Abrams, Z. I. (2003). The effect of synchronous and asynchronous CMC on oral performance in German. The Modern Language Journal, 87(2), 157–167.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Allwright, D. (1984). Why don’t learners learn what teachers teach? The interaction hypothesis. In Singleton, D. & Little, D. (eds.), Language learning in formal and informal contexts (pp. 3–18). Dublin: IRAAL.Google Scholar

Allwright, D. (1987). Classroom observation: Problems and possibilities. In Das, B. K. (ed.), Patterns of classroom interaction in Southeast Asia (pp. 88–102). Singapore: SEAMEO Regional Language Center.Google Scholar

Bailey, E. G. & Marsden, E. (2017). Teachers’ views on recognizing and using home languages in predominantly monolingual primary schools. Language and Education, 31(4), 283–306.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Bigelow, M., Delmas, R., Hansen, K. & Tarone, E. (2006). Literacy and the processing of oral recasts in SLA. TESOL Quarterly, 40(4), 665–689.Google Scholar

Blake, R. (2000). Computer mediated communication: A window on L2 Spanish interlanguage. Language Learning & Technology, 4(1), 120–136.Google Scholar

Bryfonski, L. & Sanz, C. (2018). Opportunities for corrective feedback during study abroad: A mixed methods approach. Annual Review of Applied Linguistics, 38, 1–32.Google Scholar

Chapelle, C. A. (1998). Multimedia CALL: Lessons to be learned from research on instructed SLA. Language Learning & Technology, 2(1), 22–34.Google Scholar

Cobb, M. (2010). Meta-analysis of the effectiveness of task-based interaction in form-focused instruction of adult learners in foreign and second language teaching. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, University of San Francisco.Google Scholar

Creswell, J. W. (2013). Qualitative inquiry and research design: Choosing among five approaches (3rd edn.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.Google Scholar

Delgado, O. & McDougald, J. S. (2013). Developing writing through blogs and peer feedback. Íkala, 18(3), 45–61.Google Scholar

Egi, T. (2004). Verbal reports, noticing, and SLA research. Language Awareness, 13(4), 243–264.Google Scholar

Egi, T. (2007). Recasts, learners’ interpretations, and L2 development. In Mackey, A. (ed.), Conversational interaction in second language acquisition: A series of empirical studies (pp. 249–267). Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar

Egi, T. (2010). Uptake, modified output, and learner perceptions of recasts: learner responses as language awareness. Modern Language Journal, 94(1), 1–22.Google Scholar

Ellis, R. (2003). Task-based language learning and teaching. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar

Ellis, R. (2004). The definition and measurement of L2 explicit knowledge. Language Learning, 54(2), 227–275.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Ellis, R. (2005). Measuring implicit and explicit knowledge of a second language: A psychometric study. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 27(2), 141–172.Google Scholar

Ellis, R. & Barkhuizen, G. P. (2005). Analyzing learner language. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar

Ellis, R. & He, X. (1999). The roles of modified input and output in the incidental acquisition of word meanings. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 21(2), 285–301.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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Gass, S. M. (1979). Language transfer and universal grammatical relations. Language Learning, 29, 327–344.Google Scholar

Gass, S. M. (1982). From theory to practice. In Hines, M. & Rutherford, W. (eds.), On TESOL ’81 (pp. 129–139). Washington, DC: TESOL.Google Scholar

Gass, S. M. & Mackey, A. (2017). Stimulated recall methodology in applied linguistics and L2 research. New York: Routledge.Google Scholar

Gass, S., Mackey, A. & Ross-Feldman, L. (2005). Task-based interactions in classroom and laboratory settings. Language Learning, 55(4), 575–611.Google Scholar

Grgurović, M., Chapelle, C. A. & Shelley, M. C. (2013). A meta-analysis of effectiveness studies on computer technology-supported language learning. ReCALL, 25(2), 165–198.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Guilloteaux, M. & Dörnyei, Z. (2008). Motivating language learners: A classroom-oriented investigation of the effects of motivational strategies on student motivation. TESOL Quarterly, 42(1), 55–77.Google Scholar

Hall, A. & Rist, R. (1999). Integrating multiple qualitative research methods (or avoiding the precariousness of a one-legged stool). Psychology and Marketing, 16(4), 291–304.3.0.CO;2-#>CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Iwashita, N. (2003). Negative feedback and positive evidence in task-based interaction: Differential effects on L2 development. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 25(1), 1–36.Google Scholar

Jones, F. (1992). A language-teaching machine: Input, uptake, and output in the communicative classroom. System, 20(2), 133–150.Google Scholar

Kitade, K. (2006). The negotiation model in asynchronous computer-mediated communication (CMC): Negotiation in task-based email exchanges. CALICO Journal, 23(2), 319.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Lai, C. & Li, G. (2011). Technology and task-based language teaching: A critical review. CALICO Journal, 28(2), 498–521.Google Scholar

Leow, R. P. (1997). Attention, awareness, and foreign language behavior. Language Learning, 47(3), 467–505.Google Scholar

Leow, R. P., Grey, S., Marijuan, S. & Moorman, C. (2014). Concurrent data elicitation procedures, processes, and the early stages of L2 learning: A critical overview. Second Language Research, 30(2), 111–127.Google Scholar

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

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

Loewen, S. & Erlam, R. (2006). Corrective feedback in the chatroom: An experimental study. Computer Assisted Language Learning, 19(1), 1–14.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Loewen, S. & Wolff, D. (2016). Peer interaction in F2F and CMC contexts. In Sato, M. & Ballinger, S. (eds.), Peer interaction and second language learning: Pedagogical potential and research agenda (pp. 163–184). Philadelphia: John Benjamins.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. 413–468). San Diego, CA: Academic Press.Google Scholar

Lyster, R. & Izquierdo, J. (2009). Prompts versus recasts in dyadic interaction. Language Learning, 59(2), 453–498.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Mackey, A. (1999). Input, interaction, and second language development: An empirical study of question formation in ESL. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 21(4), 557–587.Google Scholar

Mackey, A. (2006). Feedback, noticing and instructed second language learning. Applied Linguistics, 27(3), 405–430.Google Scholar

Mackey, A., Abbuhl, R. & Gass, S. M. (2013). Interactionist Approach. In Gass, S. M. & Mackey, A. (eds.), The Routledge handbook of second language acquisition (pp. 7–23). New York: Routledge.Google Scholar

Mackey, A., Al-Khalil, M., Atanassova, G., Hama, M., Logan-Terry, A. & Nakatsukasa, K. (2007). Teachers’ intentions and learners’ perceptions about corrective feedback in the L2 classroom. Innovations in Language Learning and Teaching, 1(1), 129–152.Google Scholar

Mackey, A. & Gass, S. M. (2015). Second language research: Methodology and design (2nd edn.). London: Routledge.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., McDonough, K., Fujii, A. & Tatsumi, T. (2001). Investigating learners’ reports about the L2 classroom. International Review of Applied Linguistics in Language Teaching, 39(4), 285–308.Google Scholar

Mackey, A. & Oliver, R. (2002). Interactional feedback and children’s L2 development. System, 30(4), 459–477.Google Scholar

Mackey, A., Philp, J., Egi, T., Fujii, A. & Tatsumi, T. (2002). Individual differences in working memory, noticing of interactional feedback and L2 development. In Robinson, P. (ed.), Individual differences and instructional language learning (pp. 181–209). Philadelphia: John Benjamins.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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

McDonough, K. (2006). Interaction and syntactic priming: English L2 speakers’ production of dative constructions. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 28(2), 179–207.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

McDonough, K. & Mackey, A. (2008). Syntactic priming and ESL question development. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 30(1), 31–47.Google Scholar

Nabei, T. (2013). Learner uptake reports on an EFL reading class in Japan. Gaikokugo Kyouiku Fouramu (Foreign Language Education Forum), 12, 47–62.Google Scholar

Nakatsukasa, K. (2016). Efficacy of recasts 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. (2011). Immediate learner repair and its relationship with learning targeted forms in dyadic interaction. System, 39(1), 17–29.Google Scholar

Palmeira, W. K. (1995). A study of uptake by learners of Hawaiian. In Schmidt, R. (ed.), Attention and awareness in foreign language learning (pp. 127–161). Honolulu: University of Hawaii.Google Scholar

Parlak, Ö. & Ziegler, N. (2017). The impact of recasts on the development of primary stress in a synchronous computer-mediated environment. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 39(2), 257–285.Google Scholar

Payant, C. & Kim, Y. (2015). Language mediation in an L3 classroom: The role of task modalities and task types. Foreign Language Annals, 48(4), 706–729.Google Scholar

Philp, J. (2003). Constraints on “noticing the gap”: Nonnative speakers’ noticing of recasts in NS–NNS interaction. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 25(1), 99–126.Google Scholar

Plonsky, L. & Ziegler, N. (2016). The CALL–SLA interface: Insights from a second-order synthesis. Language Learning & Technology, 20(2), 17–37.Google Scholar

Rebuschat, P. (2013). Measuring implicit and explicit knowledge in second language research. Language Learning, 63(3), 595–626.Google Scholar

Rebuschat, P. & Williams, J. N. (2012). Implicit and explicit knowledge in second language acquisition. Applied Psycholinguistics, 33(4), 829–856.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Sachs, R. & Polio, C. (2007). Learners’ uses of two types of written feedback on a L2 writing revision task. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 29(1), 67–100.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.Google Scholar

Sauro, S. (2009). Computer-mediated corrective feedback and the development of L2 grammar. Language Learning & Technology, 13(1), 96–120.Google Scholar

Sauro, S. & Smith, B. (2010). Investigating L2 performance in text chat. Applied Linguistics, 31(4), 554–577.Google Scholar

Slimani, A. (1989). The role of topicalization in classroom language learning. System, 17, 223–234.Google Scholar

Slimani, A. (1992). Evaluation of classroom interaction. In Alderson, J. C. & Beretta, A. (eds.), Evaluating Second Language Education (pp. 197–221). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar

Smith, B. (2003). Computer-mediated negotiated interaction: An expanded model. The Modern Language Journal, 87(1), 38–57.Google Scholar

Smith, B. (2008). Methodological hurdles in capturing CMC data: The case of the missing self-repair. Language Learning & Technology, 12(1), 85–103.Google Scholar

Smith, B. (2010) Employing eye-tracking technology in researching the effectiveness of recasts in CMC. In Hult, F. M. (ed.), Directions and prospects for educational linguistics (pp. 79–97). Dordrecht: Springer.Google Scholar

Stefanou, C. & Révész, A. (2015). Direct written corrective feedback, learner differences, and the acquisition of second language article use for generic and specific plural reference. Modern Language Journal, 99(2), 263–282.Google Scholar

Swain, M. & Lapkin, S. (2001). Focus on form through collaborative dialogue: Exploring task effects. In Bygate, M., Skehan, P. & Swain, M. (eds.), Researching pedagogic tasks: Second language learning, teaching and testing (pp. 99–118). Harlow: Pearson Education.Google Scholar

Winke, P. M., Godfroid, A. & Gass, S. M. (2013). Introduction to the special issue. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 35(2), 205–212.Google Scholar

Yanguas, Í. (2010). Oral computer-mediated interaction between L2 learners: It’s about time! Language Learning & Technology, 14(3), 72–93.Google Scholar

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

Yilmaz, Y., & Sağdıç, A. (2019). The interaction between inhibitory control and corrective feedback timing. ITL-International Journal of Applied Linguistics, 170(2), 205–228.Google Scholar

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

Ziegler, N. (2016). Taking technology to task: Technology-mediated TBLT, performance, and production. Annual Review of Applied Linguistics, 36, 136–163.Google Scholar

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

Eckerth, J. (2009). Negotiated interaction in the L2 classroom. Language Teaching, 42(1), 109–130.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

Foster, P. (1998). A classroom perspective on the negotiation of meaning. Applied Linguistics, 19(1), 1–23.Google Scholar

Gass, S., & Mackey, A. (2020). In VanPatten, W., Keating, G., & Wulff, S. Theories of second language acquisition: An introduction (3rd ed.) (pp. 192–222). New York: Routledge.Google Scholar

Gass, S. M. & Mackey, A. (2007). Data elicitation for second and foreign language research. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.Google Scholar

Gass, S. M. & Mackey, A. (2016). Second language research: Methodology and design. New York: Routledge.Google Scholar

Gass, S. M. & Mackey, A. (2020). Input, interaction, and output in second language acquisition. In VanPatten, B., Keating, G. & Wulff, S. (eds.), Theories in second language acquisition: An Introduction (3rd ed., pp. 192‒222). New York: Routledge.Google Scholar

Gass, S., Mackey, A. & Ross-Feldman, L. (2005). Task-based interactions in classroom and laboratory settings. Language Learning, 55(4), 575–611.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Gass, S., Mackey, A. & Ross-Feldman, L. (2011). Task-based interactions in classroom and laboratory settings. Language Learning, 61(S1), 189–220.Google Scholar

Gass, S. & Plough, I. (1993). Interlocutor and task familiarity: Effects on interactional structure. In Gass, S. & Crookes, G. (eds.), Tasks and language learning: Integrating theory and practice (pp. 35–56). Clevedon: Multilingual Matters.Google Scholar

Hartwick, P. (2018). Investigating research approaches: Classroom-based interaction studies in physical and virtual contexts. ReCALL, 30(2), 161–176.Google Scholar

Lee, A. H. & Lyster, R. (2017). Can corrective feedback on second language speech perception errors affect production accuracy? Applied Psycholinguistics, 38(2), 371–393.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. & Nabei, T. (2007). The effect of oral corrective feedback on implicit and explicit L2 knowledge. In Mackey, A. (ed.), Conversational interaction and second language acquisition: A series of empirical studies (pp. 361–378). Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar

Loewen, S. & Philp, J. (2012). Instructed second language acquisition. In Mackey, A. & Gass, S. M. (eds.), Research methods in second language acquisition: A practical guide (pp. 53–73). Malden, MA: Wiley-Blackwell.Google Scholar

Loewen, S. & Sato, M. (2018). State-of-the-art article: Interaction and instructed second language acquisition. Language Teaching, 51(3), 285–329.Google Scholar

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

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

Mackey, A. (1999). Input, interaction, and second language development: An empirical study of question formation in ESL. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 21(4), 557–587.Google Scholar

Mackey, A. (2012). Input, interaction, and corrective feedback in L2 learning. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar

Mackey, A. (2017). Classroom-based research. In Loewen, S. & Sato, M. (eds.), The Routledge handbook of instructed second language acquisition (pp. 541–561). New York: Routledge.Google Scholar

Mackey, A., Fujii, A., Biesenbach-Lucas, S., Weger, H., Jacobsen, N., Fogle, L., Lake, J., Sondermann, K., Tagarelli, K., Tsujita, M., Watanabe, A., Abbuhl, R. & Kim, K. (2013). Tasks and traditional practice activities in a foreign language context. In McDonough, K. & Mackey, A. (eds.), Second language interaction in diverse educational contexts (pp. 71–87). Philadelphia: John Benjamins.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. 407–449). Oxford: Oxford University Press.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

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. & Ortega, L. (eds.), Synthesizing research on language learning and teaching (pp. 133–164). Philadelphia: 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. DOI: 10.1111/lang.12283.Google Scholar

Schmidt, R. (1995). Attention and awareness in foreign language learning. Honolulu: University of Hawai’i Press.Google Scholar

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

Swain, M. & Lapkin, S. (2000). Task-based second language learning: The uses of the first language. Language Teaching Research, 4(3), 251–274.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Williams, J. (2012). Classroom research. In Gass, S. M. & Mackey, A. (eds.), The Routledge handbook of second language acquisition (pp. 541–554). New York: Routledge.Google Scholar

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

Allwright, R. L. (1975). Problems in the study of the language teacher’s treatment of learner error. In Burt, and Dulay, (eds.), 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Ball, S. J., Maguire, M., Braun, A. & Hoskins, K. (2011). Policy actors: Doing policy work in schools. Discourse: Studies in the Cultural Politics of Education, 32(4), 625–639.Google Scholar

Bastone, R. (2002). Contexts of engagement: A discourse perspective on “intake” and “pushed output.” System, 30, 1–14.Google Scholar

Bitchener, J. & Knoch, U. (2008). The value of written corrective feedback for migrant and international students. Language Teaching Research 12(3), 409–431.Google Scholar

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

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

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

Fazio, L. L. (2001). The effect of corrections and commentaries on the journal writing accuracy of minority- and majority language students. Journal of Second Language Writing, 10(4), 235–249.Google Scholar

Ferris, D. R. (1999). The case for grammar correction in L2 writing classes: A response to Truscott (1996). Journal of Second Language Writing, 8(1), 1–11.Google Scholar

Ferris, D. (2009) Teaching college writing to diverse student populations. Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press.Google Scholar

Ferris, D. (2012). Written corrective feedback in second language acquisition and writing studies. Language Teaching, 45(4), 446–459.Google Scholar

Foster, P. (1998). A classroom perspective on the negotiation of meaning. Applied Linguistics, 19(1), 1–23.Google Scholar

Hedgcock, J. & Lefkowitz, N. (1994). Feedback on feedback: Assessing learner receptivity to teacher response to L2 composing. Journal of Second Language Writing, 3(2), 141–163.Google Scholar

Hulstijn, J. (1997). Second language acquisition research in the laboratory. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 19(2), 131–143.Google Scholar

Lee, E. J. (2013). Corrective feedback preferences and learner repair among advanced ESL students. System, 41, 217–230.Google Scholar

Lee, I. (2008). Understanding teachers’ written feedback practices in Hong Kong secondary classrooms. Journal of Second Language Writing, 17(2), 69–85.Google Scholar

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

Lightbown, P. (2000). Anniversary article. Classroom SLA research and second language teaching. Applied Linguistics, 21(4), 431–462.Google Scholar

Llinares, A. & Lyster, R. (2014). The influence of context on patterns of corrective feedback and learner uptake: A comparison of CLIL and immersion classrooms. The Language Learning Journal, 42(2), 181–194.Google Scholar

Lochtman, K. (2002). Oral corrective feedback in the foreign language classroom: How it affects interaction in analytic foreign language teaching. International Journal of Educational Research, 37(3–4), 271–283.Google Scholar

Lyster, R. & Mori, H. (2006). Interactional feedback and instructional counterbalance. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 28(2), 269–300.Google Scholar

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

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

Mackey, A. & Gass, S. M. (2005). Second language research: Methodology and design. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.Google Scholar

Monteiro, K. (2014). An experimental study of corrective feedback during video-conferencing. Language Learning & Technology, 18(3), 56–79.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

Nicholas, N., Lightbown, P. & Spada, N. (2001). Recasts as feedback to language learners. Language Learning, 51(4), 719–758.Google Scholar

Oliver, R. & Mackey, A. (2003). Interactional context and feedback in child ESL contexts. Modern Language Journal, 87(4), 519–532.Google Scholar

Panova, I. & Lyster, R. (2002). Patterns of corrective feedback and uptake in an adult ESL classroom. TESOL Quarterly, 36(4), 573–595.Google Scholar

Park, E. S., Song, S. & Shin, Y. K. (2016). To what extent do learners benefit from indirect written corrective feedback? A study targeting learners of different proficiency and heritage language status. Language Teaching Research, 20(6), 678–699.Google Scholar

Pica, T. (2002). Subject-matter content: How does it assist the interactional and linguistic needs of classroom language learners? Modern Language Journal, 86(i), 1–19.Google Scholar

Rassaei, E. (2017). Video chat vs. face-to-face recasts, learners’ interpretations and L2 development: A case of Persian EFL learners. Computer Assisted Language Learning. 30(1–2), 133–148.Google Scholar

Sauro, S. (2009). Computer-mediated corrective feedback and the development of L2 grammar. Language Learning and Technology, 13(1), 96–120.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. (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

Spada, N. (2005). Conditions and challenges in developing school-based SLA research programs. Modern Language Journal, 89(3), 328–338.Google Scholar

Spada, N. & Lightbown, P. M. (1993). Instruction and the development of questions in L2 classrooms. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 15(2), 205–224.Google Scholar

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

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

Tsang, W. K. (2004). Feedback and uptake in teacher-student interaction: An analysis of 18 English lessons in Hong Kong secondary classrooms. RELC Journal, 35(2), 187–209.Google Scholar

Zhang, Z. (2017). Student engagement with computer-generated feedback: A case study. ELT Journal, 71(3), 317–328.Google Scholar

Biber, D., Nekrasova, T. & Horn, B. (2011). The effectiveness of feedback for L1-English and L2-writing development: A meta-analysis. TOEFL iBT Re-search Report No. TOEFLiBT-14. Princeton, NJ: Educational Testing Service.Google Scholar

Bitchener, J., Young, S. & Cameron, D. (2005). The effect of different types of corrective feedback on ESL student writing. Journal of Second Language Writing, 14(3), 191–205.Google Scholar

Borenstein, M., Hedges, L. V., Higgins, J. P. T. & Rothstein, H. R. (2009). Introduction to Meta-analysis. Chichester: Wiley.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. (2010). Another reply to Truscott on error correction: Improved situated designs over statistics. System, 38, 491–498. DOI:10.1016/j.system.2010.07.001.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

Chen, T. (2016). Technology-supported peer feedback in ESL/EFL writing classes: A research synthesis. Computer Assisted Language Learning, 29(2), 365–397.Google Scholar

Chen, T. & Lin, H. (2012, March). Effects of peer feedback on EFL/ESL writing improvement: A meta-analysis. Paper presented at the Georgetown University Roundtable on Linguistics and Languages (GURT), Georgetown University, Washington, DC.Google Scholar

Cobb, M. (2010). Meta-analysis of the effectiveness of task-based interaction in form-focused instruction of adult learners in foreign and second language teaching. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, University of San Francisco.Google Scholar

Cooper, H. (2010). Research Synthesis and Meta-analysis: A Step-by-Step Approach (4th edn.). Los Angeles: Sage.Google Scholar

Cooper, H., Hedges, L. V. & Valentine, J. C. (eds.). (2009). The handbook of research synthesis and meta-analysis (2nd ed.), New York: Russell Sage Foundations.Google Scholar

Derrick, D. J. (2016). Instrument reporting practices in second language research. TESOL Quarterly, 50, 132–153. DOI:10.1002/tesq.217.Google Scholar

Duppenthale, P. (2002). Feedback and Japanese high school English language journal writing. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Temple University.Google Scholar

Ferris, D. R. (1999). The case for grammar correction in L2 writing classes: A response to Truscott (1996). Journal of Second Language Writing, 8(1), 1–11.Google Scholar

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

Hendrickson, J. M. (1977). The effects of error correction treatments upon adequate and accurate communication in the written compositions of adult learners of English as a second language. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Ohio State University.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

Kao, C. W. & Wible, D. (2011). The distinction between focused and unfocused grammar feedback matters: A meta-analysis. Paper presented at the Second Language Research Forum, Ames, IA, October.Google Scholar

Keck, C. M., Iberri-Shea, G., Tracy-Ventura, N. & Wa-Mbaleka, S. (2006). Investigating the empirical link between task-based interaction and acquisition: A meta-analysis. In J. M. Norris and L. Ortega (eds.), Synthesizing research on language learning and teaching (pp. 91–131). Philadelphia: John Benjamins.Google Scholar

Lee, J., Jang, J. & Plonsky, L. (2015). The effectiveness of second language pronunciation instruction: A meta-analysis. Applied Linguistics, 36(3), 345–366.Google Scholar

Li, S. (2010). The effectiveness of corrective feedback in SLA: A meta-analysis. Language Learning, 60(2), 309–365. DOI:10.1111/j.1467-9922.2010.00561.x.Google Scholar

Lipsey, M. W. & Wilson, D. B. (2001). Practical meta-analysis. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.Google Scholar

Liu, Q. & Brown, D. (2015). A methodological synthesis of research on the effectiveness of corrective feedback in L2 writing. Journal of Second Language Writing, 30, 66–81.Google Scholar

Lyster, R. & Saito, K. (2010). Oral feedback in classroom SLA: A meta-analysis. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 32(2), 265–302. DOI:10.1017/S0272263109990520.Google Scholar

Mackey, A. & Goo, J. (2007). Interaction research in SLA: A meta-analysis and research synthesis. In A. Mackey, (ed.), Conversational interaction in second language acquisition: A collection of empirical studies (pp. 407–451). New York: Oxford University Press,Google Scholar

Marsden, E., Morgan-Short, K., Thompson, S. & Abugaber, D. (2018). Replication in second language research: Narrative and systematic reviews, and recommendations for the field. Language Learning. Advance online publication. DOI:10.1111/lang.12286.Google Scholar

Marsden, E., Thompson, S. & Plonsky, L. (2018). A methodological synthesis of self-paced reading in second language research. Applied Psycholinguistics. Advance online publication. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0142716418000036.Google Scholar

Miller, P. C. (2003). The effectiveness of corrective feedback: A meta-analysis. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Purdue University, West Lafayette, IN.Google Scholar

Miller, P. C. and Pan, W. (2012). Recasts in the L2 classroom: A meta-analytic review. International Journal of Educational Research, 56, 48–59. doi: 10.1016/j.ijer.2012.07.002.Google Scholar

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

Nicholas, H., Lightbown, P. M. & Spada, N. (2001). Recasts as feedback to language learners. Language Learning, 51(4), 719–758.Google Scholar

Norris, J. M. & Ortega, L. (2000). Effectiveness of L2 instruction: A research synthesis and quantitative meta-analysis. Language Learning, 50(3), 417–528.Google Scholar

Norris, J. M. & Ortega, L. (eds.). (2006). Synthesizing research on language learning and teaching. Philadelphia: John Benjamins.Google Scholar

Norris, J. M. & Ortega, L. (2007). The future of research synthesis in applied linguistics: Beyond art or science. TESOL Quarterly, 41(4), 805–815.Google Scholar

Ortega, L. (2015). Research synthesis. In Paltridge, B. & Phakiti, A. (eds.), Research methods in applied linguistics: A practical resource (pp. 225–244). London: Bloomsbury.Google Scholar

Oswald, F. L. & Plonsky, L. (2010). Meta-analysis in second language research: Choices and challenges. Annual Review of Applied Linguistics, 30, 85–110.Google Scholar

Papaioannou, D., Sutton, A., Carroll, C., Booth, A. & Wong, R. (2009). Literature searching for social science systematic reviews: Consideration of a range of search techniques. Health Information and Libraries Journal, 27, 114–122. DOI: 10.1111/j.1471-1842.2009.00863.x.Google Scholar

Plonsky, L. (2012). Replication, meta-analysis, and generalizability. In Porte, G. (ed.), Replication Research in Applied Linguistics (pp. 116–132). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar

Plonsky, L. (2013). Study quality in SLA: An assessment of designs, analyses, and reporting practices in quantitative L2 research. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 35(4), 655–687.Google Scholar

Plonsky, L. (2014). Study quality in quantitative L2 research (1990–2010): A methodological synthesis and call for reform. Modern Language Journal, 98(1), 450–470.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

Plonsky, L. & Gass, S. (2011). Quantitative research methods, study quality, and outcomes: The case of interaction research. Language Learning, 61(2), 325–366.Google Scholar

Plonsky, L. & Gonulal, T. (2015). Methodological synthesis in quantitative L2 research: A review of reviews and a case study of exploratory factor analysis. Language Learning, 65(Suppl. 1), 9–36.Google Scholar

Plonsky, L. & Kim, Y. (2016). Task-based learner production: A substantive and methodological review. Annual Review of Applied Linguistics, 36, 73–97.Google Scholar

Plonsky, L. & Oswald, F. L. (2012). How to do a meta-analysis. In A. Mackey, , Gass, S. M., Plonsky, L. & Oswald, F. L. (eds.), Research methods in second language acquisition: A practical guide (pp. 275–295). Blackwell Publishing.Google Scholar

Plonsky, L. & Oswald, F. L. (2014). How big is “big”? Interpreting effect sizes in L2 research. Language Learning, 64(4), 878–912.Google Scholar

Poltavtchenko, E. & Johnson, M. D. (2009). Feedback and second language writing: A meta-analysis. Poster session presented at the annual meeting of TESOL, Denver, CO, March.Google Scholar

Porte, G. (ed.). (2012). Replication research in applied linguistics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar

Riazi, M., Shi, L. & Haggerty, J. (2018). Analysis of the empirical research in the journal of second language writing at its 25th year (1992–2016). Journal of Second Language Writing, 41, 41–54.Google Scholar

Rothstein, H. R., Sutton, A. J. & Borenstein, M. (eds.). (2005). Publication bias in meta-analysis: Prevention, assessment and adjustments. Hoboken, NJ: Wiley.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 J. M. Norris, and L. Ortega, (eds.), Synthesizing research on language learning and teaching (pp. 133–164). Philadelphia: John Benjamins.Google Scholar

Sheppard, K. (1992). Two feedback types: Do they make a difference? RELC Journal, 23, 103–110.Google Scholar

Sok, S., Kang, E. Y. & Han, Z. (2018). Thirty-five years of ISLA on form-focused instruction: A methodological synthesis. Language Teaching Research. Advance online publication. DOI:10.1177/1362168818776673.Google Scholar

Storch, N. (2010). Critical feedback on written corrective feedback research. International Journal of English Studies, 10(2), 29–46. DOI:10.6018/ijes/2010/2/119181.Google Scholar

Thirakunkovit, S. P. & Chamcharatsri, P. B. (2019). A meta-analysis of effectiveness of teacher and peer feedback: Implications for writing instructions and research. Asian EFL Journal, 21(1), 140–170.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. DOI:10.1016/j.jslw.2007.06.003.Google Scholar

Yousefi, M. & Nassaji, H. (2018). The effect of computer-mediated vs. face-to-face instruction on L2 pragmatics: A meta-analysis. International Journal of Cognitive and Language Sciences, 12(7), 620–624.Google Scholar

Ziegler, N. (2013). Synchronous computer-mediated communication and interaction: A research synthesis and meta-analysis. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Georgetown University.Google Scholar

Ziegler, N. (2016). Synchronous computer-mediated communication and interaction: A meta-analysis. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 38(3), 553–586.Google Scholar