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-p9bg8 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-26T16:36:13.444Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

Part I - Theoretical Perspectives on Corrective Feedback

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. 21 - 108
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

Allwright, R. (1975). Problems in the study of the language teacher’s treatment of learner error. In Burt, M. & Dulay, H. (eds.), On TESOL’ 75: New directions in second language learning, teaching and bilingual education (pp. 96–109). Washington, DC: TESOL.Google Scholar
Baker, C. L. (1979). Syntactic theory and the projection problem. Linguistic Inquiry, 10(4), 533–581.Google Scholar
Birckbichler, D. (1977). Communication and beyond. In Phillips, J. (ed.), The language connection: From the classroom to the world. Skokie, IL: National Textbook Company.Google Scholar
Bley-Vroman, R. (1989). The logical problem of foreign language learning. In Gass, S. & Schachter, J. (eds.), Linguistic perspectives on second language acquisition (pp. 41–68). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Bley-Vroman, R., Felix, S. & Ioup, G. (1988). The accessibility of Universal Grammar in adult learning. Second Language Research, 4(1), 1–32.Google Scholar
Braine, M. D. S. (1971). On two types of models of the internalization of grammars. In Slobin, D. (ed.), The ontogenesis of grammar (pp. 153–186). New York: Academic Press.Google Scholar
Brooks, N. (1960). Language and language learning. New York: Harcourt, Brace and World.Google Scholar
Burt, M. (1975). Error analysis in the adult EFL classroom TESOL Quarterly, 9(1), 53–63.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Burt, M. & Kiparsky, C. (1972). The gooficon: A repair manual for English. Rowley, MA: Newbury House.Google Scholar
Chaudron, C. (1977). A descriptive model of discourse in the corrective treatment of learners’ errors. Language Learning, 27(1), 29–46.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Chomsky, N. (1959). Review of Skinner (1957). Language, 35(1), 26–58.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Clahsen, H. & Muysken, P. (1989). The UG paradox in L2 acquisition. Interlanguage Studies Bulletin, 5(1), 1–29.Google Scholar
Cohen, A. & Robbins, M. (1976). Toward assessing interlanguage performance: The relationship between selected errors, learners’ characteristics, and learners’ explanations. Language Learning, 26, 45–66.Google Scholar
Corder, S. P. (1967). The significance of learners’ errors. International Review of Applied Linguistics, 5(4), 161–170.Google Scholar
Corder, S. P. (1973). Introducing applied linguistics. Harmondsworth: Penguin.Google Scholar
Corder, S. P. (1975). The language of second-language learners: The broader issues. Modern Language Journal, 59(8), 409–413.Google Scholar
DeKeyser, R. (1993). The effects of error correction on L2 grammar knowledge and oral proficiency. Modern Language Journal, 77(4), 501–513.Google Scholar
DeKeyser, R. (2005). What makes learning second language grammar difficult? A review of issues. Language Learning, 55(S1), 1–25.Google Scholar
Dulay, H. & Burt, M. (1975). Creative construction in second language learning. In Burt, M. & Dulay, H. (eds.), On TESOL ’75: New directions in second language learning, teaching and bilingual education (pp. 21–32). Washington, DC: TESOL.Google Scholar
Dulay, H. & Burt, M. (1977). Remarks on creativity in language acquisition. In Dulay, H. & Burt, M. (eds.), Viewpoints on English as a second language (pp. 95–126). New York Regents Publishing Company.Google Scholar
DuPlessis, J., Solin, D., Travis, L. & White, L. (1987). UG or not UG, that is the question: A reply to Chlahsen & Muysken. Second Language Research, 56(3), 56–75.Google Scholar
Duskova, L. (1969). On sources of errors in foreign language learning. International Review of Applied Linguistics, 7(1), 11–36.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ellis, R. (1984). Can syntax be taught? A study of the effects of formal instruction on the acquisition of WH questions by children. Applied Linguistics, 5(2), 138–155.Google Scholar
Eubank, L. (1991). Point counterpoint: Universal grammar in the second language. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Fanselow, J. (1977). The treatment of error in oral work. Foreign Language Annals, 10(4), 583–593.Google Scholar
Ferris, D. (1999). The case for grammar correction in L2 writing classes: A response to Truscott (1996). Journal of Second Language Writing, 8(1), 1–10.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Franceschina, F. (2005). Fossilized second language grammars: The acquisition of grammatical gender. Language Acquisition & Language Disorders 38. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Fries, C. (1952). The structure of English: An introduction to the construction of English sentences. New York: Harcourt, Brace & Company.Google Scholar
George, H. V. (1972). Common errors in language learning. Rowley, MA: Newbury House.Google Scholar
Han, Z.-H. (2001). Fine-tuning corrective feedback. Foreign Language Annals, 34(6), 582–599.Google Scholar
Han, Z.-H. (2004). Fossilization in adult second language acquisition. Clevedon: Multilingual Matters.Google Scholar
Han, Z.-H. (2008). On the role of meaning in focus on form. In Han, Z.-H. (ed.), Understanding second language process (pp. 45–79). Clevedon: Multilingual Matters.Google Scholar
Han, Z.-H. (2011). Fossilization – A classic concern of SLA research. In Gass, S. & Mackey, A. (eds.), The Routledge handbook of second language acquisition (pp. 476–490). New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
Han, Z.-H. (2013). [State-of-the-art article] Forty years later: Updating the Fossilization Hypothesis. Language Teaching, 46(2), 133–171.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Han, Z.-H. (2014). From Julie to Wes to Alberto: Revisiting the construct of fossilization. In Han, Z.-H. & Tarone, E. (eds.), Interlanguage: Forty years later (pp. 47–74). Amsterdam: John Benjamins.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Han, Z.-H. & Ekiert, M. (2017). Beyond focus on form: Giving learner meaning its proper place. Second Language Learning Research, 3(1), 1–12.Google Scholar
Han, Z.-H. & Finneran, R. (2014). Re-engaging the interface debate: Strong, weak, none, or all? International Journal of Applied Linguistics, 24(3), 370–389.Google Scholar
Hanzeli, V. (1975). Learner’s language: Implications of recent research for foreign language instruction. Modern Language Journal, 59(8), 426–432.Google Scholar
Harley, B. (1989). Functional grammar in French immersion: A classroom experiment. Applied Linguistics, 10(3), 331–360.Google Scholar
Hendrickson, J. (1978). Error correction in foreign language teaching: Recent theory, research and practice. Modern Language Journal, 62(8), 387–398.Google Scholar
Hendrickson, J. (1981). Error analysis and error correction in language teaching. Singapore: SEAMO Regional Language Center.Google Scholar
Hernstein, R. (1970). On the law of effect. Journal of Experimental Analysis of Behavior, 13(2), 243–266.Google Scholar
Hornstein, N., & Lightfoot, D. (1981). Introduction. In Hornstein, N. & Lightfoot, D. (eds.), Explanation in linguistics (pp. 9–31). New York: Longman.Google Scholar
Johansson, S. (1973). The identification and evaluation of errors in foreign languages: A functional approach. In Svartvik, J. (ed.), Errata: Papers in error analysis (pp. 102–114). Lund: CWK Gleerup.Google Scholar
Kadia, K. (1988). The effect of formal instruction on monitored and spontaneous naturalistic interlanguage performance. TESOL Quarterly, 22, 509–515.Google Scholar
Kang, E. Y. & Han, Z.-H. (2015). The efficacy of written corrective feedback in improving L2 written accuracy: A meta-analysis. Modern Language Journal, 99(1), 1–18.Google Scholar
Kang, E.Y., Sok, S., & Han, Z-H. (2019). Thirty-five years of ISLA on form-focused instruction: A meta-analysis. Language Teaching Research, 23(4), 403–427.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kepner, C. (1991). An experiment in the relationship of types of written feedback to the development of second language writing skills. Modern Language Journal, 75(3), 305–313.Google Scholar
Krashen, S. (1982). Principles and practice in second language acquisition. Oxford: Pergamon.Google Scholar
Krashen, S. & Pon, P. (1975). An error analysis of an advanced learner of ESL: The importance of the monitor. Working Papers in Bilingualism, 7, 125–129.Google Scholar
Lado, R. (1957). Linguistics across cultures: Applied linguistics for language teachers. Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press.Google Scholar
Lee, W. (1957). The linguistic context of language teaching. English Language Teaching Journal, 11, 77–85.Google Scholar
Li, S. (2010). The effectiveness of corrective feedback in SLA: A meta-analysis. Language Learning, 60(2), 309–365.Google Scholar
Lightbown, P. M. (1983). Exploring relationships between developmental and instructional sequences in L2 acquisition. In Seliger, H. & Long, M. H. (eds.), Classroom oriented research in second language acquisition (pp. 217–243). Rowley, MA: Newbury House.Google Scholar
Lightbown, P., Spada, N. & Wallace, R. (1980). Some effects of instruction on child and adolescent ESL learners. In Krashen, S. D. & Scarcella, R. (eds.), Research in second language acquisition: Selected papers of the Los Angeles Second Language Research Forum (pp. 162–172). Rowley, MA: Newbury House.Google Scholar
Loiou, H.-C. (1989). The impact of formal instruction on second language grammatical accuracy. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, University of Illinois, Urbana-Champaign.Google Scholar
Long, M. (2015). Second language acquisition and task-based language teaching. New York: John Wiley & Sons.Google Scholar
Lyster, R. & Saito, K. (2010). Oral feedback in classroom SLA. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 32(special issue 2), 265–302.Google Scholar
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. & Kartchava, E. (2017). Corrective feedback in second language teaching and learning. New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
Plann, S. (1977). Acquiring a second language in an immersion classroom. In Brown, H. D., Yorio, C. & Crymes, R. (eds.), On TESOL’ 77: Teaching and learning English as a second language: Trends in research and practice (pp. 213–225). Washington, DC: TESOL.Google Scholar
Richards, J. (1973). Error analysis and second language strategies. In Oller, J. & Richards, J. (eds.), Focus on the learner: Pragmatic perspectives for the language teacher (pp. 114–135). New York: Newbury House.Google Scholar
Robb, T., Ross, S. & Shortreed, I. (1986). Salience of feedback on error and its effect on EFL writing quality. TESOL Quarterly, 20, 83–93.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 (pp. 133–164). Amsterdam; Philadelphia: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
Schachter, J. (1991). Corrective feedback in historical perspective. Second Language Research, 7(2), 89–102.Google Scholar
Schmidt, R. (1990). The role of consciousness in second language learning. Applied Linguistics, 11(2), 129–158.Google Scholar
Schmidt, R. (1993). Consciousness, learning and interlanguage pragmatics. In Kasper, G. & Blum-Kulka, S. (eds.), Interlanguage pragmatics (pp. 21–42). New York: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Schmidt, R. (1995). Consciousness and foreign language learning. In Schmidt, R. (ed.), Attention and awareness in foreign language learning (pp. 1–64). Honolulu: University of Hawai’i at Manoa, Second Language Teaching and Curriculum Center.Google Scholar
Schumann, J. (1978). The pidginization process: A model for second language acquisition. Rowley, MA: Newbury House.Google Scholar
Schwartz, B. (1986). The modular basis of second language acquisition. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, University of Southern California.Google Scholar
Schwartz, B. (1993). On explicit and negative data effecting and affecting competence and linguistic behavior. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 15(2), 147–163.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sciarone, A. & Meijer, P. (1995). Does practice make perfect? On the effect of exercises on second/foreign language acquisition. ITL Review of Applied Linguistics, 107 –108, 35–57.Google Scholar
Selinker, L. (1969). Language transfer. General Linguistics, 9, 67–92.Google Scholar
Selinker, L. (1972). Interlanguage. IRAL, 10(2), 209–231.Google Scholar
Semke, H. (1984). The effects of the red pen. Foreign Language Annals, 17(3), 195–202.Google Scholar
Sheppard, K. (1992). Two feedback types: Do they make a difference? RELC Journal, 23, 103–110.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Shintani, N., Ellis, R. & Suzuki, W. (2014). Effects of written feedback and revision on learners’ accuracy in using two English grammatical structures. Language Learning, 64(1), 103–131.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Skinner, B. F. (1957). Verbal behavior. New York: Appleton-Century-Crofts.Google Scholar
Spada, N. (1986). The interaction between types of content and type of instruction: Some effects on the L2 proficiency of adult learners. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 8(2), 181–199.Google Scholar
Sternglass, M. (1974). Close similarities in dialect features of black and white college students in remedial composition classes. TESOL Quarterly, 8, 271–283.Google Scholar
Terrell, T. (1991). The role of grammar instruction in a communicative approach. Modern Language Journal, 75(1), 52–63.Google Scholar
Terrell, T., Baycroft, B. & Perrone, C. (1987). The subjunctive in Spanish interlanguage: accuracy and comprehensibility. In VanPatten, B., Dvorak, T. & Lee, J. (eds.), Foreign language learning: A research perspective (pp. 23–48). New York: Newbury House.Google Scholar
Thomas, M. (2003). Two textbook representations of second language acquisition and Universal Grammar: “access” and “constraint.” Second Language Research, 19(4), 359–376.Google Scholar
Truscott, J. (1996). The case against grammar correction in L2 writing classes. Language Learning, 46(2), 327–369.Google Scholar
Truscott, J. (1998). Noticing in second language acquisition: A critical review. Second Language Research, 14(2), 103–135.Google Scholar
Truscott, J. (1999). Unconscious second language acquisition: Alive and well. Studies in English Literature and Linguistics, 25(1), 114–131.Google Scholar
Truscott, J. (2001). Selecting errors for selective error correction. Concentric: Studies in English Literature and Linguistics, 27(2), 93–108.Google Scholar
Truscott, J. (2005). The continuing problems of oral grammar correction. International Journal of Foreign Language Teaching, 1(2), 17–22.Google Scholar
Truscott, J. (2007). The effect of error correction on learners’ ability to write accurately. Journal of Second Language Writing, 16(4), 255–272.Google Scholar
Truscott, J. (2014). Consciousness and second language learning. Clevedon: Multilingual Matters.Google Scholar
Valdman, A. (1975). Learner systems and error analysis. In Jarvis, G. (ed.), Perspective: A new freedom (pp. 219–258). Skokie, IL: National Textbook Company.Google Scholar
VanPatten, B. (1988). How juries get hung: Problems with the evidence for a focus on form. Language Learning, 38(2), 243–260.Google Scholar
VanPatten, B. (2014). The limits of instruction: 40 years after “Interlanguage”. In Han, Z.-H. & Tarone, E. (eds.), Interlanguage: Forty years later (pp. 105–126). Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
VanPatten, B. (2017). Situating instructed language acquisition: Facts about second language acquisition. Instructed Second Language Acquisition, 1(1), 45–60.Google Scholar
VanPatten, B. & Williams, J. (eds.). (2015). Theories in second language acquisition (2nd ed.). New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
Walker, J. (1973). Opinions of university students about language teaching. Foreign Language Annals, 7(1), 102–105.Google Scholar
White, L. (1991). Adverb placement in second language acquisition: some effects of positive and negative evidence in the classroom. Second Language Research, 7(2), 133–161.Google Scholar
White, L. (2015). Linguistic theory, universal grammar, and second language acquisition. In VanPatten, B. & Williams, J. (eds.), Theories in second language acquisition (pp. 34–53). New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
Wingfield, R. (1975). Five ways of dealing with errors in written compositions. English Language Teaching Journals, 29(4), 311–313.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Witbeck, M. (1976). Peer correction procedures for intermediate and advanced ESL composition lessons. TESOL Quarterly, 10(3), 321–326.Google Scholar

References

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
Azkarai, A. & Imaz Agirre, A. (2016). Negotiation of meaning strategies in child EFL mainstream and CLIL settings. TESOL Quarterly, 50(4), 844–870.Google Scholar
Batstone, R. (2010). Sociocognitive perspectives on language use and language learning. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Bigelow, M., delMas, B., Hansen, K. & Tarone, E. (2006). Literacy and the processing of oral recasts in SLA. TESOL Quarterly, 40, 1–25.Google Scholar
Block, D. (2003). The social turn in second language acquisition. Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press.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
Donato, R. (1994). Collective scaffolding in second language learning. In Lantolf, J. & Appel, G. (eds.), Vygotskian approaches to second language research (pp. 33–56). Norwood, NJ: Ablex.Google Scholar
Doughty, C. (2001). Cognitive underpinning of focus on form. In Robinson, P. (ed.), Cognition and second language instruction (pp. 206–257). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Doughty, C. & Varela, E. (1998). Communicative focus on form. In Doughty, C. & Williams, J. (eds.), Focus on form in classroom second language acquisition (pp. 114–138). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Doughty, C. & Williams, J. (1998). Focus on form in classroom second language acquisition. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Ellis, R. (2007). The differential effects of corrective feedback on two grammatical structures. In Mackey, A. (ed.), Conversational interaction in second language acquisition (pp. 339–360). Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Ellis, R. (2009). Corrective feedback and teacher development. L2 Journal, 1, 3–18.Google Scholar
Ellis, R. (2010). Cognitive, social, and psychological dimensions of corrective feedback. In Batstone, R. (ed.), Sociocognitive perspectives on language use and language learning (pp. 151–165). Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Ellis, R. (2015). The importance of focus on form in communicative language teaching. Eurasian Journal of Applied Linguistics, 1(2), 1–12.Google Scholar
Gass, S. (1997). Input, interaction, and the second language learner. Mahwah, NJ: Laurence Erlbaum.Google Scholar
Gass, S. (2003). Input and interaction. In Doughty, C. & Long, M. (eds.), The handbook of second language acquisition (pp. 224–255). Oxford: Blackwell.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gass, S. & Mackey, A. (2015). Input, interaction, and output in second language acquisition. In VanPatten, B. & Williams, J. (eds.), Theories in second language acquisition: An introduction (pp. 180–206). New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
Gass, S. & Varonis, E. (1989). Incorporated repairs in NNS discourse. In Eisenstein, M. (ed.), The dynamic interlanguage: Empirical studies in second language variation (pp. 71–86). New York: Plenum.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
Gooch, R., Saito, K. & Lyster, R. (2016). Effects of recasts and prompts on L2 pronunciation development: Teaching English /ɹ/ to Korean adult EFL learners. System, 60, 117–127.Google Scholar
Guasti, M. (2009). Universal grammar approaches to language acquisition. In Foster-Cohen, S. (ed.), Language acquisition (pp. 87–108). London: Palgrave Macmillan.CrossRefGoogle 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
Håkansson, G. & Norrby, C. (2010). Environmental influence on language acquisition: Comparing second and foreign language acquisition of Swedish. Language Learning, 60(3), 628–650.Google Scholar
Hanel, P. & Vione, K. (2016). Do student samples provide an accurate estimate of the general public? PLoD One, 11. DOI:10.1371/journal.pone.0168354.Google Scholar
Hu, X., Ackerman, H., Martin, J., Erb, M., Winkler, S. & Reiterer, S. (2013). Language aptitude for pronunciation in advanced second language (L2) learners: Behavioural predictors and neural substrates. Brain & Language, 127(3), 366–376.Google Scholar
Hulstijn, J., Young, R., Ortega, L., Bigelow, M., DeKeyser, R., Ellis, N., Lantolf, J., Mackey, A. & Talmy, S. (2014). Bridging the gap: Cognitive and social approaches to research in second language learning and teaching. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 36(3), 361–421.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kartchava, E. & Ammar, A. (2014). The noticeability and effectiveness of corrective feedback in relation to target type. Language Teaching Research, 18(4), 428–452.Google Scholar
Kasper, G. & Burch, A. (2016). Focus on form in the wild. In van Compernolle, R. & McGregor, J. (eds.), Authenticity, language, and interaction in second language contexts (pp. 198–232). Bristol: Multilingual Matters.Google Scholar
Kim, Y. (2017). Cognitive-interactionist approaches to L2 instruction. In Loewen, S. & Sato, M. (eds.), The Routledge handbook of instructed second language acquisition (pp. 126–145). New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
King, K. & Mackey, A. (2016). Research methodology in second language studies: Trends, concerns, and new directions. Modern Language Journal, 100(S1), 209–227.Google Scholar
Krashen, S. (1981). Second language acquisition and second language learning. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Krashen, S. (1985). The input hypothesis: Issues and implications. New York: Longman.Google Scholar
Kunitz, S. (2018). Collaborative attention work on gender agreement in Italian as a foreign language. Modern Language Journal, 102(S1), 64–81.Google Scholar
Kuriscak, L. (2010). The effect of individual-level variables on speech act performance. In Martínez-Flor, A. & Usó-Juan, E. (eds.), Speech act performance: Theoretical, empirical and methodological issues (pp. 23–39). Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
Larson-Freeman, D. (2018). Looking ahead: Future directions in, and future research into, second language acquisition. Foreign Language Annals. DOI:10.1111/flan.12314.Google Scholar
Lee, A. & Lyster, R. (2016). Effects of different types of corrective feedback on receptive skills in a second language: A speech perception training study. Language Learning, 66(4), 809–833.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Leeman, J. (2003). Recasts and second language development: Beyond negative evidence. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 25(1), 37–63.Google Scholar
Leow, R. & Donatelli, L. (2017). The role of (un)awareness in SLA. Language Teaching, 50(2), 189–211.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. (2014). The interface between feedback type, L2 proficiency, and the nature of the linguistic target. Language Teaching Research, 18(3), 373–396.Google Scholar
Lightbown, P. (2000). Anniversary article: Classroom SLA research and language teaching. Applied Linguistics, 21(4), 431–462.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. (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. (1996). The role of the linguistic environment in second language acquisition. In Ritchie, W. & Bhatia, T. (eds.), Handbook of second language acquisition (pp. 413–468). New York: Academic Press.Google Scholar
Long, M. (1998). SLA: Breaking the siege. University of Hawai’i Working Papers in ESL, 17, 79–129.Google Scholar
Long, M. (2007). Problems in SLA. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.Google Scholar
Long, M. (2015). Second language acquisition and task-based language teaching. Oxford, England: Wiley-Blackwell.Google Scholar
Long, M., Inagaki, S. & Ortega, L. (1998). The role of implicit negative feedback in SLA: Models and recasts in Japanese and Spanish. Modern Language Journal, 82, 357–371.Google Scholar
Lyster, R. (2004). Differential effects of prompts and recasts in form-focused instruction. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 26(3), 399–426.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. (2006). Epilogue: From introspections, brain scans, and memory tests to the role of social context: Advancing research on interaction and learning. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 28(2), 369–379.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 series of empirical studies (pp. 407–453). Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Mackey, A. & Sachs, R. (2012). Older learners in SLA research: A first look at working memory, feedback, and L2 development. Language Learning, 62(3), 704–740.Google Scholar
Mackey, A. & Silver, R. (2005). Interactional tasks and English L2 learning by immigrant children in Singapore. System, 33, 239–260.Google Scholar
Major, R. (2001). Foreign accent: The ontogeny and phylogeny of second language phonology. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.Google Scholar
Masuda, T. (2017). Culture and attention: Recent empirical findings and new directions in cultural psychology. Social and Personality Psychology Compass, 11(12). DOI:10.1111/spc3.12363.Google Scholar
McDonough, K. & Mackey, A. (2006). Responses to recasts: Repetitions, primed production, and linguistic development. Language Learning, 56(4), 693–720.Google Scholar
Nassaji, H. (2013). Participation structure and incidental focus on form in adult ESL classrooms. Language Learning, 63(4), 835–869.Google Scholar
Nassaji, H. (2015). The interactional feedback dimension in instructed second language learning: Linking theory, research, and practice. London: Bloomsbury.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
Nguyen, M., Pham, H. & Pham, T. (2017). The effects of input enhancement and recasts on the development of second language pragmatic competence. Innovation in Language Learning and Teaching, 11(1), 45–67.Google Scholar
Nielsen, M., Huan, D., Kärtner, J. & Legare, C. (2017). The persistent sampling bias in developmental psychology: A call to action. Journal of Experimental Child Psychology, 162, 31–38.Google Scholar
Nisbett, R. & Miyamoto, Y. (2005). The influence of culture: Holistic versus analytic perception. Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 9(10), 467–473.Google Scholar
Ohta, A. (2013). Sociocultural theory and the zone of proximal development. In. Herschensohn, J. & Young-Scholten, M. (eds.), The Cambridge handbook of second language acquisition (pp. 648–669). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Ortega, L. (2011). SLA after the social turn: Where cognitivism and its alternatives stand. In Atkinson, D. (ed.), Alternative approaches to second language acquisition (pp. 167–180). London: Routledge.Google Scholar
Ortega, L. (2012). Epistemological diversity and moral ends of research in instructed SLA. Language Teaching Research, 16(2), 206–226.Google Scholar
Pawlak, M. (2014). Error correction in the foreign language classroom: Reconsidering the issues. Berlin: Springer.Google Scholar
Pawlak, M. & Tomczyk, E. (2013). Differential effects of input-providing and output-inducing corrective feedback on the acquisition of English passive voice. In Piechurska-Kucial, E. & Szymanska-Czaplak, E. (eds.), Language in cognition and affect (pp. 133–149). Berlin: Springer.Google Scholar
Peterson, R. & Merunka, S. (2014). Convenience samples of college students and research reproducibility. Journal of Business Research, 67(5), 1035–1041.Google Scholar
Philp, J. (2003). Constraints on “noticing the gap”: Nonnative speakers’ noticing or recasts in NS–NNS interaction. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 25(1), 99–126.Google Scholar
Philp, J. & Mackey, A. (2010). Interaction research: What can socially informed approaches offer to cognitivists (and vice versa)? In Batstone, R. (ed.), Sociocognitive perspectives on language use and language learning (pp. 210–228). Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Philp, J. & Tognini, R. (2009). Language acquisition in foreign language contexts and the differential benefits of interaction. International Review of Applied Linguistics in Language Testing, 47(3–4) 245–266.Google Scholar
Philp, J., Adams, R. & Iwashita, N. (2017). Peer interaction and second language learning. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
Pica, T. (1996). Do second language learners need negotiation? International Review of Applied Linguistics in Language Teaching, 34(1), 1–21.Google Scholar
Pica, T., Young, R. & Doughty, C. (1987). The impact of interaction on comprehension. TESOL Quarterly, 21(4), 737–758.Google Scholar
Pinker, S. (1989). Learnability and cognition: The acquisition of argument structure. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Robinson, P. (1995). Attention, memory, and the noticing hypothesis. Language Learning, 45(2), 283–331.Google Scholar
Sakaluk, J. (2016). Exploring small, confirming big: An alternative system to the new statistics for advancing cumulative and replicable psychological research. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 66, 47–54.Google Scholar
Sarandi, H. (2017). Mixed corrective feedback and the acquisition of third person “-s.” The Language Learning Journal. DOI:10.1080/09571736.2017.1400579.Google Scholar
Sato, M. (2017). Oral peer corrective feedback: Multiple theoretical perspectives. In Nassaji, H. & Kartchava, E. (eds.), Corrective feedback in second language teaching and learning: Research, theory, applications, implications (pp. 19–34). New York: Routledge.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sato, M. & Ballinger, S. (2016). Peer interaction and second language learning: Pedagogical potential and research agenda. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
Sato, M. & Lyster, R. (2012). Peer interaction and corrective feedback for accuracy and fluency development: Monitoring, practice, and proceduralization. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 34(4), 591–626.Google Scholar
Schmidt, R. (1990). The role of consciousness in second language learning. Applied Linguistics, 11(2), 129–158.Google Scholar
Schmidt, R. (1994). Implicit learning and the cognitive unconscious: Of artificial grammars and SLA. In Ellis, N. (ed.), Implicit and explicit learning of languages (pp. 165–209). London: Academic Press.Google Scholar
Sheen, Y. (2004). Corrective feedback and learners’ uptake in communicative classrooms across instructional settings. Language Teaching Research, 8(3), 263–300.Google Scholar
Sherris, A. & Burns, M. S. (2015). New border crossings for the interaction hypothesis: The effects of feedback on Gonja speakers learning English in a rural school in Ghana. Pedagogies: An International Journal, 10(3), 238–255.Google Scholar
Solon, M. (2017). Interaction and phonetic form in task completion: An examination of interlocutor effects in learner-learner and learner-heritage speaker interaction. In Gurzynski-Weiss, L. (ed.), Expanding individual difference research in the interaction approach: Investigating learners, instructors, and other interlocutors (pp. 121–147). Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
Storch, N. (2008). Metatalk in pair work activity: Level of engagement and implications for language development. Language Awareness, 17(2), 95–114.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
Swain, M. (1993). The output hypothesis: Just speaking and writing aren’t enough. Canadian Modern Language Review, 50(1), 158–164.Google Scholar
Swain, M. (1995). Three functions of output in second language learning. In Cook, G. & Seidlhofer, B. (eds.), Principles and practice in applied linguistics (pp.125–144). Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Swain, M. (2005). The output hypothesis: Theory and research. In Hinkel, E. (ed.), Handbook on research in second language teaching and learning (pp. 471–483). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.Google Scholar
Tarone, E. (2010). Second language acquisition by low-literate learners: An under-studied population. Language Teaching, 43(1), 75–83.Google Scholar
Theodórsdóttir, G. (2018). L2 teaching in the wild: A closer look at correction and explanation practices in everyday L2 interaction. Modern Language Journal, 201(S1), 30–45.Google Scholar
Truscott, J. (1999). What’s wrong with oral grammar correction. Canadian Modern Language Review, 55(4), 437–456.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
VanPatten, B. (2002). Processing instruction: An update. Language Learning, 52(4), 755–803.Google Scholar
Varonis, E. & Gass, S. (1985). Non-native/non-native conversations: A model for negotiation of meaning. Applied Linguistics, 6(1), 71–90.Google Scholar
Vygotsky, L. (1978). Mind in society: The development of higher psychological processes. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
White, L. (1987). Against comprehensible input: The input hypothesis and the development of second-language competence. Applied Linguistics, 8(2), 95–110.Google Scholar
White, L. (1991). Adverb placement in second language acquisition: Some effects of positive and negative evidence in the classroom. Second Language Research, 7(2), 133–161.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, 691–705.Google Scholar

References

Anderson, J. R. (1982). Acquisition of cognitive skill. Psychological Review, 89(4), 369–406.Google Scholar
Anderson, J. R. (1993). Rules of the mind. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.Google Scholar
Anderson, J. R. (2007). How can a human mind occur in the physical universe? New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Bitchener, J. (2016). To what extent has the published written CF research aided our understanding of its potential for L2 development? ITL – International Journal of Applied Linguistics, 167(2), 111–131.Google Scholar
Bitchener, J. & Storch, N. (2016). Written corrective feedback for L2 development. Bristol: Multilingual Matters.Google Scholar
Bloomfield, L. (1933). Language. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Brown, D. (2016). The type and linguistic foci of oral corrective feedback in the L2 classroom: A meta-analysis. Language Teaching Research, 20(4), 436–458.Google Scholar
Chomsky, N. (1957). Syntactic structures. The Hague: Mouton and Company.Google Scholar
Corder, S. (1967). The significance of learners’ errors. International Review of Applied Linguistics, 5(4), 161–170.Google Scholar
Craik, F. I. M. & Lockhart, R. S. (1972). Levels of processing: A framework for memory research. Journal of Verbal Learning and Verbal Behavior, 11(6), 671–684.Google Scholar
DeKeyser, R. M. (2015). Skill acquisition theory. In VanPatten, B. & Williams, J. (eds.), Theories in second language acquisition (pp. 94–112). London: Routledge.Google Scholar
Egi, T. (2007). Interpreting recasts as linguistic evidence. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 29(4), 511–537.Google Scholar
Ellis, R. (1991). The interaction hypothesis: A critical evaluation. Paper presented at the Regional Language Center Seminar, Singapore, April 22–28, 1991. (ERIC document no. ED338037).Google Scholar
Gass, S. M. (1997). Input, interaction, and the second language learner. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.Google Scholar
Gass, S. M. & Mackey, A. (2015). Input, interaction, and output in second language acquisition. In VanPatten, B. & Williams, J. (eds.), Theories in second language acquisition (pp. 175–200). London: Routledge.Google Scholar
Gurzynski-Weiss, L., Al Khalil, M., Baralt, M. & Leow, R. P (2016). Levels of awareness in relation to type of recast and type of linguistic item in computer-mediated communication: A concurrent investigation. In Leow, R. P., Cerezo, L. & Baralt, M. (eds.), A psycholinguistic approach to technology and language learning (pp. 151–170). Berlin: De Gruyter Mouton.Google Scholar
Krashen, S. D. (1982). Principles and practice in second language acquisition. Oxford: Pergamon Press.Google Scholar
Lado, R. (1957). Linguistics across cultures: Applied linguistics for language teachers. Michigan: University of Michigan Press.Google Scholar
Leeman, J. (2007). Feedback in L2 learning: Responding to errors during practice. In DeKeyser, R. (ed.), Practicing in a second language: Perspectives from applied linguistics and cognitive psychology (pp. 111–137). New York: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Leow, R. P. (2001). Attention, awareness and foreign language behavior. Language Learning, 51(Suppl. 1), 113–155.Google Scholar
Leow, R. P. (2015). Explicit learning in the L2 classroom: A student-centered approach. New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
Leow, R. P. (2019). ISLA: How implicit or how explicit should it be? Theoretical, empirical, and pedagogical/curricular issues. Language Teaching Research, 23(4), 476–493.Google Scholar
Leow, R. P. (2020). L2 writing-to-learn: Theory, research, and a curricular approach. In Manchón, Rosa M. (ed.), Writing and language learning: Advancing research agendas (pp. 95–117). Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
Leow, R. P. & Cerezo, L. (2016). Deconstructing the “I” and “SLA” in ISLA: One curricular approach. Studies in Second Language Learning and Teaching, 6(1), 43–63.Google Scholar
Li, S. (2010). The effectiveness of corrective feedback in SLA: A meta-analysis. Language Learning, 60(2), 309–365.Google Scholar
Loewen, S. (2005). Incidental focus on form and second language learning. Studies in Second Language Acquisition 27(3), 361–386.Google Scholar
Long, M. H. (1981). Input, interaction, and second language acquisition. Annals of the New York Academy of Sciences, 379, 259–278.Google Scholar
Long, M. H. (1983). Native speaker/non-native speaker conversation and negotiation of comprehensible input. Applied Linguistics, 4(2), 126–141.Google Scholar
Long, M. H. (1989). Task, group, and task-group interactions. University of Hawaii Working Papers in ESL, 8 2), 1–26.Google 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 second language acquisition (pp. 413–467). San Diego, CA: Academic Press.Google Scholar
Lyster, R. (1998). Recasts, repetition and ambiguity in L2 classroom discourse. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 20(1), 51–81.Google Scholar
Lyster, R. & Saito, K. (2010). Oral feedback in classroom SLA: A meta-analysis. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 32(2), 265–302.Google Scholar
Mackey, A. (2006). Feedback, noticing and instructed second language learning. Applied Linguistics, 27(3), 405–430.Google Scholar
Manchón, R. M. & Vasylets, O. (2019). Language learning through writing: Theoretical perspectives and empirical evidence. In Schwieter, J. W. & Benati, A. (eds.), The Cambridge handbook of language learning (pp. 341–362). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Nagata, N. (1993). Intelligent computer feedback for second language instruction. The Modern Language Journal, 77(3), 330–339.Google Scholar
Russell, J. & Spada, N. (2006). The effectiveness of corrective feedback for the acquisition of L2 grammar. In Norris, J. M. (ed.), Synthesizing research on language learning and teaching (pp. 133–162). Philadelphia, PA: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
Schmidt, R. W. (1990). The role of consciousness in second language learning. Applied Linguistics, 11(2), 129–158.Google Scholar
Schmidt, R. W. (1993). Awareness and second language acquisition. Annual Review of Applied Linguistics, 13, 206–226.Google Scholar
Schmidt, R. W. (1994). Implicit learning and the cognitive unconscious: Of artificial grammars and SLA. In Ellis, N. (ed.), Implicit and explicit learning of languages (pp. 165–209). London: Academic Press.Google Scholar
Schmidt, R. W. (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 and teaching, Second Language Teaching and Curriculum Center Technical Report No. 9 (pp. 1–64). Honolulu: University of Hawai’i Press.Google Scholar
Schmidt, R. W. (2001). Attention. In Robinson, P. (ed.), Cognition and second language instruction (pp. 3–32). New York: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Schmidt, R. & Frota, S. (1986). Developing basic conversational ability in second language. In Day, R. (ed.), Talking to learn (pp. 237–326). Rowley, MA: Newbury House.Google Scholar
Selinker, L. (1972). Interlanguage. International Review of Applied Linguistics, 10(3), 219–231.Google Scholar
Skinner, B. F. (1957). Verbal behavior. New York: Appleton-Century-Crofts.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
Swain, M. (2005). The output hypothesis: Theory and research. In Hinkel, E. (ed.), Handbook of research in second language teaching and learning (pp.471–483). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.Google Scholar
Tomlin, R. S. & Villa, V. (1994). Attention in cognitive science and second language acquisition. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 16(2), 183–203.Google Scholar
Vygotsky, L. S. (1978). Mind in society: The development of higher psychological processes. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar

References

Aljaafreh, A. & Lantolf, J. (1994). Negative feedback as regulation and second language learning in the zone of proximal development. Modern Language Journal, 78(4), 465–483.Google Scholar
Appel, G. & Lantolf, J. (1994). Vygotskian approaches to second language research. Norwood, NJ: Ablex.Google Scholar
Bliss, J., Askew, M. & Macrae, S. (1996). Effective teaching and learning: Scaffolding revisited. Oxford Review of Education, 22(1) 37–61.Google Scholar
Bruner, J. S. (1986). Actual minds, possible worlds. London: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
Davin, K. & Donato, R. (2013). Student collaboration and teacher-directed classroom dynamic assessment: A complementary pairing. Foreign Language Annals, 46(1), 5–22.Google Scholar
Donato, R. (1994). Collective scaffolding in second language learning. In Lantolf, J. & Appel, G. (eds.), Vygotskian approaches to second language research (pp. 33–59). Norwood, NJ: Ablex.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. (2003). Task-based language learning and teaching. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Ellis, R. (2009). Corrective feedback and teacher development. L2 Journal, 1, 2–18.Google Scholar
Engin, M. (2012). Trainer talk: Levels of intervention. ELT journal, 67(1), 11–19.Google Scholar
Erlam, R., Ellis, R. & Batstone, R. (2013). Oral corrective feedback on L2 writing: Two approaches compared. System, 41(2), 257–268.Google Scholar
Lantolf, J. (2000). Sociocultural theory and second language learning. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Lantolf, J. (2006). Sociocultural theory and L2: State of the art. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 28(1), 67–109.Google Scholar
Lantolf, J. & Poehner, M. (2007). Dynamic assessment of L2 development: Bringing the past into the future. Journal of Applied Linguistics and Professional Practice, 1(1), 49–72.Google Scholar
Lantolf, J., & Thorne, S. L. (2006). Sociocultural theory and the genesis of second language development. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Lantolf, J., & Thorne, S. L. (2007). Sociocultural theory and second language learning. In. van Patten, B. & Williams, J. (eds.), Theories in second language acquisition (pp. 201–224). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.Google Scholar
Long, M. (1996). The role of the linguistic environment in second language acquisition. In Ritchie, W. & Bhatia, T. (eds.), Handbook of second language acquisition (pp. 413–468). San Diego: Academic Press.Google Scholar
Marchenkova, L. (2005). Language, culture, and self: The Bakhtin – Vygotsky encounter. In Hall, J. K., Vitanova, G. & Marchenkova, L. (eds.), Dialogue with Bakhtin on second and foreign language learning (pp. 171–188). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence: Lawrence Erlbaum.Google Scholar
Mitchell, R. & Myles, F. (1998). Second language learning theories (2nd ed.). London: Arnold.Google Scholar
Nassaji, H. (2007). Reactive focus on form through negotiation on learners’ written errors. In Fotos, S. & Nassaji, H. (eds.), Form focused instruction and teacher education: Studies in honour of Rod Ellis (pp. 117–129). Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Nassaji, H. (2011). Correcting students’ written grammatical errors: The effects of negotiated versus nonnegotiated feedback. Studies in Second Language Learning and Teaching, 1(3), 315–334.Google Scholar
Nassaji, H. (2013). Interactional feedback: Insights from theory and research. In Benati, A., Laval, C. & Arche, M. (eds.), The grammar dimension in instructed second language learning: Theory, research and practice (pp. 103–123). London: Bloomsbury.Google Scholar
Nassaji, H. (2015). Interactional feedback dimension in instructed second language learning. London: Bloomsbury.Google Scholar
Nassaji, H. (2016). Anniversary article: Interactional feedback in second language teaching and learning: A synthesis and analysis of current research. Language Teaching Research, 20(4), 535–562.Google Scholar
Nassaji, H. (2017). 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). New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
Nassaji, H. & Cumming, A. (2000). What’s in a ZPD? A case study of a young ESL student and teacher interacting through dialogue journals. Language Teaching Research, 4(2), 95–121.Google Scholar
Nassaji, H. & Swain, M. (2000). Vygotskian perspective on corrective feedback in L2: The effect of random versus negotiated help on the learning of English articles. Language Awareness, 9(1), 34–51.Google Scholar
Ohta, A. (2000). Rethinking interaction in SLA: Developmentally appropriate assistance in the zone of proximal development and the acquisition and L2 grammar. In Lantolf, J. (ed.), Sociocultural theory and second language learning (pp. 51–78). Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Ohta, A. (2001). Second language acquisition processes in the classroom: Learning Japanese. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.Google Scholar
Pica, T. (1994). Research on negotiation: What does it reveal about second-language learning conditions, processes, and outcomes? Language learning, 44(3), 493–527.Google Scholar
Pienemann, M. (1998). Language processing and second language development: Processability theory. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
Pienemann, M. (2005). Discussing processability theory. In Pienemann, M. (ed.), Crosslinguistic aspects of processability theory (pp. 61–83). Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
Poehner, M. (2008). Dynamic assessment: A Vygotskian approach to understanding and promoting L2 development. Berlin: Springer.Google Scholar
Poehner, M. (2009). Group dynamic assessment: Mediation for the L2 classroom. TESOL Quarterly, 43(3), 471–491.Google Scholar
Rahimi, M., Kushki, A. & Nassaji, H. (2015). Diagnostic and developmental potentials of dynamic assessment for L2 writing. Language and Sociocultural Theory, 2(2), 185–208.Google Scholar
Rassaei, E. (2014). Scaffolded feedback, recasts, and L2 development: A sociocultural perspective. Modern Language Journal, 98(1), 417–431.Google Scholar
Rogoff, B. (1990). Apprenticeship in thinking: Cognitive development in social context. New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Van den Branden, K. (1997). Effects of negotiation on language learners’ output. Language Learning, 47(4), 589–636.Google Scholar
Verity, D. P. (2005). Vygotskian concepts for teacher education. In Lifelong learning: Proceedings of the 4th annual JALT Pan-SIG conference. May 14–15, 2005. Tokyo: Tokyo Keizai University.Google Scholar
Vygotsky, L. S. (1978). Mind in society: The development of higher psychological processes. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
Vygotsky, L. S. (1981). The genesis of higher mental functions. In Wertsch, J. V. (ed.), The concept of activity in soviet psychology (pp. 144–188). Armonk, NY: M. E. Sharpe.Google Scholar
Vygotsky, L. S. (1986). Thought and language. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Vygotsky, L. S. (1988). The collected works of L. S. Vygotsky. Vol. I: Problems of general psychology. New York: Plenum Press.Google Scholar
Wells, G. (2007). Semiotic mediation, dialogue and the construction of knowledge. Human Development, 50(5), 244–274.Google Scholar
Wertsch, J. V. (1985). Vygotsky and the social formation of mind. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.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
×