Adams, R. (2007). Do second language learners benefit from interacting with each other. In Mackey, A. (ed.), Conversational interaction in second language acquisition (pp. 29–51). Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar

Aljaafreh, A. & Lantolf, J. P. (1994). Negative feedback as regulation: Second language learning in the zone of proximal development. Modern Language Journal, 78(4), 465–483.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Anderson, J. (2005). Cognitive psychology and its implications (6th ed.). New York: Worth Publishers.Google Scholar

Brandl, K. (1995). Strong and weak students’ preferences for error feedback options and responses. Modern Language Journal, 79(2), 194–211.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Brooks, L. & Swain, M. (2009). Languaging in collaborative writing: Creation of and response to expertise. In Mackey, A. & Polio, C. (eds.), Multiple perspectives on interaction in SLA (pp. 58–89). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.Google Scholar

Brown, A. (2009). Students’ and teachers’ perceptions of effective foreign language teaching: A comparison of ideals. Modern Language Journal, 93(1), 46–60.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Cathcart, R. & Olsen, J. (1976). Teachers’ and students’ preferences for correction of classroom conversation errors. In Fanselow, J. & Crymes, R. (eds.), On TESOL ’76 (pp. 41–53). Washington, DC: TESOL.Google Scholar

Choi, H. & Iwashita, N. (2016). Interactional behaviours of low-proficiency learners in small group work. In Sato, M. & Ballinger, S. (eds.), Peer interaction and second language learning: Pedagogical potential and research agenda (pp. 113–134). Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar

Chu, R. (2013). Effects of peer feedback on Taiwanese adolescents’ English speaking practices and development. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, The University of Edinburgh. www.era.lib.ed.ac.uk/handle/1842/8045.Google Scholar

Coughlan, P. & Duff, P. A. (1994). Same task, different activities: Analysis of an SLA task from an activity theory perspective. In Lantolf, J. & Appel, G. (eds.), Vygotskian approaches to second language research (pp. 173–193). Westport, CT: Ablex.Google Scholar

Dao, P. (2017). Learner engagement in peer task-based interaction: Identifying the effect of interlocutor proficiency and task outcome. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Concordia University. https://spectrum.library.concordia.ca/982862/.Google Scholar

Dao, P. (2019). Effects of task goal orientation on learner engagement in task performance. International Review of Applied Linguistics in Language Teaching, 1–20. www.degruyter.com/view/j/iral?rskey=JOFBFp.Google Scholar

Dao, P. & McDonough, , K. (2017). The effect of task role on Vietnamese EFL learners’ collaboration in mixed proficiency dyads. System, 65(1), 15–24.Google Scholar

Dao, P. & McDonough, (2018). Effect of proficiency on Vietnamese EFL learners’ engagement in peer interaction. International Journal of Educational Research, 88(1), 60–72.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Dao, P., Nguyen, M. X. N. & Chi, D. N. (2020). Reflective learning practice for promoting adolescent EFL learners’ attention to form. Innovation in Language Learning and Teaching, 1–16. https://doi.org/10.1080/17501229.2020.1766467.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Davis, R. (1997). Modeling the strategies we advocate. TESOL Journal, 6(4), 5–6.Google Scholar

DeKeyser, R. (1998). Exploring automatization processes. TESOL Quarterly, 30(2), 349–357.Google Scholar

DeKeyser, R. (2007). Skill acquisition theory. In VanPatten, B. & Williams, J. (eds.), Theories in second language acquisition: An introduction (pp. 97–113). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.Google Scholar

Dochy, F., Segers, M. & Sluijsmans, D. (1999). The use of self-, peer and co-assessment in higher education: A review. Studies in Higher Education, 24(3), 331–350.Google Scholar

Donato, R. (2004). Aspects of collaboration in pedagogical discourse. Annual Review of Applied Linguistics, 24, 284–302.Google Scholar

Ellis, N. C. (2005). At the interface: Dynamic interactions of explicit and implicit language knowledge. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 27(1), 305–352.Google Scholar

Ellis, R. (2010). Cognitive, social and psychological dimensions of corrective feedback. In Batstone, R. (ed.), Sociocognitive perspectives on language use and language learning (pp. 151–165). New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar

Ertmer, P., Richardson, J., Belland, B., Camin, D., Connolly, P., Coulthard, G., Lei, K. & Mong, C. (2007). Using peer feedback to enhance the quality of student online postings: An exploratory study. Journal of Computer Mediated Communication, 12(2), 412–433.Google Scholar

Fujii, A., Ziegler, N. & Mackey, A. (2016). Peer interaction and metacognitive instruction in the EFL classroom. In Sato, M. & Ballinger, S. (eds.), Peer interaction and second language learning: Pedagogical potential and research agenda (pp. 63–89). Amsterdam: John Benjamins.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Gass, S. (2003). Input and interaction. In Doughty, C. & Long, M. (eds.), The handbook of second language acquisition (pp. 224–255). Oxford: Blackwell.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Gass, S. & Mackey, A. (2007). Input, interaction, and output in second language acquisition. In VanPatten, B. & Williams, J. (eds.), Theories in second language acquisition: An introduction (pp. 180–206). New York: Routledge.Google Scholar

Gass, S. & Varonis, E. (1989). Incorporated repairs in nonnative discourse. In Eisenstein, M. R. (ed.), The dynamic interlanguage: Empirical studies in second language variation (pp. 71–86). New York: Plenum Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Gass, S. & Varonis, E. (1994). Input, interaction and second language production. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 16(3), 283–302.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Iwashita, N. (1999). Tasks and learners’ output in nonnative–nonnative interaction. In Kanno, Kazue (ed.), The acquisition of Japanese as a second language (pp. 31–52). Amsterdam: John Benjamins.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Izumi, S. (2003). Comprehension and production processes in second language learning: In search of the psycholinguistic rationale of the output hypothesis. Applied Linguistics 24(2), 168–196. https://doi.org/10.1093/applin/24.2.145.Google Scholar

Katayama, A. (2007). Japanese EFL students’ preferences toward correction of classroom oral errors. Asian EFL Journal, 9(4), 289–305.Google Scholar

Kim, Y. & McDonough, K. (2008). The effect of interlocutor proficiency on the collaborative dialogue between Korean as second language learners. Language Teaching Research, 12(2), 211–234.Google Scholar

Kim, Y. & McDonough, K. (2011). Using pre-task modeling to encourage collaborative learning opportunities. Language Teaching Research, 15(2), 183–199.Google Scholar

Kowal, M. & Swain, M. (1994). Using collaborative language production tasks to promote students’ language awareness. Language Awareness, 3(2), 73–93.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Kowal, M. & Swain, M. (1997). From semantic to syntactic processing: How can we promote metalinguistic awareness in the French immersion classroom? In Johnson, R. & Swain, M. (eds.), Immersion education: International perspective (pp. 284–309). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Krashen, S. (1982). Principles and practice in second language learning and acquisition. Oxford: Pergamon.Google Scholar

Lantolf, J. & Thorne, S. (2006). Sociocultural theory and the genesis of second language development. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar

Leeser, M. J. (2004). Learner proficiency and focus on form during collaborative dialogue. Language Teaching Research, 8(1), 55–81.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Liu, E., Lin, S., Chiu, C. & Yuan, S. (2001). Web-based peer review: The learner as both adapter and reviewer. IEEE Transactions on Education, 44(3), 246–251.Google Scholar

Liu, N. F. & Carless, D. (2006). Peer feedback: The learning element of peer assessment. Teaching in Higher Education, 11(3), 279–290.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Loewen, S. & Philp, J. (2006). Recasts in the adult English L2 classroom: Characteristics, explicitness, and effectiveness. Modern Language Journal, 90(4), 536–556.Google Scholar

Long, M. (1981). Input, interaction, and second-language acquisition. Annals of the New York Academy of Sciences, 379(1), 259–278.Google Scholar

Long, M. (1983). Linguistic and conversational adjustments to non-native speakers. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 5(2), 177–193.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Long, M. (1996). The role of the linguistic environment in second language acquisition. In Ritchie, W. C. & Bhatia, T. K. (eds.), Handbook of second language acquisition (pp. 413–468). New York: Academic Press.Google Scholar

Long, M. (2007). Problems in SLA. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.Google Scholar

Lynch, T. (2007). Learning from the transcripts of an oral communication task. ELT Journal, 61(4), 311–320.Google Scholar

Lyster, R. & Ranta, L. (1997). Corrective feedback and learner uptake: Negotiation of form in communicative classrooms. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 19(4), 37–66.Google Scholar

Lyster, R. & Saito, K. (2010). Oral feedback in classroom SLA: A meta-analysis. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 32(2), 265–302.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Lyster, R., Saito, K. & Sato, M. (2013). Oral corrective feedback in second language classrooms. Language Teaching, 46(1), 1–40.Google Scholar

Mackey, A., Abbuhl, R. & Gass, S. M. (2012). Interactionist approaches. In Gass, S. & Mackey, A. (eds.), The Routledge handbook of second language acquisition (pp. 7–23). New York: Routledge.Google Scholar

Mackey, A. & Gass, S. (2015). Interaction approaches. In VanPatten, B. & Williams, J. (eds.), Theories in second language acquisition. New York: Routledge.Google Scholar

Mackey, A., McDonough, K., Fujii, A. & Tatsumi, T. (2001). Investigating learners’ reports about the L2 classroom. International Review of Applied Linguistics, 39(4), 285–308.Google Scholar

Mackey, A., Oliver, R. L. & Leeman, J. (2003). Interaction input and the incorporation of feedback: an exploration of NS–NNS and NNS–NNS adult and child dyads. Language Learning, 53(1), 35–66.Google Scholar

McDonough, K. (2004). Learner–learner interaction during pair and small group activities in a Thai EFL context. System, 32(2), 207–224.Google Scholar

Miao, Y., Badger, R. & Zhen, Y. (2006). A comparative study of peer and teacher feedback in a Chinese EFL writing class. Journal of Second Language Writing, 15(3), 179–200.Google Scholar

Morris, F. (2005). Child-to-child interaction and corrective feedback in a computer mediated L2 class. Language Learning & Technology, 9(1), 29–45.Google Scholar

Nassaji, H. (2009). The effects of recasts and elicitations in dyadic interaction and the role of feedback explicitness. Language Learning, 59(2), 411–452.Google Scholar

Nassaji, H. (2015). Interactional feedback dimension in instructed second language learning. London: Bloomsbury Publishing.Google Scholar

Nassaji, H. & Swain, M. (2000). A Vygotskian perspective on corrective feedback in L2: The effect of random versus negotiated help on the learning of English articles. Language Awareness, 9(1), 34–51.Google Scholar

Naughton, D. (2006). Cooperative strategy training and oral interaction: Enhancing small group communication in the language classroom. Modern Language Journal, 90(2), 169–184.Google Scholar

Nicol, D. (2009). Assessment for learner self-regulation: Enhancing achievement in the first year using learning technologies. Assessment and Evaluation in Higher Education, 34(3), 335–352.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Nicol, D. (2014). Guiding principles of peer review: Unlocking learners’ evaluative skills. In Kreber, C., Anderson, C., Entwistle, N. & McArthur, J. (eds.), Advances and innovations in university assessment and feedback (pp. 195–258). Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press.Google Scholar

Ohta, A. (2000). Rethinking interaction in SLA: Developmentally appropriate assistance in the zone of proximal development and the acquisition of L2 grammar. In Lantolf, J. P. (ed.), Sociocultural theory and second language learning (pp. 51–78). Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar

Ohta, A. (2001). Second language acquisition processes in the classroom: Learning Japanese. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.Google Scholar

Philp, J. (2016). New pathways in researching interaction. In Sato, M. & Ballinger, S. (eds.), Peer interaction and second language learning: Pedagogical potential and research agenda (pp. 377–395). Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar

Philp, J., Adams, R. & Iwashita, N. (2014). Peer interaction and second language learning. New York: Taylor & Francis.Google Scholar

Philp, J. & Duchesne, S. (2016). Exploring engagement in tasks in the language classroom. Annual Review of Applied Linguistics, 36(1), 50–72.Google Scholar

Philp, J. & Mackey, A. (2010). Interaction research: What can socially informed approaches offer to cognitivists (and vice versa)? In Batstone, R. (ed.), Sociocognitive perspectives on language use and language learning (pp. 210–228). New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar

Philp, J., Walter, S. & Basturkmen, H. (2010). Peer interaction in the foreign language classroom: What factors foster a focus on form? Language Awareness, 19(4), 261–279.Google Scholar

Pica, T. (1994). Research on negotiation: What does it reveal about second language learning conditions, processes, and outcomes? Language Learning, 44(3), 493–527.Google Scholar

Pica, T., Lincoln-Porter, F., Paninos, D. & Linnell, J. (1996). Language learners’ interaction: How does it address the input, output, and feedback needs of L2 learners? TESOL Quarterly, 30(1), 59–84.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Poehner, M. E. (2008). Both sides of the conversation: The interplay between mediation and learner reciprocity in dynamic assessment. In Lantolf, J. P. & Poehner, M. E. (eds.), Sociocultural theory and the teaching of second languages (pp. 33–56). London: Equinox.Google Scholar

Ranta, L. & Lyster, R. (2007). A cognitive approach to improving immersion students’ oral language abilities: The Awareness–Practice–Feedback sequence. In DeKeyser, R. (ed.), Practice in a second language: Perspectives from applied linguistics and cognitive psychology (pp. 141–160). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar

Sato, M. (2013). Beliefs about peer interaction and peer corrective feedback: Efficacy of classroom intervention. Modern Language Journal, 97(3), 611–633.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Sato, M. (2017). Oral corrective feedback: Multiple theoretical perspectives. In Nassaji, H. & Kartchava, E. (eds.), Corrective feedback in second language teaching and learning: Research, theory, applications, implications (pp. 19–35). New York: Routledge.Google Scholar

Sato, M. & Ballinger, S. (2012). Raising language awareness in peer interaction: A cross-context, cross-method examination. Language Awareness, 21(1), 157–179.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Sato, M. & Ballinger, S. (2016). Understanding peer interaction: Research synthesis and directions. In Sato, M. & Ballinger, S. (eds.), Peer interaction and second language learning: Pedagogical potential and research agenda (pp. 1–30). Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar

Sato, M. & Loewen, S. (2018). Metacognitive instruction enhances the effectiveness of corrective feedback: Variable effects of feedback types and linguistic targets. Language Learning, 68(2), 507–545.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Sato, M. & Lyster, R. (2007). Modified output of Japanese EFL learners: Variable effects of interlocutor vs. feedback types. In Mackey, A. (ed.), Conversational interaction in second language acquisition: A collection of empirical studies (pp. 123–142). Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar

Sato, M. & Lyster, R. (2012). Peer interaction and corrective feedback for accuracy and fluency development: Monitoring, practice, and proceduralization. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 34(4), 591–626.Google Scholar

Sato, M. & McDonough, K. (2019). Practice is important but how about its quality? Contextualized practice in the classroom, Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 41(1), 999–1026.Google Scholar

Sato, M. & Viveros, P. (2016). Interaction or collaboration? Group dynamics in the foreign language classroom. In Sato, M. & Ballinger, S. (eds.), Peer interaction and second language learning: Pedagogical potential and research agenda (pp. 91–112). Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar

Schulz, R. A. (1996). Focus on form in the foreign language classroom: Students’ and teachers’ views on error correction and the role of grammar. Foreign Language Annals, 29(3), 343–364.Google Scholar

Segalowitz, N. (2003). Automaticity and second languages. In Doughty, C. & Long, M. H. (eds.), The handbook of second language acquisition (pp. 382–408). Malden, MA: Blackwell.Google Scholar

Sheen, Y. & Ellis, R. (2011). Corrective feedback in language teaching. In Hinkel, E. (ed.), Handbook of research in second language teaching and learning (pp. 593–610). New York: Routledge.Google Scholar

Sipple, L. (2017). The effects of peer interaction, form-focused instruction, and peer corrective feedback on the acquisition of grammar and vocabulary in L2 German. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Pennsylvania State University. https://etda.libraries.psu.edu/files/final_submissions/14444.Google Scholar

Sipple, L. & Jackson, C. N. (2015). Teacher vs. peer oral corrective feedback in the German language classroom. Foreign Language Annals, 48(4), 688–705.Google Scholar

Skehan, P. (1998). A cognitive approach to language learning. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar

Storch, N. (2002). Patterns of interaction in ESL pair work. Language Learning, 52(1), 119–158.Google Scholar

Storch, N. (2008). Metatalk in a pair work activity: Level of engagement and implications for language development. Language Awareness, 17(2), 95–114.Google Scholar

Storch, N. (2017). Sociocultural theory in the L2 classroom. In Loewen, S. & Sato, M. (eds.), The Routledge handbook of instructed second language acquisition (pp. 69–84). New York: Routledge.Google Scholar

Swain, M. (1995). Three functions of output in second language learning. In Cook, G. and Seidlhofer, B. (eds.), Principles and practice in applied linguistics (pp. 125–144). Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar

Swain, M. (1998). Focus on form through conscious reflection. In Doughty, C. and Williams, J. (eds.), Focus on form in classroom second language acquisition (pp. 61–81). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar

Swain, M. (2000). The output hypothesis and beyond: Mediating acquisition through collaborative dialogue. In Lantolf, J. P. (ed.), Sociocultural theory and second language learning (pp. 97–114). Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar

Tognini, R. (2008). Interaction in languages other than English classes in Western Australian primary and secondary schools: Theory, practice and perceptions. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Edith Cowan University, Perth, Australia.Google Scholar

Topping, K. J., Smith, E. F., Swanson, I. & Elliot, A. (2000). Formative peer assessment of academic writing between postgraduate students. Assessment and Evaluation in Higher Education, 25(2), 149–169.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Toth, P. (2008). Teacher‐ and learner‐led discourse in task‐based grammar instruction: Providing procedural assistance for L2 morphosyntactic development. Language Learning, 58(2), 237–283.Google Scholar

van Compernolle, R. A. (2015). Interaction and second language development: A Vygotskian perspective. Amsterdam; Philadelphia: John Benjamins.Google Scholar

VanPatten, B. & Benati, A. (2010). Key terms in second language acquisition. New York: Continuum International Publishing Group.Google Scholar

van Popta, E., Kral, M., Camp, G., Martens, R. & Simons, R. (2017). Exploring the value of peer feedback in online learning for the provider. Educational Research Review, 20(1), 24–34.Google Scholar

Varonis, E. & Gass, S. (1985). Non-native/non-native conversations: A model for the negotiation of meaning. Applied Linguistics, 6(1), 71–90.Google Scholar

Watanabe, Y. & Swain, M. (2007). Effects of proficiency differences and patterns of pair interaction on second language learning: Collaborative dialogue between adult ESL learners. Language Teaching Research, 11(2), 121–142.Google Scholar

Watanabe, Y. & Swain, M. (2008). Perception of learner proficiency: Its impact on the interaction between an ESL learner and her higher and lower proficiency partners. Language Awareness, 17(2), 115–130.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Wertsch, J. V. (1998). Mind as action. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar

Williams, J. (2001). Learner-generated attention to form. Language Learning, 51(1), 303–346.Google Scholar

Yilmaz, Y. (2011). Task effects on focus on form in synchronous computer‐mediated communication. Modern Language Journal, 95(1), 115–132.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Yoshida, R. (2008). Learners’ perception of corrective feedback in pair work. Foreign Language Annals, 41(3), 525–541.Google Scholar

Yoshida, R. (2008). Teachers’ choice and learners’ preference of corrective-feedback types. Language Awareness, 17(1), 78–93.Google Scholar

Yoshida, R. (2010). How do teachers and learners perceive corrective feedback in the Japanese language classroom? Modern Language Journal, 94(2), 293–314.Google Scholar

Young, A. & Tedick, D. (2016). Collaborative dialogue in a two-way Spanish/ English immersion classroom. In Sato, M. & Ballinger, S. (eds.), Peer interaction and second language learning: Pedagogical potential and research agenda (pp. 135–160). Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar

Zhao, H. (2010). Investigating learners’ use and understanding of peer and teacher feedback on writing: a comparative study in a Chinese English writing classroom. Assessing Writing, 15(1), 3−17.Google Scholar

Aljaafreh, A. & Lantolf, J. P. (1994). Negative feedback as regulation and second language learning in the zone of proximal development. Modern Language Journal 78(4), 465–483.Google Scholar

Ashwell, T. (2000). Patterns of teacher response to student writing in a multiple-draft composition classroom: Is content feedback followed by form feedback the best method? Journal of Second Language Writing, 9(3), 227–258.Google Scholar

Bitchener, J. (2008). Evidence in support of written corrective feedback. Journal of Second Language Writing, 17(2), 102–118.Google Scholar

Bitchener, J. (2017). Why some L2 learners fail to benefit from written corrective feedback. In Nassaji, H. & Kartchava, E. (eds.), Corrective feedback in second language teaching and learning: Research, theory, applications, implications (pp. 129–140). New York: Routledge.Google Scholar

Bitchener, J. & Ferris, D. (2012). Written corrective feedback in second language acquisition and writing. London: Routledge.Google Scholar

Bitchener, J. & Knoch, U. (2010). The contribution of written corrective feedback to language development: A ten-month investigation. Applied Linguistics, 31(2), 193–214.Google Scholar

Bitchener, J. & Storch, N. (2016). Written corrective feedback for L2 development. Bristol: Multilingual Matters.Google Scholar

Brown, A. (2009). Students’ and teachers’ perceptions of effective foreign language teaching: A comparison of ideals. Modern Language Journal 93(1), 46–60.Google Scholar

Brown, D. (2016). The type and linguistic foci of oral corrective feedback in the L2 classroom: A meta-analysis. Language Teaching Research, 20(4), 436–458.Google Scholar

Bruton, A. (2009). Designing research into the effect of error correction in L2 writing: Not so straightforward. Journal of Second Language Writing, 18(2), 136–140.Google Scholar

Chandler, J. (2003). The efficacy of various kinds of error feedback for improvement in the accuracy and fluency of L2 student writing. Journal of Second Language Writing, 12(3), 267–296.Google Scholar

DeKeyser, R. (1993). The effect of error correction on L2 grammar knowledge and oral proficiency. Modern Language Journal, 77(4), 501–514.Google Scholar

Edge, J. (1989). Mistakes and correction. London: Longman.Google Scholar

Ellis, R. (2005). Principles of instructed language learning. System 33(2), 209–224.Google Scholar

Ellis, R. (2008). A typology of written corrective feedback types. ELT Journal, 63(2), 97–107.Google Scholar

Ellis, R. (2010). Epilogue: A framework for investigating oral and written corrective feedback. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 32(2), 335–349.Google Scholar

Ellis, R. (2017). Oral corrective feedback in L2 classrooms. In Nassaji, H. & Kartchava, E. (eds.), Corrective feedback in second language teaching and learning: Research, theory, applications, implications (pp. 3–18). New York: Routledge.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Ellis, R., Loewen, S. & Erlam, R. (2006). Implicit and explicit corrective feedback and the acquisition of L2 grammar. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 28(2), 339–368.Google Scholar

Ellis, R. & Sheen, Y. (2006). Reexamining the role of recasts in second language acquisition. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 28(4), 575–600.Google Scholar

Ellis, R., Sheen, Y., Murakami, M. & Takashima, H. (2008). The effects of focused and unfocused written corrective feedback in an English as a foreign language context. System, 36(3), 353–371.Google Scholar

Evans, N., Hartshorn, K., McCollum, R. & Wolfersberger, M. (2010). Contextualizing corrective feedback in second language writing pedagogy. Language Teaching Research, 14(4), 445–463.Google Scholar

Fathman, A. & Whalley, E. (1990). Teacher response to student writing: Focus on form versus content. In Kroll, B. (ed.), Second language writing: Research insights for the classroom (pp. 178–190). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar

Ferris, D. (2004). The “grammar correction” debate in L2 writing: Where are we, and where do we go from here…? (and what do we do in the meantime?). Journal of Second Language Writing 13(1), 49–62.Google Scholar

Ferris, D. (2010). Second language writing research and written corrective feedback in SLA. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 32(2), 181–201.Google Scholar

Ferris, D. & Roberts, B. (2001). Error feedback in L2 writing classes. How explicit does it need to be? Journal of Second Language Writing, 10(3), 161–184.Google Scholar

Frear, D. & Chiu, Y. (2015). The effect of focused and unfocused indirect written corrective feedback on EFL learners’ accuracy in new pieces of writing. System, 53, 24–34.Google Scholar

Goo, J. & Mackey, A. (2013). The case against the case against recasts. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 35(1), 127–165.Google Scholar

Hartshorn, K., Evans, N., Merrill, P., Sudweeks, R., Strong‐Krause, D. & Anderson, N. (2010). Effects of dynamic corrective feedback on ESL writing accuracy. TESOL Quarterly, 44(1), 84–109.Google Scholar

Hawkes, L. & Nassaji, H. (2016). The role of extensive recasts in error detection and correction by adult ESL students. Studies in Second Language Learning and Teaching, 6(1), 19–41.Google Scholar

Jean, G. & Simard, D. (2011). Grammar learning in English and French L2: Students’ and teachers’ beliefs and perceptions. Foreign Language Annals, 44(4), 465–492.Google Scholar

Kang, E. & Han, Z. (2015). The efficacy of written corrective feedback in improving L2 written accuracy: A meta-analysis. Modern Language Journal, 99(1), 1–18.Google Scholar

Karim, K. & Nassaji, H. (2020). The revision and transfer effects of direct and indirect comprehensive corrective feedback on ESL students’ writing. Language Teaching Research, 24(4), 519–539.Google Scholar

Kepner, C. (1991). An experiment in the relationship of types of written feedback to the development of second language writing skills. Modern Language Journal, 75(3), 305–313.Google Scholar

Lantolf, J. & Pavlenko, A. (2001). (S)econd (L)anguage (A)ctivity theory: Understanding second language learners as people. In Breen, M. (ed.), Learner contributions to language learning (pp. 141–158). London: Longman.Google Scholar

Leki, I. (1991). The preferences of ESL students for error correction in college-level writing classes. Foreign Language Annals, 24(3), 203–218.Google Scholar

Li, S. (2010). The effectiveness of corrective feedback in SLA: A meta-analysis. Language Learning, 60(2), 309–365.Google Scholar

Lightbown, P. (2008). Transfer appropriate processing as a model for class second language acquisition. In Han, Z. (ed.), Understanding second language process (pp. 27–44). Clevedon: Multilingual Matters.Google Scholar

Lyster, R. (1998). Negotiation of form, recasts, and explicit correction in relation to error types and learner repair in immersion classrooms. Language Learning, 48(2), 183–218.Google Scholar

Lyster, R. & Ranta, L. (1997). Corrective feedback and learner uptake. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 19(1), 37–66.Google Scholar

Lyster, R. & Ranta, L. (2013). Counterpoint piece: The case for variety in corrective feedback research. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 35(1), 167–184.Google Scholar

Lyster, R. & Saito, K. (2010). Oral feedback in classroom SLA: A meta-analysis. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 32(2), 265–302.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Lyster, R., Saito, K. & Sato, M. (2013). Oral corrective feedback in second language classrooms. Language Teaching, 46(1), 1–40.Google Scholar

Mackey, A. & Goo, J. (2007). Interaction research in SLA: A meta-analysis and research synthesis. In Mackey, A. (ed.), Conversational interaction in second language acquisition: A collection of empirical studies (pp. 407–452). Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar

Mackey, A. & Philp, J. (1998). Conversational interaction and second language development: Recasts, responses, and red herrings? Modern Language Journal, 82(3), 338–356.Google Scholar

Manchón, R. (2009). Broadening the perspective of L2 writing scholarship: The contribution of research on foreign language writing. In Manchón, R. M. (ed.), Writing in foreign language contexts: Learning, teaching, and research (pp. 1–19). Clevedon: Multilingual Matters.Google Scholar

Nabei, T. & Swain, M. (2002). Learner awareness of recasts in classroom interaction: A case study of an adult EFL student’s second language learning. Language Awareness, 11(1), 43–63.Google Scholar

Nassaji, H. (2011). Correcting students’ written grammatical errors: The effects of negotiated versus nonnegotiated feedback. Studies in Second Language Learning and Teaching, 1(3), 315–334.Google Scholar

Nassaji, H. (2012). Effects of recasts and elicitations in dyadic interaction and the role of feedback explicitness. Language Learning, 59(2), 411–452.Google Scholar

Nassaji, H. (2013). Participation structure and incidental focus on form in adult ESL classrooms. Language Learning, 63(4), 835–869.Google Scholar

Nassaji, H. (2016). Anniversary article Interactional feedback in second language teaching and learning: A synthesis and analysis of current research. Language Teaching Research, 20(4), 535–562.Google Scholar

Nassaji, H. (2017a). Oral negotiation in response to written errors. In Nassaji, H. & Kartchava, E. (Eds.), Corrective Feedback in Second Language Teaching and Learning: Research, Theory, Applications, Implications (pp. 114–128). New York: Routledge.Google Scholar

Nassaji, H. (2017b). The effectiveness of extensive versus intensive recasts for learning L2 grammar. Modern Language Journal, 101(2), 353–368.Google Scholar

Nassaji, H. & Swain, M. (2000). A Vygotskian perspective on corrective feedback in L2: The effect of random versus negotiated help on the learning of English articles. Language Awareness, 9(1), 34–51.Google Scholar

Polio, C., Fleck, C. & Leder, N. (1998). “If only I had more time”: ESL learners’ changes in linguistic accuracy on essay revisions. Journal of Second Language Writing, 7(1), 43–68.Google Scholar

Rassaei, E. (2014). Scaffolded feedback, recasts, and L2 development: A sociocultural perspective. Modern Language Journal 98(1), 417–431.Google Scholar

Russell, J. & Spada, N. (2006). The effectiveness of corrective feedback for second language acquisition: A meta-analysis of the research. In Norris, J., & Ortega, L. (eds.), Synthesizing research on language learning and teaching (pp. 131–164). Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar

Schmidt, R. (1994). Deconstructing consciousness in search of useful definitions for applied linguistics. AILA Review 11, 11–26.Google Scholar

Segalowitz, N. (1997). Individual differences in second language acquisition. In De Groot, A. M. B. & Kroll, J. F. (eds.), Tutorials in bilingualism: Psycholinguistic perspectives (pp. 85–112). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.Google Scholar

Segalowitz, N. (2000). Automaticity and attentional skill in fluent performance. In Riggenbach, H. (ed.), Perspectives on fluency (pp. 200–219). Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press.Google Scholar

Sheen, Y. (2004). Corrective feedback and learner uptake in communicative classrooms across instructional settings. Language Teaching Research, 8(3), 263–300.Google Scholar

Sheen, Y. (2006). Exploring the relationship between characteristics of recasts and learner uptake. Language Teaching Research, 11(4), 361–392.Google Scholar

Sheen, Y. (2007). The effect of focused written corrective feedback and language aptitude on ESL learners’ acquisition of articles. TESOL Quarterly, 41(2), 255–283.Google Scholar

Sheen, Y. (2010). Introduction: The role of oral and written corrective feedback in SLA. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 32(2), 169–179.Google Scholar

Sheen, Y., Wright, D. & Moldawa, A. (2009). Differential effects of focused and unfocused written correction on the accurate use of grammatical forms by adult ESL learners. System 37(4), 556–569.Google Scholar

Shintani, N., Ellis, R. & Suzuki, W. (2014). Effects of written feedback and revision on learners’ accuracy in using two English grammatical structures. Language Learning, 64(1), 103–131.Google Scholar

Storch, N. (2010). Critical feedback on written corrective feedback research. International Journal of English Studies, 10(2), 29–46.Google Scholar

Truscott, J. (1996). The case against grammar correction in L2 writing classes. Language Learning, 46(2), 327–369.Google Scholar

Truscott, J. (2007). The effect of error correction on learners’ ability to write accurately. Journal of Second Language Writing, 16(4), 255–272.Google Scholar

Truscott, J. & Hsu, A. Y. (2008). Error correction, revision, and learning. Journal of Second Language Writing, 17(4), 292–305.Google Scholar

Ur, P. (1996). A course in language teaching: Practice and theory. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar

Van Beuningen, C. (2010). Corrective feedback in L2 writing: Theoretical perspectives, empirical insights, and future directions. International Journal of English Studies, 10(2), 1–27.Google Scholar

Van Beuningen, C. (2016). Waarom werkt de rode pen (niet altijd)? Een onderzoek naar denkprocessen en strategiegebruik van leerlingen tijdens de verwerking van correctieve feedback. [Why does(n’t) the red pen (always) work? A study into thought processes and strategy use of students during the processing of corrective feedback.] Tijdschrift Les, 34(199), 14–16.Google Scholar

Van Beuningen, C., De Jong, N. H. & Kuiken, F. (2008). The effect of direct and indirect corrective feedback on L2 learners’ written accuracy. ITL-Review of Applied Linguistics, 156, 279–296.Google Scholar

Van Beuningen, C., De Jong, N. H. & Kuiken, F. (2012). Evidence on the effectiveness of comprehensive error correction in second language writing. Language Learning, 62(1), 1–41.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Vygotsky, L. S. (1978). Mind in society: The development of higher psychological processes. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar

Williams, J. (2001). The effectiveness of spontaneous attention to form. System, 29(3), 325–340.Google Scholar

Williams, J. (2012). The potential role (s) of writing in second language development. Journal of Second Language Writing, 21(4), 321–331.Google Scholar

Xu, C. (2009). Overgeneralization from a narrow focus: A response to Ellis et al. (2008) and Bitchener (2008). Journal of Second Language Writing, 18(4), 270–275.Google Scholar

Aljaafreh, A. L. I. & Lantolf, J. P. (1994). Negative feedback as regulation and second language learning in the Zone of Proximal Development. Modern Language Journal, 78(4), 465–483.Google Scholar

Anderson, J. (1982). Acquisition of cognitive skill. Psychological Review, 89(4), 369–406.Google Scholar

Arroyo, D. C. & Yilmaz, Y. (2018). An open for replication study: The role of feedback timing in synchronous computer-mediated communication. Language Learning, https://doi.org/10.1111/lang.12300.Google Scholar

Azad, M. H. C, Farrokhi, F. & Zohrabi, M. (2018). Corrective feedback, spoken accuracy and fluency, and the Trade-off Hypothesis. International Journal of Instruction, 11(2), 465–482.Google Scholar

Bitchener, J. & Storch, N. (2016). The cognitive perspective on written CF for L2 development. In Bitchener, J. & Storch, N. (eds.), Written corrective feedback for L2 development (pp. 10–33). Bristol: Multilingual Matters.Google Scholar

Bransford, J. D., Brown, A. L. & Cocking, R. R. (eds.). (2000). How people learn: Brain, mind, experience, and school (expanded edn.). Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. https://doi.org/10.17226/9853.Google Scholar

Carroll, S. & Swain, M. (1993). Explicit and implicit negative feedback: An empirical study of the learning of linguistic generalizations. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 15(3), 357–386.Google Scholar

Cowan, N. (1995). Attention and memory: An integrated framework. New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar

DeKeyser, R. (1998). Beyond focus on form: Cognitive perspectives on learning and practising second language grammar. In Doughty, C. & Williams, J. (eds.), Focus on form in classroom second language acquisition (pp. 42–63). New York: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar

DeKeyser, R. (2007). Practice in a second language: Perspectives from applied linguistics and cognitive psychology. New York: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar

Doughty, C. (2001). Cognitive underpinnings of focus on form. In Robinson, P. (ed.), Cognition and second language instruction (pp. 206–257). New York: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar

Doughty, C. & Varela, E. (1998). Communicative focus on form. In Doughty, C. & Williams, J. (eds.), Focus on form in classroom second language acquisition (pp. 114–138). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar

Evans, N. W., Hartshorn, K. J. & Strong-Krause, D. (2011). The efficacy of dynamic written corrective feedback for university-matriculated ESL learners. System, 39(2), 229–239.Google Scholar

Farmani, R., Akbari, O. & Ghanizadeh, A. (2017). The impact of immediate and delayed error correction on Iranian EFL learner’s motivation. European Journal of Foreign Language Teaching 2(3), 76–86.Google Scholar

Gass, S. (1997). Input, interaction, and the second language learner. New York: Routledge.Google Scholar

Hartshorn, K. J., Evans, N. W., Merrill, P. F., Sudweeks, R. R., Strong-Krause, D. & Anderson, N. J. (2010). Effects of dynamic corrective feedback on ESL writing accuracy. TESOL Quarterly, 44(1), 84–109.Google Scholar

Henshaw, F. (2011). Effects of feedback timing in SLA: A computer assisted study on the Spanish subjunctive. In Sanz, C. & Leow, R. (eds.), Implicit and explicit language learning: Conditions, processes, and knowledge in SLA and bilingualism (pp. 85–99). Washington, DC: Georgetown University Press.Google Scholar

Hulstijn, J. H. & de Graaff, R. (1994). Under what conditions does explicit knowledge of a second language facilitate the acquisition of implicit knowledge? A research proposal. AILA Review, 11, 97–112.Google Scholar

Hupbach, A., Gomez, R., Hardt, O. & Nadel, L. (2007). Reconsolidation of episodic memories: A subtle reminder triggers integration of new information. Learning & Memory, 14(1–2), 47–53.Google Scholar

Kang, E. Y. & Han, Z. (2015). The efficacy of written corrective feedback in improving L2 written accuracy: A meta-analysis. Modern Language Journal, 99, 1–18.Google Scholar

Lantolf, J. P. (2000). Second language learning as a mediated process. Language Teaching, 33(2), 79–96.Google Scholar

Lavolette, E., Polio, C. & Kahng, J. (2015). The accuracy of computer-assisted feedback and students’ responses to it. Language, Learning & Technology, 19(2), 50–68.Google Scholar

Li, S. (2010). The effectiveness of corrective feedback in SLA: A meta-analysis. Language Learning, 60(2), 309–365.Google Scholar

Li, S., Ellis, R. & Zhu, Y. (2016). The effects of the timing of corrective feedback on the acquisition of a new linguistic structure. Modern Language Journal, 100(1), 276–295.Google Scholar

Long, M. H. (1977). Teacher feedback on learner error: Mapping cognitions In Brown, H. D., Yorio, C. A. & Crymes, R. H. (eds.), On TESOL ’77 (pp. 278–293). Washington, DC: TESOL.Google Scholar

Lyster, R. (2004). Differential effects of prompts and recasts in form-focused instruction. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 26(3), 399–432.Google Scholar

Lyster, R. & Saito, K. (2010). Oral feedback in classroom SLA: A meta-analysis. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 32(2), 265–302.Google Scholar

Mackey, A. & Goo, J. (2007). Interaction research in SLA: A meta-analysis and research synthesis. In Mackey, A. (ed.), Conversational interaction in second language acquisition: A collection of empirical studies (pp. 407–452). Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar

Morris, D. D., Bransford, J. D. & Franks, J. J. (1977). Levels of processing versus transfer appropriate processing. Journal of Verbal Learning and Verbal Behavior, 16(5), 519–533.Google Scholar

Nader, K. & Einarsson, E. O. (2010). Memory reconsolidation: An update. Annals of the New York Academy of Sciences, 1191, 27–41.Google Scholar

Nassaji, H. (2017). Oral negotiation in response to written errors. In Nassaji, H. & Kartchava, E. (eds.), Corrective feedback in second language teaching and learning: Research, theory, applications, implications (pp. 114–128). New York: Routledge.Google Scholar

National Research Council (2000). How people learn: Brain, mind, experience, and school (expanded ed.). Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. https://doi.org/10.17226/9853.Google Scholar

Quinn, P. (2014). Delayed versus immediate corrective feedback on orally produced passive errors in English. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, University of Toronto, Canada.Google Scholar

Quinn, P. & Nakata, T. (2017). The timing of oral corrective feedback. In Nassaji, H. & Kartchava, E. (eds.), Corrective feedback in second language teaching and learning: Research, theory, applications, implications (pp. 35–47). New York: Routledge.Google Scholar

Rahimi, A. & Vahid Dastjerdi, H. (2012). Impact of immediate and delayed error correction on EFL learners’ oral production: CAF. Mediterranean Journal of Social Sciences, 3(1), 45–54.Google Scholar

Ranta, L. & Lyster, R. (2007). A cognitive approach to improving immersion students’ oral language abilities: The awareness-practice-feedback sequence. In DeKeyser, R. M. (ed.), Practice in a second language: Perspectives from applied linguistics and cognitive psychology (pp. 141–160). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar

Rolin-Ianziti, J. (2010). The organization of delayed second language correction. Language Teaching Research, 14(2), 183–206.Google Scholar

Sheen, Y. (2007). The effects of corrective feedback, language aptitude, and learner attitudes on the acquisition of English articles. In Mackey, A. (ed.), Conversational interaction in second language acquisition (pp. 301–322). Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar

Sheen, Y. (2010). Differential effects of oral and written corrective feedback in the ESL classroom. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 32(2), 203–234.Google Scholar

Shintani, N. & Aubrey, S. (2016). The effectiveness of synchronous and asynchronous written corrective feedback on grammatical accuracy in a computer-mediated environment. Modern Language Journal, 100(1), 296–319.Google Scholar

Siyyari, M. (2005). A comparative study of the effect of implicit and delayed, explicit focus on form on Iranian EFL learners’ accuracy of oral production. Unpublished MA thesis, Iran University of Science and Technology, Tehran, Iran.Google Scholar

Spada, N. & Lightbown, P. M. (2008). Form-focused instruction: Isolated or integrated? TESOL Quarterly, 42(2), 181–207.Google Scholar

Truscott, J. (1996). The case against grammar correction in L2 writing classes. Language Learning, 46(2), 327–369.Google Scholar

Van Beuningen, C. G., De Jong, N. H. & Kuiken, F. (2012). Evidence on the effectiveness of comprehensive error correction in second language writing. Language Learning, 62(1), 1–41.Google Scholar

Varnosfadrani, A. D. (2006). A comparison of the effects of implicit / explicit and immediate /delayed corrective feedback on learners’ performance in tailor-made tests. Unpublished Ph.D. thesis, University of Auckland, New Zealand.Google Scholar

Wajnryb, R. (1990). Grammar dictation. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar

Walker, M. P., Brakefield, T., Hobson, J. A. & Stickgold, R. (2003). Dissociable stages of human memory consolidation and reconsolidation. Nature, 425(6598), 616–620.Google Scholar

Williams, J. (2012). The potential role (s) of writing in second language development. Journal of Second Language Writing, 21(4), 321–331.Google Scholar

Yang, Y. & Lyster, R. (2010). Effects of oral production practice and feedback on EFL learners’ acquisition of regular and irregular past-tense forms. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 32(2), 235–263.Google Scholar

Adams, R., Nuevo, A. & Egi, T. (2011). Explicit and implicit feedback, modified output and SLA: Does implicit and explicit feedback promote learning and learner–learner interactions? Modern Language Journal, 95(Suppl.), 42–63.Google Scholar

Aljaafreh, A. & Lantolf, J. (1994). Negative feedback as regulation and second language learning in the Zone of Proximal Development. Modern Language Journal, 78(4), 465–483.Google Scholar

Allwright, R. L. (1975). Problems in the study of the language teacher’s treatment of error. In Burt, M. K. & Dulay, H. D. (eds.), On TESOL ’75: New directions in second language learning, teaching, and bilingual education (pp. 96–109). Washington, DC: TESOL.Google Scholar

Ammar, A. & Spada, N. (2006). One size fits all? Recasts, prompts and L2 learning. Studies in Second language Acquisition, 28(4), 543–574.Google Scholar

Baddeley, A. D. (2000). The episodic buffer: A new component of working memory? Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 4(11), 417–423.Google Scholar

Brown, D. (2016). The type and linguistic foci of oral corrective feedback in the L2 classroom: A meta-analysis. Language Teaching Research, 20(4), 436–458.Google Scholar

Carroll, S. (2001). Input and evidence: The raw material of second language acquisition. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar

Carroll, S. & Swain, M. (1993). Explicit and implicit negative feedback: An empirical study of the learning of linguistic generalizations. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 15(3), 357–386.Google Scholar

Chaudron, C. (1977). A descriptive model of discourse in the corrective treatment of learners’ errors. Language Learning, 27(1), 29–46.Google Scholar

DeKeyser, R. (1993). The effect of error correction on L2 grammar knowledge and oral proficiency. Modern Language Journal, 77(4), 501–514.Google Scholar

DeKeyser, R. (1998). Beyond focus on form: Cognitive perspectives on learning and practicing second language grammar. In Doughty, C. and Williams, J. (eds.), Focus on Form in Second Language Acquisition (pp. 42–63). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar

Doughty, C. (2001). Cognitive underpinnings of focus on form. In Robinson, P. (ed.), Cognition and second language instruction (pp. 206–257). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar

Doughty, C. J. & Varela, E. 1998. Communicative focus on form. In Doughty, C. & Williams, J. (eds.), Focus on form in classroom second language acquisition (pp. 114–138). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar

Egi, T. (2007). Interpreting recasts as linguistic evidence. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 29(4), 511–537.Google Scholar

Ellis, N. C. (2001). Memory for language. In Robinson, P. (ed.), Cognition and second language instruction (pp. 33–68). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar

Ellis, N. C. (2005). At the interface: How explicit knowledge affects implicit language learning. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 27(2), 305–352.Google Scholar

Ellis, R. (1994). A theory of instructed second language acquisition. In Ellis, N. (ed.), Implicit and explicit learning of languages (pp. 79–114). San Diego: Academic Press.Google Scholar

Ellis, R. (2007). The differential effects of corrective feedback on two grammatical structures. In Mackey, A. (ed.), Conversational interaction in second language acquisition (pp. 339–360). Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar

Ellis, R., Loewen, S. & Erlam, R. (2006). Implicit and explicit corrective feedback and the acquisition of L2 grammar. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 28(2), 339–368.Google Scholar

Ellis, R. & Sheen, Y. (2006). Re-examining the role of recasts in SLA. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 28(4), 575–600.Google Scholar

Erlam, R., Ellis, R. & Batstone, R. (2013). Oral corrective feedback on L2 writing: Two approaches compared. System, 41(2), 257–268.Google Scholar

Goo, J. (2012). Corrective feedback and working memory capacity in interaction-driven L2 learning. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 34(3), 445–474.Google Scholar

Han, Z. 2002. A study of the impact of recasts on tense consistency in L2 output. TESOL Quarterly, 36(4), 543–572.Google Scholar

Havranek, G. & Cesnik, H. (2003). Factors affecting the success of corrective feedback. In Foster- Cohen, S. & Nizegorodzew, A. (eds.), EUROSLA yearbook (Vol. I, pp. 99–122). Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar

Horwitz, E. K. (2001). Language anxiety and achievement. Annual Review of Applied Linguistics, 21(1), 112–127.Google Scholar

Kartchava, E. & Ammar, A. (2014). The noticeability and effectiveness of corrective feedback in relation to target type. Language Teaching Research, 1 8(4), 428–452.Google Scholar

Kim, H. & Mathes, G. (2001). Explicit vs. implicit corrective feedback. The Korea TESOL Journal, 4(1), 1–15.Google Scholar

Leeman, J. (2003). Recasts and L2 development: Beyond negative evidence. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 25(1), 37–63.Google Scholar

Li, S. (2010). The effectiveness of corrective feedback in SLA: a meta-analysis. Language Learning, 60(2), 309–365.Google Scholar

Li, S. (2013). The interactions between the effects of implicit and explicit feedback and individual differences in language analytical ability and working memory. Modern Language Journal, 97(3), 634–654.Google Scholar

Loewen, S. (2005). Incidental focus on form and second language learning. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 27(3), 361–386.Google Scholar

Loewen, S. & Philp, J. (2006). Recasts in the adult English L2 classroom: Characteristics, explicitness, and effectiveness. Modern Language Journal, 90(4), 536–556.Google Scholar

Long, M. B. (1977). Teacher feedback on learner error: mapping cognitions. In Brown, B. D., Yorio, C. A. & Crymes, R. H. (eds.), Qn TESOL ’77 Teaching and learning English as a second language: Trends in research and practice (pp. 278–293). Washington, DC: TESOL.Google Scholar

Long, M. (1996). The role of the linguistic environment in second language acquisition. In Ritchie, W. & Bhatia, T. (eds.), Handbook of second language acquisition (pp. 469–506). San Diego: Academic Press.Google Scholar

Long, M. (2007). Problems in SLA. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.Google Scholar

Long, M. (2015). Second language acquisition and task-based teaching. Malden, MA: Wiley-Blackwell.Google Scholar

Lyster, R. (1998). Recasts, repetition and ambiguity in L2 classroom discourse. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 20(1), 51–81.Google Scholar

Lyster, R. (2004). Differential effects of prompts and recasts in form-focused instruction. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 26(3), 399–432.Google Scholar

Lyster, R. & Ranta, L. (1997). Corrective feedback and learner uptake. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 19(1), 37–66.Google Scholar

Lyster, R. & Ranta, L. (2013). Counterpoint piece: The case for variety in corrective feedback research. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 35(1), 167–184.Google Scholar

Lyster, R. & Saito, K. (2010). Oral feedback in classroom SLA. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 32 (Special issue 2), 265–302.Google Scholar

Lyster, R., Saito, K. & Sato, M. (2013). Oral corrective feedback in second language classrooms. Language Teaching, 46(1), 1–40.Google Scholar

Mackey, A. (2006). Feedback, noticing and instructed second language learning. Applied Linguistics, 27, 405–430.Google Scholar

Mackey, A. & Goo, J. M. (2007). Interaction research in SLA: A meta-analysis and research synthesis. In Mackey, A. (ed.), Input, interaction and corrective feedback in L2 learning (pp. 379–452). Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar

Muranoi, H. (2000). Focus on form through interaction enhancement: integrating formal instruction into a communicative task in EFL classrooms. Language Learning, 50(4), 617–673.Google Scholar

Nakatsukasa, K. (2016). Efficacy of requests and gestures on the acquisition of locative prepositions. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 38(4), 771–799.Google Scholar

Nassaji, H. (2009). Effects of recasts and elicitations in dyadic interaction and the role of feedback explicitness. Language Learning, 59(2), 411–452.Google Scholar

Nassaji, H. (2017). The effectiveness of extensive versus intensive recasts for L2 learning of grammar. Modern Language Review, 101(2), 353–368.Google Scholar

Plonsky, L. & Brown, D. (2015). Domain definition and search techniques in meta-analyses of L2 research (Or why 18 meta-analyses of feedback have different results). Second Language Research, 31(2), 267–278.Google Scholar

Poehner, M. (2008). Dynamic assessment: A Vygotskian approach to understanding and promoting L2 development. Berlin: Springer.Google Scholar

Poehner, M. & Lantolf, J. (2005). Dynamic assessment in the language classroom. Language Teaching Research, 9(3), 233–265.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Quinn, P. & Nakata, T. (2017). The timing of oral corrective feedback. In Nassaji, H. & Kartchava, E. (eds.), Corrective feedback in second language teaching and learning: Research, theory, applications, implications (pp. 35–47). Abingdon: Routledge.Google Scholar

Rassaei, E. (2014). Scaffolded feedback, recasts, and L2 development: A sociocultural perspective. Modern Language Journal, 98(1), 417–431.Google Scholar

Sanz, C. (2003). Computer delivered implicit vs. explicit feedback in processing instruction. In VanPatten, B. (ed.), Processing instruction: Theory, research, and commentary (pp. 241–256). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.Google Scholar

Schmidt, R. (2001). Attention. In Robinson, P. (ed.), Cognition and second language instruction (pp. 3–32). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar

Sheen, Y. (2004). Corrective feedback and learner uptake in communicative classrooms across instructional settings. Language Teaching Research, 8(3), 263–300.Google Scholar

Sheen, Y. (2006). Exploring the relationship between characteristics of recasts and learner uptake. Language Teaching Research, 10(4), 361–392.Google Scholar

Sheen, Y. (2007). The effects of corrective feedback, language aptitude, and learner attitudes on the acquisition of English articles. In Mackey, A. (ed.), Conversational interaction in second language acquisition (pp. 301–322). Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar

Sheen, Y. and Ellis, R. (2011). Corrective feedback in language teaching. In Hinkel, E. (ed.), Handbook of research in second language teaching and learning(2nd ed., pp. 593–610). New York: Routledge.Google Scholar

Simard, D. & Jean, G. (2011). An exploration of L2 teacher’s use of pedagogical interventions devised to draw learners’ attention to form. Language Learning, 61(3), 759–785.Google Scholar

Swain, M. (1995). Three functions of output in second language learning. In Cook, G. and Seidlhofer, B. (eds.), Principle and practice in applied linguistics: Studies in honour of H. G. Widdowson (pp. 125–144). Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar

Ur, P. (1996). A course in language teaching: Practice and theory. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar

Varnosfadrani, A. & Basturkmen, H. (2009). The effectiveness of implicit and explicit error correction on learners’ performance. System, 37(1), 82–98.Google Scholar

Wang, W. & Loewen, S. (2016). Non-verbal behaviour and corrective feedback in nine ESL university-level classrooms. Language Teaching Research, 20(4), 459–478.Google Scholar

Woodrow, L. (2006). Anxiety and speaking English as a second language. RELC Journal, 37(3), 308–328.Google Scholar

Yilmaz, Y. (2013a). The relative effectiveness of mixed, explicit and implicit feedback in the acquisition of English articles. System, 41(3), 691–705.Google Scholar

Yilmaz, Y. (2013b). Relative effects of explicit and implicit feedback: The role of working memory capacity and language analytic ability. Applied Linguistics, 34(3), 344–368.Google Scholar

Yilmaz, Y. (2016). The role of exposure condition in the effectiveness of explicit correction. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 38(1), 65–96.Google Scholar

Yoshida, R. (2010). How do teachers and learners perceive corrective feedback in the Japanese language classroom? Modern Language Journal, 94(2), 293–314.Google Scholar