Cover not available
Part of
Peer Interaction and Second Language Learning: Pedagogical potential and research agenda
Edited by Masatoshi Sato and Susan Ballinger
[Language Learning & Language Teaching 45] 2016
► pp. 1–30

Understanding peer interaction

Research synthesis and directions

ORCID logo | Universidad Andres Bello
ORCID logo | McGill University
Published online: 10 March 2016
DOI logo
https://doi.org/10.1075/lllt.45.01int
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, 42–63. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Adams, R., & Ross-Feldman, L
(2008) Does writing influence learner attention to form? In D. Belcher & A. Hirvela (Eds.), The oral-literate connection. perspectives on L2 speaking, writing, and other media interactions (pp. 243–265). Ann Arbor, MI: The University of Michigan Press.Google Scholar
Alcón, E
(2002) Relationship between teacher-led versus learners’ interaction and the development of pragmatics in the EFL classroom. International Journal of Educational Research, 37(3-4), 359–377. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Aljaafreh, A., & Lantolf, J
(1994) Negative feedback as regulation and second language learning in the zone of proximal development. The Modern Language Journal, 78(4), 465–483. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Anderson, J
(2005) Cognitive psychology and its implications (6th ed.). New York, NY: Worth Publishers.Google Scholar
Angelova, M., Gunawardena, D., & Volk, D
(2006) Peer teaching and learning: Co-constructing language in a dual language first grade. Language and Education, 20(3), 173–190. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Ballinger, S
(2013) Towards a cross-linguistic pedagogy: Biliteracy and reciprocal learning strategies in French immersion. Journal of Immersion and Content-Based Language Education, 1(1), 131–148. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Ballinger, S., & Lyster, R
(2011) Student and teacher oral language use in a two-way Spanish/English immersion school. Language Teaching Research, 15(3), 289–306.Google Scholar
Batstone, R
(2010) Issues and options in sociocognition. In R. Batstone (Ed.), Sociocognitive perspectives on language use and language learning (pp. 3–23). Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Bergman, M
(2011) The good, the bad, and the ugly in mixed methods research and design. Journal of Mixed Methods Research, 5(4), 271–275. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Brooks, F., & Donato, R
(1994) Vygotskyan approaches to understanding foreign language learner discourse during communicative tasks. Hispania, 77(2), 262–274. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Brown, A
(2009) Students’ and teachers’ perceptions of effective foreign language teaching: A comparison of ideals. The Modern Language Journal, 93(1), 46–60. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Bruton, A., & Samuda, V
(1980) Learner and teacher roles in the treatment of oral error in group work. RELC Journal, 11(2), 49–63. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Buckwalter, P
(2001) Repair sequences in Spanish L2 dyadic discourse: A descriptive study. The Modern Language Journal, 85(3), 380–397. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
de Bot, K
(1996) The psycholinguistics of the output hypothesis. Language Learning, 46(3), 529–555. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
DeKeyser, R
(2010) Practice for second language learning: Don’t throw out the baby with the bathwater. International Journal of English Studies, 10(1), 155–165.Google Scholar
(Ed.) (2007) Practice in a second language: Perspectives from applied linguistics and cognitive psychology. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Donato, R
(1994) Collective scaffolding in second language learning. In J. Lantolf & G. Appel (Eds.), Vygotskian approaches to second language research (pp. 33–56). Norwood, NJ: Ablex.Google Scholar
Færch, C., & Kasper, G
(1983) Plans and strategies in foreign language communication. In C. Færch & G. Kasper (Eds.), Strategies in interlanguage communication (pp. 20–60). London: Longman.Google Scholar
Fernández Dobao, A
(2012) Collaborative dialogue in learner–learner and learner–native speaker interaction. Applied Linguistics, 33(3), 229–256. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Foster, P
(1998) A classroom perspective on the negotiation of meaning. Applied Linguistics, 14(1), 1–23. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Foster, P., & Ohta, A
(2005) Negotiation for meaning and peer assistance in second language classrooms. Applied Linguistics, 26(3), 402–430. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Fotos, S
(1998) Shifting the focus from forms to form in the EFL classroom. ELT Journal, 52(4), 301–307. DOI logoGoogle 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), 267–301. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Galaczi, E
(2008) Peer-peer interaction in a speaking test: The case of the First Certificate in English Examination. Language Assessment Quarterly, 5(2), 89–119. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
García Mayo, M.P., & Alcón Soler, E
(2013) Negotiated input and output / interaction. In J. Herschensohn & M. Young-Scholten (Eds.), The Cambridge Handbook of Second Language Acquisition (pp. 209–299). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
García Mayo, M.P., & Pica, T
(2000) L2 learner interaction in a foreign language setting: Are learning needs addressed? International Review of Applied Linguistics, 38(1), 35–58.Google Scholar
Gass, S
(2003) Input and interaction. In C. Doughty & M. Long (Eds.), Handbook of second language acquisition (pp. 224–255). Oxford: Blackwell. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Gass, S., Mackey, A., & Ross-Feldman, L
(2005) Task-based interactions in classroom and laboratory settings. Language Learning, 55(4), 575–611. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Gass, S., & Varonis, E
(1989) Incorporated repairs in nonnative discourse. In M. Eisenstein (Ed.), The dynamic interlanguage: Empirical studies in second language variation (pp. 71–86). New York, NY: Plenum Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Gupta, D
(2004) CLT in India: Context and methodology come together. ELT Journal, 58(3), 266–269. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Gurzynski-Weiss, L., & Baralt, M
(2014) Exploring learner perception and use of task-based interactional feedback in FTF and CMC modes. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 36(1), 1–37. DOI logoGoogle 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
Henderson, K., & Palmer, D
(2015) Teacher scaffolding and pair work in a pre-K bilingual classroom. Journal of Immersion and Content-Based Language Education, 3(1), 77–101. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Hulstijn, J., Young, R., Ortega, L., Bigelow, M., DeKeyser, R., Ellis, N., Lantolf, J., Mackey, A., & Talmy, S
(2014) Bridging the gap: Cognitive and social approaches to research in second language learning and teaching. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 36, 1–61. DOI logoGoogle 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 logoGoogle Scholar
Izumi, S
(2003) Comprehension and production processes in second language learning: In search of the psycholinguistic rationale of the output hypothesis. Applied Linguistics, 24(2), 168–196. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Jean, G., & Simard, D
(2011) Grammar teaching and learning in L2: Necessary, but boring? Foreign Language Annals, 44(3), 467–494. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Khazaei, Z., Zadeh, A., & Ketabi, S
(2012) Willingness to communicate in Iranian EFL learners: The effect of class size English Language Teaching, 5(11), 181–187.Google Scholar
Kim, Y
(2013) Effects of pretask modeling on attention to form and question development. TESOL Quarterly, 47(1), 8–35. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Kim, Y., & McDonough, K
(2008) The effect of interlocutor proficiency on the collaborative dialogue between Korean as a second language learners. Language Teaching Research, 12(2), 211–234. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
(2011) Using pretask modelling to encourage collaborative learning opportunities. Language Teaching Research, 15(2), 183–199. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Kormos, J
(2006) Speech production and second language acquisition. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.Google Scholar
Kormos, J., & Kiddle, T
(2013) The role of socio-economic factors in motivation to learn English as a foreign language: The case of Chile. System, 41(2), 399–412. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Kormos, J., & Trebits, A
(2012) The role of task complexity, modality, and aptitude in narrative task performance. Language Learning, 62(2), 439–472. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Krashen, S
(1982) Principles and practice in second language acquisition. Oxford: Pergamon.Google Scholar
Kuiken, F., & Vedder, I
(2012) Speaking and writing tasks and their effects on second language performance. In S. Gass & A. Mackey (Eds.), The Routledge handbook of second language acquisition (pp. 364–377). New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
Lai, C., & Zhao, Y
(2006) Noticing and text-based chat. Language Learning & Technology, 10(3), 102–120.Google Scholar
Lam, R
(2015) Language assessment training in Hong Kong: Implications for language assessment literacy. Language Testing, 32, 169–197. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Lantolf, J
(2012) Sociocultural theory: A dialectical approach to L2 research. In S. Gass & A. Mackey (Eds.), The Routledge handbook of second language acquisition (pp. 57–72). New York, NY: Routledge.Google Scholar
Lasagabaster, D., & Sierra, J.M
(2005) Error correction: Students’ versus teachers’ perceptions. Language Awareness, 14(2-3), 112–127. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Levelt, W
(1983) Monitoring and self-repair in speech. Cognition, 14(1), 41–104. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
(1989) Speaking: From intention to articulation. Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press.Google Scholar
Loewen, S
(2015) Introduction to instructed second language acquisition. New York, NY: Routledge.Google Scholar
Loewen, S., & Philp, J
(2006) Recasts in the adult English L2 classroom: Characteristics, explicitness, and effectiveness. The Modern Language Journal, 90(4), 536–556. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Long, M
(1981) Input, interaction, and second language acquisition. Annals of the New York Academy of Sciences, 379, 259–278. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
(1983) Linguistic and conversational adjustments in non-native speakers. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 5(2), 177–193. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
(1996) The role of the linguistic environment in second language acquisition. In W. Ritchie & T. Bhatia (Eds.), Handbook of second language acquisition (pp. 413–468). San Diego, CA: Academic Press.Google Scholar
(2015) Second language acquisition and task-based language teaching. Chichester, UK: Wiley Blackwell.Google Scholar
Loschky, L., & Bley-Vroman, R
(1993) Grammar and task-based methodology. In G. Crookes & S. Gass (Eds.), Tasks and language learning (pp. 123–167). Clevedon, UK: Multilingual Matters.Google Scholar
Lyster, R
(1987) Speaking immersion. The Canadian Modern Language Review, 43(4), 701–717.Google Scholar
Lyster, R., Saito, K., & Sato, M
(2013) State-of-the-art article: Oral corrective feedback in second language classrooms. Language Teaching, 46(1), 1–40. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Lyster, R., & Sato, M
(2013) Skill acquisition theory and the role of practice in L2 development. In M.G. Mayo, J. Gutierrez-Mangado, & M.M. Adrián (Eds.), Contemporary approaches to second language acquisition (pp. 71–92). Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
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.Google Scholar
(2012) Input, interaction, and corrective feedback in L2 learning. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Mackey, A., Abbuhl, R., & Gass, S
(2012) Interactionist approach. In S. Gass & A. Mackey (Eds.), The Routledge handbook of second language acquisition (pp. 7–23). New York, NY: Routledge.Google Scholar
Mackey, A., & Goo, J
(2007) Interaction research in SLA: A meta-analysis and research synthesis. In A. Mackey (Ed.), Conversational interaction in second language acquisition: A collection of empirical studies (pp. 407–452). 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(1), 35–66. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
McCollum, P
(1999) Learning to value English: Cultural capital in a dual language bilingual program. Bilingual Research Journal, 23(1), 133–134. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
McDonough, K
(2004) Learner-learner interaction during pair and small group activities in a Thai EFL context. System, 32(2), 207–224. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
(2005) Identifying the impact of negative feedback and learners’ responses on ESL question development. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 27(1), 79–103. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
(2011) Eliciting wh-questions through collaborative syntactic priming activities during peer interaction. In P. Trofimovich & K. McDonough (Eds.), Applying priming methods to L2 learning, teaching and research (pp. 131–151). Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
McDonough, K., & Chaikitmongkol, W
(2010) Collaborative syntactic priming activities and EFL learners’ production of wh-questions. The Canadian Modern Language Review, 66(6), 817–841. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
McDonough, K., & Mackey, A
(2000) Communicative tasks, conversational interaction, and linguistic form: An empirical study of Thai. Foreign Language Annals, 33(1), 82–91. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Nassaji, H., & Swain, M
(2000) A Vygotskyan perspective on corrective feedback in L2: The effect of random versus negotiated help in the learning of English articles. Language Awareness, 9(1), 34–51. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Naughton, D
(2006) Cooperative strategy training and oral interaction: Enhancing small group communication in the language classroom. The Modern Language Journal, 90(2), 169–184. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Niu, R
(2009) Effect of task-inherent production modes on EFL learners’ focus on form. Language Awareness, 18(3–4), 384–402. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Ohta, A
(2001) Second language acquisition processes in the classroom: Learning Japanese. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.Google Scholar
Oliver, R
(2002) The patterns of negotiation for meaning in child interactions. The Modern Language Journal, 86(1), 97–111. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Ortega, L
(2009) Interaction and attention to form in L2 text-based computer-mediated communication. In A. Mackey & C. Polio (Eds.), Multiple perspectives on interaction: Second language research in honour of Susan Gass (pp. 226–253). New York, NY: Routledge.Google Scholar
Palinscar, A
(1998) Social constructionist perspectives on teaching and learning. Annual Review of Psychology, 49, 345–375. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Paradis, M
(2009) Declarative and procedural determinants of second languages. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Pasfield-Neofitou, S
(2012) Online communication in a second language: Social interaction, language use, and learning Japanese. Bristol, UK: Multilingual Matters.Google Scholar
Philp, J., Adams, R., & Iwashita, N
(2014) Peer interaction and second language learning. New York, NY: Routledge.Google Scholar
Philp, J., & Tognini, R
(2009) Language acquisition in foreign language contexts and the differential benefits of interaction. International Review of Applied Linguistics in Language Teaching, 47(3-4), 245–266. DOI logoGoogle 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 logoGoogle Scholar
Pica, T
(2013) From input, output and comprehension to negotiation, evidence, and attention: An overview of theory and research on learner interaction and SLA. In M.G. Mayo, J. Gutierrez-Mangado, & M.M. Adrián (Eds.), Contemporary approaches to second language acquisition (pp. 49–69). Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Pica, T., Kanagy, R., & Falodun, J
(1993) Choosing and using tasks for second language instruction and research. In G. Crookes & S. Gass (Eds.), Tasks and language learning: Integrating theory and practice (pp. 9–34). Clevedon, UK: Multilingual Matters.Google Scholar
Pica, T., Lincoln-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 logoGoogle Scholar
Pienemann, M., & Johnston, M
(1987) Factors influencing the development of language proficiency. In D. Nunan (Ed.), Applying second language acquisition research (pp. 45–141). Adelaide, Australia: National Curriculum Resource Center, Adult Migrant Education Program.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
Potowski, K
(2007) Language and identity in a dual immersion school. Clevedon, UK: Multilingual Matters.Google Scholar
Pritchard, R., & Maki, H
(2006) The changing self-perceptions of Japanese university students of English. Journal of Studies in International Education, 10(2), 141–156. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Russell, J., & Spada, N
(2006) The effectiveness of corrective feedback for the acquisition of L2 grammar. In J. Norris & L. Ortega (Eds.), Synthesizing research on language learning and teaching (pp. 133–162). Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Russell, V
(2014) A closer look at the Output Hypothesis: The effect of pushed output on noticing and inductive learning of the Spanish future tense. Foreign Language Annals, 47(1), 25–47. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Sato, M
(2007) Social relationships in conversational interaction: A comparison between learner-learner and learner-NS dyads. JALT Journal, 29(2), 183–208.Google Scholar
(2013) Beliefs about peer interaction and peer corrective feedback: Efficacy of classroom intervention. The Modern Language Journal, 97(3), 611–633. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
(2015a) Density and complexity of oral production in interaction: The interactionist approach and an alternative. International Review of Applied Linguistics in Language Teaching 53(3) 307–329. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
(2015b)  The noticeability and effectiveness of corrective feedback in video-based interaction . Selected plenary presented at XVII International CALL Research Conference, Tarragona, Spain.
Sato, M., & Ballinger, S
(2012) Raising language awareness in peer interaction: A cross-context, cross-method examination. Language Awareness, 21(1-2), 157–179. DOI logoGoogle 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
(2012) Peer interaction and corrective feedback for accuracy and fluency development: Monitoring, practice, and proceduralization. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 34(4), 591–262. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Sauro, S
(2011) SCMC for SLA: A research synthesis. CALICO Journal, 28(1), 1–23. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Sauro, S., & Smith, B
(2010) Investigating L2 performance in text chat. Applied Linguistics, 31(4), 554–577. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Schmidt, R
(1990) The role of consciousness in second language learning. Applied Linguistics, 11(2), 129–158. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Schmidt, R., & Frota, S
(1986) Developing basic conversational ability in a second language: A case study of an adult leaner of Portuguese. In R. Day (Ed.), Talking to learn (pp. 237–326). Rowley, MA: Newbury House.Google Scholar
Shehadeh, A
(1999) Non-native speakers’ production of modified comprehensible output and second language learning. Language Learning, 49(4), 627–675. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
(2001) Self- and other-initiated modified output during task-based interaction. TESOL Quarterly, 35(3), 433–457. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Shehadeh, A., & Coombe, C
(Eds.) (2012) Task-based language teaching in foreign language contexts: Research and implimentation. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Shonerd, H
(1994) Repair in spontaneous speech: A window on second language development. In V. John-Steiner, C. Panofsky, & L. Smith (Eds.), Sociocultural approaches to language and literacy: An interactionist perspective (pp. 82–108). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Skehan, P
(Ed.) (2014) Processing perspectives on task performance. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Smith, B
(2009) The relationship between scrolling, negotiation, and self-initiated self-repair in an SCMC environment. CALICO Journal, 26(2), 231–245.Google Scholar
Steel, C., & Levy, M
(2013) Language students and their technologies: Charting the evolution 2006–2011. ReCALL, 25(3), 306–320. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Storch, N
(2002) Patterns of interaction in ESL pair work. Language Learning, 52(1), 119–158. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
(2009) The nature of pair interaction: Learners? interaction in an ESL class: Its nature and impact on grammatical development. Saarbrücken, Germany: VDM Verlag.Google Scholar
Storch, N., & Aldosari, A
(2013) Pairing learners in pair work activity. Language Teaching Research, 17(1), 31–48. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Storch, N., & Wigglesworth, G
(2010) Students’ engagement with feedback on writing: The role of learner agency/beliefs. In R. Batstone (Ed.), Sociocognitive perspectives on language use and language learning (pp. 166–185). Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Swain, M
(1985) Communicative competence: Some roles of comprehensible input and comprehensible output in its development. In S. Gass & C. Madden (Eds.), Input in second language acquisition (pp. 235–253). Rowley, MA: Newbury House.Google Scholar
Swain, M., Brooks, L., & Tocalli-Beller, A
(2002) Peer-peer dialogue as a means of second language learning. Annual Review of Applied Linguistics, 22, 171–185. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Swain, M., & Lapkin, S
(1998) Interaction and second language learning: Two adolescent French immersion students working together. The Modern Language Journal, 82(3), 320–337. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
(2001) Focus on form through collaborative dialogue: Exploring task effects. In M. Bygate, P. Skehan, & M. Swain (Eds.), Researching pedagogic tasks: Second language learning, teaching and testing (pp. 99–118). Harlow, UK: Longman.Google Scholar
(2002) Talking it through: Two French immersion learners’ response to reformulation. International Journal of Educational Research, 37(3), 285–304. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Tarone, E., & Swain, M
(1995) A sociolinguistic perspective on second language use in immersion classrooms. The Modern Language Journal, 79(1), 166–178. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Toth, P
(2008) Teacher- and learner-led discourse in task-based grammar instruction: Providing procedural assistance for L2 morphosyntactic development. Language Learning, 58(2), 237–283. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Toth, P., Wagner, E., & Moranski, K
(2013) ‘Co-constructing’ explicit L2 knowledge with high school Spanish learners through guided induction. Applied Linguistics, 34(3), 255–278. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Ullman, M
(2005) A cognitive neuroscience perspective on second language acquisition: The declarative/procedural model. In C. Sanz (Ed.), Mind and context in adult second language acquisition (pp. 141–178). Washington, DC: Georgetown University Press.Google Scholar
Varonis, E., & Gass, S
(1985) Non-native/non-native conversations: A model for negotiation of meaning. Applied Linguistics, 6(1), 71–90. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Vygotsky, L
(1978) Mind in society: The development of higher psychological processes. Cambridge, MA: Havard University Press.Google Scholar
Walqui, A
(2006) Scaffolding instruction for English language learners: A conceptual framework. International Journal of Bilingual Education and Bilingualism, 9(2), 159–180. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Watanabe, Y., & 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(2), 121–142. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Williams, J
(1999) Learner-generated attention to form. Language Learning, 49(4), 583–625. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
(2001) The effectiveness of spontaneous attention to form. System, 29(3), 325–340. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Yanguas, Í
(2010) Oral computer-mediated interaction between L2 learners: It’s about time. Language Learning and Technology, 14(1), 72–93.Google Scholar
Yilmaz, Y
(2011) Task effects on focus on form in synchronous computer-mediated communication. The Modern Language Journal, 95(1), 115–132. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Yoshida, R
(2008) Learners’ perception of corrective feedback in pair work. Foreign Language Annals, 41(3), 525–541. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Cited by

Cited by 30 other publications

Baralt, Melissa, Laura Gurzynski-Weiss & YouJin Kim
2016. 8. Engagement with the language. In Peer Interaction and Second Language Learning [Language Learning & Language Teaching, 45], ► pp. 209 ff. DOI logo
Choi, Hyunsik & Noriko Iwashita
2016. 4. Interactional behaviours of low-proficiency learners in small group work. In Peer Interaction and Second Language Learning [Language Learning & Language Teaching, 45], ► pp. 113 ff. DOI logo
Clifford, Elisabeth, Christine Pleines, Hilary Thomas & Susanne Winchester
2019. Learners as teachers? An evaluation of peer interaction and correction in a German Language MOOC. In CALL and complexity – short papers from EUROCALL 2019, ► pp. 88 ff. DOI logo
Dao, Phung, Mai Xuan Nhat Chi Nguyen & Do-Na Chi
2021. Reflective learning practice for promoting adolescent EFL learners’ attention to form. Innovation in Language Learning and Teaching 15:3 ► pp. 247 ff. DOI logo
Dobao, Ana Fernández
2016. 1. Peer interaction and learning. In Peer Interaction and Second Language Learning [Language Learning & Language Teaching, 45], ► pp. 33 ff. DOI logo
Ebadijalal, Marjan & Shahab Moradkhani
2023. Impacts of computer-assisted collaborative writing, collaborative prewriting, and individual writing on EFL learners’ performance and motivation. Computer Assisted Language Learning ► pp. 1 ff. DOI logo
Fujii, Akiko, Nicole Ziegler & Alison Mackey
2016. 2. Peer interaction and metacognitive instruction in the EFL classroom. In Peer Interaction and Second Language Learning [Language Learning & Language Teaching, 45], ► pp. 63 ff. DOI logo
García Mayo, María del Pilar & Agurtzane Azkarai
2016. 9. EFL task-based interaction. In Peer Interaction and Second Language Learning [Language Learning & Language Teaching, 45], ► pp. 241 ff. DOI logo
Gorham, Tom, Rwitajit Majumdar & Hiroaki Ogata
2023. Analyzing learner profiles in a microlearning app for training language learning peer feedback skills. Journal of Computers in Education 10:3 ► pp. 549 ff. DOI logo
Hsu, Hsiu-Chen
2022. Peer interaction and attention to form in web-based synchronous and asynchronous L2 collaborative writing. Computer Assisted Language Learning ► pp. 1 ff. DOI logo
Labrović, Jelena Anđelković, Nikola Petrović, Jelena Anđelković & Marija Meršnik
2023. Patterns of behavioral engagement in an online english language course: cluster analysis. Journal of Computing in Higher Education DOI logo
Loewen, Shawn & Dominik Wolff
2016. 6. Peer interaction in F2F and CMC contexts. In Peer Interaction and Second Language Learning [Language Learning & Language Teaching, 45], ► pp. 163 ff. DOI logo
Martin, Ines A. & Lieselotte Sippel
2021. Providing vs. receiving peer feedback: Learners’ beliefs and experiences. Language Teaching Research ► pp. 136216882110243 ff. DOI logo
Martin, Ines A. & Lieselotte Sippel
2021. Is giving better than receiving?. Journal of Second Language Pronunciation 7:1 ► pp. 62 ff. DOI logo
Martin-Beltrán, Melinda, Pei-Jie Chen, Natalia Guzman & Kayra Alvarado Merrills
2016. 12. How adolescents use social discourse to open space for language learning during peer interactions. In Peer Interaction and Second Language Learning [Language Learning & Language Teaching, 45], ► pp. 319 ff. DOI logo
McDonough, Kim, William J. Crawford & Jindarat De Vleeschauwer
2016. 7. Thai EFL learners’ interaction during collaborative writing tasks and its relationship to text quality. In Peer Interaction and Second Language Learning [Language Learning & Language Teaching, 45], ► pp. 185 ff. DOI logo
McDonough, Kim, Jindarat De Vleeschauwer & William J. Crawford
2019. Exploring the benefits of collaborative prewriting in a Thai EFL context. Language Teaching Research 23:6 ► pp. 685 ff. DOI logo
Mohammadi, Kourosh, Aliakbar Jafarpour, Javad Alipour & Mahmood Hashemian
2024. The Impact of Different Kinds of Collaborative Prewriting on EFL Learners’ Degree of Engagement in Writing and Writing Self-Efficacy. Reading & Writing Quarterly 40:1 ► pp. 1 ff. DOI logo
Moranski, Kara & Paul D. Toth
2016. 11. Small-group meta-analytic talk and Spanish L2 development. In Peer Interaction and Second Language Learning [Language Learning & Language Teaching, 45], ► pp. 291 ff. DOI logo
Philp, Jenefer
2016. New pathways in researching interaction. In Peer Interaction and Second Language Learning [Language Learning & Language Teaching, 45], ► pp. 377 ff. DOI logo
Pladevall-Ballester, Elisabet
2021. Pair dynamics and language-related episodes in child EFL task-based peer interaction. Language Teaching for Young Learners 3:2 ► pp. 189 ff. DOI logo
Rouhshad, Amir & Neomy Storch
2016. 10. A focus on mode. In Peer Interaction and Second Language Learning [Language Learning & Language Teaching, 45], ► pp. 267 ff. DOI logo
Sato, Masatoshi
2022. Mindsets and language-related problem-solving behaviors during interaction in the classroom. Innovation in Language Learning and Teaching 16:3 ► pp. 265 ff. DOI logo
Sato, Masatoshi & Isidora Angulo
2020. Chapter 2. The role of L1 use by high-proficiency learners in L2 vocabulary development. In Languaging in Language Learning and Teaching [Language Learning & Language Teaching, 55], ► pp. 42 ff. DOI logo
Sato, Masatoshi & Neomy Storch
2022. Context matters: Learner beliefs and interactional behaviors in an EFL vs. ESL context. Language Teaching Research 26:5 ► pp. 919 ff. DOI logo
Tajabadi, Azar, Moussa Ahmadian, Hamidreza Dowlatabadi & Hooshang Yazdani
2023. EFL learners’ peer negotiated feedback, revision outcomes, and short-term writing development: The effect of patterns of interaction. Language Teaching Research 27:3 ► pp. 689 ff. DOI logo
Ting, Kuang-yun
2023. Students’ perspective toward anonymous peer feedback in online writing classes. Interactive Learning Environments ► pp. 1 ff. DOI logo
TOSUN, Sibel & Nuray ALAGÖZLÜ
2023. THE EFFECT OF INTERACTIONAL STRATEGY TRAINING ON PEER COLLABORATION AND INTERACTION PATTERNS. Fırat Üniversitesi Sosyal Bilimler Dergisi 33:2 ► pp. 701 ff. DOI logo
Xu, Jinfen, Yumei Fan & Qingting Xu
2019. EFL learners’ corrective feedback decision-making in task-based peer interaction. Language Awareness 28:4 ► pp. 329 ff. DOI logo
Young, Amy I. & Diane J. Tedick
2016. 5. Collaborative dialogue in a two-way Spanish/English immersion classroom. In Peer Interaction and Second Language Learning [Language Learning & Language Teaching, 45], ► pp. 135 ff. DOI logo

This list is based on CrossRef data as of 22 march 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.