Chapter published in:
Doing SLA Research with Implications for the Classroom: Reconciling methodological demands and pedagogical applicability
Edited by Robert M. DeKeyser and Goretti Prieto Botana
[Language Learning & Language Teaching 52] 2019
► pp. 155178
References

References

Adrada-Rafael, S.
(2017) Processing the Spanish imperfect subjunctive: Depth of processing under different instructional conditions. Applied Psycholinguistics, 38, 477–508.CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Allen, I. E., Seaman, J., Poulin, R., & Straut, T. T.
(2016) Online report card: Tracking online education in the United States. Babson Park, MA: Babson Survey Research Group and Quahog Research Group, LLC.Google Scholar
Allen, I. E., Seaman, J., & Garrett, R.
(2007) Blending in: The extent and promise of blended education in the United States. Sloan-C.Google Scholar
Cerezo, L.
(2012) Beyond hybrid learning: A synthesis of research on e-tutors under the lens of SLA theory. In F. Rubio & J. J. Thoms (Eds.), Hybrid language teaching and learning: Exploring theoretical, pedagogical and curricular issues (pp. 50–66). Boston, MA: Heinle/Cengage Learning.Google Scholar
Cerezo, L., Baralt, M., Suh, B-R., & Leow, R. P.
(2014) Does the medium really matter in L2 development? The validity of CALL research designs. Computer Assisted Language Learning, 27(4), 294–310.CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Cerezo, L., Caras, A., & Leow, R. P.
(2016) The effectiveness of guided induction versus deductive instruction on the development of complex Spanish gustar structures: An analysis of learning outcomes and processes. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 3(2), 265–291.CrossrefGoogle Scholar
De la Fuente, M. J.
(2016) Explicit corrective feedback and computer-based, form-focused instruction: The role of L1 in promoting awareness of L2 forms. In R. P. Leow, L. Cerezo, & M. Baralt (Eds.), A psycholinguistic approach to technology and language learning (pp. 171–197). Berlin: De Gruyter Mouton.Google Scholar
Delbecque, N.
(1996) Towards a cognitive account of the use of the prepositions por and para in Spanish. In E. Casad (Ed.), Cognitive linguistics in the redwoods: The expansion of a new paradigm in linguistics (pp. 249–318). Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Galloway, V.
(1980) Perceptions of the communicative efforts of American students of Spanish. Modern Language Journal, 64(4), 428–433.CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Grgurović, M., Chapelle, C. A., & Shelley, M.
(2013) A meta-analysis of effectiveness studies on computer technology-supported language learning. ReCALL Journal, 25(2), 165–198.CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Guntermann, G.
(1992) An analysis of interlanguage development over time: Part I, por and para. Hispania, 75(1), 177–187.CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Gurzynski-Weiss, L., Al Khalil, M., Baralt, M., & Leow, R. P.
(2016) Levels of awareness in relation to type of recast and type of linguistic item in computer-mediated communication: A concurrent investigation. In R. P. Leow, L. Cerezo, & M. Baralt (Eds.), A psycholinguistic approach to technology and language learning (pp. 151–170). Berlin: De Gruyter Mouton.Google Scholar
Heift, T., & Chapelle, C. A.
(2012) Language learning through technology. In S. M. Gass & A. Mackey (Eds.), The Routledge handbook of second language acquisition. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
Hsieh, H-C., Moreno, N., & Leow, R. P.
(2016) Awareness, type of medium, and L2 development: Revisiting Hsieh (2008). In R. P. Leow, L. Cerezo, & M. Baralt (Eds.), A psycholinguistic approach to technology and L2 learning. Berlin: De Gruyter Mouton.Google Scholar
Hulstijn, J. H.
(2000) The use of computer technology in experimental studies of second language acquisition: A survey of some techniques and some ongoing studies. Language Learning & Technology, 3(2), 32–43.Google Scholar
Lam, Y.
(2009) Applying cognitive linguistics to teaching the Spanish prepositions por and para. Language awareness, 18(1), 2–18.CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Leow, R. P.
(2001) Attention, awareness, and foreign language behavior. Language Learning, 51, 113–155.CrossrefGoogle Scholar
(2007) Input in the L2 classroom: An attentional perspective on receptive practice. In R. M. DeKeyser (Ed.), Practice in a second language: Perspectives from applied linguistics and cognitive psychology (pp. 21–50). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossrefGoogle Scholar
(2015) Explicit learning in the L2 Classroom: A student-centered approach: New York, NY: Routledge.Google Scholar
in press). Explicit learning and depth of processing in the instructed setting: Theory, research, and practice. Studies in English Education.
Leow, R. P. & Cerezo, L.
(2016) Deconstructing the I and SLA in ISLA: One curricular approach. Studies in Second Language Learning and Teaching, 6(1), 43–63.CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Leow, R. P., & Zamora, C.
(2017) Intentional and incidental learning. In S. Loewen & M. Sato (Eds.), Routledge Handbook of Instructed Second Language Acquisition (pp. 33–49). New York, NY: Routledge.Google Scholar
Loewen, S.
(2015) Introduction to instructed second language acquisition. New York, NY: Routledge.Google Scholar
Lunn, P. V.
(1987) The Semantics of por and para. Bloomington, IN: Indiana University Linguistics Club.Google Scholar
Neill, J.
(2008) Why use effect sizes instead of significance testing in program evaluation. Retrieved from http://​wilderdom​.com​/research​/effectsizes​.html (20 July 20, 2014).
Oswald, F. L., & Plonsky, L.
(2010) Meta-analysis in second language research: Choices and challenges. Annual Review of Applied Linguistics, 30, 85–110.CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Plonsky, L. & Ziegler, N.
(2016) The CALL–SLA interface: Insights from a second-order synthesis. Language Learning & Technology, 20(2), 17–37.Google Scholar
Reinders, H., & Stockwell, G.
(2017) Computer-assisted SLA. In S. Loewen & M. Sato (Eds.), The Routledge handbook of instructed second language acquisition (pp. 361–375). New York, NY: Routledge.Google Scholar
Rott, S.
(2005) Processing glosses: A qualitative exploration of how form-meaning connections are established and strengthened. Reading in a Foreign Language, 17(2), 95–124.Google Scholar
Taylor, A. M.
(2013) CALL versus paper: In which context are L1 glosses more effective? CALICO Journal, 30, 63–81.CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Toth, P. D., Wagner, E., & Moranski, K.
(2013) ‘Co-constructing’ explicit L2 knowledge with high school Spanish learners through guided induction. Applied Linguistics, 34, 279–303.CrossrefGoogle Scholar
VanPatten, B., Lee, J., & Ballman, A.
(2010) Vistazos: Un curso breve (3rd ed.). New York, NY: McGraw-Hill.Google Scholar
Vogel, S., Herron, C., Cole, S. P., & York, H.
(2011) Effectiveness of a guided inductive versus a deductive approach on the learning of grammar in the intermediate level college French classroom. Foreign Language Annals, 44(2), 353–380.CrossrefGoogle Scholar
White, C. & Reinders, H.
(2010) The theory and practice of technology in materials development and task design. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Ziegler, N.
(2016) Synchronous computer-mediated communication and interaction. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 38(3), 553–586.CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Cited by

Cited by 2 other publications

Leow, Ronald P.
2019.  In The TESOL Encyclopedia of English Language Teaching,  pp. 1 ff. Crossref logo
Manchón, Rosa M. & Ronald P. Leow
2020.  In Writing and Language Learning [Language Learning & Language Teaching, 56],  pp. 335 ff. Crossref logo

This list is based on CrossRef data as of 07 april 2021. 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.