Hostname: page-component-7dd5485656-6kn8j Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2025-10-31T18:56:27.627Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

PEER INTERACTION AND CORRECTIVE FEEDBACK FOR ACCURACY AND FLUENCY DEVELOPMENT

Monitoring, Practice, and Proceduralization

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  16 November 2012

Masatoshi Sato  and
Roy Lyster
Masatoshi Sato
Affiliation:
Universidad Andres Bello, Chile
Roy Lyster
Affiliation:
McGill University, Canada
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

This quasi-experimental study is aimed at (a) teaching learners how to provide corrective feedback (CF) during peer interaction and (b) assessing the effects of peer interaction and CF on second language (L2) development. Four university-level English classes in Japan participated (N = 167), each assigned to one of four treatment conditions. Of the two CF groups, one was taught to provide prompts and the other to provide recasts. A third group participated in only peer-interaction activities, and a fourth served as the control group. After one semester of intervention, the two CF groups improved in both overall accuracy and fluency, measured as unpruned and pruned speech rates, whereas the peer-interaction-only group outperformed the control group only on fluency measures. This study draws on monitoring in speech-production theory and the declarative-procedural model of skill-acquisition theory to interpret these results, thus contributing a new theoretical approach to CF research in the context of peer interaction in which learners can be providers of CF. It is concluded that whereas peer interaction offered opportunities for repeated production practice, facilitating proceduralization, CF sharpened learners’ ability to monitor both their own language production and that of their interlocutors.

Information

Type
Articles
Information
Studies in Second Language Acquisition , Volume 34 , Issue 4 , December 2012 , pp. 591 - 626
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 2012

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.)

Article purchase

Temporarily unavailable

References

REFERENCES

Adams, R. (2007). Do second language learners benefit from interacting with each other? In Mackey, A. (Ed.), Conversational interaction in second language acquisition: A collection of empirical studies (pp. 29–51). Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Ammar, A. (2008). Prompts and recasts: Differential effects on second language morphosyntax. Language Teaching Research, 12, 183–210.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ammar, A., & Spada, N. (2006). One size fits all? Recasts, prompts and L2 learning. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 28, 543–574.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Anderson, J. (1983). The architecture of cognition. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
Anderson, J. (1995). Learning and memory: An integrated approach. New York: Wiley.Google Scholar
Anderson, J. (2005). Cognitive psychology and its implications (6th ed.). New York: Worth.Google Scholar
Anderson, J., & Schunn, C. (2000). Implications of the ACT-R learning theory: No magic bullets. In Glaser, R. (Ed.), Advances in instructional psychology (Vol. 5, pp. 1–33). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.Google Scholar
Aston, G. (1986). Trouble-shooting in interaction with learners: The more the merrier? Applied Linguistics, 7, 128–143.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bajarano, Y., Levine, T., Olshtain, E., & Steiner, J. (1997). The skilled use of interaction strategies: Creating a framework for improved small-group communicative interaction in the language classroom. System, 25, 203–214.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Basturkmen, H., Loewen, S., & Ellis, R. (2004). Teachers’ stated beliefs about incidental focus on form and their classroom practices. Applied Linguistics, 25, 243–272.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bigelow, M., delMas, R., Hansen, K., & Tarone, E. (2006). Literacy and the processing of oral recasts in SLA. TESOL Quarterly, 40, 665–689.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Block, D. (2003). The social turn in second language acquisition. Washington, DC: Georgetown University Press.Google Scholar
Bruton, A., & Samuda, V. (1980). Learner and teacher roles in the treatment of oral error in group work. RELC Journal, 11, 49–63.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Buckwalter, P. (2001). Repair sequences in Spanish L2 dyadic discourse: A descriptive study. Modern Language Journal, 85, 380–397.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bygate, M. (1996). Effects of task repetition: Appraising the developing language of learners. In Willis, D. & Willis, J. (Eds.), Challenge: Change in language teaching (pp. 136–146). London: Heinemann.Google Scholar
Chamot, A., Barnhardt, S., El-Dinary, P., & Robbins, J. (1999). The learning strategies handbook. London: Longman.Google Scholar
Cohen, A. (1998). Second language learning and language use strategies: Defining terms. In Cohen, A. (Ed.), Strategies in learning and using a second language (pp. 3–23). London: Longman.Google Scholar
Cohen, A., Weaver, S., & Li, T.-Y. (1998). The impact of strategies-based instruction on speaking a foreign language. In Cohen, A. (Ed.), Strategies in learning and using a second language (pp. 107–156). London: Longman.Google Scholar
Cohen, J. (1988). Statistical power analysis for the behavioral sciences. Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.Google Scholar
Crookes, G. (1991). Second language speech production research: A methodologically oriented review. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 13, 113–132.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cucchiarini, C., Strik, H., & Boves, L. (2002). Quantitative assessment of second language learners’ fluency: Comparisons between read and spontaneous speech. Journal of the Acoustical Society of America, 111, 2862–2873.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
de Bot, K. (1992). A bilingual production model: Levelt’s “speaking” model adapted. Applied Linguistics, 13, 1–24.Google Scholar
de Bot, K. (1996). The psycholinguistics of the output hypothesis. Language Learning, 46, 529–555.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
de Jong, N., & Perfetti, C. (2011). Fluency training in the ESL classroom: An experimental study of fluency development and proceduralization. Language Learning, 61, 533–568.CrossRefGoogle 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). New York: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
DeKeyser, R. (2001). Automaticity and automatization. In Robinson, P. (Ed.), Cognition and second language instruction (pp. 125–151). New York: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
DeKeyser, R. (2003). Implicit and explicit learning. In Doughty, C. & Long, M. (Eds.), Handbook of second language acquisition (pp. 313–348). Oxford: Blackwell.Google Scholar
DeKeyser, R. (Ed.). (2007). Practice in a second language: Perspectives from applied linguistics and cognitive psychology. New York: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
DeKeyser, R. (2010). Practice for second language learning: Don’t throw out the baby with the bathwater. International Journal of English Studies, 10, 155–165.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Derwing, T., Munro, M., & Thomson, R. (2008). A longitudinal study of ESL learners’ fluency and comprehensibility development. Applied Linguistics, 29, 359–380.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dörnyei, Z. (1995). On the teachability of communication strategies. TESOL Quarterly, 29, 55–85.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Doughty, C. (2001). Cognitive underpinnings of focus on form. In Robinson, P. (Ed.), Cognition and second language instruction (pp. 206–257). New York: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Doughty, C., & Williams, J. (1998). Issues and terminology. In Doughty, C. & Williams, J. (Eds.), Focus on form in classroom second language acquisition (pp. 1–11). New York: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Douglas, D. (2001). Performance consistency in second language acquisition and language testing research: A conceptual gap. Second Language Research, 17, 442–456.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Egi, T. (2007). Interpreting recasts as linguistic evidence: The role of linguistic target, length, and degree of change. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 29, 511–537.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ellis, N. (2002). Frequency effects in language processing: A review with implications for theories of implicit and explicit language acquisition. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 24, 143–188.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ellis, N. (2005). At the interface: Dynamic interactions of explicit and implicit language knowledge. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 27, 305–352.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ellis, R. (1994). A theory of instructed second language acquisition. In Ellis, N. (Ed.), Implicit and explicit learning of languages (pp. 79–114). San Diego, CA: Academic Press.Google Scholar
Ellis, R. (2005). Measuring implicit and explicit knowledge of a second language: A psychometric study. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 27, 141–172.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ellis, R. (2006). Researching the effects of form-focused instruction on L2 acquisition. AILA Review, 19, 18–41.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ellis, R. (2007). The differential effects of corrective feedback on two grammatical structures. In Mackey, A. (Ed.), Conversational interaction in second language acquisition: A collection of empirical studies (pp. 339–360). Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Ellis, R. (2009a). Corrective feedback and teacher development. L2 Journal, 1, 3–18.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ellis, R. (2009b). Implicit and explicit learning, knowledge and instruction. In Ellis, R., Loewen, S., Elder, C., Erlam, R., Philp, J., & Reinders, H. (Eds.), Implicit and explicit knowledge in second language learning, testing and teaching (pp. 3–25). Bristol, UK: Multilingual Matters.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ellis, R., Basturkmen, H., & Loewen, S. (2001). Learner uptake in communicative ESL lessons. Language Learning, 51, 281–318.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ellis, R., Loewen, S., & Erlam, R. (2006). Implicit and explicit corrective feedback and the acquisition of L2 grammar. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 28, 339–368.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ellis, R., & Sheen, Y. (2006). Reexamining the role of recasts in second language acquisition. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 28, 575–600.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Foster, P. (1998). A classroom perspective on the negotiation of meaning. Applied Linguistics, 14, 1–23.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Foster, P., & Skehan, P. (1996). The influence of planning and task type on second language performance. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 18, 293–323.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Fotos, S., & Ellis, R. (1991). Communication about grammar: A task-based approach. TESOL Quarterly, 25, 605–628.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Freed, B. (1995). What makes us think that students who study abroad become fluent? In Freed, B. (Ed.), Second language acquisition in a study abroad context (pp. 123–148). Amsterdam: Benjamins.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Freed, B., Dewey, D., Segalowitz, N., & Randall, H. (2004). The language contact profile. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 26, 349–356.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
García Mayo, M., & Pica, T. (2000). Interaction among proficient learners: Are input, feedback and output needs addressed in a foreign language context? Studia Linguistica, 54, 272–279.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gass, S. (1997). Input, interaction, and the second language learner. Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.Google Scholar
Gass, S. (2003). Input and interaction. In Doughty, C. & Long, M. (Eds.), Handbook of second language acquisition (pp. 224–255). Oxford: Blackwell.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gass, S., & Varonis, E. (1989). Incorporated repairs in nonnative discourse. In Eisenstein, M. (Ed.), The dynamic interlanguage: Empirical studies in second language variation (pp. 71–86). New York: Plenum Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Green, P., & Hecht, K. (1992). Implicit and explicit grammar: An empirical study. Applied Linguistics, 13, 168–184.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Harmer, J. (1998). How to teach English: An introduction to the practice of English language teaching. London: Longman.Google Scholar
Hatch, E., & Lazaraton, A. (1991). The research manual: Design and statistics for applied linguistics. Rowley, MA: Newbury House.Google Scholar
Hulstijn, J. (2002). Towards a unified account of the representation, processing and acquisition of second language knowledge. Second Language Research, 18, 193–223.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hulstijn, J. (2005). Theoretical and empirical issues in the study of implicit and explicit second-language learning. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 27, 129–140.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hulstijn, J., & 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, 97–113.Google Scholar
Hulstijn, J., & Hulstijn, W. (1984). Grammatical errors as a function of processing constraints and explicit knowledge. Language Learning, 34, 23–43.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Iñárritu, A. G. (Director), & Arriaga, G. (Writer). (2006). Babel [Motion picture]. United States: Central Films.Google Scholar
Indefrey, P., & Levelt, W. (2004). The spatial and temporal signatures of word production components. Cognition, 92, 101–144.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Iwashita, N., Brown, A., McNamara, T., & O’Hagan, S. (2008). Assessed levels of second language speaking proficiency: How distinct? Applied Linguistics, 29, 24–49.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Izumi, S. (2003). Comprehension and production processes in second language learning: In search of the psycholinguistic rationale of the output hypothesis. Applied Linguistics, 24, 168–196.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Izumi, S., & Bigelow, M. (2000). Does output promote noticing and second language acquisition? TESOL Quarterly, 34, 239–278.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Johnson, K. (1996). Language teaching and skill learning. Oxford: Blackwell.Google Scholar
Kappel, G. (1991). Design and analysis: A researcher’s handbook (3rd ed.). Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall.Google Scholar
Keselman, H., Huberty, C., Lix, L., Olejnik, S., Cribbie, R., Donahue, B., et al. . (1998). Statistical practices of educational researchers: An analysis of their ANOVA, MANOVA, and ANCOVA analyses. Review of Educational Research, 68, 350–386.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kormos, J. (1999). Monitoring and self-repair in L2. Language Learning, 49, 303–342.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kormos, J. (2006). Speech production and second language acquisition. Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.Google Scholar
Kowal, M., & Swain, M. (1997). From semantic to syntactic processing: How can we promote metalinguistic awareness in the French immersion classroom? In Johnson, R. & Swain, M. (Eds.), Immersion education: International perspectives (pp. 284–309). New York: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lai, Y.-C. (2009). Language learning strategy use and English proficiency of university freshmen in Taiwan. TESOL Quarterly, 43, 255–280.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lam, W. (2009). Examining the effects of metacognitive strategy instruction on ESL group discussions: A synthesis of approaches. Language Teaching Research, 13, 129–150.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Landis, J., & Koch, G. (1977). The measurement of observer agreement for categorical data. Biometrics, 33, 159–174.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Larson-Hall, J. (2010). A guide to doing statistics in second language research using SPSS. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
Lennon, P. (1990). Investigating fluency in EFL: A quantitative approach. Language Learning, 40, 387–417.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Levelt, W. (1983). Monitoring and self-repair in speech. Cognition, 14, 41–104.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Levelt, W. (1989). Speaking: From intention to articulation. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Levelt, W. (1999). Language production: A blueprint of the speaker. In Brown, C. & Hagoort, P. (Eds.), Neurocognition of language (pp. 83–122). Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Li, S. (2010). The effectiveness of corrective feedback in SLA: A meta-analysis. Language Learning, 60, 309–365.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lightbown, P., & Spada, N. (1990). Focus-on-form and corrective feedback in communicative language teaching: Effects on second language learning. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 12, 429–448.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Loewen, S. (2004). Uptake in incidental focus on form in meaning-focused ESL lessons. Language Learning, 54, 153–187.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Loewen, S. (2005). Incidental focus on form and second language learning. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 27, 361–386.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Loewen, S. (2011). Focus on form. In Hinkel, E. (Ed.), Handbook of research in second language teaching and learning (Vol. 2, pp. 576–592). London: Routledge.Google Scholar
Loewen, S., & Philp, J. (2006). Recasts in the adult English L2 classroom: Characteristics, explicitness, and effectiveness. Modern Language Journal, 90, 536–556.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). San Diego, CA: Academic Press.Google Scholar
Long, M., & Robinson, P. (1998). Focus on form: Theory, research, and practice. In Doughty, C. & Williams, J. (Eds.), Focus on form in classroom second language acquisition (pp. 15–41). New York: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Loschky, L., & Bley-Vroman, R. (1993). Grammar and task-based methodology. In Crookes, G. & Gass, S. (Eds.), Tasks and language learning (pp. 123–167). Bristol, UK: Multilingual Matters.Google Scholar
Lyster, R. (1994). La négociation de la forme: stratégie analytique en classe d’immersion [Negotiation of form: An analytic strategy in immersion classrooms]. Canadian Modern Language Review, 50, 446–465.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lyster, R. (1998). The ambiguity of recasts and repetition in L2 classroom discourse. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 20, 51–81.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lyster, R. (2002). The importance of differentiating negotiation of form and meaning in classroom interaction. In Burmeister, P., Piske, T., & Rohde, A. (Eds.), An integrated view of language development: Papers in honor of Henning Wode (pp. 381–397). Trier, Germany: Wissenschaftlicher Verlag Trier.Google Scholar
Lyster, R. (2004). Differential effects of prompts and recasts in form-focused instruction. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 26, 399–432.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lyster, R., & Izquierdo, J. (2009). Prompts versus recasts in dyadic interaction. Language Learning, 59, 453–498.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lyster, R., & Mori, H. (2006). Interactional feedback and instructional counterbalance. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 28, 269–300.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lyster, R., & Ranta, L. (1997). Corrective feedback and learner uptake: Negotiation of form in communicative classrooms. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 19, 37–66.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lyster, R., & Saito, K. (2010). Oral feedback in classroom SLA: A meta-analysis. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 32, 265–302.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Mackey, A. (2006). Feedback, noticing and instructed second language learning. Applied Linguistics, 27, 405–430.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Mackey, A. (2007). Introduction: The role of conversational interaction in second language acquisition. In Mackey, A. (Ed.), Conversational interaction in second language acquisition: A collection of empirical studies (pp. 1–26). 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
Mackey, A., Oliver, R., & Leeman, J. (2003). Interactional input and the incorporation of feedback: An exploration of NS-NNS and NNS-NNS adult and child dyads. Language Learning, 53, 35–66.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Mackey, A., & Philp, J. (1998). Conversational interaction and second language development: Recasts, responses, and red herrings? Modern Language Journal, 82, 338–356.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
MacWhinney, B. (2009). The CHILDES project: Tools for analyzing talk: Vol. 2: Transcription format and programs. Department of Psychology, Carnegie Mellon University.Google Scholar
McDonough, K. (2005). Identifying the impact of negative feedback and learners’ responses on ESL question development. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 27, 79–103.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
McDonough, K., & Mackey, A. (2000). Communicative tasks, conversational interaction, and linguistic form: An empirical study of Thai. Foreign Language Annals, 33, 82–91.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
McDonough, K., & Mackey, A. (2006). Responses to recasts: Repetitions, primed production, and linguistic development. Language Learning, 56, 693–720.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Miyagi, K., Sato, M., & Crump, A. (2009). To challenge the unchallenged: Potential of non-“standard” Englishes for Japanese EFL learners. JALT Journal, 31, 261–273.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Morris, C., Bransford, J., & Franks, J. (1977). Levels of processing versus transfer appropriate processing. Journal of Verbal Learning & Verbal Bahavior, 16, 519–533.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Morrison, D., & Low, G. (1983). Monitoring and the second language learner. In Richards, J. & Schmidt, R. (Eds.), Language and communication (pp. 228–250). London: Longman.Google Scholar
Muranoi, H. (2007). Output practice in the L2 classroom. In DeKeyser, R. (Ed.), Practice in a second language: Perspectives from applied linguistics and cognitive psychology (pp. 51–84). New York: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Nabei, T., & Swain, M. (2002). Learner awareness of recasts in classroom interaction: A case study of an adult EFL student’s second language learning. Language Awareness, 11, 43–63.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Nakatani, Y. (2005). The effects of awareness-raising instruction on oral communication strategy use. Modern Language Journal, 89, 76–91.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Nation, P. (1989). Improving speaking fluency. System, 17, 377–384.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Naughton, D. (2006). Cooperative strategy training and oral interaction: Enhancing small group communication in the language classroom. Modern Language Journal, 90, 169–184.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Newell, A., & Rosenbloom, P. (1981). Mechanisms of skill acquisition and the law of practice. In Anderson, J. (Ed.), Cognitive skills and their acquisition (pp. 1–55). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.Google Scholar
Nicholas, H., Lightbown, P., & Spada, N. (2001). Recasts as feedback to language learners. Language Learning, 51, 719–758.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Nobuyoshi, J., & Ellis, R. (1993). Focused communication tasks and second language acquisition. ELT Journal, 47, 203–210.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
O’Donnell, K. (2005). Japanese secondary English teachers: Negotiation of educational roles in the face of curricular reform. Language, Culture and Curriculum, 18, 300–315.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Olejnik, S., Li, J., Supattathum, S., & Huberty, C. (1997). Multiple testing and statistical power with modified Bonferroni procedures. Journal of Educational and Behavioral Statistics, 22, 389–406.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ortega, L. (2009). Understanding second language acquisition. London: Hodder Education.Google Scholar
Oxford, R. (1990). Language learning strategies: What every teacher should know. Rowley, MA: Newbury House.Google Scholar
Panova, I., & Lyster, R. (2002). Patterns of corrective feedback and uptake in an adult ESL classroom. TESOL Quarterly, 36, 573–595.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Paradis, M. (2004). A neurolinguistic theory of bilingualism. Amsterdam: Benjamins.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Paradis, M. (2009). Declarative and procedural determinants of second languages. Amsterdam: Benjamins.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Pica, T. (1994). Research on negotiation: What does it reveal about second-language learning conditions, processes, and outcomes? Language Learning, 44, 493–527.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Pica, T., Kanagy, R., & Falodun, J. (1993). Choosing and using tasks for second language instruction and research. In Crookes, G. & Gass, S. (Eds.), Tasks and language learning: Integrating theory and practice (pp. 9–34). Bristol, UK: Multilingual Matters.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, 59–84.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Porter, P. (1986). How learners talk to each other: Input and interaction in task-centered discussions. In Day, R. (Ed.), Talking to learn: Conversation in second language acquisition (pp. 200–222). Rowley, MA: Newbury House.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: Perspective from applied linguistics and cognitive psychology (pp. 141–160). New York: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ridder, I., Vangehuchten, L., & Gómez, M. (2007). Enhancing automaticity through task-based language learning. Applied Linguistics, 28, 309–315.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Riggenbach, H. (1991). Toward an understanding of fluency: A microanalysis of nonnative speaker conversations. Discourse Processes, 14, 423–441.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Robinson, P. (1995). Attention, memory, and the “noticing” hypothesis. Language Learning, 45, 283–331.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Russell, J., & Spada, N. (2006). The effectiveness of corrective feedback for the acquisition of L2 grammar. In Norris, J. & Ortega, L. (Eds.), Synthesizing research on language learning and teaching (pp. 133–162). Amsterdam: Benjamins.Google Scholar
Sato, M. (2007). Social relationships in conversational interaction: A comparison between learner-learner and learner-NS dyads. JALT Journal, 29, 183–208.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sato, M. (2011). Constitution of form-orientation: Contributions of context and explicit knowledge to learning from recasts. Canadian Journal of Applied Linguistics, 14, 1–28.Google Scholar
Sato, M., & Lyster, R. (2007). Modified output of Japanese EFL learners: Variable effects of interlocutor vs. feedback types. In Mackey, A. (Ed.), Conversational interaction in second language acquisition: A collection of empirical studies (pp. 123–142). Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Sato, M., & Perry, B. (2011). How to transform second language learners into interactive corrective feedback providers. In Skier, M. & Walsh, M. (Eds.), Pan-SIG 2010 conference proceedings (pp. 188–205). Kyoto, Japan: JALT.Google Scholar
Schmidt, R. (1990). The role of consciousness in second language learning. Applied Linguistics, 11, 129–158.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Schmidt, R. (1994). Deconstructing consciousness in search of useful definitions for applied linguistics. AILA Review, 11, 11–26.Google Scholar
Schmidt, R. (2001). Attention. In Robinson, P. (Ed.), Cognition and second language instruction (pp. 3–32). New York: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Seedhouse, P. (1997). Combining form and meaning. ELT Journal, 51, 337–344.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Segalowitz, N. (2000). Automaticity and attentional skill in fluent performance. In Riggenbach, H. (Ed.), Perspectives on fluency (pp. 200–219). Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press.Google Scholar
Segalowitz, N. (2003). Automaticity and second languages. In Doughty, C. & Long, M. (Eds.), Handbook of second language acquisition (pp. 382–408). Oxford: Blackwell.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Segalowitz, N. (2010). Cognitive bases of second language fluency. London: Routledge.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Segalowitz, N., & Freed, B. (2004). Context, contact, and cognition in oral fluency acquisition: Learning Spanish in at home and study abroad contexts. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 26, 173–199.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Segalowitz, N., & Lightbown, P. (1999). Psycholinguistic approaches to SLA. Annual Review of Applied Linguistics, 19, 43–63.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Segalowitz, N., & Segalowitz, S. (1993). Skilled performance, practice, and the differentiation of speed-up from automatization effects: Evidence from second language word recognition. Applied Psycholinguistics, 14, 369–385.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sheen, Y. (2006). Exploring the relationship between characteristics of recasts and learner uptake. Language Teaching Research, 8, 361–392.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sheen, Y. (2007). The effects of corrective feedback, language aptitude, and learner attitudes on the acquisition of English articles. In Mackey, A. (Ed.), Conversational interaction in second language acquisition: A collection of empirical studies (pp. 301–322). Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Sheen, Y., & Ellis, R. (2011). Corrective feedback in language teaching. In Hinkel, E. (Ed.), Handbook of research in second language teaching and learning (Vol. 2, pp. 593–610). London: Routledge.Google Scholar
Shehadeh, A. (2001). Self- and other-initiated modified output during task-based interaction. TESOL Quarterly, 35, 433–457.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Soler, E. (2002). Relationship between teacher-led versus learners’ interaction and the development of pragmatics in the EFL classroom. International Journal of Educational Research, 37, 359–377.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Spada, N. (1997). Form-focused instruction and second language acquisition: A review of classroom and laboratory research. Language Teaching, 30, 73–87.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Spada, N. (2011). Beyond form-focused instruction: Reflections on past, present and future research. Language Teaching, 44, 225–236.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Stevens, J. (2002). Applied multivariate statistics for the social sciences (4th ed.). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.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. (1995). Three functions of output in second language learning. In Cook, G. & Seidlhofer, B. (Eds.), Principle and practice in applied linguistics: Studies in honour of H. G. Widdowson (pp. 125–144). Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
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: Erlbaum.Google Scholar
Toth, P. (2008). Teacher- and learner-led discourse in task-based grammar instruction: Providing procedural assistance for L2 morphosyntactic development. Language Learning, 58, 237–283.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Towell, R., & Dewaele, J. (2005). The role of psycholinguistic factors in the development of fluency amongst advanced learners of French. In Dewaele, J. (Ed.), Focus on French as a foreign language: Multidisciplinary approaches (pp. 210–239). Bristol, UK: Multilingual Matters.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Towell, R., Hawkins, R., & Bazergui, N. (1996). The development of fluency in advanced learners of French. Applied Linguistics, 17, 84–119.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ullman, M. (2001). The neural basis of lexicon and grammar in first and second language: The declarative/procedural model. Bilingualism: Language and Cognition, 4, 105–122.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ullman, M. (2004). Contributions of memory circuits to language: The declarative/procedural model. Cognition, 92, 231–270.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Ullman, M. (2005). A cognitive neuroscience perspective on second language acquisition: The declarative/procedural model. In Sanz, C. (Ed.), Mind and context in adult second language acquisition (pp. 141–178). Washington, DC: Georgetown University Press.Google Scholar
VanPatten, B. (1990). Attending to content and form in the input: An experiment in consciousness. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 12, 287–301.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
VanPatten, B. (2000). Processing instruction as form-meaning connections: Issues in theory and research. In Valdman, A. & Lee, J. (Eds.), Form and meaning: Multiple perspectives (pp. 43–68). Boston: Heinle & Heinle.Google Scholar
Varonis, E., & Gass, S. (1985). Non-native/non-native conversations: A model for negotiation of meaning. Applied Linguistics, 6, 71–90.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Williams, J. (1999). Learner-generated attention to form. Language Learning, 49, 583–625.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Yang, Y., & Lyster, R. (2010). Effects of form-focused practice and feedback on Chinese EFL learners’ acquisition of regular and irregular past tense forms. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 32, 235–263.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Yoshida, R. (2008). Learners’ perception of corrective feedback in pair work. Foreign Language Annals, 41, 525–541.CrossRefGoogle Scholar