EFL learners’ corrective feedback decision-making in task-based peer interaction

References

• Adams, R. (2007). Do second language learners benefit from interacting with each other? In A. Mackey (Ed.), Conversational interaction in second language acquisition: A collection of empirical studies (pp. 29–51). Oxford: Oxford University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Brooks, L., & Swain, M. (2009). Languaging in collaborative writing: Creating and response to expertise. In A. Mackey & C. Polio (Eds.), Multiple perspectives on interaction: Second language research in honor of Susan M. Gass (pp. 58–89). New York: Routledge.
   Google Scholar
• de Guerrero, M. C. M., & Villamil, O. S. (2000). Activating the ZPD mutual scaffolding in the L2 peer revision. The Modern Language Journal, 84(1), 51–68. doi:10.1111/0026-7902.00052
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Ellis, R. (2006). Researching the effects of form-focused instruction on L2 acquisition. AILA Review, 19, 18–41. doi:10.1075/aila.19.04ell
   Google Scholar
• Ellis, R. (2009). Corrective feedback and teacher development. L2 Journal, 1(1), 3–18. doi:10.5070/L2.V1I1.9054
   Google Scholar
• Ellis, R. (2017). Task-based language teaching. In S. Lowen & M. Sato (Eds.), The Routledge handbook of instructed second language acquisition (pp. 108–125). New York: Routledge.
   Google Scholar
• Erlam, R., Ellis, R., & Batstone, R. (2013). Oral corrective feedback on L2 writing: Two approaches compared. System, 41(2), 257–268. doi:10.1016/j.system.2013.03.004
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Fujii, A., & Mackey, A. (2009). Interactional feedback in learner-learner interactions in a task-based EFL classroom. International Review of Applied Linguistics in Language Teaching, 47(3–4), 267–301. doi:10.1515/iral.2009.012
   Google Scholar
• Fujii, A., Ziegler, N., & Mackey, A. (2016). Peer interaction and metacognitive instruction in the EFL classroom. In M. Sato & S. Ballinger (Eds.), Peer interaction and second language learning: Pedagogical potential and research agenda (pp. 63–89). Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
   Google Scholar
• Gass, S., & Mackey, A. (2000). Stimulated recall methodology in second language research. Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
   Google Scholar
• Gass, S., & Mackey, M. (2007). Input and interaction, and output in second language acquisition. In B. VanPatten & J. Williams (Eds.), Theories of second language acquisition (pp. 175–199). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
   Google Scholar
• Gurzynski-Weiss, L. (2016). Factors influencing Spanish instructors’ in-class feedback decisions. The Modern Language Journal, 100(1), 255–275. doi:10.1111/modl.12314
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Henderson, K. I., & Palmer, D. K. (2015). Teacher scaffolding and pair work in a bilingual pre-K bilingual classroom. Journal of Immersion and Content-Based Language Education, 3(1), 77–101. doi:10.1075/jicb.3.1.04hen
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Iwashita, N. (2001). The effect of learner proficiency on interactional moves and modified output in nonnative–nonnative interaction in Japanese as a foreign language. System, 29(2), 267–287. doi:10.1016/S0346-251X(01)00015-X
   Google 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. doi:10.1017/S0272263103000019
   Google Scholar
• Kim, Y. (2009). The effects of task complexity on learner–learner interaction. System, 37(2), 254–268. doi:10.1016/j.system.2009.02.003
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Kim, Y. (2012). Task complexity, learning opportunities, and Korean EFL learners’ question development. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 34, 627–658. doi:10.1017/S0272263112000368
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Kim, Y. (2017). Cognitive-interactionist approaches to L2 instruction. In S. Loewen & M. Sato (Eds.), The Routledge handbook of instructed second language acquisition (pp. 126–145). New York: Routledge.
   Google Scholar
• Kowal, M., & Swain, M. (1994). Using collaborative language production tasks to promote students’ language awareness. Language Awareness, 3(2), 73–93. doi:10.1080/09658416.1994.9959845
   Google Scholar
• Lantolf, J. P. (2000). Second language learning as a mediated process. Language Teaching, 33(2), 79–96. doi:10.1017/S0261444800015329
   Google Scholar
• Leeser, M. (2004). Learner proficiency and focus on form during collaborative dialogue. Language Teaching Research, 8(1), 55–81. doi:10.1191/1362168804lr134oa
   Google Scholar
• Levelt, W. (1983). Monitoring and self-repair in speech. Cognition, 14(1), 41–104.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Loewen, S., & Sato, M. (2018). State-of-the-arts article: Interaction and instructed second language acquisition. Language Teaching, 51(3), 285–329. doi:10.1017/S0261444818000125
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Long, M. (1983). Linguistic and conversational adjustments to non-native speakers. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 5(2), 177–193. doi:10.1017/S0272263100004848
   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. doi:10.1111/1467-9922.00039
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Lyster, R., & Mori, H. (2006). Interactional feedback and instructional counterbalance. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 28(2), 269–300. doi:10.1017/S0272263106060128
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Lyster, R., & Ranta, L. (1997). Corrective feedback and learner uptake: Negotiation of form in communicative classrooms. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 19(1), 37–66. doi:10.1017/S0272263197001034
   Google Scholar
• Lyster, R., Saito, K., & Sato, M. (2013). Oral corrective feedback in second language classrooms. Language Teaching, 46(1), 1–40. doi:10.1017/S0261444812000365
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Mackey, A., Gass, S., & McDonough, K. (2000). How do learners perceive interactional feedback. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 22(4), 471–497. doi:10.1017/S0272263100004010
   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 (pp. 407–452). Oxford: Oxford University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Mackey, A., Kanganas, A., & Oliver, R. (2007). Task familiarity and interactional feedback in child ESL classrooms. TESOL Quarterly, 41(2), 285–312. doi:10.1002/j.1545-7249.2007.tb00060.x
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Mackey, A., Oliver, R., & Leeman, J. (2003). Interactional input and the incorporation of feedback: An exploration of NS–NNS and NNS–NNS adult and child dyads. Language Learning, 53(1), 35–66. doi:10.1111/1467-9922.00210
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• McDonough, K. (2004). Learner-learner interaction during pair and small group activities in a Thai EFL context. System, 32(2), 207–224. doi:10.1016/j.system.2004.01.003
   Google Scholar
• Merriam, S. B., & Tisdell, E. J. (2009). Qualitative research: A guide to design and implementation. 4th ed.). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
   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. doi:10.1080/09658410008667135
   Google Scholar
• Philp, J. (1998). Interaction, noticing, and second language acquisition: An examination of learners’ noticing of recasts in task-based interaction (Ph.D. dissertation). University of Tasmania, Australia.
   Google Scholar
• Philp, J., Adams, R., & Iwashita, N. (2014). Peer interaction and second language learning. New York: NY: Routledge.
   Google Scholar
• Philp, J., & Iwashita, N. (2013). Talking, tuning in and noticing: Exploring the benefits of output in task-based peer interaction. Language Awareness, 22(4), 353–370. doi:10.1080/09658416.2012.758128
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Philp, J., Oliver, R., & Mackey, A. (2006). The impact of planning time on children’s task-based interactions. System, 34(4), 547–565. doi:10.1016/j.system.2006.08.004
   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. doi:10.1080/09658416.2010.516831
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Pica, T., 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. doi:10.2307/3587607
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Porter, P. (1986). How learners talk to each other: Input and interaction in task-centered discussions. In R. Day (Ed.) Talking to learn: Conversation in second language acquisition (pp. 200–222). Rowley, MA: Newbury House.
   Google Scholar
• Révész, A. (2009). Task complexity, focus on form, and second language development. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 31(3), 437–470. doi:10.1017/S0272263109090366
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Révész, A. (2011). Task complexity, focus on L2 constructions, and individual differences: A classroom-based study. The Modern Language Journal, 95(s1), 162–181. doi:10.1111/j.1540-4781.2011.01241.x
   Google Scholar
• Sato, M. (2013). Beliefs about peer interaction and peer corrective feedback: Efficacy of classroom intervention. The Modern Language Journal, 97(3), 611–633. doi:10.1111/j.1540-4781.2013.12035.x
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Sato, M. (2017). Oral peer corrective feedback: Multiple theoretical perspectives. In H. Nassaji & E. Kartchava (Eds.), Corrective feedback in second language teaching and learning: Research, theory, applications, implications (pp. 19–34). New York: Routledge.
   Google Scholar
• Sato, M., & Ballinger, S. (2012). Raising language awareness in peer interaction: A cross-context, cross-methodology examination. Language Awareness, 21(1–2), 157–179. doi:10.1080/09658416.2011.639884
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Sato, M., & Ballinger, S. (2016a). Understanding peer interaction: Research synthesis and directions. In M. Sato & S. Ballinger (Eds.), Peer interaction and second language learning: Pedagogical potential and research agenda (pp. 1–30). Amsterdam: Benjamins.
   Google Scholar
• Sato, M., & Ballinger, S. (Eds.). (2016b). Peer interaction and second language learning: Pedagogical potential and research agenda. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
   Google Scholar
• Sato, M., & Lyster, R. (2007). Modified output of Japanese EFL learners: Variable effects of interlocutor vs. feedback types. In A. Mackey (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. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 34(4), 591–626.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Sippel, L., & Jackson, C. N. (2015). Teacher vs. peer oral corrective feedback in the German language classroom. Foreign Language Annals, 48(4), 688–705. doi:10.1111/flan.12164
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Storch, N. (2017). Sociocultural theory in the L2 classroom. In S. Loewen & M. Sato (Eds.), The Routledge handbook of instructed second language acquisition (pp. 69–83). New York: Routledge.
   Google Scholar
• Swain, M. (2005). The output hypothesis: Theory and research. In E. Hinkel (Ed.), Handbook of research in second language teaching and learning (pp. 471–483). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
   Google Scholar
• Swain, M., & Lapkin, S. (2002). Talking it through: Two French immersion learners’ response to reformulation. International Journal of Educational Research, 37(3–4), 285–304. doi:10.1016/S0883-0355(03)00006-5
   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, Western Australia.
   Google Scholar
• Toth, P. D. (2011). Teacher-and learner-led discourse in task-based grammar instruction: Providing procedural assistance for morphosyntactic development. Language Learning, 61(s1), 141–188. doi:10.1111/j.1467-9922.2011.00645.x
   Google Scholar
• Xu, J., & Kou, J. (2017). Group interaction strategies and students’ oral performance in Chinese EFL classrooms. TESOL Quarterly, 52(1), 198–209. doi:10.1002/tesq.398
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Villamil, O. S., & de Guerrero, M. C. M. D. (1998). Assessing the impact of peer revision on L2 writing. Applied Linguistics, 19(4), 491–514. doi:10.1093/applin/19.4.491
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Williams, J. (1999). Learner-generated attention to Form. Language Learning, 49(4), 583–625. doi:10.1111/0023-8333.00103
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Williams, J. (2001). The effectiveness of spontaneous attention to form. System, 29(3), 325–340. doi:10.1016/S0346-251X(01)00022-7
   Google Scholar
• Willis, D., & Willis, J. (2007). Doing task-based teaching. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Yoshida, R. (2008). Learners’ perception of corrective feedback in pair work. Foreign Language Annals, 41(3), 525–541. doi:10.1111/j.1944-9720.2008.tb03310.x
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Zhang, L. J., & Rahimi, M. (2014). EFL learners’ anxiety level and their beliefs about corrective feedback in oral communication classes. System, 42, 429–439. doi:10.1016/j.system.2014.01.012
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Zhao, S. Y., & Bitchener, J. (2007). Incidental focus on form in teacher–learner and learner–learner interactions. System, 35(4), 431–447. doi:10.1016/j.system.2007.04.004
   Google Scholar