

Adams, R., Nuevo, A. & Egi, T. (2011). Explicit and implicit feedback, modified output and SLA: Does implicit and explicit feedback promote learning and learner–learner interactions? Modern Language Journal, 95(Suppl.), 42–63.Google Scholar
Aljaafreh, A. & Lantolf, J. (1994). Negative feedback as regulation and second language learning in the Zone of Proximal Development. Modern Language Journal, 78(4), 465–483.Google Scholar
Allwright, R. L. (1975). Problems in the study of the language teacher’s treatment of error. In Burt, M. K. & Dulay, H. D. (eds.), On TESOL ’75: New directions in second language learning, teaching, and bilingual education (pp. 96–109). Washington, DC: TESOL.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
Baddeley, A. D. (2000). The episodic buffer: A new component of working memory? Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 4(11), 417–423.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(4), 436–458.Google Scholar
Carroll, S. (2001). Input and evidence: The raw material of second language acquisition. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
Carroll, S. & Swain, M. (1993). Explicit and implicit negative feedback: An empirical study of the learning of linguistic generalizations. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 15(3), 357–386.Google Scholar
Chaudron, C. (1977). A descriptive model of discourse in the corrective treatment of learners’ errors. Language Learning, 27(1), 29–46.Google Scholar
DeKeyser, R. (1993). The effect of error correction on L2 grammar knowledge and oral proficiency. Modern Language Journal, 77(4), 501–514.Google Scholar
DeKeyser, R. (1998). Beyond focus on form: Cognitive perspectives on learning and practicing second language grammar. In Doughty, C. and Williams, J. (eds.), Focus on Form in Second Language Acquisition (pp. 42–63). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.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. J. & Varela, E. 1998. Communicative focus on form. In Doughty, C. & Williams, J. (eds.), Focus on form in classroom second language acquisition (pp. 114–138). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Egi, T. (2007). Interpreting recasts as linguistic evidence. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 29(4), 511–537.Google Scholar
Ellis, N. C. (2001). Memory for language. In Robinson, P. (ed.), Cognition and second language instruction (pp. 33–68). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Ellis, N. C. (2005). At the interface: How explicit knowledge affects implicit language learning. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 27(2), 305–352.Google Scholar
Ellis, R. (1994). A theory of instructed second language acquisition. In Ellis, N. (ed.), Implicit and explicit learning of languages (pp. 79–114). San Diego: Academic Press.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 (pp. 339–360). Oxford: Oxford University Press.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
Ellis, R. & Sheen, Y. (2006). Re-examining the role of recasts in SLA. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 28(4), 575–600.Google Scholar
Erlam, R., Ellis, R. & Batstone, R. (2013). Oral corrective feedback on L2 writing: Two approaches compared. System, 41(2), 257–268.Google Scholar
Goo, J. (2012). Corrective feedback and working memory capacity in interaction-driven L2 learning. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 34(3), 445–474.Google Scholar
Han, Z. 2002. A study of the impact of recasts on tense consistency in L2 output. TESOL Quarterly, 36(4), 543–572.Google Scholar
Havranek, G. & Cesnik, H. (2003). Factors affecting the success of corrective feedback. In Foster- Cohen, S. & Nizegorodzew, A. (eds.), EUROSLA yearbook (Vol. I, pp. 99–122). Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
Horwitz, E. K. (2001). Language anxiety and achievement. Annual Review of Applied Linguistics, 21(1), 112–127.Google Scholar
Kartchava, E. & Ammar, A. (2014). The noticeability and effectiveness of corrective feedback in relation to target type. Language Teaching Research, 1 8(4), 428–452.Google Scholar
Kim, H. & Mathes, G. (2001). Explicit vs. implicit corrective feedback. The Korea TESOL Journal, 4(1), 1–15.Google Scholar
Leeman, J. (2003). Recasts and L2 development: Beyond negative evidence. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 25(1), 37–63.Google Scholar
Li, S. (2010). The effectiveness of corrective feedback in SLA: a meta-analysis. Language Learning, 60(2), 309–365.Google Scholar
Li, S. (2013). The interactions between the effects of implicit and explicit feedback and individual differences in language analytical ability and working memory. Modern Language Journal, 97(3), 634–654.Google Scholar
Loewen, S. (2005). Incidental focus on form and second language learning. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 27(3), 361–386.Google Scholar
Loewen, S. & Philp, J. (2006). Recasts in the adult English L2 classroom: Characteristics, explicitness, and effectiveness. Modern Language Journal, 90(4), 536–556.Google Scholar
Long, M. B. (1977). Teacher feedback on learner error: mapping cognitions. In Brown, B. D., Yorio, C. A. & Crymes, R. H. (eds.), Qn TESOL ’77 Teaching and learning English as a second language: Trends in research and practice (pp. 278–293). Washington, DC: TESOL.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. 469–506). San Diego: Academic Press.Google Scholar
Long, M. (2007). Problems in SLA. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.Google Scholar
Long, M. (2015). Second language acquisition and task-based teaching. Malden, MA: Wiley-Blackwell.Google Scholar
Lyster, R. (1998). Recasts, repetition and ambiguity in L2 classroom discourse. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 20(1), 51–81.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. & Ranta, L. (1997). Corrective feedback and learner uptake. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 19(1), 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(1), 167–184.Google Scholar
Lyster, R. & Saito, K. (2010). Oral feedback in classroom SLA. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 32 (Special issue 2), 265–302.Google Scholar
Lyster, R., Saito, K. & Sato, M. (2013). Oral corrective feedback in second language classrooms. Language Teaching, 46(1), 1–40.Google Scholar
Mackey, A. (2006). Feedback, noticing and instructed second language learning. Applied Linguistics, 27, 405–430.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). Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Muranoi, H. (2000). Focus on form through interaction enhancement: integrating formal instruction into a communicative task in EFL classrooms. Language Learning, 50(4), 617–673.Google Scholar
Nakatsukasa, K. (2016). Efficacy of requests and gestures on the acquisition of locative prepositions. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 38(4), 771–799.Google Scholar
Nassaji, H. (2009). Effects of recasts and elicitations in dyadic interaction and the role of feedback explicitness. Language Learning, 59(2), 411–452.Google Scholar
Nassaji, H. (2017). The effectiveness of extensive versus intensive recasts for L2 learning of grammar. Modern Language Review, 101(2), 353–368.Google Scholar
Plonsky, L. & Brown, D. (2015). Domain definition and search techniques in meta-analyses of L2 research (Or why 18 meta-analyses of feedback have different results). Second Language Research, 31(2), 267–278.Google Scholar
Poehner, M. (2008). Dynamic assessment: A Vygotskian approach to understanding and promoting L2 development. Berlin: Springer.Google Scholar
Poehner, M. & Lantolf, J. (2005). Dynamic assessment in the language classroom. Language Teaching Research, 9(3), 233–265.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Quinn, P. & Nakata, T. (2017). The timing of oral corrective feedback. In Nassaji, H. & Kartchava, E. (eds.), Corrective feedback in second language teaching and learning: Research, theory, applications, implications (pp. 35–47). Abingdon: Routledge.Google Scholar
Rassaei, E. (2014). Scaffolded feedback, recasts, and L2 development: A sociocultural perspective. Modern Language Journal, 98(1), 417–431.Google Scholar
Sanz, C. (2003). Computer delivered implicit vs. explicit feedback in processing instruction. In VanPatten, B. (ed.), Processing instruction: Theory, research, and commentary (pp. 241–256). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.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(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. (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 (pp. 301–322). Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Sheen, Y. and Ellis, R. (2011). Corrective feedback in language teaching. In Hinkel, E. (ed.), Handbook of research in second language teaching and learning(2nd ed., pp. 593–610). New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
Simard, D. & Jean, G. (2011). An exploration of L2 teacher’s use of pedagogical interventions devised to draw learners’ attention to form. Language Learning, 61(3), 759–785.Google Scholar
Swain, M. (1995). Three functions of output in second language learning. In Cook, G. and Seidlhofer, B. (eds.), Principle and practice in applied linguistics: Studies in honour of H. G. Widdowson (pp. 125–144). Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Ur, P. (1996). A course in language teaching: Practice and theory. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Varnosfadrani, A. & Basturkmen, H. (2009). The effectiveness of implicit and explicit error correction on learners’ performance. System, 37(1), 82–98.Google Scholar
Wang, W. & Loewen, S. (2016). Non-verbal behaviour and corrective feedback in nine ESL university-level classrooms. Language Teaching Research, 20(4), 459–478.Google Scholar
Woodrow, L. (2006). Anxiety and speaking English as a second language. RELC Journal, 37(3), 308–328.Google Scholar
Yilmaz, Y. (2013a). The relative effectiveness of mixed, explicit and implicit feedback in the acquisition of English articles. System, 41(3), 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(3), 344–368.Google Scholar
Yilmaz, Y. (2016). The role of exposure condition in the effectiveness of explicit correction. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 38(1), 65–96.Google Scholar
Yoshida, R. (2010). How do teachers and learners perceive corrective feedback in the Japanese language classroom? Modern Language Journal, 94(2), 293–314.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
×