Hostname: page-component-54dcc4c588-mz6gc Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2025-09-12T19:37:23.031Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

THE CASE AGAINST THE CASE AGAINST RECASTS

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  04 February 2013

Jaemyung Goo  and
Alison Mackey
Jaemyung Goo
Affiliation:
Gwangju National University of Education
Alison Mackey
Affiliation:
Georgetown University
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

In the previous 20 years, more than 60 studies have been carried out within the input and interaction approach to SLA (Long, 2007; Mackey 2012), many of which have found positive associations between different types of recasts and the learning of a range of linguistic forms for a number of different second languages (L2s), in different learning contexts, with adults and with children. However, the following claims also appear: (a) recasts are not effective, (b) recasts are effective only in laboratories and not in classrooms, and (c) other types of feedback are more effective when compared with recasts. We demonstrate important methodological and interpretative problems in the small number of studies on which these negative claims are based, including issues with (a) modified output opportunities, (b) single-versus-multiple comparisons, (c) form-focused instruction, (d) prior knowledge, and (e) out-of-experiment exposure. We conclude by suggesting that making a case against recasts is neither convincing nor useful for advancing the field and that more triangulated approaches to research on all types of corrective feedback, employing varied and rigorous methodological designs, are necessary to further our understanding of the role of corrective feedback in L2 learning.

Information

Type
Articles
Information
Studies in Second Language Acquisition , Volume 35 , Issue 1 , March 2013 , pp. 127 - 165
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 2012 

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

Article purchase

Temporarily unavailable

References

REFERENCES

Ammar, A. (2008). Prompts and recasts: Differential effects on second language morphosyntax. Language Teaching Research, 12, 183–210.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ammar, A., & Spada, N. (2006). One size fits all? Recasts, prompts, and L2 learning. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 28, 543–574.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ayoun, D. (2001). The role of negative and positive feedback in the second language acquisition of the passé composé and imparfait. Modern Language Journal, 85, 226–243.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Baker, N. D., & Nelson, K. E. (1984). Recasting and related conversational techniques for triggering syntactic advances by young children. First Language, 5, 3–22.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bohannon, J. N., & Stanowicz, L. (1988). The issue of negative evidence: Adult responses to children’s language errors. Developmental Psychology, 24, 684–689.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Braidi, S. M. (2002). Reexamining the role of recasts in native-speaker/nonnative-speaker interactions. Language Learning, 52, 1–42.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Carpenter, H., Jeon, K.-S., MacGregor, D., & Mackey, A. (2006). Learners’ interpretations of recasts. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 28, 209–236.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Chapelle, C. (Ed.). (2012). The encyclopedia of applied linguistics. Oxford: Blackwell.Google Scholar
de Graaff, R., & Housen, A. (2009). Investigating the effects and effectiveness of L2 instruction. In Long, M. H. & Doughty, C. J. (Eds.), The handbook of language teaching (pp. 726–755). Oxford: Blackwell.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
DeKeyser, R. M. (2005). What makes learning second-language grammar difficult? A review of issues. Language Learning, 55, 1–25.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dilans, G. (2010). Corrective feedback and L2 vocabulary development: Prompts and recasts in the adult ESL classroom. Canadian Modern Language Review, 66, 787–815.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dörnyei, Z. (2005). The psychology of the language learner: Individual differences in second language acquisition. Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.Google Scholar
Dörnyei, Z. (2009). Psychology of second language acquisition. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Dörnyei, Z., & Skehan, P. (2003). Individual differences in second language learning. In Doughty, C. J. & Long, M. H. (Eds.), The handbook of second language acquisition (pp. 589–630). Malden, MA: Blackwell.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Doughty, C. J. (2001). Cognitive underpinnings of focus on form. In Robinson, P. (Ed.), Cognition and second language instruction (pp. 206–257). New York: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Doughty, C. J., & Varela, E. (1998). Communicative focus on form. In Doughty, C. J. & Williams, J. (Eds.), Focus on form in classroom second language acquisition (pp. 114–138). New York: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Egi, T. (2007a). Interpreting recasts as linguistic evidence: The roles of linguistic target, length, and degree of change. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 29, 511–537.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Egi, T. (2007b). Recasts, learners’ interpretations, and L2 development. In Mackey, A. (Ed.), Conversational interaction in second language acquisition: A collection 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, 1–21.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ellis, R. (2004). Individual differences in second language learning. In Davies, A. & Elder, C. (Eds.), The handbook of applied linguistics (pp. 525–551). Oxford: Blackwell.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ellis, R. (2007). The differential effects of corrective feedback on two grammatical structures. In Mackey, A. (Ed.), Conversational interaction in second language acquisition: A collection of empirical studies (pp. 339–360). Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Ellis, R., Basturkmen, H., & Loewen, S. (2001). Learner uptake in communicative ESL lessons. Language Learning, 51, 281–318.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ellis, R., Loewen, S., & Erlam, R. (2006). Implicit and explicit corrective feedback and the acquisition of L2 grammar. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 28, 339–368.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ellis, R., & Sheen, Y. (2006). Reexamining the role of recasts in second language acquisition. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 28, 575–600.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Erlam, R., & Loewen, S. (2010). Implicit and explicit recasts in L2 oral French interaction. Canadian Modern Language Review, 66, 877–905.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Farrar, M. J. (1992). Negative evidence and grammatical morpheme acquisition. Developmental Psychology, 28, 90–98.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gass, S. M. (1997). Input, interaction, and the second language learner. Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.Google Scholar
Gass, S. M. (2003). Input and interaction. In Doughty, C. J. & Long, M. H. (Eds.), The handbook of second language acquisition (pp. 224–255). Oxford: Blackwell.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gass, S. M., & Mackey, A. (2006). Input, interaction and output: An overview. AILA Review, 19, 3–17.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gass, S. M., & 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. 175–199). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.Google Scholar
Gass, S. M., & Mackey, A. (2012). The Routledge handbook of second language acquisition. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
Goo, J. (2012). Corrective feedback and working memory capacity in interaction-driven L2 learning. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 34, 445–474.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gordon, P. (1990). Learnability and feedback. Developmental Psychology, 26, 217–220.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Grimshaw, J., & Pinker, S. (1989). Positive and negative evidence in language acquisition. Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 12, 341–342.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Han, Z. (2002). A study of the impact of recasts on tense consistency in L2 output. TESOL Quarterly, 36, 543–572.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hinkel, E. (Ed.). (2011). Handbook of research in second language teaching and learning (Vol. 2). London: Routledge.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hulstijn, J. H. (2012). Is the second language acquisition discipline disintegrating? Language Teaching. Advance online publication. doi:10.1017/S0261444811000620.Google Scholar
Ishida, M. (2004). Effects of recasts on the acquisition of the aspectual form -te i-(ru) by learners of Japanese as a foreign language. Language Learning, 54, 311–394.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, 1–36.CrossRefGoogle 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 Norris, J. M. & Ortega, L. (Eds.), Synthesizing research on language learning and teaching (pp. 91–131). Amsterdam: Benjamins.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Krashen, S. (1982). Principles and practice in second language acquisition. Oxford: Pergamon Press.Google Scholar
Krashen, S. (1985). The input hypothesis. London: Longman.Google Scholar
Lai, C., Fei, F., & Roots, R. (2008). The contingency of recasts and noticing. CALICO Journal, 26, 70–90.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Leeman, J. (2003). Recasts and second language development: Beyond negative evidence. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 25, 37–63.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Li, S. (2010). The effectiveness of corrective feedback in SLA: A meta-analysis. Language Learning, 60, 309–365.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Loewen, S. (2009). Recasts in multiple response focus on form episodes. In Mackey, A. & Polio, C. (Eds.), Multiple perspectives on interaction (pp. 176–196). London: Routledge.Google Scholar
Loewen, S., & Erlam, R. (2006). Corrective feedback in the chatroom: An experimental study. Computer Assisted Language Learning, 19, 1–14.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Loewen, S., & Nabei, T. (2007). Measuring the effects of oral corrective feedback on L2 knowledge. In Mackey, A. (Ed.), Conversational interaction in second language acquisition: A collection of empirical studies (pp. 361–377). Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Loewen, S., & Philp, J. (2006). Recasts in the adult English L2 classroom: Characteristics, explicitness, and effectiveness. Modern Language Journal, 90, 536–556.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Long, M. 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
Long, M. H. (2007). Problems in SLA. Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.Google Scholar
Long, M. H., Inagaki, S., & Ortega, L. (1998). The role of implicit negative feedback in SLA: Models and recasts in Japanese and Spanish. Modern Language Journal, 82, 357–371.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Long, M. H., & Robinson, P. (1998). Focus on form: Theory, research, process. In Doughty, C. J. & Williams, J. (Eds.), Focus on form in classroom second language acquisition (pp. 15–41). New York: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Lyster, R. (1998a). Negotiation of form, recasts, and explicit correction in relation to error types and learner repair in immersion classrooms. Language Learning, 48, 183–218.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lyster, R. (1998b). Recasts, repetition, and ambiguity in L2 classroom discourse. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 20, 51–81.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lyster, R. (2004). Differential effects of prompts and recasts in form-focused instruction. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 26, 399–432.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lyster, R., & Izquierdo, J. (2009). Prompts versus recasts in dyadic interaction. Language Learning, 59, 453–498.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lyster, R., & Mori, H. (2006). Interaction feedback and instructional counterbalance. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 28, 269–300.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lyster, R., & Ranta, L. (1997). Corrective feedback and learner uptake. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 19, 37–66.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lyster, R., & Saito, K. (2010). Oral feedback in classroom SLA: A meta-analysis. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 32, 265–302.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Mackey, A. (2007). Interaction as practice. In DeKeyser, R. M. (Ed.), Practice in a second language: Perspectives from applied linguistics and cognitive psychology (pp. 85–110). New York: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Mackey, A. (2012). Input, interaction and corrective feedback in L2 learning. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Mackey, A., Abbuhl, R., & Gass, S. M. (2012). The interaction approach. In Gass, S. M. & Mackey, A. (Eds.), The Routledge handbook of second language acquisition (pp. 7–23). London: Routledge.Google Scholar
Mackey, A., Gass, S. M., & McDonough, K. (2000). How do learners perceive interactional feedback? Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 22, 471–497.CrossRefGoogle 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., & Goo, J. (in press). Interaction approach in second language acquisition. In Chapelle, C. A. (Ed.), The encyclopedia of applied linguistics. Oxford: Blackwell.Google Scholar
Mackey, A., Oliver, R., & Leeman, J. (2003). Interactional input and incorporation of feedback: An exploration of NS-NNS and NNS-NNS adult and child dyads. Language Learning, 53, 35–66.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Mackey, A., & Philp, J. (1998). Conversational interaction and second language development: Recasts, responses, and red herrings? Modern Language Journal, 82, 338–356.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
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 instructed language learning (pp. 181–209). Amsterdam: Benjamins.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
McDonough, K. (2005). Identifying the impact of negative feedback and learners’ responses on ESL question development. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 27, 79–103.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
McDonough, K. (2007). Interactional feedback and the emergence of simple past activity verbs in L2 English. In Mackey, A. (Ed.), Conversational interaction in second language acquisition: A collection of empirical studies (pp. 323–338). Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
McDonough, K., & Mackey, A. (2006). Responses to recasts: Repetitions, primed production, and linguistic development. Language Learning, 56, 693–720.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Morgan, J. L., Bonamo, K. M., & Travis, L. L. (1995). Negative evidence on negative evidence. Developmental Psychology, 31, 180–197.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Nassaji, H. (2009). Effects of recasts and elicitations in dyadic interaction and the role of feedback explicitness. Language Learning, 59, 411–452.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Nicholas, H., Lightbown, P. M., & Spada, N. (2001). Recasts as feedback to language learners. Language Learning, 51, 719–758.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Nobuyoshi, J., & Ellis, R. (1993). Focused communication tasks and second language acquisition. ELT Journal, 47, 203–210.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ohta, A. S. (2000). Rethinking recasts: A learner-centered examination of corrective feedback in the Japanese language classroom. In Hall, J. K. & Verplaeste, L. S. (Eds.), The construction of second and foreign language learning through classroom instruction (pp. 47–71). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.Google Scholar
Oliver, R. (1995). Negative feedback in child NS-NNS conversation. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 17, 459–481.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Oliver, R. (1998). Negotiation of meaning in child interactions. Modern Language Journal, 82, 372–386.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Oliver, R. (2000). Age differences in negotiation and feedback in classroom and pairwork. Language Learning, 50, 119–151.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Oliver, R., & Mackey, A. (2003). Interactional context and feedback in child ESL classrooms. Modern Language Journal, 87, 519–533.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ortega, L., & Long, M. H. (1997). The effects of models and recasts on the acquisition of object topicalization and adverb placement in L2 Spanish. Spanish Applied Linguistics, 1, 65–86.Google Scholar
Panova, I., & Lyster, R. (2002). Patterns of corrective feedback and uptake in an adult ESL classroom. TESOL Quarterly, 36, 573–595.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Petersen, K. A. (2010). Implicit corrective feedback in computer-guided interaction: Does mode matter? (Unpublished doctoral dissertation). Georgetown University, Washington, DC.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, 99–126.CrossRefGoogle 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. 210–224). Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Pica, T. (1994). Research on negotiation: What does it reveal about second-language learning conditions, processes, and outcomes? Language Learning, 44, 493–527.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Pica, T. (1996). Do second language learners need negotiation? International Review of Applied Linguistics in Language Teaching, 34, 1–21.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Pienemann, M., & Johnston, M. (1987). Factors influencing the development of language proficiency. In Nunan, D. (Ed.), Applying second language acquisition research (pp. 45–141). Adelaide, Australia: National Curriculum Resource Centre, AMEP.Google Scholar
Pinker, S. (1989). Learnability and cognition: The acquisition of argument structure. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Révész, A. (2009). Task complexity, focus on form, and second language development. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 31, 437–470.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Révész, A., & Han, Z. (2006). Task content familiarity, task type, and efficacy of recasts. Language Awareness, 15, 160–179.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Révész, A., Sachs, R., & Mackey, A. (2011). Task complexity, uptake of recasts, and second language development. In Robinson, P. (Ed.), Second language task complexity: Researching the cognition hypothesis of language learning and performance (pp. 203–235). Amsterdam: Benjamins.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Robinson, P. (Ed.). (2002). Individual differences and instructed language learning. Amsterdam: Benjamins.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Robinson, P. (2005). Aptitude and second language acquisition. Annual Review of Applied Linguistics, 25, 46–73.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Robinson, P. (2007). Aptitudes, abilities, contexts, and practice. In DeKeyser, R. M. (Ed.), Practice in a second language: Perspectives from applied linguistics and cognitive psychology (pp. 256–286). New York: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Robinson, P., Mackey, A., Gass, S. M., & Schmidt, R. (2012). Attention and awareness in second language acquisition. In Gass, S. M. & Mackey, A. (Eds.), The Routledge handbook of second language acquisition (pp. 247–267). London: Routledge.Google Scholar
Romanova, N. (2010). Planning, recasts, and learning of L2 morphology. Canadian Modern Language Review, 66, 843–875.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ross-Feldman, L. (2007). Interaction in the L2 classroom: Does gender influence learning opportunities? In Mackey, A. (Ed.), Conversational interaction in second language acquisition: A collection of empirical studies (pp. 53–77). Oxford: Oxford University Press.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). Amsterdam: Benjamins.Google Scholar
Sachs, R., & Suh, B.-R. (2007). Textually enhanced recasts, learner awareness, and L2 outcomes in synchronous computer-mediated interaction. In Mackey, A. (Ed.), Conversational interaction in second language acquisition: A collection of empirical studies (pp. 197–227). Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Sagarra, N. (2007). From CALL to face-to-face interaction: The effect of computer-delivered recasts and working memory on L2 development. In Mackey, A. (Ed.), Conversational interaction in second language acquisition: A collection of empirical studies (pp. 229–248). Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Saito, K., & Lyster, R. (2012). Effects of form-focused instruction and corrective feedback on L2 pronunciation development of /ɹ/ by Japanese learners of English. Language Learning, 62, 595–633.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
Sauro, S. (2009). Computer-mediated corrective feedback and the development of L2 grammar. Language Learning and Technology, 13, 96–120.Google Scholar
Sawyer, M., & Ranta, L. (2001). Aptitude, individual differences, and instructional design. In Robinson, P. (Ed.), Cognition and second language instruction (pp. 319–353). New York: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Saxton, M. (1997). The contrast theory of negative input. Journal of Child Language, 24, 139–161.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Saxton, M., Backley, P., & Gallaway, C. (2005). Negative input for grammatical errors: Effects after a lag of 12 weeks. Journal of Child Language, 32, 643–672.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Saxton, M., Kulcsar, B., Marshall, G., & Rupra, M. (1998). Longer-term effects of corrective input: An experimental approach. Journal of Child Language, 25, 701–721.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Schmidt, R. (1990). The role of consciousness in second language learning. Applied Linguistics, 11, 129–158.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Schmidt, R. (1993). Consciousness, learning, and interlanguage pragmatics. In Kasper, G. & Blum-Kulka, S. (Eds.), Interlanguage pragmatics (pp. 21–42). Oxford: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Schmidt, R. (1995). Consciousness and foreign language learning: A tutorial on the role of attention and awareness in learning. In Schmidt, R. (Ed.), Attention and awareness in foreign language learning (pp. 1–63). Honolulu: University of Hawai‘i Press.Google Scholar
Schmidt, R. (2001). Attention. In Robinson, P. (Ed.), Cognition and second language instruction (pp. 3–32). New York: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Schmidt, R., & Frota, S. (1986). Developing basic conversational ability in a second language: A case study of an adult learner of Portuguese. In Day, R. (Ed.), Talking to learn: Conversation in second language acquisition (pp. 237–322). Rowley, MA: Newbury House.Google Scholar
Sheen, Y. (2004). Corrective feedback and learner uptake in communicative classrooms across instructional settings. Language Teaching Research, 8, 263–300.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sheen, Y. (2006). Exploring the relationship between characteristics of recasts and learner uptake. Language Teaching Research, 10, 361–392.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sheen, Y. (2007a). The effect of focused written corrective feedback and language aptitude on ESL learners’ acquisition of articles. TESOL Quarterly, 41, 255–283.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sheen, Y. (2007b). The effects of corrective feedback, language aptitude, and learner attitudes on the acquisition of English articles. In Mackey, A. (Ed.), Conversational interaction in second language acquisition: A collection of empirical studies (pp. 301–322). Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Sheen, Y. (2008). Recasts, language anxiety, modified output, and L2 learning. Language Learning, 58, 835–874.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sheen, Y. (2010). Differential effects of oral and written corrective feedback in the ESL classroom. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 32, 203–234.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Shintani, N., & Ellis, R. (2010). The incidental acquisition of English plural – s by Japanese children in comprehension-based and production-based lessons: A process-product study. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 32, 607–637.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Skehan, P. (2002). Theorising and updating aptitude. In Robinson, P. (Ed.), Individual differences and instructed language learning (pp. 69–93). Amsterdam: Benjamins.CrossRefGoogle 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). New York: Springer Verlag.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Smith, B., & Renaud, C. (in press). Eyetracking and classroom interaction. In McDonough, K. & Mackey, A. (Eds.), New perspectives on classroom interaction in second language research. Amsterdam: Benjamins.Google Scholar
Spada, N. (2011). Beyond form-focused instruction: Reflections on past, present and future research. Language Teaching, 44, 225–236.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Spada, N., & Lightbown, P. M. (2008). Form-focused instruction: Isolated or integrated? TESOL Quarterly, 42, 181–207.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Spada, N., & Lightbown, P. M. (2009). Interaction research in second/foreign language classrooms. In Mackey, A. & Polio, C. (Eds.), Multiple perspectives on interaction (pp. 157–175). London: Routledge.Google Scholar
Swain, M. (1985). Communicative competence: Some roles of comprehensible input and comprehensible output in its development. In Gass, S. M. & Madden, C. (Eds.), Input in second language acquisition (pp. 235–253). Rowley, MA: Newbury House.Google Scholar
Swain, M. (1993). The output hypothesis: Just speaking and writing aren’t enough. Canadian Modern Language Review, 50, 158–164.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Swain, M. (1995). Three functions of output in second language learning. In Cook, G. & Seidlhofer, B. (Eds.), Principle and practice in applied linguistics: Studies in honour of H. G. Widdowson (pp. 125–144). Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Swain, M. (2005). The output hypothesis: Theory and research. In Hinkel, E. (Ed.), Handbook of research in second language teaching and learning (pp. 471–483). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.Google Scholar
Takashima, H., & Ellis, R. (1999). Output enhancement and the acquisition of the past tense. In Ellis, R. (Ed.), Learning a second language through interaction (pp. 173–188). Amsterdam: Benjamins.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Trofimovich, P., Ammar, A., & Gatbonton, E. (2007). How effective are recasts? The role of attention, memory, and analytical ability. In Mackey, A. (Ed.), Conversational interaction in second language acquisition: A collection of empirical studies (pp. 171–195). Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Varnosfadrani, A. D., & Basturkmen, H. (2009). The effectiveness of implicit and explicit error correction on learners’ performance. System, 37, 82–98.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Yang, Y., & Lyster, R. (2010). Effects of form-focused practice and feedback on Chinese EFL learners’ acquisition of regular and irregular past tense forms. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 32, 235–263.CrossRefGoogle Scholar