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-mkpzs Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-27T13:28:56.614Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

Part VIII - Individual Differences, Tasks, and Other Language- and Learner-Related Factors

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. 643 - 795
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. (2009). Focus on form, learner uptake and subsequent lexical gains in learners’ oral production. International Review of Applied Linguistics in Language Teaching, 47(3–4), 347–365.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ammar, A. (2003). Corrective feedback and L2 learning: Elicitation and recasts. Doctoral thesis, McGill University, Montreal.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
Bley-Vroman, R. (1990). The logical problem of foreign language learning. Linguistic Analysis, 20(1–2), 3–63.Google Scholar
Choi, S. & Li, S. (2012). Corrective feedback and learner uptake in a child ESOL classroom. RELC Journal, 43(3), 331–351.Google Scholar
Chouinard, M. M. & Clark, E. V. (2003). Adult reformulations of child errors as negative evidence. Journal of Child Language, 30(3), 637–669.Google Scholar
Ellis, R. (2016). Anniversary article focus on form: A critical review. Language Teaching Research, 20(3), 405–428.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ellis, R., Basturkmen, H. & Loewen, S. (2001). Learner uptake in communicative ESL lessons. Language Learning, 51(2), 281–318.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
Farrar, M. (1990). Discourse and the acquisition of grammatical morphemes. Journal of Child Language, 17(3), 607–624.Google Scholar
Gass, S. M. (2003). Input and interaction. In Doughty, C. J. & Long, M. H. (eds.), The handbook of second language acquisition (pp. 224–255). Malden, MA: Blackwell Publishing.Google Scholar
Gass, S. M., Mackey, A. & Pica, T. (1998). The role of input and interaction in second language acquisition: Introduction to the special issue. Modern Language Journal, 82(3), 299–307.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
Havranek, G. (2002). When is corrective feedback likely to succeed? International Journal of Educational Research, 37(3–4), 255–270.Google Scholar
Illmann, C. (1995). Contextual influences on parental declarative speech style. Doctoral dissertation, University of Windsor, Canada.Google Scholar
Kamiya, N. (2016). The relationship between stated beliefs and classroom practices of oral corrective feedback. Innovation in Language Learning and Teaching, 10(3), 206–219.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Krashen, S. (1982). Principles and practice in second language acquisition. Oxford: Pergamon.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
Li, S. (2010). The effectiveness of corrective feedback in SLA: A meta-analysis. Language Learning, 60(2), 309–365.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Li, S.(2018). Corrective feedback in L2 speech production. The TESOL Encyclopedia of English Language Teaching, 1–9.Google Scholar
Li, S., Ellis, R. & Zhu, Y. (2016). Task-based versus task-supported language instruction: An experimental study. Annual Review of Applied Linguistics, 36, 205–229.Google Scholar
Lichtman, K. (2016). Age and learning environment: Are children implicit second language learners. Journal of Child Language, 43(3), 1–24.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(3–4), 271–283.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. H. (1991). Focus on form: A design feature in language teaching methodology. In De Bot, K., Ginsberg, R. & Kramsch, C. (eds.), Foreign language research in cross-cultural perspective (pp. 39–52). Amsterdam: John Benjamins.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Long, M. H. (2007). Problems in SLA. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.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. & 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. (2010). Oral feedback in classroom SLA: A meta-analysis. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 32(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. (1999). Input, interaction, and second language development: an empirical study of question formation in ESL. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 21(4), 557–587.Google Scholar
Mackey, A. & Oliver, R. (2002). Interactional feedback and children’s L2 development. System, 30(4), 459–477.Google Scholar
Mackey, A., Oliver, R. & Leeman, J. (2003). Interactional input and the incorporation of feedback: An exploration of NS–NNS and NNS–NNS adult and child dyads. Language Learning, 53(1), 35–66.CrossRefGoogle 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
Mori, H. (2002). Error treatment sequences in Japanese immersion classroom interactions at different grade levels. Doctoral dissertation, University of California.Google Scholar
Moulton, J. & Robinson, G. (1981). The organization of language. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Nassaji, H. (2010). The occurrence and effectiveness of spontaneous focus on form in adult ESL classrooms. Canadian Modern Language Review, 66(6), 907–933.Google Scholar
Nassaji, H. (2011). Immediate learner repair and its relationship with learning targeted forms. System: An International Journal of Educational Technology and Applied Linguistics, 39(1), 17–29.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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Oliver, R. (1995). Negative feedback in child NS–NNS conversation. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 17(4), 459–481.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Oliver, R. (1996, January). Input and feedback to adult and child ESL learners. Paper presented at Pacific Second Language Research Forum, Victoria University, Wellington, New Zealand.Google Scholar
Oliver, R. (2000). Age differences in negotiation and feedback in classroom and pairwork. Language Learning, 50(1), 119–151.Google Scholar
Panova, I. & Lyster, R. (2002). Patterns of corrective feedback and uptake in an adult ESL classroom. TESOL Quarterly, 36(4), 573–595.CrossRefGoogle 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.Google Scholar
Philp, J., Adams, R. & Iwashita, N. (2014). Age related characteristics and peer interaction. In Babb-Rosenfeld, L. (ed.), Peer interaction and second language learning (pp. 103–119). New York: Routledge.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.Google Scholar
Pienemann, M. (1989). Is language teachable? Psycholinguistic experiments and hypotheses. Applied Linguistics, 10(1), 52–79.Google Scholar
Shak, J. & Gardner, S. (2008). Young learner perspectives on four focus-on-form tasks. Language Teaching Research, 12(3), 387–408.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
Simard, D. & Jean, G. (2011). An exploration of L2 teachers’ use of pedagogical interventions devised to draw L2 learners’ attention to form. Language Learning, 61(3), 759–785.Google Scholar
Strapp, C. M. (1996). Language development in the family setting: Comparing sources of linguistic input. Doctoral Dissertation, University of Nevada.Google Scholar
Van de Guchte, M., Braaksma, M., Rijlaarsdam, G. & Bimmel, P. (2015). Learning new grammatical structures in task-based language learning: The effects of recasts and prompts. Modern Language Journal, 99(2), 246–262.Google Scholar
Vicente-Rasoamalala, L. (2009). Teachers’ reactions to foreign language learner output. Doctoral dissertation, Universitat de Barcelona, Spain.Google Scholar
Yang, Y. (2009). Feedback and uptake in Chinese EFL classrooms: In search of instructional variables. The Journal of ASIA TEFL, 6(1), 1–22.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

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
Alcón, E. & Codina, V. (1996). The impact of gender on negotiation and vocabulary learning in a situation of interaction. International Journal of Psycholinguistics, 12(1), 21–35.Google Scholar
Aries, E. J. (1976). Interaction patterns and themes of male, female, and mixed groups. Small Group Behavior, 7(1), 7–18.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Aries, E. J. (1996). Men and women in interaction: Reconsidering the differences. New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Azkarai, A. (2015). Males and females in EFL task-based interactions: Does gender have an impact on LREs? Vigo International Journal of Applied Linguistics, 12, 9–35.Google Scholar
Azkarai, A. & García Mayo, M. P. (2012). Does gender influence task performance in EFL? Interactive tasks and language related episodes. In Soler, E. Alcón & Safont–Jordá, M. P. (eds.),Language learners’ discourse across L2 instructional settings(pp. 249–278). Amsterdam: Rodopi.Google Scholar
Bitchener, J. (2003). The effects of individual learner factors and task type on negotiation: A study of advanced Japanese and Korean ESL learners. Australian Review of Applied Linguistics, 26(2), 63–83.Google Scholar
Buckingham, A. (1997). Oral language testing: Do the age, status and gender of the interlocutor make a difference? Unpublished MA dissertation, University of Reading, UK.Google Scholar
Cameron, D. (2003). Gender and language ideologies. In Holmes, J. & Meyerhoff, M. (eds.), Handbook of language and gender (pp. 447–467). Oxford: Blackwell.Google Scholar
Cook-Gumperz, J. & Szymanski, M. (2001). Classroom “families”: Cooperating or competing – Girls’ and boys’ interactional styles in a bilingual classroom. Research on Language and Social Interaction, 34(1), 107–130.Google Scholar
Eckert, P. (1998). Gender and sociolinguistic variation. In Coates, J. (ed.), Language and gender: A reader (pp. 64–75). Oxford: Blackwell.Google Scholar
Ehrman, M. & Oxford, R. (1989). Effects of sex differences, career choice, and psychological type on adult language learning strategies. Modern Language Journal, 73(1), 1–13.Google Scholar
Fassinger, P. A. (1995). Understanding classroom interaction: Students’ and professors’ contributions to students’ silence. The Journal of Higher Education, 66(1), 82–96.Google Scholar
Fishman, P. M. (1978). Interaction: The work women do. Social Problems, 25(4), 397–406.Google Scholar
Foote, C. (2002). Gender differences in attribution feedback in the elementary classroom. Research in the Schools, 9(1), 1–8.Google Scholar
Freed, A. F. & Greenwood, A. (1996). Women, men, and type of talk: What makes the difference? Language in Society, 25(1), 1–26.Google Scholar
Gass, S. M. & Varonis, E. (1985). Task variation and nonnative/nonnative negotiation of meaning. In Gass, S. M. & Madden, C. (eds.), Input in second language acquisition (pp. 149–161). Rowley, MA: Newbury House.Google Scholar
Gass, S. M. & Varonis, E. (1986). Sex differences in NNS/NNS interactions. In Day, R. R. (ed.), Talking to learn: Conversation in second language acquisition (pp. 327–351). Rowley, MA: Newbury House.Google Scholar
Goodwin, M. H. (1990). Tactical uses of stories: Participation frameworks within girls’ and boys’ disputes. Discourse Processes, 13(1), 33–71.Google Scholar
Green, J. & Oxford, R. (1995). A closer look at learning strategies, L2 proficiency, and gender. TESOL Quarterly, 29(2), 261–297.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hall, K., Zimman, L. & Davis, J. (2009). Gender, sexuality, and the “third sex.” In Llamas, C. & Watt, D. (eds.), Language and Identities (pp. 166–78). Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press.Google Scholar
Hartshorne, J. K. & Ullman, M. T. (2006). Why girls say “holded” more than boys. Developmental Science, 9(1), 21–32.Google Scholar
Haswell, R. H. & Haswell, J. T. (1996). Gender bias and critique of student writing. Assessing Writing, 3(1), 31–83.Google Scholar
Holmes, J. (1998). Complimenting: A positive politeness strategy. In Coates, J. (ed.), Language and gender: A reader (pp. 100–120). Oxford: Blackwell.Google Scholar
Itakura, H. (2001). Conversational dominance and gender: A study of Japanese speakers in first and second language contexts. Philadelphia: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
Kasanga, L. A. (1996). Effect of gender on the rate of interaction: Some implications for second language acquisition and classroom practice. I.T.L. Review of Applied Linguistics, 111–112, 155–192.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Long, M. H. (1996). The role of the linguistic environment in second language acquisition. In Ritchie, W. C. & Bhatia, T. K. (eds.), Handbook of research on language acquisition. Vol. II: Second language acquisition (pp. 413–468). New York: Academic Press.Google Scholar
MacIntyre, P. D., Baker, S. C., Clement, R. & Donovan, L. A. (2002). Sex and age effects on willingness to communicate, anxiety, perceived competence, and L2 motivation among junior high school French immersion students. Language Learning, 52(3), 537–564.Google Scholar
Mady, C. & Seiling, A. (2017). The coupling of second language learning and achievement according to gender. Theory and Practice in Language Studies, 7(12), 1149–1159.Google Scholar
Meyerhoff, M. (2014). Variation and gender. In Ehrlich, S., Meyerhoff, M. & Holmes, J. (eds.), The handbook of language, gender, and sexuality (pp. 85–102). Hoboken, NJ: John Wiley & Sons.Google Scholar
Nakatsukasa, K. (2017). Gender and recasts. In Gurzynski–Weiss, L. (ed.), Expanding individual difference research in the interaction approach: Investigating learners, instructors, and other interlocutors (pp. 100–119). Philadelphia: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
O’Loughlin, K. (2002). The impact of gender in oral proficiency testing. Language Testing, 19(2), 169–192.Google Scholar
O’Sullivan, B. (2000). Exploring gender and oral proficiency interview performance. System, 28(1), 1–14.Google Scholar
Ohara, Y. (2001). Finding one’s voice in Japanese: A study of the pitch levels of L2 users. In Pavlenko, A., Blackledge, A., Piller, I. & Teutsch-Dwyer, M. (eds.), Multilingualism, second language learning, and gender (pp. 231–254). New York: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar
Oliver, R. (2002). The patterns of negotiation for meaning in child interactions. Modern Language Journal, 86(1), 97–111.Google Scholar
Pavlenko, A. & Piller, I. (2001). New directions in the study of multilingualism, second language learning, and gender. In Pavlenko, A., Blackledge, A., Piller, I. & Teutsch–Dwyer, M. (eds.), Multilingualism, second language learning, and gender (pp. 17–52). New York: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar
Philp, J., Adams, R. & Iwashita, N. (2014). Peer interaction and second language learning. New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
Pica, T., Holliday, L., Lewis, N. E., Berducci, D. & Newman, J. (1991). Language learning through interaction: What role does gender play? Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 13(3), 343–376.Google Scholar
Pica, T., Holliday, L., Lewis, N. E. & Morgenthaler, L. (1989). Comprehensible output as an outcome of linguistic demands on the learner. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 11(1), 63–90.Google Scholar
Porter, D. (1991). Affective factors in the assessment of oral interaction: Gender and status. In Arnivan, S. (ed.), Current developments in language testing (pp. 92–102). Singapore: SEAMEO Regional Language Centre.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
Rassaei, E. & Tavakoli, M. (2012). Corrective feedback in the L2 classroom: Matched-gender and mixed-gender dyads in focus. Iranian EFL Journal, 52(1), 157–166.Google Scholar
Read, B., Francis, B. & Robson, J. (2005). Gender, “bias,” assessment and feedback: Analyzing the written assessment of undergraduate history essays. Assessment and Evaluation in Higher Education, 30(3), 241–260.Google Scholar
Reiterer, S. M., Hu, X., Erb, M., Rota, G., Nardo, D., Grodd, W., Winkler, S. & Ackermann, H. (2011). Individual differences in audio–vocal speech imitation aptitude in late bilinguals: Functional neuro-imaging and brain morphology. Frontiers in Psychology, 2, 271. http://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2011.00271.Google Scholar
Ross-Feldman, L. (2005). Task-based interactions between second language learners: Exploring the role of gender. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Georgetown University, Washington, DC.Google Scholar
Ross-Feldman, L. (2007). Interaction in the L2 classroom: Does gender influence learning opportunities? In Mackey, A. (ed.), Conversational interaction in second language acquisition: A collection of empirical studies (pp. 52–77). Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Sadeghi, K. & Sagedi, S. P. (2013). Modified output in task-based EFL classes across gender. The Journal of Teaching Language Skills, 32(2), 113–135.Google Scholar
Sadker, M. & Sadker, D. (1994). Failing at fairness: How our schools cheat girls. New York: Charles Scribner’s Sons.Google Scholar
Shehadeh, A. (1994). Gender differences and second language acquisition. Research Journal of Aleppo University (Arts and Humanities Series), 26(2), 73–98.Google Scholar
Sheldon, A. (1990). Pickle fights: Gendered talk in preschool disputes. Discourse Processes, 13(1), 5–31.Google Scholar
Su, I.–R. & Huang, C.–N. (2013). The influence of gender on task-based conversational interactions in a foreign language. English Teaching and Learning, 37(4), 1–54.Google Scholar
Sunderland, J. (1995). Gender and language testing. Language Testing Update, 17, 24–35.Google Scholar
Susanti, R. (2013). Students’ perceptions towards the effective feedback practices in the large EFL writing class based on participants, gender, and English proficiency level. Unpublished MA thesis, Indiana University of Pennsylvania, Indiana, PA.Google Scholar
Tannen, D. (1990). Gender differences in topical coherence: Creating involvement in best friends’ talk. Discourse Processes, 13(1), 73–90.Google Scholar
Tannen, D. (1994). Gender and discourse. New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
West, C. & García, A. (1988). Conversational shift work: A study of topical transition between women and men. Social Problems, 35(5), 551–575.Google Scholar
Zuengler, J. & Wang, H. (1993). Gender and communication strategy use. Paper presented at the Xth International Congress of Applied Linguistics, Amsterdam.Google Scholar

References

Atkinson, R. C. & Shiffrin, R. M. (1968). Human memory: A proposed system and its control processes. In Spence, K. W. & Spence, J. T. (eds.), The psychology of learning and motivation: Advances in research and theory (Vol. II, pp. 89–195). New York: Academic Press.Google Scholar
Baddeley, A. (2000). The episodic buffer: A new component of working memory? Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 4(11), 417–423.Google Scholar
Baddeley, A. (2017). Modularity, working memory and language acquisition. Second Language Research, 33(3), 299–311.Google Scholar
Baddeley, A. & Hitch, G. (1974). Working memory. In Bower, G. H. (ed.), The psychology of learning and motivation: Advances in research and theory (Vol. VIII. pp. 47–90). San Diego, CA: Academic Press.Google Scholar
Baddeley, A. & Logie, R. H. (1999). Working memory: The multiple-component model. In Miyake, A. & Shah, P. (eds.), Models of working memory: Mechanisms of active maintenance and executive control (pp. 28–61). New York: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Bialystok, E. (2001). Bilingualism in development: Language, literacy, and cognition. New York: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Bialystok, E. (2009). Bilingualism: The good, the bad, and the indifferent. Bilingualism: Language and Cognition, 12(1), 3–11. DOI:10.1017/S1366728908003477.Google Scholar
Bialystok, E. & Senman, L. (2004). Executive processes in appearance–reality tasks: The role of inhibition of attention and symbolic representation. Child Development, 75, 562–579.Google Scholar
Bialystok, E. & Shapero, D. (2005). Ambiguous benefits: The effect of bilingualism on reversing ambiguous figures. Developmental Science, 8, 595–604.Google Scholar
Bitchener, J. & Knoch, U. (2008). The value of written corrective feedback for migrant and international students. Language Teaching Research, 12(3), 409–431.Google Scholar
Bowden, H., Sanz, C. & Stafford, C. A. (2005). Individual differences: Age, sex, working memory, and prior knowledge. In Sanz, C. (ed.), Mind and context in adult second language acquisition: Methods, theory, and practice (pp. 105–140). Washington, DC: Georgetown University Press.Google Scholar
Brohy, C. (2001). Generic and/or specific advantages of bilingualism in a dynamic plurilingual situation: The case of French as official L3 in the school of Samedan (Switzerland). International Journal of Bilingual Education and Bilingualism, 4, 38–49.Google Scholar
Carroll, J. B. (1981). Twenty-five years of research on foreign language aptitude. In Diller, K. C. (ed.), Individual differences and universals in language learning aptitude (pp. 83–118). Rowley, MA: Newbury House.Google Scholar
Carroll, J. B. & Sapon, S. M. (1959). Modern Language Aptitude Test. New York: The Psychological Corporation/Harcourt Brace Jovanovich.Google Scholar
Cenoz, J. (2013). The influence of bilingualism on third language acquisition: Focus on multilingualism. Language Teaching, 46, 71–86.Google Scholar
Cenoz, J. & Valencia, J. F. (1994). Additive trilingualism: Evidence from the Basque Country. Applied Psycholinguistics, 15, 195–207.Google Scholar
Clyne, M., Rossi Hunt, C. & Isaakidis, T. (2004). Learning a community language as a third language. International Journal of Multilingualism, 1(1), 33–52.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cook, V. J. (1992), Evidence for multicompetence. Language Learning, 42, 557–591.Google Scholar
Cook, V. J. (2007). The goals of ELT: Reproducing native-speakers or promoting multi-competence among second language users? In Cummins, J. & Davison, C. (eds.), International handbook on English language teaching, Springer International Handbooks of Education Vol. 15 (pp. 237–248). Boston: Springer.Google Scholar
Cox, J. (2017). Explicit instruction, bilingualism and the older adult learner. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 39(1), 29–58.Google Scholar
Cox, J. & Sanz, C. (2015). Deconstructing PI for the ages: Explicit instruction vs. practice in young and older adult bilinguals. IRAL: International Review of Applied Linguistics, 53(2), 225–248.Google Scholar
Daneman, M. & Carpenter, P. A. (1980). Individual differences in working memory and reading. Journal of Individual Learning and Verbal Behavior, 19, 450–466.Google Scholar
De Graaff, R. (1997). The eXperanto experiment: Effects of explicit instruction on second language acquisition. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 19(2), 249–276.Google Scholar
De Houwer, A., & Ortega, L. (2019). The Cambridge handbook of bilingualism. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Doughty, C., Campbell, S., Mislevy, M., Bunting, M., Bowles, A. & Koeth, J. (2010). Predicting near-native ability: The factor structure and reliability of Hi-LAB. In Prior, M., Watanabe, Y. & Lee, S. (eds.), Selected proceedings of the 2008 Second Language Research Forum (pp. 10–31). Somerville, MA: Cascadilla Proceedings Project.Google Scholar
Ehrman, M. & Oxford, R. (1995). Cognition plus: Correlates of language learning success. Modern Language Journal, 79(1), 67–89.Google Scholar
Erlam, R. (2005). Language aptitude and its relationship to instructional effectiveness in second language acquisition. Language Teaching Research, 9(2), 147–171.Google Scholar
Gardner, R. (1990). Attitudes, motivation, and personality as predictors of success in foreign language learning. In Parry, T. S. & Stansfield, C. W. (eds.), Language aptitude reconsidered (pp. 179–221). Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall Regents.Google Scholar
Gibson, M., Hufeisen, B. & Libben, G. (2001). Learners of German as an L3 and their production of German prepositional verbs. In Cenoz, J., Hufeisen, B. & Jessner, U. (eds.), Cross-linguistic influence in third language acquisition (pp. 138–148). Clevedon: Multilingual Matters.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
González-Ardeo, J. M. (2000). Engineering students and ESP in the Basque Country: SLA versus TLA. In Cenoz, J., Hufeisen, B. & Jessner, U. (eds.), Looking beyond second language acquisition: Studies in tri- and multilingualism (pp. 75–95). Tübingen: Stauffenburg.Google Scholar
Granena, G. (2013). Cognitive aptitudes for second language learning and the LLAMA Language Aptitude Test. In Granena, G. & Long, M. H. (eds.), Sensitive periods, language aptitude, and ultimate L2 attainment (pp. 105–129). Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
Granena, G. (2016). Explicit and implicit cognitive aptitudes and information-processing styles: An individual differences study. Applied Psycholinguistics, 37(3), 577–600.Google Scholar
Granena, G. (2019). Cognitive aptitudes and L2 speaking proficiency: Links between LLAMA and HI-LAB. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 41(2), 313–336. DOI:10.1017/S0272263118000256.Google Scholar
Grigorenko, E. L., Sternberg, R. J. & Ehrman, M. E. (2000). A theory-based approach to the measurement of foreign language learning ability: The canal-F theory and test. Modern Language Journal, 84(3), 390–405.Google Scholar
Grosjean, F. (2008). Studying bilinguals. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Harley, B. & Hart, D. (1997). Language aptitude and second language proficiency in classroom learners of different starting ages. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 19, 379–400.Google Scholar
Hilchey, M. D. & Klein, R. M. (2011). Are there bilingual advantages on nonlinguistic interference tasks? Implications for the plasticity of executive control processes. Psychon Bulletin & Review, 18(4), 625–658.Google Scholar
Hummel, K. (2009). Aptitude, phonological memory, and second language proficiency in nonnovice adult learners. Applied Psycholinguistics, 30(2), 225–249.Google Scholar
Keshavarz, H. M. & Astaneh, H. (2004). The impact of bilinguality on the learning of English vocabulary as a foreign language (L3). Bilingual Education and Bilingualism, 7(4), 295–302.Google Scholar
Krashen, S. D. (1981). Aptitude and attitude in relation to second language acquisition and learning. In Diller, K. C. (ed.), Individual differences & universals in language learning (pp. 155–175). Rowley, MA: Newbury House.Google Scholar
Lado, B. (2017). Aptitude and pedagogical conditions in the early development of a nonprimary language. Applied Psycholinguistics, 38(3), 679–701.Google Scholar
Lado, B., Bowden, H., Stafford, C. & Sanz, C. (2014). A fine-grained analysis of the effects of negative evidence with and without metalinguistic information in language development. Language Teaching Research, 18(3), 320–344.Google Scholar
Lado, B., Bowden, H. W., Stafford, C. & Sanz, C. (2017). Two birds, one stone, or how learning a foreign language makes you a better language learner. Hispania, 100(3), 361–378.Google Scholar
Lado, B. & Sanz, C. (2016). Methods in multilingualism research. In K. King, Y. J. Lai, S. May, (eds.), Research methods in language and education: Encyclopedia of language and education (3rd ed.). Cham: Springer.Google Scholar
Lasagabaster, D. (2000). Three languages and three linguistic models in the Basque educational system. In Cenoz, J. & Jessner, U. (eds.), English in Europe: The acquisition of a third language (pp. 179–197). Clevedon: Multilingual Matters.Google Scholar
Lenet, A. E., Sanz, C., Lado, B., Howard, J. H. J. & Howard, D. V. (2011). Aging, pedagogical conditions, and differential success in SLA: An empirical study. In Sanz, C. & Leow, R. P. (eds.), Implicit and explicit language learning: Conditions, processes, and knowledge in SLA and bilingualism (pp. 73–84). Washington, DC: Georgetown University Press.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 differential roles of two aptitude components in mediating the effects of two types of feedback on the acquisition of an opaque linguistic structure. In Sanz, C. & Lado, B. (eds.), Individual differences, L2 development & language program administration: From theory to application (pp. 32–52). Boston: Cengage Learning.Google Scholar
Li, S. (2015). The associations between language aptitude and second language grammar acquisition: A meta-analytic review of five decades of research. Applied Linguistics, 36(3), 385–408.Google Scholar
Li, Shaofeng. (2017). Cognitive differences and ISLA. In Loewen, S. & Sato, M. (eds.), The Routledge handbook of instructed second language acquisition (pp. 396–417). New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
Linck, J., Hughes, M., Campbell, S., Silbert, N., Tare, M., Jackson, S., Smith, B., Bunting, M. & Doughty, C. (2013). Hi-LAB: A new measure of aptitude for high-level language proficiency. Language Learning, 63(3), 530–566.Google Scholar
Mackey, A., Philp, J., Fujii, A., Egi, T. & Tatsumi, T. (2002). Individual differences in working memory, noticing of interactional feedback, and L2 development. In Robinson, P. and Skehan, P. (eds.), Individual differences in L2 learning (pp. 181–208). Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
McLaughlin, B. (1995). Aptitude from an information-processing perspective. Language Testing, 12(3), 370–387.Google Scholar
McLaughlin, B. & Nayak, N. (1989). Processing a new language: Does knowing other languages make a difference? In Dechert, H. W. & Raupach, M. (eds.), Interlingual processes (pp. 5–16). Tübingen: Gunter Narr.Google Scholar
McLaughlin, B., Rossman, T. & McLeod, B. (1983). Second language learning: An information‐processing perspective. Language Learning, 33(2), 135–158.Google Scholar
Meara, P. (2005). LLAMA language aptitude tests: The manual. Swansea: Lognostics.Google Scholar
Miyake, A. & Shah, P. (1999). Models of working memory: Mechanisms of active maintenance and executive control. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Muñoz, C. (2000). Bilingualism and trilingualism in school students in Catalonia. In Cenoz, J. & Jessner, U. (eds.), English in Europe: The acquisition of a third language (pp. 157–178). Clevedon: Multilingual Matters.Google Scholar
Nation, R. & McLaughlin, B. (1986). Novices and experts: An information processing approach to the “good language learner” problem. Applied Psycholinguistics, 7(1), 41–55.Google Scholar
Nayak, N., Hansen, N., Krueger, N. & McLaughlin, B. (1990). Language-learning strategies in monolingual and multilingual adults. Language Learning, 40(2), 221–244.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Okita, Y. & Jun Hai, G. (2001). Learning of Japanese Kanji character by bilingual and monolingual Chinese speakers. In Cenoz, J., Hufeisen, B. & Jessner, U. (eds.), Looking beyond second language acquisition: Studies in tri-and multilingualism (pp. 63–73). Tübingen: Stauffenburg.Google Scholar
Ortega, L. (2014). Ways forward for a bi-multilingual turn in SLA. In May, S. (ed.), The multilingual turn: Implications for SLA, TESOL, and bilingual education (pp. 32–53). New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
Ottó, I. (2002). Magyar Egységes Nyelvérzékmérö-Teszt [Hungarian Language Aptitude Test]. Kaposvar: Mottó-Logic Bt.Google Scholar
Paap, K. R. & Greenberg, Z. (2013). There is no coherent evidence for a bilingual advantage in executive processing. Cognitive Psychology, 66(2), 232–258.Google Scholar
Park, D. C. (2000). The basic mechanisms accounting for age-related decline in cognitive function. In Park, D. C. & Schwarz, N. (eds.), Cognitive aging: A primer (pp. 3–21). Philadelphia: Psychology Press.Google Scholar
Parry, T. S. & Stansfield, C. W. (1990). Language aptitude reconsidered. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall Regents.Google Scholar
Pimsleur, P. (1966). The Pimsleur language aptitude battery. New York: Harcourt Brace Jovanovich.Google Scholar
Robinson, P. (1997). Individual differences and the fundamental similarity of implicit and explicit adult second language learning. Language Learning, 47(1), 45–99.Google Scholar
Robinson, P. (2002). Effects of individual differences in intelligence, aptitude and working memory on incidental SLA: A replication and extension of Reber, Walkenfield and Hernstadt (1991). In Robinson, P. (ed.), Individual differences and instructed language learning (pp. 211–266). Philadelphia: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
Robinson, P. (2005a). Aptitude and second language acquisition. Annual Review of Applied Linguistics, 25, 45–73.Google Scholar
Robinson, P. (2005b). Cognitive abilities, chunk-strength, and frequency effects in implicit artificial grammar and incidental L2 learning: Replications of Reber, Walkenfeld, and Hernstadt (1991) and Knowlton and Squire (1996) and their relevance for SLA. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 27(2), 235–268.Google Scholar
Sagarra, N. & Abbuhl, R. (2013a). Optimizing the noticing of recasts vis computer-delivered feedback: Evidence that oral input enhancement and working memory help second language learning. Modern Language Journal, 97(1), 196–216.Google Scholar
Sagarra, N. & Abbuhl, R. (2013b). Computer-delivered feedback and L2 development: The role of explicitness and working memory. In Sanz, C. & Lado, B. (eds.), Individual differences, L2 development & language program administration: From theory to application (pp. 53–70). Boston, MA: Cengage Learning.Google Scholar
Sagasta, M. (2003). Acquiring writing skills in a third language: Positive effects of bilingualism. International Journal of Bilingualism, 7(1), 27–42.Google Scholar
Sanz, C. (2000). Bilingual education enhances third language acquisition: Evidence from Catalonia. Applied Psycholinguistics, 21(1), 23–44.Google Scholar
Sanz, C. (2004). Computer delivered implicit vs. explicit feedback in processing instruction. In VanPatten, B. (ed.), Processing instruction: Theory, research, and commentary (pp. 241–255). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.Google Scholar
Sanz, C.(2005). Adult SLA: The interaction between internal and external factors. In Sanz, C. (ed.), Mind and context in adult second language acquisition: Methods, theory, and practice (pp. 3–20). Washington, DC: Georgetown University Press.Google Scholar
Sanz, C. (2007). The role of bilingual literacy in the acquisition of a third language. In Pérez Vidal, C., Bel, A. & Juan Garau, M. (eds.), A portrait of the young in the new multilingual Spain (pp. 220–240), Clevedon: Multilingual Matters.Google Scholar
Sanz, C., Lin., H., Lado, B., Bowden, H. B. & Stafford, C. A. (2009). Concurrent verbalizations, pedagogical conditions, and reactivity: two CALL studies. Language Learning, 59(1), 33–71.Google Scholar
(2016). One size fits all? Learning conditions and working memory capacity in ab initio language development. Applied Linguistics, 37(5), 669–692.Google Scholar
Sanz, C., Park, H. I. & Lado, B. (2014). A functional approach to cross-linguistic influence in ab initio L3 acquisition. Bilingualism: Language & Cognition, 18(2), 236–251.Google Scholar
Sawyer, M. & Ranta, L. (2001). Aptitude, individual differences, and instructional design. In Robinson, P. (ed.), Cognition and second language instruction (pp. 319–353). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.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). New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Skehan, P. (1998). A cognitive approach to language learning. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Skehan, P. (2002). Theorising and updating aptitude. In Robinson, P. (ed.), Individual differences in instructed language learning (pp. 69–93). Philadelphia: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
Skehan, P. (2012). Language aptitude. In Gass, S. & Mackey, A. (eds.), Handbook of second language acquisition (pp. 381–395). New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
Skehan, P. (2015). Foreign language aptitude and its relationship with grammar: A critical overview. Applied Linguistics, 36(3), 367–384.Google Scholar
Sparks, R. L., Javorsky, J. & Ganschow, L. (2005). Should the modern language aptitude test be used to determine course substitutions for and waivers of the foreign language requirement? Foreign Language Annals, 38(2), 201–210. DOI:10.1111/j.1944-9720.2005.tb02485.x.Google Scholar
Stafford, C., Sanz, C. & Bowden, W. H. (2010). An experimental study of early L3 development: age, bilingualism and classroom exposure. International Journal of Multilingualism, 7(2), 162–183.Google Scholar
Suzuki, Y. & DeKeyser, R. (2017). The interface of explicit and implicit knowledge in a second language: Insights from individual differences in cognitive aptitudes. Language Learning, 67(4), 747–790.Google Scholar
Swain, M., Lapkin, S., Rowen, N. & Hart, D. (1990). The role of mother tongue literacy in third language learning. Language, Culture and Curriculum, 3(1), 65–81.Google Scholar
Tagarelli, K. M., Borges Mota, M. & Rebuschat, P. (2015). Working memory, learning context, and the acquisition of L2 Syntax. In Zhisheng, W., Borges Mota, M. & McNeill, A. (eds.), Working memory in second language acquisition and processing: Theory, research and commentary (pp. 224–247). Bristol: Multilingual Matters.Google Scholar
Tagarelli, K. M., Ruiz, S., Moreno, J. L. & Rebuschat, P. (2016). Variability in second language learning: The roles of individual differences, learning conditions, and linguistic complexity. Studies in Second Language Acquisition (Special Issue): Cognitive Perspectives on Difficulty and Complexity in SLA, 38(2), 293–316.Google Scholar
Thomas, J. (1988). The role played by metalinguistic awareness in second and third language learning. Journal of Multilingual and Multicultural Development, 9(3), 235–246.Google Scholar
Trofimovich, P., Ammar, A. & Gatbonton, E. (2007). How effective are recasts? The role of attention, memory, and analytical ability. In Mackey, A. (ed.), Conversational interaction in second language acquisition (pp. 171–195). New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
van Gelderen, A., Schoonen, R., de Glopper, K., Hulstijn, J., Snellings, P., Simis, A. & Stevenson, M. (2003). Roles of linguistic knowledge, metacognitive knowledge, and processing speed in L3, L2, and L1 reading comprehension: A structural equation modeling approach. International Journal of Bilingualism, 7(1), 7–25.Google Scholar
Vatz, K., Tare, M., Jackson, S. & Doughty, C. (2013). Aptitude-treatment interaction studies in second language acquistition: Findings and methodology. In Granena, G., & Long, M. H. (eds.), Sensitive periods, language aptitude, and ultimate L2 attainment (pp. 273–292). Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
Wagner, D., Spratt, J. & Ezzaki, A. (1989). Does learning to read in a second language always put the child at a disadvantage? Some counterevidence from Morocco. Applied Psycholinguistics, 10(1), 31–48.Google Scholar
Wen, Z., Biedroń, A. & Skehan, P. (2017). Foreign language aptitude theory: Yesterday, today and tomorrow. Language Teaching, 50(1), 1–31. DOI:10.1017/S0261444816000276.Google Scholar
Williams, J. N. (2012). Working memory and SLA. In Gass, S. M. & Mackey, A. (eds.), The Routledge handbook of second language acquisition (pp. 427–441). New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
Winke, P. (2013), An investigation into second language aptitude for advanced Chinese language learning. Modern Language Journal, 97(1), 109–130.Google Scholar
Yilmaz, Y. (2013). 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. & Granena, G. (2016). The role of cognitive aptitudes for explicit language learning in the relative effects of explicit and implicit feedback. Bilingualism: Language and Cognition, 19(1), 147–161.Google Scholar

References

Akiyama, Y. (2017). Learner beliefs and corrective feedback in telecollaboration: A longitudinal investigation. System, 64, 58–73.Google Scholar
Baralt, M. & Gurzynski-Weiss, L. (2011). Comparing learners’ state anxiety during task-based interaction in computer-mediate and face-to-face communication. Language Teaching Research, 15(2), 201–229.Google Scholar
Barcelos, A. M. F. & Kalaja, P. (2011). Introduction to beliefs about SLA revisited. System, 39(3), 281–289.Google Scholar
Busse, V. (2013). How do students of German perceive feedback practices at university? A motivational exploration. Journal of Second Language Writing, 22(4), 406–424.Google Scholar
Di Loreto, S. & McDonough, K. (2013). The relationship between instructor feedback and ESL student anxiety. TESL Canada Journal, 31(1), 20–41.Google Scholar
Dörnyei, Z. (2009). The psychology of second language acquisition. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Dörnyei, Z. & Ryan, S. (2015). The psychology of the language learner revisited. New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
Dweck, C. S. (2000). Self-theories: Their role in motivation, personality, and development. Philadelphia, PA: Psychology Press.Google Scholar
Egi, T. (2010). Uptake, modified output, and learner perceptions of recasts: Learner responses as language awareness. Modern Language Journal, 94(1), 1–21.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
Fernandez-Toro, M. & Hurd, S. (2014). A model of factors affecting independent learners’ engagement with feedback on language learning tasks. Distance Education, 35(1), 106–125.Google Scholar
Fredricks, J., Blumenfeld, P. C. & Paris, A. (2004). School engagement: Potential of the concept, state of the evidence. Review of Educational Research, 74(1), 59–109.Google Scholar
Grotjahn, R. (1991). The research programme: Subjective theories. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 13(2), 187–214.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
Han, Y. (2017). Mediating and being mediated: Learner beliefs and learner engagement with written corrective feedback. System, 69, 133–142.Google Scholar
Han, Y. & Hyland, F. (2015). Exploring learner engagement with written corrective feedback in a Chinese tertiary EFL classroom. Journal of Second Language Writing, 30, 31–44.Google Scholar
Horwitz, E. K. (1988). The beliefs about language learning of beginning university foreign language students. Modern Language Journal, 72(3), 283–294.Google Scholar
Horwitz, E. K. (1995). Student affective reactions and the teaching and learning of foreign languages. International Journal of Educational Research, 23(7), 573–579.Google Scholar
Horwitz, E. K. (2000). It ain’t over till it’s over: On foreign language anxiety, first language deficits, and the confounding of variables. Modern Language Journal, 84(2), 256–259.Google Scholar
Horwitz, E. K. (2001). Language anxiety and achievement. Annual Review of Applied Linguistics, 21, 112–126.Google Scholar
Horwitz, E. K. (2010). Foreign and second language anxiety. Language Teaching, 43(2), 154–167.Google Scholar
Horwitz, E. K., Horwitz, M. B. & Cope, J. (1986). Foreign language classroom anxiety. Modern Language Journal, 70(2), 125–132.Google Scholar
Jang, S.-S. (2011). Corrective feedback and language anxiety in L2 processing and achievement. English Teaching, 66(2), 73–99.Google Scholar
Kartchava, E. & Ammar, A. (2014). Learners’ beliefs as mediators of what is noticed and learned in the language classroom. TESOL Quarterly, 48(1), 86–109.Google Scholar
Kormos, J. (2012). The role of individual differences in L2 writing. Journal of Second Language Writing, 21(4), 390–403.Google Scholar
Lee, E. J. (2013) Corrective feedback preferences and learner repair among advanced ESL students. System, 41(2), 217–230.Google Scholar
Lee, E. J. (2016). Reducing international graduate students’ language anxiety through oral pronunciation corrections. System, 56, 78–95.Google Scholar
Li, S. (2010). The effectiveness of corrective feedback in SLA: A meta-analysis. Language Learning, 60(2), 309–365.Google Scholar
Lipnevich, A. A. & Smith, J. K. (2009). I really need feedback to learn: Students’ perspectives on the effectiveness of the differential feedback messages. Educational Assessment, Evaluation and Accountability, 21(4), 347–367.Google Scholar
Loewen, S., Li, S., Fei, F., Thompson, A., Nakatsukasa, K., Ahn, S. & Chen, X. (2009). Second language learners’ beliefs about grammar instruction and error correction. Modern Language Journal, 93(1), 91–104.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
Lyster, R. & Saito, K. (2010). Oral feedback in classroom SLA: A meta-analysis. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 32(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
MacIntyre, P. D. (1995a). How does anxiety affect second language learning? A reply to Sparks and Ganschow. Modern Language Journal, 79(1), 90–99.Google Scholar
MacIntyre, P. D. (1995b). On seeing the forest and the trees: A rejoinder to Sparks and Ganschow. Modern Language Journal, 79(2), 245–248.Google Scholar
MacIntyre, P. D. & Gardener, R. C. (1994a). The effects of induced anxiety on three stages of cognitive processing in computerized vocabulary learning. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 16(1), 1–17.Google Scholar
MacIntyre, P. D. & Gardener, R. C. (1994b). The subtle effects of language anxiety on cognitive processing in the second language. Language Learning, 44(2), 283–305.Google Scholar
MacIntyre, P. D. & Gregersen, T. (2012). Affect: The role of language anxiety and other emotions in language learning. In Mercer, S., Ryan, S. & Williams, M. (eds.), Psychology for language learning: Insights from research, theory & practice (pp. 103–118). Basingstoke: Palgrave.Google Scholar
Mackey, A. (2006). Feedback, noticing and instructed second language learning. Applied Linguistics, 27(3), 405–430.Google Scholar
Mackey, A. (2012). Input, interaction and corrective feedback in L2 classrooms. Oxford: Oxford University Press.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
Mahfoodh, O. H. A. (2017). “I feel disappointed”: EFL university students’ emotional responses towards teacher written feedback. Assessing Writing, 31, 53–72.Google Scholar
Nassaji, H. (2016). 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. & Kartchava, E. (2017). Corrective feedback in second language teaching and learning: Research, theory, applications, implications. New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
Ortega, L. (2009). Understanding second language acquisition. London: Hodder Education.Google Scholar
Philp, J. (2003). Constraints on noticing the gap: Nonnative speakers’ noticing of recasts in NS–NNS interaction. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 25(1), 99–126.Google Scholar
Pienemann, M., Johnston, M. & Brindley, G. (1988). Constructing an acquisition-based procedure for second language assessment. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 10(2), 217–243.Google Scholar
Rassaei, E. (2015a). The effects of foreign language anxiety on EFL learners’ perceptions of oral corrective feedback. Innovation in Language Learning and Teaching, 9(2), 87–101.Google Scholar
Rassaei, E. (2015b). Oral corrective feedback, foreign language anxiety and L2 development. System, 49, 98–109.Google Scholar
Révész, A. (2011). Task complexity, focus on L2 constructions, and individual differences: A classroom-based study. Modern Language Journal, 95(Supp.), 162–181.Google Scholar
Russell, J. & Spada, N. (2006). The effectiveness of corrective feedback for the acquisition of L2 grammar: A meta-analysis of the research. In Norris, J. M. & Ortega, L. (eds.), Synthesizing research on language learning and teaching. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
Schmidt, R. (1990). The role of consciousness in second language learning. Applied Linguistics, 11(2), 129–158.Google Scholar
Schmidt, R. (1995). Consciousness and foreign language learning: A tutorial on the role of attention and awareness in learning. In Schmidt, R. (ed.), Attention and awareness in foreign language learning (pp. 1–63). Honolulu: University of Hawai’i Press.Google Scholar
Schmidt, R. (2001). Attention. In Robinson, P. (ed.), Cognition and second language instruction (pp. 3–32). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
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
Schulz, R. A. (2001). Cultural differences in student and teacher perceptions concerning the role of grammar instruction and corrective feedback: USA–Colombia. Modern Language Journal, 85(2), 244–258.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. (2008). Recasts, language anxiety, modified output, and L2 learning. Language Learning, 58(4), 835–874.Google Scholar
Sheen, Y. (2011). Corrective feedback, individual differences and second language learning. New York: Springer.Google Scholar
Sparks, R. L. & Ganschow, L. (1991). Foreign language learning difficulties: Affective or native language aptitude differences? Modern Language Journal, 75(1), 3–16.Google Scholar
Sparks, R. L. & Ganschow, L. (1995). A strong inference approach to causal factors in foreign language leanring: A response to MacIntyre. Modern Language Journal, 79(2), 235–244.Google Scholar
Sparks, R. L., Ganschow, L. & Javorsky, J. (2000). Déjà vu all over again: A response to Saito, Horwitz, and Garza. Modern Language Journal, 84(2), 251–255.Google Scholar
Sparks, R. L., Patton, J., Ganschow, L. & Humbach, N. (2009). Long-term relationships among early first language skills, second language aptitude, second language affect, and later second language proficiency. Applied Psycholinguistics, 30(4), 725–755.Google Scholar
Swain, M. (2013). The inseparability of cognition and emotion in second language learning. Language Teaching, 46(2), 195–207.Google Scholar
Tang, C. & Liu, Y.-T. (2018). Effects of indirect coded corrective feedback with and without short affective teacher comments on L2 writing performance, learner uptake and motivation. Assessing Writing, 35, 26–40.Google Scholar
Truscott, J. (1996). The case against grammar correction in L2 writing classes. Language Learning, 46(2), 327–369.Google Scholar
Waller, L. & Papi, M. (2017). Motivation and feedback: How implicit theories of intelligence predict L2 writers’ motivation and feedback orientation. Journal of Second Language Writing, 35, 54–65.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
Yoshida, R. (2008). Teachers’ choice and learners’ preference of corrective feedback types. Language Awareness, 17(1), 78–93.Google Scholar
Zhang, Z. & Hyland, K. (2018). Student engagement with teacher and automated feedback on L2 writing. Assessing Writing, 36, 90–102.Google Scholar
Zhang, L. J. & Rahimi, M. (2014). EFL learners’ anxiety level and their beliefs about corrective feedback in oral communication classes. System, 42, 429–439.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
Allen, D. & Mills, A. (2014). The impact of proficiency in dyadic peer feedback. Language Teaching Research, 20(4), 498–513.Google Scholar
Ammar, A. (2008). Prompts and recasts: Differential effects on second language morphosyntax. Language Teaching Research, 12(2), 183–210.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
Andersen, R. W. & Shirai, Y. (1996). The primacy of aspect in first and second language acquisition: The pidgin–creole connection. In Ritchie, W. C. & Bhatia, T. K. (eds.), Handbook of research on second language acquisition (pp. 527–570). New York: Academic Press.Google Scholar
Bitchener, J. & Storch, N. (2016). Written corrective feedback for L2 development. Bristol: Multilingual Matters.Google Scholar
DeKeyser, R. (1998). Beyond focus on form: Cognitive perspectives on learning and practicing second language grammar. In Doughty, C. & Williams, J. (eds.), Focus on form in classroom second language acquisition (pp. 42–63). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
DeKeyser, R. (2003). Implicit and explicit learning. In Doughty, C. J. & Long, M. H. (eds.), The handbook of second language acquisition (pp. 313–348). Oxford: Blackwell.Google Scholar
DeKeyser, R. (2005). What makes learning second-language grammar difficult? A review of issues. Language Learning, 55(Suppl. 1), 1–25.Google Scholar
DeKeyser, R. (2007). The future of practice. In DeKeyser, R. (ed.), Practice in a second language: Perspectives from applied linguistics and cognitive psychology (pp. 287–304). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
DeKeyser, R. (2010). Cognitive-psychological processes in second language learning. In Long, M. H. & Doughty, C. J. (eds.), The handbook of language teaching (pp. 117–138). Oxford: Wiley-Blackwell.Google Scholar
DeKeyser, R. (2017). Knowledge and skill in SLA. In Loewen, S. & Sato, M. (eds.), The Routledge handbook of instructed second language acquisition (pp. 15–32). New York and London: Routledge.Google Scholar
DeKeyser, R. & Juffs, A. (2005). Cognitive considerations in L2 learning. In Hinkel, E. (ed.), Handbook of research in second language teaching and learning (pp. 437–454). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.Google Scholar
Doughty, C. J. (1991). Second language instruction does make a difference: Evidence from an empirical study of ESL relativization. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 13(4), 431–469.Google Scholar
Doughty, C. J. (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
Dulay, H., Burt, M. K. & Krashen, S. D. (1982). Language two. Rowley, MA: Newbury House.Google Scholar
Ellis, R. (1997). SLA research and language teaching. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Ellis, R. (2002). Does form-focused instruction affect the acquisition of implicit knowledge? A review of the research. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 24(2), 223–236.Google Scholar
Ellis, R. (2003). Task-based language learning and teaching. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Ellis, R. (2004). The definition and measurement of explicit knowledge. Language Learning, 54(2), 227–275.Google Scholar
Ellis, R. (2005). Measuring implicit and explicit knowledge of a second language: A psychometric study. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 27(2), 141–172.Google Scholar
Ellis, R. (2006). Modeling learning difficulty and second language proficiency: The differential contributions of implicit and explicit knowledge. Applied Linguistics, 27(3), 431–463.Google Scholar
Ellis, R. (2008). The study of second language acquisition (2nd ed.). Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Ellis, R. (2009a). Implicit and explicit learning, knowledge and instruction. In Ellis, R., Loewen, S., Elder, C., Erlam, R. M., Philp, J. & Reinders, H. (eds.), Implicit and explicit knowledge in second language learning, testing and teaching (pp. 3–25). Bristol; Buffalo; Toronto: Multilingual Matters.Google Scholar
Ellis, R. (2009b). Corrective feedback and teacher development. L2 Journal, 1(1), 3–18.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. (2016). Focus on form: A critical review. Language Teaching Research, 20(3), 405–428.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: Research, theory, applications, implications (pp. 3–18). London and New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
Ferris, D. R. & 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
Gass, S. M. & Selinker, L. (2008). Second language acquisition: An introductory course (3rd ed.). London; New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
Ishida, M. (2004). Effects of recasts on the acquisition of the aspectual form “-te i-(ru)” by learners of Japanese as a foreign language. Language Learning, 5(2), 311–394.Google Scholar
Iwashita, N. (2001). The effect of learner proficiency on interactional moves and modified output in nonnative–nonnative interaction in Japanese as a foreign language. System, 29(2), 267–287.Google Scholar
Klein, W. (1995). The acquisition of English. In Dietrich, R., Klein, W. & Noyau, C. (eds.), The acquisition of temporality in a second language (pp. 31–68). Amsterdam; Philadelphia: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
Larsen-Freeman, D. (1976). An explanation for the morpheme acquisition order of second language learners. Language Learning, 26(1), 125–134.Google Scholar
Larsen-Freeman, D. & Long, M. H. (1991). An introduction to second language acquisition research. London: Longman.Google Scholar
Li, S. (2014). The interface between feedback type, L2 proficiency, and the nature of the linguistic target. Language Teaching Research, 18(3), 373–396.Google Scholar
Li, S. Ellis, R. & Shu, D. (2016). The differential effects of immediate and delayed feedback on learners of different proficiency levels. Foreign Languages and Foreign Language Research, 286, 1–15.Google Scholar
Li, S. Zhu, Y. & Ellis, R. (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
Lightbown, P. M. (1985). Can language acquisition be altered by instruction? In Hyltenstam, K. & Pienemann, M. (eds.), Modeling and assessing second language acquisition (pp. 101–112). Clevedon: Multilingual Matters.Google Scholar
Lin, J. H. & Hedgcock, J. (1996). Negative feedback incorporation among high-proficiency and low-proficiency Chinese-speaking learners of Spanish. Language Learning, 46(4), 567–611.Google Scholar
Loewen, S. (2012). The role of feedback. In Gass, S. M. & Mackey, A. (eds.), The Routledge handbook of second language acquisition (pp. 24–40). New York; London: Routledge.Google Scholar
Loewen, S. (2015). Instructed second language acquisition. New York; London: Routledge.Google Scholar
Loewen, S. & Reinders, H. (2011). Key concepts in second language acquisition. New York: Palgrave Macmillan.Google Scholar
Long, M. H., Inagaki, S. & Ortega, L. (1998). The role of implicit negative feedback in SLA: Models and recasts in Japanese and Spanish. Modern Language Journal, 82(3), 357–371.Google Scholar
Long, M. H. & Ortega, L. (1997). The effects of models and recasts on the acquisition of object topicalization and adverb placement by adult learners of Spanish. Spanish Applied Linguistics, 1(1), 65–86.Google Scholar
López, M. B., Van Steendam, E. & Buyse, K. (2019). Comprehensive corrective feedback on low and high proficiency writers: Examining attitudes and preferences. International Journal of Applied Linguistics, 168(1), 91–128.Google Scholar
Lyster, R., Lightbown, M. P. & Spada, N. (1999). A response to Truscott’s “What’s wrong with oral grammar correction?” Canadian Modern Language Review, 55(4), 457–467.Google Scholar
Mackey, A. (1999). Input, interaction, and second language development: An empirical study of question formation in ESL. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 21(4), 557–587.Google Scholar
Mackey, A. (2012). Input, interaction, and corrective feedback. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Mackey, A., Adams, R., Stafford, C. & Winke, P. (2010). Exploring the relationship between modified output and working memory capacity. Language Learning, 60(3), 501–533.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
Mackey, A., Philp, J., Egi, T., Fujii, A. & Tatsumi, T. (2002). Individual differences in working memory, noticing of interactional feedback, and L2 development. In Robinson, P. (ed.), Cognition and second language instruction (pp. 181–209). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Martoccio, A. (2018). How does prior explicit knowledge affect the efficacy of explicit instruction and feedback? The case of the personal a in L2 Spanish. Language Teaching Research, 22(4), 379–397. DOI:10.1177/1362168816689802.Google Scholar
McDonough, K. & Mackey, A. (2006). Responses to recasts: Repetition, primed production, and language development. Language Learning, 56(4), 693–720.Google Scholar
Meisel, J. M. (2013). Development in second language acquisition. In Robinson, P. (ed.). The Routledge encyclopedia of second language acquisition (pp. 165–173). London and New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
Mellow, J. D. (1987). On the primacy of theory in applied studies: A critique of Pienemann and Johnson. Second Language Research, 12(3), 304–318.Google Scholar
Michel, M. (2017). Complexity, accuracy, and fluency in L2 production. In Loewen, S. & Sato, M. (eds.), The Routledge handbook of instructed second language acquisition (pp. 50–68). London; New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
Nassaji, H. (2015). The interactional feedback dimension in instructed second language learning: Linking theory, research and practice. London: Bloomsbury.Google Scholar
Nassaji, H. (2017a). Grammar acquisition. In Loewen, S. & Sato, M. (eds.), The Routledge handbook of instructed second language acquisition (pp. 205–223). London; New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
Nassaji, H. (2017b). Negotiated oral feedback 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). London; New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
Nassaji, H. & Fotos, S. (2011). Teaching grammar in second language classrooms: Integrating form-focused instruction in communicative context. New York; London: Routledge.Google Scholar
Nassaji, H., & Kartchava, E. (2017). Conclusions, reflections, and final remarks. In Nassaji, H. & Kartchava, E. (eds.), Corrective feedback in second language teaching and learning: Research, theory, applications, implications (pp. 174–182). London; New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
Ortega, L. (2009). Understanding second language acquisition. London: Hodder Education.Google Scholar
Pawlak, M. (2006). The place of form-focused instruction in the foreign language classroom. Poznań–Kalisz: Adam Mickiewicz University Press.Google Scholar
Pawlak, M. (2014). Error correction in the foreign language classroom: Reconsidering the issues. Heidelberg; New York: Springer.Google Scholar
Pawlak, M. (2017a). Individual difference variables as mediating influences on success or failure in form-focused instruction. In Piechurska-Kuciel, E., Szymańska-Czaplak, E. & Szyszka, M. (eds.), At the crossroads: Challenges of foreign language learning (pp. 75–92). Heidelberg: Springer Nature.Google Scholar
Pawlak, M. (2017b). Overview of learner individual differences and their mediating effects on the process and outcome of interaction. In Gurzynski-Weiss, L. (ed.), Expanding individual difference research in the interaction approach: Investigating learners, instructors, and other interlocutors (pp. 19–40). Amsterdam; Philadelphia: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
Pawlak, M. (2019). Tapping the distinction between explicit and implicit knowledge: Methodological issues. In Lewandowska-Tomaszczyk, B. (Ed.), Contacts and contrasts in educational contexts and translation. Heidelberg: Springer Nature.Google Scholar
Pienemann, M. (1989). Is language teachable? Psycholinguistic experiments and hypotheses Applied Linguistics, 10(1), 52–79.Google Scholar
Pienemann, M. (1998). Language processing and second language development: Processability theory. Amsterdam; Philadelphia: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
Pienemann, M. & Johnston, M. (1986). An acquisition-based procedure for second language assessment. Annual Review of Applied Linguistics, 9(1), 92–122.Google Scholar
Pienemann, M. & Lenzing, A. (2015). Processability theory. In VanPatten, B. & Williams, J. (eds.), Theories in second language acquisition (2nd ed., pp. 159–179). London: Routledge.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. & Ellis, R. (2011). Corrective feedback in language teaching. In Hinkel, E (ed.), Handbook of research in second language teaching and learning (pp. 593–610). London and New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
Spada, N. & Tomita, Y. (2010). Interactions between type of instruction and type of language feature: A meta-analysis. Language Learning, 60(2), 263–308.Google Scholar
Suzuki, W., Nassaji, H. & Sato, K. (2019). The effects of feedback explicitness and type of target structure on accuracy in revision and new pieces of writing. System, 81, 135–145.Google Scholar
Suzuki, Y. & DeKeyser, R. M. (2017). The interface of explicit and implicit knowledge in a second language: Insights from individual differences in cognitive aptitudes. Language Learning, 67(4), 747–790.Google Scholar
Swain, M. (1985). Communicative competence: Some roles of comprehensible input and comprehensible output in its development. In Gass, S. & Madden, C. (eds.), Input in second language acquisition (pp. 235–253), Rowley, MA: Newbury House.Google Scholar
Trofimovich, P., Ammar, A. & Gatbonton, E. (2007). How effective are recasts? The role of attention, memory, and analytical ability. In Mackey, A. (ed.), Conversational interaction in second language acquisition (pp. 171–195). Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Varnosfadrani, A. D. & Basturkmen, , H. 2009. The effectiveness of implicit and explicit error correction on learners’ performance. System, 37(1), 82–98.Google Scholar
Watanabe, Y. & Swain, A. (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
White, J. (1998). Getting the learners’ attention: A typographical input enhancement study. In Doughty, C. J. & Williams, J. (eds.), Focus on form in classroom second language acquisition (pp. 85–113). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Williams, J. (2005). The effectiveness of spontaneous attention to form. System, 29(3), 325–340.Google Scholar
Zobl, H. & Liceras, J. (1994). Functional categories and acquisition orders. Language Learning, 44(1), 159–180.Google Scholar

References

* Studies included in the current research synthesis are marked with an asterisk.

*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
Borenstein, M., Hedges, L. V., Higgins, J. P. T. & Rothstein, H. R. (2011). Introduction to meta-analysis. Chichester: Wiley & Sons.Google Scholar
Borenstein, M., Hedges, L. V., Higgins, J. P. T. & Rothstein, H. R. (2014). Comprehensive meta-analysis (Version 3.3) [computer software]. Englewood, NJ: Biostat.Google Scholar
Bulté, B. & Housen, A. (2012). Defining and operationalising L2 complexity. In Housen, A., Kuiken, F. & Vedder, I. (eds.), Dimensions of L2 performance and proficiency: Investigating complexity, accuracy and fluency in SLA (pp. 21–46). Amsterdam; Philadelphia: 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
Clahsen, H. (1984). The acquisition of German word order: A test case for cognitive approaches to second language acquisition. In Andersen, R. (ed.), Second languages (pp. 219–242). Rowley, MA: Newbury House.Google Scholar
Cohen, J. (1988). Statistical power analysis for the behavioral sciences. Hillside, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.Google Scholar
De Graaff, R. (1997). The eXperanto experiment: Effects of explicit instruction on second language acquisition. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 19(2), 249–297.Google Scholar
DeKeyser, R. M. (1995). Learning second language grammar rules: An experiment with a miniature linguistic system. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 17(3), 379–410.Google Scholar
DeKeyser, R. M. (2003). Implicit and explicit learning. In Doughty, C. & Long, M. (eds.), The handbook of second language acquisition (pp. 313–348). Oxford: Blackwell.Google Scholar
DeKeyser, R. M. (2005). What makes learning second-language grammar difficult? A review of issues. Language Learning, 55(Suppl. 1), 1–25.Google Scholar
Doughty, C. & Williams, J. (1998). Pedagogical choices in focus on form. In Doughty, C. & Williams, J. (eds.), Focus on form in classroom second language acquisition (pp. 197–261). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Ellis, R. (2005). Measuring implicit and explicit knowledge of second language: A psychometric study. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 27(2), 141–172.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
Goldschneider, J. M. & DeKeyser, R. M. (2005). Explaining the “natural order of L2 morpheme acquisition” in English: A meta-analysis of multiple determinants. Language Learning, 55(Suppl. 1), 27–77.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
Goo, J. (2016). Corrective feedback and working memory capacity. In G. Granena, D. O. Jackson, & Y. Yilmaz (Eds.), Cognitive individual differences in second language processing and acquisition, 3, (pp. 279–302). John Benjamins.Google Scholar
Goo, J., Granena, G., Yilmaz, Y. & Novella, M. (2015). Implicit and explicit instruction in L2 learning. In Rebuschat, P. (ed.), Implicit and explicit learning of languages (pp. 443–482). Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
*Guo, X. & Yang, Y. (2018). Effects of corrective feedback on EFL learners’ acquisition of third-person singular form and the mediating role of cognitive style. Journal of Psycholinguistic Research, 47(4), 841–858.Google Scholar
Hedges, L. V. (1981). Distribution theory for Glass’s estimator of effect size and related estimators. Journal of Educational Statistics, 6(2), 107–128.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
*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
Krashen, S. (1982). Principles and practice in second language acquisition. Oxford: Pergamon.Google Scholar
Krashen, S. (1994). The input hypothesis and its rivals. In Ellis, N. (ed.), Implicit and explicit learning of languages (pp. 45–77). London: Academic Press.Google Scholar
Li, S. (2010). The effectiveness of corrective feedback in SLA: A meta-analysis. Language Learning: A Journal of Research in Language Studies, 60(2), 309–365.Google Scholar
Li, S. & Vuono, A. (2019). Twenty-five years of research on oral and written corrective feedback in System. System, 84, 93–109.Google Scholar
*Li, S., Zhu, Y. & Ellis, R. (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
*Loewen, S. & Nabei, T. (2007). Measuring the effects of oral corrective feedback on L2 knowledge. In Mackey, A. (ed.), Conversational interaction in second language acquisition (pp. 361–377). Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Mackey, A. (ed.). (2006). Conversational interaction in second language acquisition. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
*Nassaji, H. (2017). The effectiveness of extensive versus intensive recasts for learning L2 grammar. Modern Language Journal, 101(2), 353–368.Google Scholar
Pallotti, G. (2015). A simple view of linguistic complexity. Second Language Research, 31(1), 117–134.Google Scholar
Pienemann, M. (1989). Is language teachable? Psycholinguistic experiments and hypothesis. Applied Linguistics, 10(1), 52–79.Google Scholar
Pienemann, M. & Johnston, M. (1987). Factors influencing the development of language proficiency. In Nunan, D. (ed.), Applying second language acquisition research (pp. 45–141). Adelaide: National Curriculum Resource Centre.Google Scholar
Pinker, S. & Ullman, M. (2002). The past and future of the past tense. Trends in Cognitive Science, 6(11), 456–463.Google Scholar
Reber, A. S. (1989). Implicit learning and tacit knowledge. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 118(3), 219–235.Google Scholar
Robinson, P. (1996). Learning simple and complex second language rules under implicit, incidental, rule-search and instructed conditions. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 18(1), 27–67.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
Spada, N. & Tomita, Y. (2010). Interactions between type of instruction and type of language feature: A meta-analysis. Language Learning, 60(2), 263–308.Google Scholar
Williams, J. & Evans, J. (1998). What kind of focus and on which forms? In Doughty, C. & Williams, J. (eds.), Focus on form in classroom second language acquisition (pp. 139–155). Cambridge: Cambridge 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. (2013). The relative effectiveness of mixed, explicit and implicit feedback in the acquisition of English articles. System, 41(3), 691–705.Google Scholar
Yilmaz, Y. (2016). The linguistic environment, interaction and negative feedback. Brill Research Perspectives in Multilingualism and Second Language Acquisition, 1, 48–86.Google Scholar

References

Adams, R., Alwi, N. A. N. M. & Newton, J. (2015). Task complexity effects on the complexity and accuracy of writing via text chat. Journal of Second Language Writing, 29, 64–81.Google Scholar
Adams, R., Nuevo, A. M. & Egi, T. (2011). Explicit and implicit feedback, modified output, and SLA: Does explicit and implicit feedback promote learning and learner-learner interactions? Modern Language Journal, 95(Suppl.), 42–63.Google Scholar
Ammar, A., (2008). Prompts and recasts: Differential effects on second language morphosyntax. Language Teaching Research, 12(2), 185–210.Google Scholar
Bygate, M. (2001). Effects of task repetition on the structure and control of oral language: In Bygate, M., Skehan, P., & Swain, M. (eds.), Researching pedagogic tasks: Second language learning, teaching and testing (pp. 23–48). London: Longman.Google Scholar
Doughty, C. & Pica, T. (1986). Information-gap tasks: Do they facilitate second language acquisition? TESOL Quarterly, 20(2), 305–326.Google Scholar
Doughty, C. and 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
Duff, P. (1986). Another look at interlanguage talk: taking task to task. In Day, R. (ed.), Talking to learn: Conversation in second language acquisition. (pp. 147–181) Rowley, MA: Newbury House.Google Scholar
Eckerth, J. (2009). Negotiated interaction in the L2 classroom. Language Teaching, 42(2), 109–130.Google Scholar
Ellis, R. (2003). Task-based language learning and teaching. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Ellis, R. (2009). Task-based language teaching: Sorting out the misunderstandings. International Journal of Applied Linguistics, 19(3), 221–246.Google Scholar
Ellis, R., Basturkman, H. & Loewen, S. (2001). Learner uptake in communicative ESL lessons. Language Learning, 51(2), 281–318.Google Scholar
Ellis, R. & Shintani, N. (2014). Exploring language pedagogy through second language acquisition. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
Foster, P. (1998). A classroom perspective on the negotiation of meaning. Applied Linguistics, 19(1), 1–23.Google Scholar
Foster, P. & Hunter, A. (2016). When it’s not what you do but the way that you do it: How research into second language acquisition can help teachers make the most of their classroom materials. In Tomlinson, B. (ed.), SLA and materials development for language teaching (pp. 280-293). New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
Foster, P. & Ohta, A. (2005). Negotiation for meaning and peer assistance in classroom language tasks. Applied Linguistics, 26(3), 402–430.Google Scholar
Foster, P. & Skehan, P. (1999). The influence of source of planning and focus of planning on task-based performance. Language Teaching Research, 3(3), 215–247.Google Scholar
Foster, P. & Skehan, P. (2013) The effects of post-task activities on the accuracy of language during task performance. Canadian Modern Language Review, 69(3), 249–273.Google Scholar
Gass, S., Mackey, A. & Ross-Feldman, L. (2005). Task-based interactions in classroom and laboratory settings. Language Learning, 55, 575–611.Google Scholar
Gass, S. & Varonis, E. (1985). Task variation and non-native/non native negotiation of meaning. In Gass, S. M. and Madden, C. G. (eds.), Input and second language acquisition (pp. 149–162). Rowley, MA: Newbury House.Google Scholar
Gatbonton, E. & Segalowitz, N. (2005). Rethinking communicative language teaching: A focus on access to fluency. Canadian Modern Language Review, 61, 325–353.Google Scholar
Gilabert, R., Baron, J. & Llanes, A. (2009). Manipulating cognitive complexity across task types and its impact on learners’ interaction during oral performance. International Review of Applied Linguistics in Language Teaching, 47(3–4), 367–395.Google Scholar
Gregg, K. (1984). Krashen’s Monitor and Occam’s razor. Applied Linguistics, 5(3), 79–100.Google Scholar
Hawkes, M. (2012). Using task repetition to direct learner attention and focus on form. ELT Journal, 66(3), 327–336.Google 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
Kartchava, E. & Gatbonton, E. (2014). ACCESS-TBLT and adult ESL learners’ noticing of corrective feedback. CONTACT: Refereed Proceedings of TESL Ontario Research Symposium, 40, 32–50.Google Scholar
Kim, H. Y. (2017). Effect of modality and task type on interlanguage variation. ReCALL: The Journal of EUROCALL, 29(2), 219–236.Google Scholar
Krashen, S. (1981). Second language acquisition and second language learning. Oxford: Pergamon Press.Google Scholar
Krashen, S. (1985). The input hypothesis: Issues and implications. Oxford: Pergamon Press.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., Zhu, Y. & Ellis, R. (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. (1983). Native speaker/non-native speaker conversation in the second language classroom. In Clark, M. & Handscombe, J. (eds.), On TESOL ’82: Pacific perspectives on language learning (pp. 207–225). Washington, DC: TESOL.Google Scholar
Long, M. (1985). A role for instruction in second language acquisition: Task-based language teaching. In Hylstenstam, K. & Pienemann, M. (eds.), Modelling and assessing second language acquisition (pp. 77–99). Clevedon: Multilingual Matters.Google Scholar
Long, M. (1988). Instructed interlanguage development. In Beebe, L. (ed.), Issues in second language acquisition: Multiple perspectives. (pp. 115–141). Rowley, MA: Newbury House.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. 413–446). San Diego: Academic Press.Google Scholar
Long, M. (2015). Second language acquisition and task-based language teaching. Chichester: John Wiley.Google Scholar
Loschky, L. & Bley-Vroman, R. (1993). Grammar and task-based methodology. In Crookes, G. & Gass, S. (eds.), Tasks and language learning: Integrating theory and practice. Philadelphia: Multilingual Matters.Google Scholar
Lynch, T. & Maclean, J. (2000). Exploring the benefits of task repetition and recycling for classroom language learning. Language Teaching Research, 4(3), 221–250.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. (2010). Oral feedback in classroom SLA: A meta-analysis. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 32(2), 265–302.Google Scholar
Mackey, A. (1999). Input, interaction, and second language development: An empirical study of question formation in ESL. Studies in Second Language Acquistion, 21(4), 557–587.Google Scholar
Mackey, A., Gass, S. & McDonough, K. (2000). How do learners perceive interactional feedback? Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 22(4), 471–498.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 series of empirical studies (pp. 407–453). Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Nassaji, H. (2016). Interactional feedback in second language teaching and learning: A synthesis and analysis of current research. Language Teaching Research, 20(4), 535–562.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
Pica, T. (1994). Research on negotiation: What does it reveal about second-language learning conditions, processes, outcomes? Language Learning, 44(3), 493–527.Google Scholar
Rafie, Z. F., Rahmany, R. & Sadeqi, B. (2015). The differential effects of three types of task planning on the accuracy of L2 oral production. Journal of Language Teaching and Research, 6(6), 1297–1304.Google Scholar
Robinson, P. (2001). Task complexity, cognitive resources, and syllabus design: A triadic framework for investigating task influences on SLA. In Robinson, P. (ed.), Cognition and second language instruction (pp 287–318). New York: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Rouhshad, A. (2014). The nature of negotiations in computer-mediated and face-to-face modes with/without writing modality. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, University of Melbourne, Australia.Google Scholar
Rouhshad, A., Wigglesworth, G. & Storch, N. (2015). The nature of negotiations in face-to-face versus computer-mediated communication in pair interactions. Language Teaching Research, 20(4), 514–534.Google Scholar
Russell, J. and Spada, N. (2006). The effectiveness of corrective feedback for the acquisition of L2 grammar: A meta-analysis of the research. In Norris, J. & Ortega, L. (eds.), Synthesizing research on language learning and teaching (pp. 133–164). Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
Samuda, V. (2001). Guiding relationships between form and meaning during task performance: The role of the teacher. In Bygate, M., Skehan, P. & Swain, M. (eds.), Researching pedagogic tasks: Second language learning, teaching, and testing (pp. 119–140). Harlow: Pearson Education.Google Scholar
Schmidt, R. (1990). The role of consciousness in second language learning. Applied Linguistics, 11(2), 129–158.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. (2010). Differential effects of oral and written corrective feedback in the ESL classroom. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 32(2), 203–234.Google Scholar
Skehan, P. (1998). A cognitive approach to language learning. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Skehan, P. (2009). Modelling second language performance: Integrating complexity, accuracy, fluency, and lexis. Applied Linguistics, 30(4), 510–532.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. (2001). Focus on form through collaborative dialogue: Exploring task effects. In Bygate, M., Skehan, P., & Swain, M. (eds.), Researching pedagogic tasks: Second language learning, teaching and testing (pp. 99–118). Harlow: Pearson Education.Google Scholar
VanPatten, B. (1990). Attending to form and content in the input. Applied Linguistics, 12(3), 287–301.Google Scholar
Willis, D. & Willis, J. (2007). Doing task-based teaching. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Willis, J. (1996). A Framework for Task-Based Learning. London: Longman.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
×