In the 30 years since the initial formulations of the Interaction Hypothesis (Long, 1980, 1981), there has been an explosion of studies investigating the ways in which interaction can benefit second language acquisition (SLA), with the most recent work documenting its evolution from hypothesis to approach (Gass and Mackey, 2007a). This review begins with an overview of the historical background of the interactionist approach and then discusses the core issues surrounding it, examines some of the ways in which data are collected in this area of SLA, and explores the practical applications of the approach. Directions for future research will be addressed in the final section.
The roots of the interactionist approach can be traced to several lines of research that began in the 1970s. At this time, researchers became increasingly interested in the types of discourse patterns found in native speaker and learner conversations. In particular, they examined “foreigner talk” and the ways in which native speakers modified their speech so as to make it more comprehensible for learners (e.g., Ferguson, 1971). Paralleling a similar line of work in first language acquisition (which examined caretaker talk and the ways in which parents modified their speech for young children), researchers in this area argued that modifications such as repetition and syntactic simplifications served to make the input more comprehensible to second language (L2) learners, and in this way promoted the acquisition of the target language.
This focus on input and comprehensibility could also be found in another strand of research that influenced the development of the interactionist approach: Krashen's Input Hypothesis (Krashen, 1977, 1980). According to this hypothesis, input that was comprehensible (but slightly above the learner's current level of proficiency) was the driving force behind language acquisition. In Krashen's view, if a learner was exposed to this type of input, and, at the same time, had a “low affective filter” (i.e., low levels of anxiety and negative feelings associated with learning the L2), acquisition of the non-native language would automatically (i.e., subconsciously) take place. For Krashen, any mechanism that served to make the input comprehensible (e.g., simplifying the grammar of a written or oral text) was of value; however, interaction between native speakers and learners did not hold any special place in his theories.
However, from the late 1970s researchers began to accord more importance to interaction itself. Wagner-Gough and Hatch (1975), for example, maintained that researchers needed to examine “the relationship between language and communication if we are looking for explanations of the learning process” (p. 307), while Hatch (1978a, 1978b) argued that interaction might be an actual site for L2 learning and not just a means of observing what had already been learned. In Hatch's (1978b) words, “one learns how to do conversation, one learns how to interact verbally, and out of the interaction syntactic structures are developed” (p. 404).
Drawing upon the work of these researchers, Long formulated his initial version of what became known as the Interaction Hypothesis (Long, 1980, 1981). In Long's view, both comprehensible input and L2 development stemmed from the conversational modifications that occurred when native speakers and non-native speakers (NNS) worked to resolve a communication difficulty. Although these modifications (commonly referred to as interactional adjustments during negotiation for meaning) were not, of course, the only means of achieving message comprehensibility, Long suggested these modifications were positioned to promote comprehensible input, and, ultimately, L2 acquisition.
Early research using the interactionist approach framework sought to describe the frequency and types of interactional modifications used in native speaker-learner and learner-learner pairings, examine the relationship between negotiation of meaning and learners’ comprehension, and compare the effects of premodified and interactionally modified input (e.g., Doughty and Pica, 1986; Gass and Varonis, 1985, 1986; Long, 1983a, b; Loschky, 1994; Pica and Doughty, 1985; Pica et al., 1987; Porter, 1986; Varonis and Gass, 1985). As several researchers, including Mackey (1999), Ellis (1999) and Spada and Lightbown (2009), pointed out, this early research tended to be descriptive and did not seek to provide direct evidence that interaction was causally linked to L2 acquisition.
Early versions of the Interaction Hypothesis incorporated Krashen's claims about comprehensible input being necessary and sufficient for development in the L2: “Access to comprehensible input is a characteristic of all cases of successful acquisition, first and second ... greater quantities of comprehensible input seem to result in better (or at least faster) acquisition ... and crucially, lack of access to comprehensible input ... results in little or no acquisition” (Long, 1983b, p. 210). However, a number of researchers took issue with Krashen's claims about comprehensible input and SLA. Swain (1985, 1995), for example, argued that while comprehensible input was necessary for L2 acquisition to occur, it was far from sufficient. Based on her work with French immersion students in Canada, she argued that if learners do not have regular opportunities to speak or write the language (that is, to produce output), their production skills (speaking and writing) would lag considerably behind their comprehension skills (listening and reading). This observation served as the starting point for Swain's Output Hypothesis (1985), which posits that producing output plays a crucial role in the development of the L2, as it (a) gives learners the opportunity to practice and thus to automatize the production of the language; (b) allows learners to test hypotheses concerning the L2; (c) forces learners to focus on structure of the language; and (d) draws learners’ attention to gaps in their interlanguage (1995; see also Swain, 2005). Swain suggested that second language learners need to be pushed to produce output, arguing that “being pushed in output, it seems to me, is a concept parallel to that of the i + 1 of comprehensible input. Indeed, one might call this the comprehensible output” (1985, p. 249). As we discuss later in this chapter, Swain's Output Hypothesis is subsumed in later versions of the Interaction Hypothesis.
The idea of comprehensible input being insufficient for second language acquisition was also discussed by White (1991, 2003). Approaching the role of input from a different theoretical perspective, White claimed that it is unlikely that French learners of English acquire the rule that delimits adverb placement in English (the strict adjacency principle in case assignment) with positive evidence alone because the positive evidence they receive does not contain the information that what is acceptable in French adverb placement may not be acceptable in English. To elaborate, in English, adverbs cannot be placed between the verb and the direct object (thus “Mary watches often television” is ungrammatical). However, the same word ordering —V Adv O—is possible in French (“Mary regarde souvent la television”). Thus, drawing upon his/her L1, the native speaker of French learning English might assume that a sentence such as “Mary watches often television” is acceptable because positive evidence (i.e., English input) provides no information about non-acceptable utterances. White points out that if a learner were solely dependent on comprehensible input for making progress in the L2, they would have to notice the absence (referred to as indirect negative evidence) of a particular structure (for example, the V Adv O structure in English). While this is theoretically possible, the language acquisition process may be facilitated if the learner receives assistance in the form of correction or instruction. In essence, what White argued was that comprehensible input is insufficient for certain aspects of L2 development. However, as we will see below and in Chapter 2, the interactionist approach takes into account the important construct of feedback that helps to account for how learners receive information about incorrect utterances.
Other extensions of the Interaction Hypothesis grew out of points made about the role of attention in second language learning. Work in the early 1990s proposed that only consciously noticed features of the input became intake (e.g., Schmidt, 1990, 1993). According to Schmidt's Noticing Hypothesis, “subliminal language learning is impossible, and ... noticing is the necessary and sufficient condition for converting input to intake” (1990, p. 129) (see also Chapter 15). Researchers were quick to point out, however, that L2 learners’ input processing strategies might make certain portions of the L2 difficult to notice. As VanPatten (1989) noted, L2 learners typically practice a form of selective attention, focusing on a limited and thus less overwhelming portion of the input. Those aspects of the input that are salient and meaningful are typically those that draw the learners’ attention; features that lack saliency or communicative value (such as determiners in English, gender agreement in Spanish, or postpositions in Japanese) may pass under the learner's radar, so to speak. For this reason, researchers argued, L2 learners might benefit from having their attention drawn to formal features of the target language. This claim, too, made its way into a later version of the Interaction Hypothesis.
Drawing upon the work of these researchers, Long presented a reformulated version of the Interaction Hypothesis in 1996, which stated that “Negotiation for meaning, and especially negotiation that triggers interactional adjustments by the native speaker or more competent interlocutor, facilitates acquisition because it connects input, internal learner capacities, particularly selective attention, and output in productive ways” (p. 451). The following section deals with the major tenets of the most recent updates of this approach (Gass and Mackey, 2007a), along with current research.
In the most recent version of the interactionist approach, Gass and Mackey (2007a) note that, “it is now commonly accepted within the SLA literature that there is a robust connection between interaction and learning” (p. 176). The interactionist approach posits that the interactional “work” that occurs when a learner and his/her interlocutor (whether a native speaker or more proficient learner) encounter some kind of communication breakdown is beneficial for L2 development. For example, when a learner experiences difficulty understanding his/her interlocutor or making himself/herself understood, discourse strategies such as clarification requests, confirmation checks, repetitions, and recasts may be employed to help resolve the difficulty. In this manner, the learner may have received input that has been modified often in an effort to make it more comprehensible. The process of interacting with another individual may also serve to draw the learner's attention to some sort of “gap” (in Schmidt's terms, 1990) between his/her interlanguage and the target language. For example, the learner may become aware of a difficulty using a particular linguistic feature. Aware of the gap, the learner may pay more attention to the subsequent input, something that is believed to be essential for L2 acquisition. The learner may also have his/her attention drawn to this gap through either explicit feedback (such as metalinguistic corrections) or potentially more indirect forms of feedback (such as recasts). Both of these terms will be explained in what follows, together with examples (also see Gass and Mackey, 2007a; Mackey and Abbuhl, 2006; Mackey, 2007 for recent overviews).
This constellation of features—interactionally modified input, having the learner's attention drawn to his/her interlanguage and to the formal features of the L2, opportunities to produce output, and opportunities to receive feedback—are the core components of the interactionist approach and have been investigated in nearly a hundred empirical studies since the mid-1990s. Researchers have found that interaction and its concomitant features are beneficial for a range of morphosyntactic features, including articles (Muranoi, 2000; Sheen, 2007), questions (Mackey and Philp, 1998; Mackey, 1999; Philp, 2003), past-tense formation (Doughty and Varela, 1998; Ellis, 2007; Ellis, Loewen, and Erlam, 2006; McDonough, 2007), and plurals (Mackey, 2006a). These results appear to hold true for children as well as adults (Mackey and Oliver, 2002; Mackey and Silver, 2005; Van den Branden, 1997), classroom as well as laboratory settings (Gass et al., 2005; see Mackey and Goo, 2007 for a meta-analysis in this regard), and for a range of languages, including French (Ayoun, 2001; Swain and Lapkin, 1998, 2002), Japanese (Ishida, 2004; Iwashita, 2003), Korean (Jeon, 2007), and Spanish (de la Fuente, 2002; Gass and Alvarez Torres, 2005, reprinted 2011; Leeman, 2003).
The current research agenda has moved away from investigating whether interaction impacts L2 outcomes to determining: (a) which aspects of the L2 benefit the most from interaction; (b) how individual difference variables mediate the relationship between interaction and L2 development; and (c) what forms of interaction (and in particular, what types of feedback) are the most beneficial for L2 learners (how various types of interactional feedback differentially impact various L2 forms).
The question of whether interaction differentially affects L2 development, in other words, whether interaction (more specifically, interactional feedback) works for all L2 forms or only for some forms, but not others, has been raised by a number of recent researchers (e.g., Jeon, 2007; Long, 2007; Long et al., 1998; Mackey et al., 2000). In particular, it has been proposed that aspects of the L2 that possess both transparency and high communicative value (such as lexis)—in comparison with less salient and more complex features such as morphosyntax—may receive the greatest benefit from interaction. For example, in one recent study, Jeon (2007) compared the effects of interaction on a range of morphosyntactic and lexical targets in Korean. Using a controlled pre-test-post-test design, Jeon found that her Korean as a foreign language learners experienced more gains with the lexical targets (concrete nouns and action verbs) and one of the morphosyntactic targets (object relative clause constructions) than with the highly complex morphosyntactic target of honorific subject-verb agreement. Jeon suggested that the low saliency and communicative value of the latter target might have mitigated the effect of interaction. In light of these and similar findings, as well as the fact that few studies investigating the effects of interaction have addressed pragmatic and phonological targets (Mackey, 2007), further research will be needed in order to determine what interaction impacts and why some features are more amenable to interaction-driven learning than others.
Another goal of recent interaction-related research has been to determine how learner-internal cognitive mechanisms (such as attentional control and working memory capacity) mediate the relationship between interaction and L2 learning. It has long been noted that some learners appear to benefit more from interaction than others, and recent researchers have zeroed in on working memory capacity (WM) as a possible explanatory variable. Mackey et al. (2002), for example, found that WM was positively associated with the noticing of recasts in their study of native speakers of Japanese learning English. A later study by Trofimovich et al. (2007) did not find such a relationship, but did report that WM (along with attention control and analytical ability) was positively related to their Francophone learners’ production of English morphosyntax. In an investigation of computer-delivered oral recasts, Sagarra (2007) found that WM was related to the amount of modified output produced by learners who received recasts and also to their L2 Spanish morphosyntactic development. Taken together, these studies suggest that WM may play an important role in the processing and use of recasts by L2 learners, but clearly more research is warranted in this area.
Another promising line of research deals with the impact of affective states on the processing of interactional feedback. Although this is an underexplored area, a number of researchers have provided evidence that one affective state in particular, anxiety, may hinder learners’ ability to learn from corrective feedback (e.g., Havranek and Cesnik, 2001; Havranek, 2002; Sheen, 2008). As Sheen (2008) notes, “language anxiety can be predicted to interfere with learning because it inhibits learners’ capacity to notice recasts and to produce modified output” (p. 846). This assertion is in line with recent work on emotion and executive control, which suggests that negative affective states may impair attentional allocation and behavioral performance (e.g., Pessoa, 2009). In her own study, Sheen (2008) found a relationship between language anxiety and learners’ responses to recasts and the degree to which they improved their use of English articles.
Another line of research that has been productive in recent years centers on the use of interactive feedback, and in particular, recasts, for L2 development (see Loewen, Chapter 2, this volume for a comprehensive review of interactional feedback). A number of studies have sought to compare recasts with other forms of corrective feedback, such as prompts (Ammar and Spada, 2006; Ammar, 2008; Lyster and Izquierdo, 2009; Lyster, 2004), metalinguistic explanations (Ellis, 2007; Ellis et al., 2006), and elicitations (Nassaji, 2009). Other studies have addressed learners’ perceptions of recasts (e.g., Kim and Han, 2007; Mackey et al., 2000, 2007) and possible factors that may influence learners’ noticing and use of this form of feedback (e.g., Bigelow et al., 2006; Egi, 2007; Philp, 2003; Sheen, 2006; Trofimovich et al., 2007). This line of research continues to be an important part of interaction researchers’ attempts to fully understand which aspects of interaction are the most beneficial for second/foreign language learners.
The majority of studies to date that seek to test the claims of the interaction approach have employed quantitative methods, often using controlled pre-test-post-test designs. An increasing number of studies is also examining learners’ internal processes more qualitatively, often focusing on their perceptions about interaction (through some sort of recall process, see for example, Gass and Mackey, 2000, and Mackey et al., 2000). And although the specific data elicitation measures used are as varied as the foci of the studies themselves, in general two types of quantitative studies can be distinguished in interaction research: those focusing on the learners’ productions and those investigating their perceptions.
One common type of production-based study involves having learners engage in communicative tasks in a laboratory or classroom setting. In these tasks, such as a map task, spot-the-difference, and story completion, participants typically hold different pieces of information and must communicate with each other in order to complete the task (Gass and Mackey, 2007b; Mackey and Gass, 2006). For example, in a spot-the-difference task, each participant possesses a different picture (which the other individuals cannot see); by asking questions about the location of different objects (e.g., “is there a cat on your windowsill?”) and describing what they see in their own picture (e.g., “in my picture, there is a ball under the chair”), the participants determine the number of differences between the two pictures. If carefully designed, these tasks can target and elicit specific language structures (such as questions and locatives), allowing researchers to determine, for example, how different kinds of feedback or input during the tasks affect the learner's use of the targeted structures.
In these experimental studies, researchers commonly transcribe the dyadic interaction and code the data for different measures of development, such as advances along a developmental continuum (e.g., Mackey and Oliver, 2002; Mackey and Silver, 2005; Mackey, 1999; McDonough, 2005), suppliance of the target structure in obligatory contexts (e.g., Leeman, 2003), or multiple measures designed to tap into both implicit and explicit knowledge of the target structure (such as a grammaticality judgment test combined with an oral imitation or free production test, e.g., Ellis, 2007; Loewen and Nabei, 2007).
Those data analysis methods are also used in studies that focus on intact classrooms. In experimental research involving intact classes, different classes are typically assigned to different treatment or control conditions. Learner performance on various written and/or oral tests is compared across the classrooms to determine whether, for example, feedback significantly impacts L2 development, or whether one kind of feedback is more beneficial than another (e.g., Ammar and Spada, 2006; Lyster, 2004; Mackey, 2006a; Sheen, 2007). In more descriptive research involving intact classes, researchers video- or audio-record multiple class sessions, transcribe those sessions, and then determine the distribution and frequency of various feedback types and/or uptake opportunities (e.g., Loewen, 2009; Lyster and Ranta, 1997; Lyster, 1998a, b; Sato and Lyster, 2007). This method has also been used in laboratory contexts to explore the effect of age or interlocutor status on the provision of feedback (e.g., Mackey et al., 2003; Oliver, 2000, 2009).
The second main focus of interaction-related studies has been to investigate learners’ perceptions. As Loewen et al. (2009) point out, learner beliefs “underlie learner behavior to a large extent ... [and] might help explain and predict behaviors that learners demonstrate when learning an L2” (p. 91). Researchers have probed learners’ preferred feedback types (e.g., Loewen et al., 2009), explored whether learners notice corrective feedback (e.g., Kim and Han, 2007; Mackey et al., 2000; 2007; Nabei and Swain, 2002; Philp, 2003), and have also sought to determine what features of corrective feedback, and in particular, recasts, are salient for L2 learners (e.g., Carpenter et al., 2006).
Many of these perception-based studies have employed an elicitation procedure new to interaction research, the stimulated recall (Gass and Mackey, 2000). In this procedure, learners typically engage in a communicative task. This task is video-recorded, and immediately afterwards, the learner and the researcher watch the recording together. At certain “critical moments” (for example, when the learner receives feedback), the researcher may pause the tape and ask questions such as “What was going through your mind at that point in time?” The purpose of this line of questioning is to orient the student to the previous task and gain information about the learner's thought processes and attentional foci at the time of the original task. This increasing use of introspective measures reflects a renewed interest in “in-depth research on individuals within their social contexts” (Mackey, 2006b, p. 371), a point which will be addressed in more detail later in this chapter. Recent research has focused more explicitly on immediate recalls (e.g., Philp, 2003) versus stimulated recalls. However, using stimulated recall and/or immediate recall is not without controversy (for a relevant summary of think-alouds, see Bowles, 2010).
In addition to the research described above, one of the main ways that researchers have sought to verify the claims of the interactionist approach is through meta-analyses. As Norris and Ortega note (2006), “meta-analyses are conducted (a) on ‘quantitative’ domains of inquiry in which (b) considerable replication of specific independent, dependent, and moderating variables has occurred, and (c) for the specific purposes of clarifying the actual relationship among main study variables, as well as potentially moderating effects of contextual and other variables on this relationship” (p. 9). Though still relatively new to the field of second language acquisition, these meta-analyses have allowed researchers to compare the results of individual studies, and in the process, evaluate the claims of particular theoretical frameworks, such as the interactionist approach.
One of the first meta-analyses to investigate the claims of the interactionist approach was carried out by Keck et al. (2006). Their research examined 14 studies on task-based interaction published between 1980 and 2003. The researchers noted that experimental groups receiving task-based interaction significantly outperformed control and comparison groups on both post-tests and delayed post-tests. In addition, large effect sizes were reported for lexis and grammar, although the scarcity of studies employing long-term delayed post-tests (30–60 days) led the researchers to conclude that more research is needed to assess the durability of interaction-driven learning. Keck et al. (2006) ultimately concluded that “interaction does in fact promote acquisition” (p. 120) but in light of the restricted number of studies examined, also noted that “the effect of interaction may not apply to educational settings, learner populations, and target languages that, as of 2003, were unrepresented in the research domain” (p. 123). Another meta-analysis of interaction research was reported by Mackey and Goo (2007). Focusing on 28 experimental or quasi-experimental studies published between 1990 and 2006, including 11 which were also examined by Keck et al., Mackey and Goo also sought to investigate the relationship between interaction and L2 development. They found inter alia that interaction was significantly more effective in promoting lexical and grammatical development than no interaction. In addition, large effect sizes were found on both post-tests and delayed post-tests, leading them to conclude that there are “durable interaction effects on language learning” (p. 425). However, Mackey and Goo observed that the interactional treatments appeared to be more effective for lexis than for grammar, especially in the short term. They also noted that more studies are needed in order to draw firm conclusions about the long-term effect of interaction-driven learning, the relative value of interaction with feedback (in comparison to interaction without feedback), and the contribution of modified output to L2 learning.
Meta-analyses conducted by Russell and Spada (2006), Li (2010), and Lyster and Saito (2010) on corrective feedback are also relevant for evaluating the claims of the interactionist approach because corrective feedback is one of the key features involved in interaction. Russell and Spada (2006) examined 15 experimental or quasi-experimental studies published between 1977 and 2003 in order to investigate the link between corrective feedback and development in L2 grammar. The researchers reported large effect sizes for oral and written corrective feedback in both classroom and laboratory contexts. With respect to the durability of the effects, Russell and Spada noted that “although the sample size is too small to permit firm conclusions, it seems that the effects of [corrective feedback] have not been considerably reduced over time” (p. 152). Similarly, Li (2010) reported a meta-analysis of research findings on corrective feedback. Thirty-three primary studies were meta-analyzed; a medium overall effect for corrective feedback was found. Li's meta-analysis also showed that explicit feedback was more effective than implicit feedback on both immediate and short-delayed post-tests, and feedback in foreign language contexts produced larger effect sizes than did feedback in second language contexts. Lyster and Saito (2010) conducted a meta-analysis of 15 classroom-based studies with a focus on corrective feedback. They also found that corrective feedback had durable effects on target language development (more so for prompts than recasts). Interestingly, younger learners benefited more from corrective feedback than did older learners.
In summary, data collection measures have been utilized to investigate whether and how interaction facilitates L2 learning in a number of production- and perception-based studies. As shown in recent meta-analyses, the interactionist approach has strong empirical support with a clear, sustained link between interaction/corrective feedback and the development of lexis and grammar. It remains an open question as to whether interaction promotes L2 development in other areas, such as phonology and pragmatics. More research should be conducted on these underexplored areas so that a more comprehensive picture of the role that interaction plays in L2 learning can be obtained. In addition, as noted by the authors of the meta-analyses cited above, there is a dire need for more longitudinal research. Although the effect sizes reported for delayed post-tests give cause for optimism, the field would benefit from greater use of long-term delayed post-tests. Controversies also remain concerning optimal feedback types (see Loewen, Chapter 2, this volume) and the contribution of individual difference and contextual factors, a point to which we return below.
Drawing upon Schmidt's arguments for the importance of noticing and Long's hypothesis that interaction and feedback serve to promote this noticing, researchers working within the tradition of the interactionist approach have also sought to determine what forms of instruction best promote an attention to form (the formal features of the L2, such as grammatical rules) within a communicative setting. The two pedagogical concepts that have garnered the most attention are task-based learning and focus-on-form instruction.
Broadly speaking, a task refers to “an activity which requires learners to use language, with emphasis on meaning, to attain an objective” (Bygate et al., 2001, p. 11). Task-based learning is usually described as a form of communicative language teaching in which the primary emphasis is not on decontextualized grammar drills or rote memorization, but rather on giving learners ample opportunities to receive meaningful input, produce the target language in context, and receive feedback on their efforts by working collaboratively on a task (Ellis, 2003, 2009; Long, 2000; Samuda and Bygate, 2008). Unlike more traditional forms of communicative language teaching that have little or no focus on grammar, task-based learning emphasizes the importance of drawing learners’ attention to interlanguage “gaps.” Long (1991) has described this as focus on form: “overtly draw[ing] students’ attention to linguistic elements as they arise incidentally in lessons whose overriding focus is on meaning or communication” (pp. 45–46).
While task-based learning has been the subject of much recent discussion (see for example, Samuda and Bygate, 2008 and Bygate and Samuda, 2009 for an overview of task pedagogy), a number of researchers have noted that the relationship between research and pedagogy is not a simple one (e.g., Crookes, 1997). For example, some researchers have suggested that results obtained from laboratory-based studies may not be generalizable to and relevant for the classroom context (e.g., Foster, 1998; see however, Gass et al., 2005). Thus, as Ellis (2005) notes, researchers can offer suggestions about pedagogical practice but only “so long as this advice does not masquerade as prescriptions or proscriptions ... and so long as it is tentative” (p. 210). Task-based learning with a focus on form should not be seen as the “ideal” teaching method, but rather one possibility of many that may help second/foreign language students reach their linguistic goals.
With respect to the particular advice that has emerged from research on task-based learning, researchers have argued that both interaction and acquisition can be promoted through the use of particular types of tasks. Tasks can vary along a number of dimensions, including the task type, participant roles, and methods of implementation; each of these dimensions in turn can affect the amount of negotiation of meaning and feedback that occurs, as well as the fluency, accuracy, and complexity of the language used (Ellis, 2003; Samuda and Bygate, 2008; Willis and Willis, 2007). For this reason, being aware of the probable effects a particular type of task can have on learner-to-learner interaction and language use can help the practitioner make more informed decisions about classroom practice.
Concerning task type, it has been argued that closed tasks (where learners are required to agree on a particular outcome, also known as “convergent tasks”) are more effective in promoting both negotiation of meaning and feedback than open tasks (where learners are not required to reach any agreement, also known as “divergent tasks”) (e.g., Duff, 1986; Garcia, 2007; Long, 1989; Pica et al., 1993). Thus, for example, a problem-solving task (a type of closed task), where learners need to reach a consensus about a particular problem, will likely lead to more instances of negotiation of meaning and feedback than an opinion exchange (a type of open task). Similarly, “required exchange tasks” (which require that either one participant give information to another participant in order to complete the task, as in a one-way task, or that both participants exchange information, as in a two-way task) may elicit more negotiation of meaning and greater accuracy and complexity than “optional exchange tasks” (which do not have a requirement that information be transferred or exchanged) (Doughty and Pica, 1986; Foster and Skehan, 1996, 1999; Foster, 1998; Long, 1980, 1983a; Samuda and Bygate, 2008; Skehan and Foster, 1997, 1999).
Taken together, these studies suggest that tasks that are interactive and that have a definite outcome are beneficial for L2 learners. However, a legitimate question to ask at this point is whether all learners benefit equally from these types of tasks, and whether, for example, proficiency affects learners’ ability to negotiate for meaning. Yule and MacDonald (1990) investigated this question by comparing mixed proficiency pairs (pairs in which one student was of higher proficiency than the other). In one condition, the higher proficiency student assumed the dominant role (for example, describing a delivery route); in the other, the higher proficiency played the non-dominant role (e.g., drawing the delivery route on a map). The researchers found that when the higher proficiency student took the non-dominant role, not only were the conversations longer, but there were also more negotiations for meaning and greater cooperation between the students. Other research has provided evidence that, for adults, more negotiation of meaning occurs in mixed proficiency pairs than in pairs with similar proficiency levels (e.g., Doughty and Pica, 1986; Gass and Varonis, 1985; see, however, conflicting findings for child learners in Oliver, 2002). Research examining the frequency of language-related episodes (instances when learners “talk about the language they are producing, question their language use, or correct themselves or others,” Swain and Lapkin, 1998, p. 326) has also provided evidence that mixed proficiency pairs can be beneficial for L2 learners (Watanabe and Swain, 2007, for example, found that participants achieved higher post-test scores when working with a lower proficiency rather than higher proficiency partner).
In addition to task type and participant proficiency, tasks can also vary in terms of their implementation, such as whether students are given planning time prior to the task (Crookes, 1989; Foster, 2001; Foster and Skehan, 1996, 2009; Skehan and Foster, 1997; Yuan and Ellis, 2003), whether task repetition is involved (Bygate, 2001, 2009; Gass and Varonis, 1985; Plough and Gass, 1993; Yule et al., 1992), whether the interlocutors are familiar with each other (Plough and Gass, 1993), and of course, what type of feedback is provided during the task. The latter has been particularly well investigated in recent years (Ellis, 2003) and a large body of literature has emerged on the effect of different types of feedback moves (e.g., clarification requests, recasts, prompts, and explicit metalinguistic corrections) on students’ noticing of feedback, their production of modified output, and their target language development.
With respect to the salience of different types of feedback moves, there is growing evidence that recasts (and in particular, those that are long, not prosodically enhanced, contain one or more corrections, and are focused on morphological rather than lexical errors) may not be noticed by L2 learners, especially by those who are not developmentally ready or who possess relatively small WM capacities (e.g., Ammar, 2008; Ellis and Sheen, 2006; Leeman, 2003; Lyster and Ranta, 1997; Mackey et al., 2000, 2002; Panova and Lyster, 2002). Additional research has sought to determine whether the degree of explicitness of the feedback technique affects either the amount of modified output produced or the degree of interlanguage development. These studies have reported conflicting results, with some supporting the use of more explicit techniques (e.g., Ammar and Spada, 2006; Ayoun, 2001; Carroll and Swain, 1993; Doughty and Varela, 1998; Ellis, 2007; Ellis et al., 2006; Lyster, 2004; Nassaji, 2009; Sachs and Polio, 2007; Sauro, 2009) and others finding no difference (e.g., Loewen and Erlam, 2006; Loewen and Nabei, 2007; Lyster and Izquierdo, 2009; Sachs and Suh, 2007). On the whole, it appears that in meaning-focused classrooms (as opposed to laboratories), students notice and benefit from more explicit feedback techniques, but it needs to be kept in mind that there is no “one size fits all” form of feedback that will work for all learners in all contexts (Ammar and Spada, 2006).
In the three decades since the formulation of the interactionist approach, a broad research agenda on interaction and L2 learning has emerged. In this section, we will provide some suggestions to push the field forward both in the short and long term, focusing on methodological issues and the role of context.
As reviewed above, there is now a solid body of literature linking the various components of interaction to L2 development. However, studies employing long-term delayed post-tests (30 or more days) remain relatively uncommon. For this reason, it remains an empirical question as to whether interaction leads to permanent restructuring of learner interlanguages (Spada and Lightbown, 2009). In addition, replication studies of interaction-related research, as is the case with replications in the field as a whole, are also rare. Given the increased importance the field of SLA is placing on replications and validating the findings of previous studies, we believe that greater emphasis should be placed on this form of research. As noted by the Language Teaching Review Panel (2008):
Replication is even more needed today than before given that our field is becoming increasingly diverse in scope and investigation of topics, resulting in divergent and at times fragmented research results. Replication studies can verify and consolidate previous findings, helping results to be converged and extended. Thus, they must be more valued, encouraged and carried out in our field. (p. 11)
While a greater number of longitudinal and replication studies is (hopefully) easy to achieve in the short term, we also see a number of possible methodological advances on the (longer-term) horizon. As pointed out by Mackey (2006b), inter-disciplinary collaboration between interaction researchers and cognitive neuroscientists could facilitate the use of such technologies as electroencephalography (EEG) and functional magnetic resonance imaging (fMRI) to explore learners’ responses to, and thus noticing of, recasts, for example, or issues related to the impact of individual variation in working memory capacity on the noticing and processing of interactional feedback.
With respect to the role of context, there are a number of research directions that would enrich our understanding of interaction and L2 learning. Traditionally, contextual factors (such as the social relationship between the interlocutors and the setting in which the conversation occurred) have not received focal attention in the interaction literature. Long (1998) has argued that “chang[ing] the social setting altogether, e.g., from street to classroom, or from a foreign to a second language environment, and, as far as we know, the way the learner acquires does not change much either” (p. 93). However, there is a growing suggestion that the interactionist approach might profitably expand its focus from the cognitive aspects of interaction to include more sociocognitive ones (e.g., Bayley and Tarone, Chapter 3, this volume; Tarone, 2009). As Philp and Mackey (in press) point out, the social relationship between interlocutors may influence the type of language the learner receives, the output the learner produces and the degree to which the learner pays attention to any feedback given. The context may also influence the degree to which learners pay attention to language forms (in an informal context, for example, learners are likely to privilege meaning and communication over grammatical accuracy, as pointed out by Tarone, 2009). Thus, further research exploring the mediating effect of context on interaction-driven learning would be a welcome development.
Questions concerning contextual influence have also arisen in recent studies on synchronous computer-mediated communication (SCMC) as well as research involving avatars as interactors (Petersen and Mackey, 2009). Recognizing the growing role that SCMC and other education technology is taking in the classroom, recent researchers have sought to determine whether the claims of the interactionist approach hold true in this new medium (see Ortega, 2009 for a recent overview). Unlike face-to-face interaction, SCMC involves less strict turn adjacency in conversation. The disrupted turn adjacency of SCMC is caused by “split negotiation routines” (Smith, 2003, p. 48), in other words, a long delay between the initial trigger and the indicator, and they produce multiple turn delays between each of the phrases of the routine (Smith, 2005). Additionally, the relatively less strict turn adjacency results in recasts not being provided immediately after the target turn but with 3–4 turns in between. Thus, the gap between the recasts and the target produce non-contingent recasts (Lai and Zhao, 2006). While recent studies have shed valuable light on how the disrupted turn adjacency of SCMC impacts interaction-driven L2 learning, the studies available at present are “insufficient in number and inconsistent in design and focus, and thus preclude firm conclusions” (Oretga, 2009, p. 245). For this reason, more research that explores negotiation of meaning, feedback, and output in this new medium would help us reach a deeper understanding of contextual factors in L2 learning.
In addition to these contextual matters, it is also of crucial importance to explore the many individual difference variables that mediate the relationship between interaction and learning. By investigating both learner-internal factors (such as WM and affect) and learner-external factors (such as the social context), researchers will be able to reach a deeper understanding of the complex role that interaction, feedback, output, and attention play in the development of a non-native language. As of now, we have “yet to achieve a complete understanding of what interaction can offer L2 learners and interaction interacts with other factors to impact the efficacy of interaction on L2 learning” (Mackey and Polio, 2009, p. 7). However, given the vitality of this area of research and the promising steps that have been made in the last 30 years, new insights and discoveries are doubtless close on the horizon.
Ammar, A. (2008). Prompts and recasts: Differential effects on second language morphosyntax. Language Teaching Research, 12, 183–210.
Ammar, A. and Spada, N. (2006). One size fits all? Recasts, prompts, and L2 learning. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 28, 543–574.
Ayoun, D. (2001). The role of negative and positive feedback in the second language acquisition of the passé composé and imparfait. The Modern Language Journal, 85, 226–243.
Bigelow, M., Delmas, R., Hansen, K., and Tarone, E. (2006). Literacy and the processing of oral recasts in SLA. TESOL Quarterly, 40, 665–689.
Bowles, M. (2010). The think-aloud controversy in second language research. New York: Routledge.
Bygate, M. (2001). Effects of task repetition on the structure and control of language. In M. Bygate, P. Skehan, and M. Swain (Eds.), Task-based learning: Language teaching, learning and assessment (pp. 23–48). London: Longman.
Bygate, M. (2009). Effects of task repetition on the structure and control of oral language. In K. Van den Branden, M. Bygate, and J. Norris (Eds.), Task-based language teaching: A reader (pp. 249–274). Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
Bygate, M. and Samuda, V. (2009). Creating pressure in task pedagogy: The joint roles of field, purpose, and engagement within the interaction approach. In A. Mackey and C. Polio (Eds.), Multiple perspectives on interaction: Second language research in honor of Susan M. Gass (pp. 93–116). New York: Routledge.
Bygate, M., Skehan, P., and Swain, M. (2001). Researching pedagogic tasks: Second language learning, teaching and testing. Harlow, England: Longman.
Carpenter, H., Jeon, K.S., MacGregor, D., and Mackey, A. (2006). Learners’ interpretations of recasts. Studies in second language acquisition, 28, 209–236.
Carroll, S. and Swain, S. (1993). Explicit and implicit negative feedback: an empirical study of the learning of linguistic generalizations. Studies in second language acquisition, 15, 357–386.
Crookes, G. (1989). Planning and interlanguage variability. Studies in second language acquisition, 11, 367–383.
Crookes, G. (1997). SLA and language pedagogy: A socioeducational perspective. Studies in second language acquisition, 20, 93–116.
de la fuente, M. (2002). Negotiation and oral acquisition of L2 vocabulary: the roles of input and output in the receptive and productive acquisition of words. Studies in second language acquisition, 24, 81–112.
Doughty, C. and Pica, T. (1986). “Information gap” tasks: an aid to acquisition? TESOL Quarterly, 20, 305–325.
Doughty, C. and Varela, E. (1998). Communicative focus on form. In C. J. Doughty and J. Williams (Eds.), Focus on form in classroom second language acquisition (pp. 114–138). New York: Cambridge University Press.
Duff, P. (1986). Another look at interlanguage talk: Taking task to task. In R. Day (Ed.), Talking to learn: Conversation in second language acquisition (pp. 147–181). Rowley, MA: Newbury House.
Egi, T. (2007). Interpreting recasts as linguistic evidence: The roles of linguistic target, length, and degree of change. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 29, 511–537.
Ellis, R. (1999). Learning a second language through interaction. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
Ellis, R. (2003). Task-based language learning and teaching. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Ellis, R. (2005). Principles of instructed language learning. System, 33, 209–224.
Ellis, R. (2007). The differential effects of corrective feedback on two grammatical structures. In A. Mackey (Ed.), Conversational interaction in second language acquisition: A collection of empirical studies (pp. 339–360). Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Ellis, R. (2009). Task-based language teaching: Sorting out the misunderstandings. International Journal of Applied Linguistics, 19, 221–246.
Ellis, R., Loewen, S., and Erlam, R. (2006). Implicit and explicit corrective feedback and the acquisition of L2 grammar. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 28, 339–368.
Ellis, R. and Sheen, Y. (2006). Reexamining the role of recasts in second language acquisition. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 28, 575–600.
Ferguson, C. (1971). Absence of copula and the notion of simplicity: A study of normal speech, baby talk, foreigner talk and pidgins. In D. Hymes (Ed.), Pidginization and creolization of languages (pp. 117–140). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Foster, P. (1998). A classroom perspective on the negotiation of meaning. Applied Linguistics, 19, 1–23.
Foster, P. (2001). Rules and routines: A consideration of their role in task-based language production of native and non-native speakers. In M. Bygate, P. Skehan, and M. Swain (Eds.), Researching pedagogic tasks, second language learning, teaching and testing (pp. 75–97). Harlow: Longman.
Foster, P. and Skehan, P. (1996). The influence of planning and task type on second language performance. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 18, 299–323.
Foster, P. and Skehan, P. (1999). The influence of planning and focus of planning on task-based performance. Language Teaching Research, 3, 215–247.
Foster, P. and Skehan, P. (2009). The influence of planning and task type on second language performance. In K. Van den Branden, M. Bygate, and J. Norris (Eds.), Task-based language teaching: A reader (pp. 275–300). Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
Garcia, M.F. (2007). Tasks, negotiation, and L2 learning in a foreign language context. In M. Mayo (Ed.), Investigating tasks in formal language learning (pp. 69–90). Clevedon, UK: Multilingual Matters.
Gass, S. and Mackey, A. (2000). Stimulated recall methodology in second language research. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
Gass, S. and Mackey, A. (2007a). Input, interaction, and output in second language acquisition. In B. VanPatten and J. Williams (Eds.), Theories in second language acquisition: An introduction (pp. 175–200). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
Gass, S. and Mackey, A. (2007b). Data elicitation for second and foreign language research. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
Gass, S., Mackey, A., and Ross-Feldman, L. (2005). Task-based interactions in classroom and laboratory settings. Language Learning (The best of Language Learning Series), 61, 189–220.
Gass, S. and Alvarez Torres, M. (2005). Attention when? An investigation of the ordering effect of input and interaction. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 27, 1–31.
Gass, S. and Varonis, E. (1985). Variation in native speaker speech modification to non-native speakers. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 7, 37–58.
Gass, S. and Varonis, E. (1986). Sex differences in nonnative speaker—nonnative speaker interaction. In R. Day (Ed.), Talking to learn: Conversation in second language acquisition (pp. 327–351). Rowley, MA: Newbury House.
Hatch, E. (1978b). Discourse analysis and second language acquisition. In E. Hatch (Ed.), Second language acquisition: A book of readings (pp. 401–435). Rowley, MA: Newbury House.
Hatch, E. (1987a). Acquisition of syntax in a second language. In J. Richards (Ed.), Understanding second and foreign language learning: Issues and approaches (pp. 34–70). Rowley, MA: Newbury House.
Havranek, G. (2002). When is corrective feedback most likely to succeed? International Journal of Educational Research, 37, 225–270.
Havranek, G. and Cesnik, H. (2001). Factors affecting the success of corrective feedback. EUROSLA Yearbook, 1, 99–122.
Ishida, M. (2004). Effects of recasts on the acquisition of the aspectual form of –te i (ru) by learners of japanese as a foreign language. Language Learning, 54, 311–394.
Iwashita, N. (2003). Negative feedback and positive feedback in task-based interaction: Differential effects of L2 development. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 25, 1–36.
Jeon, K. (2007). Interaction-driven L2 learning: Characterizing linguistic development. In A. Mackey (Ed.), Conversation interaction in second language acquisition: A collection of empirical studies (pp. 379–403). Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Keck, C., Iberri-Shea, G., Tracy-Ventura, N., and Wa-Mbaleka, S. (2006). Investigating the empirical link between task-based interaction and acquisition: A quantitative meta-analysis. In J. Norris and L. Ortega (Eds.), Synthesizing research on language learning and teaching (pp. 91–131). Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
Kim, J.-H. and Han, Z. (2007). Recasts in communicative EFL classes: Do teacher intent and learner interpretation overlap?. In A. Mackey (Ed.), Conversational interaction in second language acquisition: A collection of empirical studies (pp. 269–297). Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Krashen, S. (1977). Some issues relating to the monitor model. In H. Brown, C. Yorio, and R. Crymes (Eds.), On TESOL ’77 (pp. 144–158). Washington, D.C.: TESOL.
Krashen, S. (1980). The input hypothesis. In J. Alatis (Ed.), Current issues in bilingual education (pp. 168–180). Washington, D.C.: Georgetown University Press.
Language Teaching Review Panel. (2008). Replication studies in language learning and teaching: Questions and answers. Language Teaching, 41, 1–14.
Lai, C. and Zhao, Y. (2006). Noticing in text-based online chat. Language Learning and Technology, 10(3), 102–120.
Leeman, J. (2003). Recasts and L2 development: Beyond negative evidence. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 25, 37–63.
Li, S. (2010). The effectiveness of corrective feedback in SLA: A meta-analysis. Language Learning, 60(2), 309–365.
Loewen, S. (2009). Recasts in multiple response focus on form episodes. In A. Mackey and C. Polio (Eds.), Multiple perspectives on interaction: Second language research in honor of Susan M. Gass (pp. 176–196). New York: Routledge.
Loewen, S. and Erlam, R. (2006). Corrective feedback in the chatroom: An experimental study. Computer Assisted Language Learning, 19, 1–14.
Loewen, S., Li, S., Fei, F., Thompson, A., Nakatsukasa, K., and Ahn, S. (2009). Second language learners’ beliefs about grammar instruction and error correction. The Modern Language Journal, 93, 91–104.
Loewen, S. and Nabei, T. (2007). Measuring the effects of oral corrective feedback on L2 knowledge. In A. Mackey (Ed.), Conversational interaction in second language acquisition: A collection of empirical studies (pp. 361–377). Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Long, M. (1980). Input and interaction in second language acquisition. Unpublished PhD dissertation. University of California at Los Angeles.
Long, M. (1981). Input, interaction, and second language acquisition. In H. Winitz (Ed.), Native language and Foreign language acquisition: Annals of the New York Academy of Science (Vol. 379, 259–278).
Long, M. (1983a). Linguistic and conversational adjustments to non-native speakers. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 5, 177–193.
Long, M. (1983b). Native speaker/non-native speaker conversation in the second language classroom. In M. Clarke and J. Handscombe (Eds.), Pacific perspective on language learning and teaching (pp. 207–225). Washington, D.C.: TESOL.
Long, M. (1989). Task, group, and task-group interaction. University of Hawaii Working Papers in English as a Second Language, 8, 1–26.
Long, M. (1991). Focus on form: A design feature in language teaching methodology. In K. de Bot, R. Ginsberg, and C. Kramsch (Eds.), Foreign language research in cross-cultural perspective (pp. 39–52). Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
Long, M. (1996). The role of the linguistic environment in second language acquisition. In W.C. Ritchie and T.K. Bhatia (Eds.), Handbook of second language acquisition (pp. 413–468). San Diego, CA: Academic Press.
Long, M. (1998). SLA: Breaking the siege. University of Hawai'i Working Papers in ESL, 17, 79–129.
Long, M. (2000). Focus on form in task-based language teaching. In R. Lambert and E. Shohamy (Eds.), Language policy and pedagogy: Essays in honor of A. Ronald Walton (pp. 179–192). Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
Long, M. (2007). Problems in SLA. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
Long, M., Inagaki, S., and Ortega, L. (1998). The role of implicit negative feedback in SLA: Models and recasts in japanese and spanish. The Modern Language Journal, 82, 357–371.
Loschky, L. (1994). Comprehensible input and second language acquisition: What is the relationship?. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 16, 303–323.
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.
Lyster, R. (1998b). Recasts, repetition, and ambiguity in L2 classroom discourse. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 20, 51–92.
Lyster, R. (2004). Differential effects of prompts and recasts in form-focused instruction. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 26, 399–432.
Lyster, R. and Izquierdo, J. (2009). Prompts versus recasts in dyadic interaction. Language Learning, 59, 453–498.
Lyster, R. and Ranta, L. (1997). Corrective feedback and learner uptake: Negotiation of form in communicative classrooms. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 19, 27–66.
Lyster, R. and Saito, K. (2010). Oral feedback in classroom SLA: A meta-analysis. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 32, 265–302.
Mackey, A. (1999). Input, interaction, and second language development: An empirical study of question formation in ESL. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 21, 557–587.
Mackey, A. (2006a). Feedback, noticing and instructed second language learning. Applied Linguistics, 27, 405–430.
Mackey, A. (2006b). From introspections, brain scans, and memory tests to the role of social context: Advancing research on interaction and learning. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 28, 369–379.
Mackey, A. (2007). Introduction: The role of conversational interaction in second language acquisition. In A. Mackey (Ed.), Conversational interaction in second language acquisition: A collection of empirical studies (pp. 1–26). Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Mackey, A. and Abbuhl, R. (2006). Input and interaction. In C. Sanz (Ed.), Mind and context in adult second language acquisition: Methods, theory, and practice (pp. 207–233). Washington, D.C.: Georgetown University Press.
Mackey, A., Al-Khalil, M., Atanassova, G., Hama, M., Logan-Terry, A., and Nakatsukasa, K. (2007). Teachers’ intentions and learners’ perceptions about corrective feedback in the L2 classroom. Innovation in Language Learning and Teaching, 1, 129–152.
Mackey, A. and Gass, S. (2006). Second language research: Methodology and design. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
Mackey, A., Gass, S., and McDonough, K. (2000). How do learners perceive interactional feedback?. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 22, 471–497.
Mackey, A. and 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. 407–452). Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Mackey, A. and Oliver, R. (2002). Interactional feedback and children's L2 development. System, 30, 459–477.
Mackey, A., Oliver, R., and Leeman, J. (2003). Interactional input and the incorporation of feedback: An exploration of NS-NNS and NNS-NNS adult and child dyads. Language Learning, 53, 35–66.
Mackey, A. and Philp, J. (1998). Conversational interaction and second language development: Recasts, responses, and red herrings? The Modern Language Journal, 82, 338–356.
Mackey, A., Philp, J., Egi, T., Fujii, A., and Tatsumi, T. (2002). Individual differences in working memory, noticing of interactional feedback, and L2 development. In P. Robinson (Ed.), Individual differences and instructed language learning (pp. 181–210). Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
Mackey, A. and Polio, C. (2009). Introduction. In A. Mackey and C. Polio (Eds.), Multiple perspectives on interaction: Second language research in honor of Susan M. Gass (pp. 1–10). New York: Routledge.
Mackey, A. and Silver, R. (2005). Interactional tasks and english L2 learning by immigrant children in singapore. System, 33, 239–260.
McDonough, K. (2005). Identifying the impact of negative feedback and learners’ responses on ESL question development. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 27, 79–103.
McDonough, K. (2007). Interactional feedback and the emergence of simple past activity verbs in L2 English. In A. Mackey (Ed.), Conversational interaction in second language acquisition: A collection of empirical studies (pp. 323–338). Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Muranoi, H. (2000). Focus on form through interaction enhancement: Integrating formal instruction into a communicative task in EFL classrooms. Language Learning, 50, 617–673.
Nabei, I. and Swain, M. (2002). Learner awareness of recasts in classroom interaction: A case study of an adult EFL student's second language learning. Language Awareness, 11, 43–63.
Nassaji, H. (2009). Effects of recasts and elicitations in dyadic interaction and the role of feedback explicitness. Language Learning, 59, 411–452.
Norris, J.M. and Ortega, L. (2006). The value and practice of research synthesis for language learning and teaching. In J.M. Norris and L. Ortega (Eds.), Synthesizing research on language learning and teaching (pp. 3–50). Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
Oliver, R. (2000). Age differences in negotiation and feedback in classroom and pairwork. Language Learning, 50, 119–151.
Oliver, R. (2002). The patterns of negotiation for meaning in child interactions. The Modern Language Journal, 86, 97–111.
Oliver, R. (2009). How young is too young? Investigating negotiation of meaning and feedback in children aged five to seven years. In A. Mackey and C. Polio (Eds.), Multiple perspectives on interaction: Second language research in honor of Susan M. Gass (pp. 135–156). New York: Routledge.
Ortega, L. (2009). Interaction and attention to form in L2 text-based computer-mediated communication. In A. Mackey and C. Polio (Eds.), Multiple perspectives on interaction: second language research in honor of Susan M. Gass (pp. 226–253). New York: Routledge.
Panova, L. and Lyster, R. (2002). Patterns of corrective feedback and uptake in an adult ESL classroom. TESOL Quarterly, 36, 573–595.
Pessoa, L. (2009). How do emotion and motivation direct executive control? Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 13, 160–166.
Petersen, K. and Mackey, A. (2009). Interaction, Modality and Learning: Comparing the Effectiveness of Computer-Generated and Face to Face Recasts. Paper presented at SLRF, October, Michigan State University.
Philp, J. (2003). Constraints on “noticing the gap”: Non-native speakers’ noticing of recasts in NS-NNS interaction. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 25, 99–126.
Philp, J. and Mackey, A. (in press). Interaction research: What can socially informed approaches offer to cognitivists (and vice versa)? In R. Batstone (Ed.), Sociocognitive aspects of second language learning and teaching. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Pica, T. and Doughty, C. (1985). The role of group work in classroom second language acquisition. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 7, 233–248.
Pica, T., Kanagy, R., and Falodun, J. (1993). Choosing and using communication tasks for second language instruction and research. In G. Crookes and S. Gass (Eds.), Tasks and language learning: Integrating theory and practice (pp. 9–34). Clevedon, UK: Multilingual Matters.
Pica, T., Young, R., and Doughty, C. (1987). The impact of interaction on comprehension. TESOL Quarterly, 21, 737–758.
Plough, I. and Gass, S. (1993). Interlocutor and task familiarity: Effects on interactional structure. In G. Crookes and S. Gass (Eds.), Tasks and language learning: Integrating theory and practice (pp. 35–55). Clevedon, UK: Multilingual Matters.
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.
Russell, J. and Spada, N. (2006). The effectiveness of corrective feedback for the acquisition of L2 grammar: A meta-analysis of the research. In J. Norris and L. Ortega (Eds.), Synthesizing research on language learning and teaching (pp. 133–164). Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
Sachs, R. and Polio, C. (2007). Learners’ uses of two types of written feedback on a L2 revision task. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 29, 67–100.
Sachs, R. and Suh, B.-R. (2007). Textually enhanced recasts, learner awareness, and L2 outcomes in synchronous computer-mediated interaction. In A. Mackey (Ed.), Conversational interaction in second language acquisition: A collection of empirical studies (pp. 199–227). Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Sagarra, N. (2007). From CALL to face-to-face interaction: The effect of computer-delivered recasts and working memory on L2 development. In A. Mackey (Ed.), Conversational interaction in second language acquisition: A collection of empirical studies (pp. 229–248). Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Samuda, V. and Bygate, M. (2008). Tasks in second language learning. Hampshire, England: Palgrave Macmillan.
Sato, M. and 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 series of empirical studies (pp. 123–142). Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Sauro, S. (2009). Computer-mediated corrective feedback and the development of L2 grammar. Language Learning and Technology, 13, 96–120.
Schmidt, R. (1990). The role of consciousness is second language learning. Applied Linguistics, 11, 129–158.
Schmidt, R. (1993). Awareness and second language acquisition. Annual Review of Applied Linguistics, 13, 206–226.
Sheen, Y. (2006). Exploring the relationship between characteristics of recasts and learner uptake. Language Teaching Research, 10, 361–392.
Sheen, Y. (2007). The effects of corrective feedback, language aptitude and learner attitudes on the acquisition of english articles. In A. Mackey (Ed.), Conversational interaction in second language acquisition: A series of empirical studies (pp. 301–322). Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Sheen, Y. (2008). Recasts, language anxiety, modified output and L2 learning. Language Learning, 58, 835–874.
Skehan, P. and Foster, P. (1997). Task type and task processing conditions as influences on foreign language performance. Language Teaching Research, 1, 185–211.
Skehan, P. and Foster, P. (1999). The influence of task structure and processing conditions on narrative retellings. Language Learning, 49, 93–120.
Smith, B. (2003). Computer-mediated negotiated interaction: An expanded model. The Modern Language Journal, 87, 38–57.
Smith, B. (2005). The relationship between negotiated interaction, learner uptake, and lexical acquisition in task-based computer-mediated communication. TESOL Quarterly, 39, 33–58.
Spada, N. and Lightbown, P. (2009). Interaction research in second/foreign language classrooms. In A. Mackey and C. Polio (Eds.), Multiple perspectives on interaction: Second language research in honor of Susan M. Gass (pp. 157–175). New York: Routledge.
Swain, M. (1985). Communicative competence: Some roles of comprehensible input and comprehensible output in its development. In S. Gass and C. Madden (Eds.), Input in second language acquisition (pp. 235–253). Rowley, MA: Newbury House.
Swain, M. (1995). Three functions of output in second language learning. In G. Cook and B. Seidlhofer (Eds.), Principle and practice in applied linguistics: Studies in honour of henry G. Widdowson (pp. 125–144). Oxford: Oxford University Press.
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: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Swain, M. and Lapkin, S. (1998). Interaction and second language learning: Two adolescent french immersion students working together. The Modern Language Journal, 82, 320–337.
Swain, M. and Lapkin, S. (2002). Talking it through: Two french immersion learners’ response to reformulation. International Journal of Education Research, 37, 285–304.
Tarone, E. (2009). A variationist perspective on the interaction approach. In A. Mackey and C. Polio (Eds.), Multiple perspectives on interaction: Second language research in honor of Susan M. Gass (pp. 41–57). New York: Routledge.
Trofimovich, P., Ammar, A., and Gatbonton, E. (2007). How effective are recasts? The role of attention, memory, and analytical ability. In A. Mackey (Ed.), Conversational interaction in second language acquisition: A collection of empirical studies (pp. 171–195). Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Van den Branden, K. (1997). Effects of negotiation of language learners’ output. Language Learning, 47, 589–636.
VanPatten, B. (1989). Can learners attend to form and content while processing input?. Hispania, 72, 409–417.
Varonis, E. and Gass, S. (1985). Non-native/non-native conversations: A model for negotiation of meaning. Applied Linguistics, 6, 71–90.
Wagner-Gough, J. and Hatch, E. (1975). The importance of input data in second language acquisition studies. Language Learning, 25, 297–307.
Watanabe, Y. and 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, 121–142.
White, L. (1991). Adverb placement in second language acquisition: Some effects of positive and negative evidence in the classroom. Second Language Research, 7, 133–161.
Yuan, F. and Ellis, R. (2003). The effects of pre-task planning and on-line planning on fluency, complexity and accuracy in L2 monologic oral production. Applied Linguistics, 24, 1–27.
White, L. (2003). Second language acquisition and universal grammar. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Willis, D. and Willis, J. (2007). Doing task-based teaching. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Yule, G. and Macdonald, D. (1990). Resolving referential conflict in L2 interaction: The effect of proficiency and interactive role. Language Learning, 40, 539–556.
Yule, G., Powers, M., and Macdonald, D. (1992). The variable effects of some task-based learning procedures on L2 communicative effectiveness. Language Learning, 42, 249–277.