Cover not available
Part of
Expanding Individual Difference Research in the Interaction Approach: Investigating learners, instructors, and other interlocutors
Edited by Laura Gurzynski-Weiss
[AILA Applied Linguistics Series 16] 2017
► pp. 3–15

Chapter 1
Expanding individual difference research in the interaction approach

Investigating learners, instructors, and other interlocutors

 | Indiana University
Article outline
  • Motivation for the volume
  • The organizing Research Network (ReN)
  • Intended audience
  • Structure of the volume
  • Learner IDs (Chapters 2–6)
  • Instructor IDs (Chapters 7–12)
  • Other interlocutors (Chapter 13)
  • References
Published online: 12 December 2017
DOI logo
https://doi.org/10.1075/aals.16.01gur
References (43)
References
Adams, R., Nuevo, A., & Egi, T. (2011). Explicit and implicit feedback, modified output, and SLA: Does explicit and implicit feedback promote learning and learner-learner interactions? Modern Language Journal, 95(Suppl. 1), 42–63. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Arabski, J., & Wojtaszek, A. (2011). Individual learner differences in SLA. Clevedon, UK: Multilingual Matters.Google Scholar
Dörnyei, Z., & Ryan, S. (2015). The psychology of the language learner revisited. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
Ellis, R., & He, X. (1999). The roles of modified input and output in the incidental acquisition of word meanings. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 21, 285–301. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Ellis, R., Tanaka, Y., & Yamazaki, A. (1994). Classroom interaction, comprehension, and the acquisition of L2 word meanings. Language Learning, 44(3), 449–491. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Gass, S. M. (2003). Input and interaction. In C. Doughty & M. H. Long (Eds.), The handbook of second language acquisition (pp. 224–255). Malden, MA: Wiley-Blackwell. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Gass, S. M., & Mackey, A. (2015). Input, interaction, and output in second language acquisition. In B. VanPatten & J. Williams (Eds.), Theories in second language acquisition: An introduction (2nd ed., pp. 180–206). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.Google Scholar
Gass, S. M., & Mackey, A., & Pica, T. (1998). The role of input and interaction in second language acquisition [Special issue]. Modern Language Journal, 82(3), 299–307. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Gurzynski-Weiss, L. (2010). Factors influencing oral corrective feedback provision in the Spanish foreign language classroom: Investigating instructor native/nonnative speaker status, SLA education, & teaching experience (Unpublished doctoral dissertation). Georgetown University, Washington, DC.Google Scholar
(2013). Instructor characteristics and classroom-based SLA of Spanish. In K. L. Geeslin (Ed.), The handbook of Spanish second language acquisition (pp. 530–546). Malden, MA: Wiley-Blackwell. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
(2016a). Factors influencing Spanish instructors’ in-class feedback decisions. Modern Language Journal, 100(1), 255–275. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
(2016b). Spanish instructors’ operationalization and interpretation of task complexity and sequencing in non-experimental foreign language lessons. The Language Learning Journal, 44(4), 467–486. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
(2017). L2 instructor individual characteristics. In S. Loewen & M. Sato (Eds.), The Routledge handbook of instructed second language acquisition (pp. 451–467). New York, NY: Routledge.Google Scholar
Hatch, E. (1978). Discourse analysis and second language acquisition. In E. Hatch (Ed.), Second language acquisition: A book of readings (pp. 401–435). Rowley, MA: Newbury House.Google Scholar
(1983). Psycholinguistics: A second language perspective. Rowley, MA: Newbury House.Google Scholar
Li, S. (2010). The effectiveness of corrective feedback: A meta-analysis. Language Learning, 60(2), 309–365. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
(2013). The interactions between the effects of implicit and explicit feedback and individual differences in language analytic ability and working memory. Modern Language Journal, 97, 634–654. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Long, M. H. (1996). The role of the linguistic environment in second language acquisition. In W. C. Ritchie & T. K. Bhatia (Eds.), Handbook of research on second language acquisition (Vol. 2, pp. 413–468). New York, NY: Academy Press.Google Scholar
(2007). Problems in SLA. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.Google Scholar
MacIntyre, P. D., Burns, C., & Jessome, A. (2011). Ambivalence about communicating in a second language: A qualitative study of French immersion students’ willingness to communicate. Modern Language Journal, 95(1), 81–96. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Mackey, A. (2006). Feedback, noticing, and instructed second language learning. Applied Linguistics, 27(3), 405–430. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
(Ed.). (2007). Conversational interaction in second language acquisition: A series of empirical studies. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
(2012). Input, interaction, and corrective feedback in L2 learning. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Mackey, A., Adams, R., Stafford, C., & Winke, P. (2010). Exploring the relationship between modified output and working memory capacity. Language Learning, 60, 501–533. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Mackey, A., & Goo, J. (2007). Interaction in SLA: A research synthesis and meta-analysis. In A. Mackey (Ed.), Conversational interaction in second language acquisition (pp. 407–452). Oxford: Oxford University Press.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, 35–66. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Mackey, A., & Polio, C. (2009). Multiple perspectives on interaction: Second language research in honor of Susan M. Gass. New York, NY: Routledge.Google Scholar
Masgoret, A. M., & Gardner, R. C. (2003). Attitudes, motivation, and second language learning: A meta-analysis of studies conducted by Gardner and associates. Language Learning, 53(1), 123–163. DOI logoGoogle 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. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Moskovsky, C., Alrabai, F., Paolini, S., & Ratcheva, S. (2013). The effects of teachers’ motivational strategies on learners’ motivation: A controlled investigation of second language acquisition. Language Learning, 63(1), 34–62. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Pawlak, M. (2012). New perspectives on individual differences in language learning and teaching. New York, NY: Springer. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Pica, T. (1994). Research on negotiation: What does it reveal about second-language learning conditions, processes, and outcomes? Language Learning, 44, 493–527. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Polio, C., Gass, S. M., & Chapin, L. (2006). Using stimulated recall to investigate native speaker perceptions in native-nonnative speaker interaction. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 28(2), 237–267. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Reynolds-Case, A. (2012). Exploring how non-native teachers can use commonalties with students to teach the target language. Hispania, 95(3), 523–537.Google Scholar
Roberts, L., & Meyer, A. (Eds.). (2012). Individual differences in second language learning [Special issue]. Language Learning, 62(Suppl. 2), 1–4. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Robinson, P. (2002). Individual differences and instructed language learning. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Schmidt, R. (1990). The role of consciousness in second language learning. Applied Linguistics, 11, 129–158. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
(2001). Attention. In P. Robinson (Ed.), Cognition and second language instruction (pp. 3–32). Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Sheen, Y. (2008). Recasts, language anxiety, modified output, and L2 learning. Language Learning, 58, 835–874. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
(2011). Corrective feedback, individual differences, and second language learning. New York, NY: Springer. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Swain, M. (1995). Three functions of output in second language learning. In G. Cook & B. Seidlhofer (Eds.), Principle and practice in applied linguistics (pp. 125–144). Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
(2005). The output hypothesis: Theory and research. In E. Hinkel (Ed.), Handbook on research in second language teaching and learning (pp. 471–484). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.Google Scholar
Wolff, C. E., van den Bogert, N., Jarodzka, H., & Boshuizen, H. P. (2014). Keeping an eye on learning: Differences between expert and novice teachers’ representations of classroom management events. Journal of Teacher Education, 66(1), 68–85. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Cited by (1)

Cited by one other publication

Serafini, Ellen Johnson
2020. Chapter 9. The impact of learner perceptions of interlocutor individual differences on learner possible selves during a short-term experience abroad. In Cross-theoretical Explorations of Interlocutors and their Individual Differences [Language Learning & Language Teaching, 53], ► pp. 210 ff. DOI logo

This list is based on CrossRef data as of 25 july 2024. Please note that it may not be complete. Sources presented here have been supplied by the respective publishers. Any errors therein should be reported to them.