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. 377–395

New pathways in researching interaction

Published online: 10 March 2016
DOI logo
https://doi.org/10.1075/lllt.45.15phi
References (90)
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
Aston, G. (1993). Notes on the interlanguage of comity. In G. Kasper & S. Blum-Kulka (Eds.), Interlanguage pragmatics (pp. 224–250). Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google 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
Baralt, M. (2013). The impact of cognitive complexity on feedback efficacy during online versus face-to-face interactive tasks. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 35, 689–725. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. (2014). Task sequencing and task complexity in traditional versus online classes. In M. Baralt, R. Gilabert, & P. Robinson (Eds.), Task sequencing and instructed second language learning (pp. 95–122). London: Bloomsbury.Google Scholar
Baralt, M., Gurzynski-Weiss, L., & Kim, Y. (2016). The effects of task complexity and classroom environment on learners’ engagement with the language. In M. Sato & S. Ballinger (Eds.), Peer interaction and second language learning. Pedagogical potential and research agenda. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
Batstone, R., & Philp, J. (2013). Classroom interaction and learning across time and space. In K. McDonough & A. Mackey (Eds.), Second language interaction in diverse educational contexts (pp. 109–128). Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Bigelow, M., & King, K. (2016). Peer interaction while learning to read in a new language. In M. Sato & S. Ballinger (Eds.), Peer interaction and second language learning. Pedagogical potential and research agenda. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
Breen, M. (1985). The social context for language learning—a neglected situation? Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 7, 135–158. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Brown, A., Metz, K.E., & Campione, J.C. (1996). Social interaction and individual understanding in a community of learners: The influence of Piaget and Vygotsky. In A. Tryphon & J. Voneche (Eds.), Piaget-Vygotsky: The social genesis of thought (pp. 145–170). London: Psychology Press.Google Scholar
Choi, H., & Iwashita, N. (2016). Interactional behaviours of low-proficiency learners in small group work. In M. Sato & S. Ballinger (Eds.), Peer interaction and second language learning. Pedagogical potential and research agenda. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
Christenson, S.L, Reschly, A.L, & Wylie, C. (2012). Handbook of research on student engagement. New York, NY: Springer. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Churchill, E., Okada, H., Nishino, T., & Atkinson, D. (2010). Symbiotic gestures and the Sociocognitive Visibility of Grammar in Second Language Acquisition. The Modern Language Journal, 94(2), 234–253. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Damon, W., & Phelps, E. (1989a). Critical distinctions among three approaches to peer education. International Journal of Educational Research, 58, 9–19. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Daniels, H. (2011). Vygotsky and psychology. In Goswami, U. (Ed.), The Wiley-Blackwell handbook of childhood cognitive development (2nd ed.). Malden, MA: Wiley-Blackwell.Google Scholar
Davies, B., & Harré, R. (1990). Positioning: The discursive production of selves. Journal for the Theory of Social Behaviour, 20(1), 43–63. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Dawes, L. (2004). Talking and learning in classroom science. International Journal of Science Education, 26(6), 677–695. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
DeKeyser, R. (2007). Conclusion: The future of practice. In R. DeKeyser (Ed.), Practice in a second language (pp. 287–304). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
De Lisi, R., & Golbeck, S.L. (1999). Implication of Piaget’s theory for peer-learning. In A.M. O’Donnell & A. King (Eds.), Cognitive perspectives on peer-learning (pp.3–38). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.Google Scholar
De Smet, M., Van Keer, H., & Valcke, M. (2008). Blending asynchronous discussion groups and peer tutoring in higher education: An exploratory study of online peer tutoring behaviour. Computers and Education 50(1), 207–223. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Donato, R. (1994). Collective scaffolding in second language learning. In J.P. Lantolf & G. Appel (Eds.), Vygotskian approaches to second language research (pp. 33–56). Norwood, NJ: Ablex.Google Scholar
Dörnyei, Z. & Kormos, J. (2000). The role of individual and social variable in oral task performance. Language Teaching Research 4(3), 275–300. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Dörnyei, Z., & Malderez, A. (1997). Group dynamics and foreign language learning. System, 25(1), 65–81. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Dunn, J. (1999). Siblings, friends, and the development of social understanding. In W.A. Collins & B. Laursen (Eds), Relationships as social contexts (pp. 263–279). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.Google Scholar
Duchesne, S., McMaugh, A., Bochner, S., & Krause, K. (2013). Educational psychology for learning and teaching. Melbourne: Cengage Learning Australia.Google Scholar
Ellis, R., Loewen, S., Elder, C., Erlam, R., Philp, J., & Reinders, H. (2009). Implicit and explicit knowledge in second language learning, testing and teaching. Clevedon, UK: Multilingual Matters.Google Scholar
Fernández Dobao, A. (2016). Peer interaction and learning: A focus on the silent learner. In M. Sato & S. Ballinger (Eds.), Peer interaction and second language learning: Pedagogical potential and research agenda. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
Fredericks, J., Blumenfeld, P., & Paris, A. (2004). School engagement: Potential of the concept, state of evidence. Review of Educational Research, 74(1), 59–105. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Fujii, A., Ziegler, N., & Mackey, A. (2016). Peer interaction and metacognitive instruction in the EFL classroom. In M. Sato & S. Ballinger (Eds.), Peer interaction and second language learning: Pedagogical potential and research agenda. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
Furlong, M., & Christenson, S. (2008). Engaging students at school and with learning: A relevant construct for all students. Psychology in the Schools, 45, 365–368. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
García Mayo, M.P, & Azkarai, A. (2016). EFL task-based interaction: Does task modality impact on language-related episodes? In M. Sato & S. Ballinger (Eds.), Peer interaction and second language learning: Pedagogical potential and research agenda. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
Gass, S.M, & Mackey, A. (2000). Stimulated recall methodology in second language research. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Association.Google Scholar
Gettinger, M., & Ball, C. (2007). Best practices in increasing academic engaged time. In A. Thomas & J. Grimes (Eds.), Best practices in school psychology V (pp. 1043–1075). Bethesda, MD: National Association of School Psychologists.Google Scholar
Gibbons, P. (2003). Mediating language learning: Teacher interactions with ESL students in content-based classroom. TESOL Quarterly, 37(2), 247–273. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Hartup, W.W. (1989). Social relationships and their developmental significance. American Psychologist 44, 120–126. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. (2011). Critical issues and theoretical viewpoints. In K.H. Rubin, W.M. Bukowski, & B. Laursen (Eds.), Handbook of peer Interactions, relationships and groups (pp. 3–19). London: The Guildford Press.Google Scholar
Helme, S., & Clarke, D. (2001). Identifying cognitive engagement in the mathematics classroom. Mathematics Education Research Journal. 13(2), 133–153. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Hellermann, J. (2008). Social actions for classroom language learning. Clevedon, UK: Multilingual Matters.Google Scholar
Hogan, D., & Tudge, J. (1999). Implications of Vygotsky’s theory for peer learning. In S. O’Donnell & A. King (Eds.), Cognitive perspectives on peer learning (pp. 39–66). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.Google Scholar
Hulstijn, J., Young, R., Ortega, L., Bigelow, M., DeKeyser, R., Ellis, N., 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
Janosz, M. (2012). Part IV commentary: Outcomes of engagement and engagement as an outcome: Some consensus, divergences, and unanswered questions. In S.L. Christenson, A.L. Reschly & C. Wylie (Eds.), Handbook of research on student engagement (pp. 695–703). New York, NY: Springer. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Kormos, J. & Dörnyei, Z. (2004). The interaction of linguistic and motivational variables in second language task performance. Zeitschrift für Interkulturellen Fremdsprachenunterricht [Online], 9(2). Retrieved from: [URL]
Google Scholar
Lantolf, J. (2000). Sociocultural theory and second language learning. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Laursen, B., & Hartup, W. (2002). The origins of reciprocity and social exchange in friendships. In B. Laursen & W. Graziano (Eds.), Social exchange in development (pp. 27–40). San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.Google Scholar
Loewen, S. (2005). Incidental focus on form and second language learning. Studies in Second Language Acquisition 27(3), 361–386. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Loewen, S., & Wolff, D. (2016). Peer interaction in F2F and CMC contexts. In M. Sato & S. Ballinger (Eds.), Peer interaction and second language learning. Pedagogical potential and research agenda. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
Mackey, A., & Gass, S.M. (2015). Second Language Research (2nd ed.), Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.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
Martin, J. (2012). Part II Commentary: Motivation and engagement: Conceptual, operational, and empirical clarity. In S.L. Christenson, A.L. Reschly, & C. Wylie (Eds.). Handbook of research on student engagement (pp. 303–311). New York, NY: Springer. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Martin-Beltrán, M., Chen, P.J, Guzman, N., & Merrills, K. (2016). How adolescents use social discourse to open space for language learning during peer interactions. In M. Sato & S. Ballinger (Eds.), Peer interaction and second language learning. Pedagogical potential and research agenda. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
McDonough, K., Crawford, B., & De Vleeschauwer, J. (2016). Thai EFL learners’ interaction during collaborative writing tasks and its relationship to text quality. In M. Sato & S. Ballinger (Eds.), Peer interaction and second language learning. Pedagogical potential and research agenda. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
Mercer, N. (2008). The seeds of time: Why classroom dialogue needs a temporal analysis. Journal of the Learning Sciences, 17(1), 33–59. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. (1996). The quality of talk in children’s collaborative activity in the classroom. Learning and Instruction, 6(4), 359–377. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Moranski, K., & Toth, P. (2016). Small-group meta-analytic talk and Spanish L2 development. In M. Sato & S. Ballinger (Eds.), Peer interaction and second language learning. Pedagogical potential and research agenda. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
Nation, P. (2013). Learning vocabulary in another language. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
. (2007). The four strands. Innovation in Language Learning and Teaching, 1(1), 2–13. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
O’Donnell, A.M. (2006). The role of peers and group learning. In P. Alexander & P. Winne (Eds.), Handbook of educational psychology (pp. 781–802). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.Google Scholar
Pekrun, R., & Linnenbrink-Garcia, L. (2012). Academic emotions and student engagement. In S.L. Christenson, A.L. Reschly & C. Wylie (Eds.), Handbook of research on student engagement (pp. 259–282). New York, NY: Springer. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Philp, J., Adams, R., & Iwashita, N. (2014). Peer Interaction and second language learning. New York, NY: Taylor & Francis.Google Scholar
Philp, J., & Duchesne, S. (2008). When the gate opens: The interaction between social and linguistic goals in child second language development. In J. Philp, R. Oliver, & A. Mackey (Eds.), Second language acquisition and the younger learner. Child’s play? (pp. 83–103). Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. (in press). Exploring engagement in tasks in the language classroom. Annual Review of Applied Linguistics, 36.
Philp, J., & Mackey, A. (2010). Interaction research: What can socially informed approaches offer to cognitivists (and vice versa)? In R. Batstone (Ed.), Sociocognitive perspectives on language use and language learning (pp. 210–228). Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Reschly, A.L., & Christenson, S.L. (2012). Jingle, jangle and conceptual haziness: Evolution and future directions of the engagement construct. In S.L. Christenson, A.L. Reschly, & C. Wylie (Eds.). Handbook of research on student engagement (pp. 1–19). New York, NY: Springer. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Robinson, P., & Gilabert, R. (2007). Task complexity, the Cognition Hypothesis and second language learning and performance International Review of Applied Linguistics, 45, 161–176.Google Scholar
Roseth, C.J., Johnson, D.W., & Johnson, R.T. (2008). Promoting early adolescents’ achievement and peer relationships: The effects of cooperative, competitive, and individualistic goal structures. Psychological Bulletin, 134, 223–246. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Rouhshad, A., & Storch, N. (2016). A focus on mode: Patterns of interaction in face-to-face and computer-mediated contexts. In M. Sato & S. Ballinger (Eds.), Peer interaction and second language learning. Pedagogical potential and research agenda. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
Salmon, G. (2000). E-moderating: The key to teaching and learning online. London: Kogan Page.Google Scholar
Sato, M. (2013). Beliefs about peer interaction and peer corrective feedback: Efficacy of classroom intervention. The Modern Language Journal, 97(3), 611–633. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
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
. (2016). Understanding peer interaction: Research synthesis and directions. In M. Sato & S. Ballinger (Eds.), Peer interaction and second language learning: Pedagogical potential and research agenda. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
Sato, M., & Lyster, R. (2012). Peer interaction and corrective feedback for accuracy and fluency development: Monitoring, practice, and proceduralization. Studies in Second Language Acquisition 34(4), 591–626. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Sato, M., & Viveros, P. (2016). Interaction or collaboration? The proficiency effect on group work in the foreign language classroom. In M. Sato & S. Ballinger (Eds.), Peer interaction and second language learning: Pedagogical potential and research agenda. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
Schmidt, R. (2001). Attention. In P. Robinson (Ed.), Cognition and second language instruction (pp. 3–32). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Schmitt, N. (2008). Review article: Instructed second language vocabulary learning. Language Teaching Research, 12, 329. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Sfard, A. (1998). On two metaphors for learning and the dangers of choosing just one. Educational Researchers, 27, 4–13. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Shim, S.S, Kiefer, S.M, & Wang, C. (2013). Help seeking among peers: The role of goal structure and peer climate. The Journal of Educational Research, 106(4), 290–300. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Storch, N. (2001). How collaborative is pair work? ESL tertiary students composing in pairs. Language Teaching Research, 5, 29–53. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. (2002). Patterns of interaction in ESL pair work. Language Learning, 52, 119–158. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. (2008). Metatalk in a pair work activity: Level of engagement and implications for language development. Language Awareness, 17, 95–114. 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
Svalberg, A. (2009). Engagement with language: Developing a construct. Language Awareness, 18(3-4), 242–258. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. (2012). Thinking allowed: Language awareness in language learning and teaching: A research agenda. Language Teaching, 45(3), 376–388. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Swain, M. (2001). Examining dialogue: Another approach to content specification and to validating inferences drawn from test scores. Language Testing, 18(3), 275–302.Google 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
Toohey, K. 2000. Learning English at School. Clevedon, UK: Multilingual Matters.Google Scholar
Van de Pol, J., Volman, M., & Beishuizen, J. (2010). Scaffolding in teacher-student interaction: A decade of research. Educational Psychological Review, 22, 271–296. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Vygotsky, L. (1978). Mind in society: The development of higher psychological processes. Ed. and trans. M. Cole, V. John-Steiner, S. Scribner, & E. Souberman. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
Wood, D., Bruner, J., & Ross, G. (1976). The role of tutoring in problem solving. Journal of Psychology and Psychiatry, 17, 89–100. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Young, A., & Tedick, D. (2016). Collaborative dialogue in a two-way Spanish/English immersion classroom: Does heterogeneous grouping promote peer linguistic scaffolding? In M. Sato & S. Ballinger (Eds.), Peer interaction and second language learning. Pedagogical potential and research agenda. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
Cited by (17)

Cited by 17 other publications

Aramaki, Takashi
2024. Investigating collaborative oral task repetition as a language anxiety reduction strategy. Cogent Education 11:1 DOI logo
Kirchhoff, Natalie & Raúl Dávila-Romero
2024. Diferencias individuales que afectan la interacción en el aula de alemán como lengua extranjera. European Public & Social Innovation Review 9 ► pp. 1 ff. DOI logo
BOZCA, Melike & Didem KOBAN KOÇ
2023. A comparative study on the effects of peer influence on willingness to communicate in speaking activities in online and face-to-face EFL lessons. Journal of Educational Technology and Online Learning 6:4 ► pp. 1044 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
Torres, Julio
2023. Heritage language learners’ written texts across pair types and interaction mode. Language Teaching Research 27:1 ► pp. 5 ff. DOI logo
Viberg, Olga, Agnes Kukulska-Hulme & Ward Peeters
2023. Affective Support for Self-Regulation in Mobile-Assisted Language Learning. International Journal of Mobile and Blended Learning 15:2 ► pp. 1 ff. DOI logo
Leeming, Paul & Justin Harris
2022. Self-Determination theory and tasks. TASK. Journal on Task-Based Language Teaching and Learning 2:2 ► pp. 164 ff. DOI logo
Iwashita, Noriko & Phung Dao
2021. Peer Feedback in Second Language Oral Interaction. In The Cambridge Handbook of Corrective Feedback in Second Language Learning and Teaching, ► pp. 275 ff. DOI logo
Saqr, Mohammed, Ward Peeters & Olga Viberg
2021. The relational, co-temporal, contemporaneous, and longitudinal dynamics of self-regulation for academic writing. Research and Practice in Technology Enhanced Learning 16:1 DOI logo
Kim, Youn-hee
2020. Willingness to engage: the importance of what learners bring to pair work. Language Awareness 29:2 ► pp. 134 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
Leeming, Paul
2019. Emergent Leadership and Group Interaction in the Task‐Based Language Classroom. TESOL Quarterly 53:3 ► pp. 768 ff. DOI logo
Leeming, Paul
2024. The influence of small groups on leader stability and task engagement in the language classroom. Language Teaching Research 28:1 ► pp. 52 ff. DOI logo
Peeters, Ward
2019. The peer interaction process on Facebook: a social network analysis of learners’ online conversations. Education and Information Technologies 24:5 ► pp. 3177 ff. DOI logo
TORRES, JULIO & BIANCA CUNG
2019. A Comparison of Advanced Heritage Language Learners’ Peer Interaction Across Modes and Pair Types. The Modern Language Journal 103:4 ► pp. 815 ff. DOI logo
Svalberg, Agneta M.-L.
2018. Researching language engagement; current trends and future directions. Language Awareness 27:1-2 ► pp. 21 ff. DOI logo
Sato, Masatoshi
2017. Interaction Mindsets, Interactional Behaviors, and L2 Development: An Affective‐Social‐Cognitive Model. Language Learning 67:2 ► pp. 249 ff. DOI logo

This list is based on CrossRef data as of 24 october 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.