Cited by

Cited by 9 other publications

Chen, Julian ChengChiang
2018. The interplay of tasks, strategies and negotiations in Second Life. Computer Assisted Language Learning 31:8  pp. 960 ff. Crossref logo
Chen, Julian ChengChiang
2020. Restorying a “Newbie” Teacher’s 3D Virtual Teaching Trajectory, Resilience, and Professional Development Through Action Research: A Narrative Case Study. TESOL Quarterly 54:2  pp. 375 ff. Crossref logo
Chen, Julian ChengChiang
2020. The effects of pre-task planning on EFL learners’ oral performance in a 3D multi-user virtual environment. ReCALL 32:3  pp. 232 ff. Crossref logo
Chen, Julian ChengChiang
2021. The interplay of avatar identities, self-efficacy, and language practices. Australian Review of Applied Linguistics 44:1  pp. 65 ff. Crossref logo
González-Lloret, Marta
2016.  In Language and Technology,  pp. 1 ff. Crossref logo
González-Lloret, Marta
2017.  In Language, Education and Technology,  pp. 193 ff. Crossref logo
González-Lloret, Marta & Lourdes Ortega
2018.  In Task-Based Approaches to Teaching and Assessing Pragmatics [Task-Based Language Teaching, 10],  pp. 192 ff. Crossref logo
Samuda, Virginia, Martin Bygate & Kris Van den Branden
2018.  In TBLT as a Researched Pedagogy [Task-Based Language Teaching, 12],  pp. 2 ff. Crossref logo
Sun, Susan Y. H.
2017. Design for CALL – possible synergies between CALL and design for learning. Computer Assisted Language Learning 30:6  pp. 575 ff. Crossref logo

This list is based on CrossRef data as of 12 september 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.



Adams, R., & Nik, A.N.M.A.
(2014) Prior knowledge and second language task production in text chat. In M. González-Lloret & L. Ortega (Eds.), Technology-mediated TBLT: Researching technology and tasks (pp. 51–78). Amsterdam: John Benjamins. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Adams, R., Amani, S., Newton, J., & Nik, A.N.M.A.
(2014) Planning and production in computer-mediated communication (CMC) writing. In H. Byrnes & R.M. Manchón (Eds.), Task-based language learning: Insights from and for L2 writing (pp. 137–161). Amsterdam: John Benjamins. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Appel, C., & Gilabert, R.
(2002) Motivation and task performance in a task-based web-based tandem project. ReCALL, 14, 16–31.Google Scholar
Arnold, N., & Paulus, T.
(2010) Using a social networking site for experiential learning: Appropriating, lurking, modeling and community building. The Internet and Higher Education, 13(4), 188–196. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Bagozzi, R.P., Davis, F.D., & Warshaw, P.R.
(1992) Development and test of a theory of technological learning and usage. Human Relations, 45, 659–686. CrossrefGoogle 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. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
(2014) Task complexity and task sequencing in traditional versus online language classes. In M. Baralt, R. Gilabert & P. Robinson (Eds.), Task sequencing and instructed second language learning (pp. 59–122). New York, NY: Bloomsbury Academic.Google Scholar
Baralt, M., & Gurzynski-Weiss, L.
(2011) Comparing learners’ state anxiety during task-based interaction in computer-mediated and face-to-face communication. Language Teaching Research, 15, 201–29. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Baron, N.S.
(2008) Always on: language in an online and mobile world. New York: Oxford University Press. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Belz, J.A., & Thorne, S.
(2006) Internet-mediated intercultural foreign language education and the intercultural speaker. In J.A. Belz & S. Thorne (Eds.), Internet-mediated Intercultural Foreign Language Education (pp. viii–xxv). Boston, MA: Heinle and Heinle.Google Scholar
Blake, R.
(2000) Computer mediated communication: A window on L2 Spanish interlanguage. Language Learning and Technology, 4(1), 120–136.Google Scholar
Buendgens-Kosten, J.
(2013) Authenticity in CALL: three domains of “realness.” ReCALL, 25(02), 272–285. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Carr, N.G.
(2011) The shallows: What the Internet is doing to our brains (Norton pbk. [ed.]). New York, NY: W.W. Norton.Google Scholar
Chan, M.
(2015) Mobile phones and the good life: Examining the relationships among mobile use, social capital and subjective well-being. New Media & Society, 17, 96–113. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Chapelle, C.A.
(2003) English language learning and technology: Lectures on applied linguistics in the age of information and communication technology. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
(2014) Afterword: Technology-mediated TBLT and the evolving role of the innovator. In M. González-Lloret & L. Ortega (Eds.), Technology-mediated TBLT: Researching technology and tasks (pp. 323–334). Amsterdam: John Benjamins. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Chun, D.M.
(2013) Contributions of Tracking User Behavior to SLA Research. CALICO Journal, 1–2: 256–262.Google Scholar
Collentine, K.
(2013) Using tracking technologies to study the effects of linguistic complexity in CALL input and SCMC output. CALICO Journal, 30, 46–65.Google Scholar
Cziko, G.
(2004) Electronic Tandem Language Learning (eTandem): A third approach to second language learning for the 21st Century. CALICO Journal, 22, 25–39Google Scholar
de Lang, M.
(2009) From always on to always there: Locative media as playful technologies. In A. de Souza e Silva & D.M. Sutko (Eds.), Digital cityscapes: Merging digital and urban playspaces (pp. 55–70). New York: Peter Lang.Google Scholar
Dewey, J.
(1938) Experience and education. New York, NY: Collier Books.Google Scholar
Doughty, C.J., & Long, M.H.
(2003) Optimal psycholinguistic environments for distance foreign language learning. Language Learning and Technology, 7(3), 50–80.Google Scholar
Dörnyei, Z.
(2002) The motivational basis of language learning tasks. In P. Robinson (Ed.), Individual differences and instructed language learning (pp. 137–157). Amsterdam: John Benjamins. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Dörnyei, Z., & Tseng, W.-T.
(2009) Motivational processing in interactional tasks. In A. Mackey & C. Polio (Eds.), Multiple perspectives on interaction: Second language research in honor of Susan M. Gass (pp. 117–134). New York, NY: Routledge.Google Scholar
Duggan, M., & Smith, A.
(2013, December 30). Social media update 2013. Pew Internet and American Life Project Report, retrieved January 1 2015 from: http://​www​.pewinternet​.org​/2013​/12​/30​/social​-media​-update​-2013/Google Scholar
Dwyer, D., Ringstaff, C., & Sandholtz, J.
(1991) Changes in teachers’ beliefs and practices in technology-rich classrooms. Educational Leadership, 48(8), 45–54.Google 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). New York, NY: Routledge.Google Scholar
Gee, J.P.
(2005a) Good video games and good learning. Retrieved January 1, 2015 from http://​www​.academiccolab​.org​/resources​/documents​/Good​_Learning​.pdfGoogle Scholar
(2005b) Why Videogames are good for your soul: Pleasure and learning. Melbourne: The Learner.Google Scholar
(2007) What videogames have to teach us about learning and literacy. Houndmills: Palgrave MacMillan.Google Scholar
González-Lloret, M.
(2011) Conversation analysis of computer-mediated communication. CALICO Journal, 28, 308–325. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
(2014) The need for needs analysis in technology-mediated TBLT. In M. González-Lloret & L. Ortega (Eds.), Technology-mediated TBLT: Researching technology and tasks (pp. 23–50). Amsterdam: John Benjamins. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
González-Lloret, M., & Ortega, L.
(Eds.) (2014a) Technology-mediated TBLT: Researching technology and tasks. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
(2014b) Towards technology-mediated TBLT: An introduction. In M. González-Lloret & L. Ortega (Eds.), Technology-mediated TBLT: Researching technology and tasks (pp. 1–22). Amsterdam: John Benjamins. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Goo, J.
(2012) Corrective feedback and working memory capacity in interaction-driven L2 learning. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 34, 445 - 474. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Grgurović, M., Chapelle, C.A., & Shelley, M.C.
(2013) A meta-analysis of effectiveness studies on computer technology-supported language learning. ReCALL, 25, 165–198. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Hampel, R.
(2006) Rethinking task design for the digital age: A framework for language teaching and learning in a synchronous online environment. ReCALL, 18, 105–121. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Herring, S.C.
(2001) Computer-mediated discourse. In D. Schiffrin, D. Tannen, & H. Hamilton (Eds.), The handbook of discourse analysis (pp. 612–634). Oxford, UK: Blackwell.Google Scholar
Herring, S.
(2010) Computer-Mediated Conversation: Introduction and overview. Language  at Internet, 7, article 2. Retrieved January 1, 2015 from http://​www​.languageatinternet​.org​/articles​/2010​/2801Google Scholar
Herring, S.C.
(2012) Discourse in Web 2.0: Familiar, reconfigured, and emergent In D. Tannen & A.M. Tester (Eds.), Georgetown University Round Table on Languages and Linguistics 2011: Discourse 2.0: Language and new media. Washington, DC: Georgetown University Press.Google Scholar
Holden, C., & Sykes, J.M.
(2012) Mentira: Prototyping language-based locative gameplay. In S. Dikkers, J. Martin, & B. Coulter (Eds.), Mobile media learning: Amazing uses of mobile devices for teaching and learning (pp. 111–131). Pittsburg, PN: ETC Press.Google Scholar
Howard, S.K.
(2013) Risk-aversion: Understanding teachers’ resistance to technology integration. Technology, Pedagogy and Education, 22, 357–372. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Ito, M., Gutiérrez, K., Livingstone, S., Penuel, B., Rhodes, J., Salen, K.., et al.
(2013) An agenda for research and design: A research synthesis report of the Connected Learning Research Network. Irvine, CA: The Digital Media and Learning Research Hub Reports on Connected Learning. Retrieved December 21, 2014 from http://​dmlhub​.net​/sites​/default​/files​/Connected​_Learning​_report​_0​.pdf Google Scholar
Jackson, D., & Suethanapornkul, S.
(2013) The Cognition Hypothesis: A synthesis and meta-analysis of research on second language task complexity. Language Learning, 63, 330–367.Google Scholar
Keller-Lally, A.
(2006) Effects of group size and task on L2 learners’ output in synchronous computer-mediated communication. Unpublished doctoral dissertation. University of Texas, Austin.Google Scholar
Kern, R.
(2014) Technology as pharmakon: The promise and perils of the Internet for foreign language education. Modern Language Journal, 98, 330–347. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Kessler, G., & Plakans, L.
(2008) Does teachers’ confidence with CALL equal innovative and integrated use? Computer Assisted Language Learning, 21, 269–282. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Kolb, D.A.
(1984) Experiential learning: experience as the source of learning and development. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.Google Scholar
Laffey, J.
(2004) Appropriation, mastery and resistance to technology in early childhood preservice teacher education. Journal of Research on Technology in Education, 36, 361–382. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Lai, C.
(2013) A framework of developing self-directed technology use for language learning. Language Learning & Technology, 17(2), 100–122.Google Scholar
Lai, C., & Li, G.F.
(2011) Technology and task-based language teaching: A critical review. CALICO Journal, 28, 498–521. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Lai, C., & Zhao, Y.
(2006) Noticing and text-based chat. Language Learning & Technology, 10(3), 102–120.Google Scholar
Lai, C., Fei, F., & Roots, R.
(2008) The contingency of recasts and noticing. CALICO Journal, 26, 70–90.Google Scholar
Lai, C.-H., Yang, J.-C., Chen, F.-C., Ho, C.-W., & Chan, T.-W.
(2007) Affordances of mobile technologies for experiential learning: The interplay of technology and pedagogical practices. Journal of Computer Assisted Learning, 23, 326–337. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Lam, W.S.E.
(2000) L2 literacy and the design of the self: A case study of a teenager writing on the internet. TESOL Quarterly, 34, 457–482. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Leahy, C.
(2004) Observations in the computer room: L2 output and learner behavior. ReCALL, 16, 24–144. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
(2008) Learner activities in a collaborative CALL task. Computer Assisted Language Learning, 21, 253–268. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Lee, L., & Markey, A.
(2014) A study of learners’ perceptions of online intercultural exchange through Web 2.0 technologies. ReCALL, 26, 281–297. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Lenhart, A.
(2012, March 19). Teens, smartphones & texting. Pew Internet and American Life Project Report. Retrieved January 1 2015 from: http://​www​.pewinternet​.org​/2012​/03​/19​/teens​-smartphones​-texting/Google Scholar
Lin, W., Huang, H., & Liou, H.
(2013) The effects of text-based SCMC on SLA: A meta-analysis. Language Learning & Technology, 17(2), 123–142.Google Scholar
Lyster, R.
(1998) Recasts, repetitions, and ambiguity in L2 classroom discourse. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 20, 51–81. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Mackey, A., & Goo, J.
(2013) Interaction approach in second language acquisition. In C.A. Chapelle (Ed.), The encyclopedia of applied linguistics (pp. 2748–2758 ). Malden, MA: Blackwell.Google Scholar
Martin-Monje, E.
(2014) Integration of Web 2.0 tools in a VLE to improve the EFL Spanish university entrance examination results: A quasi-experimental study. CALICO Journal, 31, 40–56. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Marwick, A.E., & boyd, d
(2014) Networked privacy: How teenagers negotiate context in social media. New Media & Society, 16, 1051–1067. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
McMillan, S.J., & Morrison, M.
(2006) Coming of age with the internet: A qualitative exploration of how the Internet has become an integral part of young people’s lives. New Media & Society, 8, 73–95. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Meskill, C.
(2005) Triadic scaffolds: Tools for teaching English language learners with computers. Language Learning & Technology, 9(1), 46–59.Google Scholar
Mills, K.L.
(2014) Effects of Internet use on the adolescent brain: Despite popular claims, experimental evidence remains scarce. Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 18, 385–387. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Nik, A.N.M.A.
(2010) Examining the language learning potential of a task-based approach to synchronous computer-mediated communication. Unpublished doctoral dissertation. Victoria University of Wellington, New Zealand.Google Scholar
Nik, A.N.M.A., Adams, R., & Newton, J.
(2012) Writing to learn via text chat: Task implementation and focus on form. Journal of Second Language Writing, 21, 23–39. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Norris, J.M.
(2009) Task-based teaching and testing. In Michael H. Long & Catherine J. Doughty (Ed.), The handbook of language teaching (pp. 578–594). Malden, MA: Wiley-Blackwell. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Oliver, R.
(1995) Negative feedback in child NS-NNS conversation. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 17, 459–481. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
O'Reilly, T.
(2005) What Is Web 2.0. O'Reilly Network. Retrieved January 1, 2015 from http://​www​.oreilly​.com​/pub​/a​/web2​/archive​/what​-is​-web​-20​.htmlGoogle Scholar
Ortega, L.
(1997) Processes and outcomes in network classroom interaction: Defining the research agenda for L2 computer-assisted classroom discussion. Language Learning and Technology, 1(1), 82–93.Google Scholar
(2009) Interaction and attention to form in L2 text-based computer-mediated communication. In A. Mackey & C. Polio (Eds.), Multiple perspectives on interaction in SLA: Research in honor of Susan M. Gass (pp. 226–253). New York, NY: Routledge.Google Scholar
Ortega, L., & Zyzik, E.
(2008) Online interactions and L2 learning: Some ethical challenges for L2 researchers. In S. Magnan (Ed.), Mediating discourse online (pp. 331–355). Amsterdam: John Benjamins. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Pellettieri, J.L.
(1999) Why-talk? Investigating the role of task-based interaction through synchronous network-based communication among classroom learners of Spanish. Unpublished doctoral dissertation. University of California, Davis.Google Scholar
Peterson, M.
(2010) Massively multiplayer online role-playing games as arenas for second language learning. Computer Assisted Language Learning, 23(5), 429–439. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Pew Internet and American Life Project
(2014) Internet user demographics. Retrieved January 1 2015 from: http://​www​.pewinternet​.org​/data​-trend​/internet​-use​/latest​-stats/Google Scholar
Pica, T., Kanagy, R., & Falodun, J.
(1993) Choosing and using communication tasks for second language instruction and research. In G. Crookes & S.M. Gass (Eds.), Tasks and language learning: Integrating theory and practice (pp. 9–34). Philadelphia, PA: Multilingual Matters.Google Scholar
Prensky, M.
(2006) Don’t bother me mom- I’m learning: How computers and video games are preparing your children for twenty-first century success – and how you can help. Minnesota, MN: Paragon House.Google Scholar
Purcell, K.
(2011) Search and email still top the list of most popular online activities. Washington, DC: Pew Research Center. Retrieved January 1, 2015 from http://​www​.pewinternet​.org​/2011​/08​/09​/search​-and​-email​-still​-top​-the​-list​-of​-most​-popular​-online​-activities/Google Scholar
Reinders, H., & Wattana, S.
(2014) Can I say something? The effects of digital game play on willingness to communicate. Language Learning & Technology, 18(2), 101–123.Google Scholar
Révész, A.
(2012) Working memory and the observed effectiveness of recasts on different L2 outcome measures. Language Learning, 62, 93–132. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Robinson, P.
(2001) Task complexity, cognition and second language syllabus design: A triadic framework for examining task influences on SLA. In P. Robinson (Ed.), Cognition and second language instruction (pp. 287–318). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
(2005) Cognitive complexity and task sequencing: Studies in a componential framework for second language task design. International Review of Applied Linguistics, 43, 1–32. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
(2011) Second language task complexity, the Cognition Hypothesis, language learning, and performance. In P. Robinson (Ed.), Second language task complexity: Researching the Cognition Hypothesis of language learning and performance (pp. 3–38). Amsterdam: John Benjamins. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Sagarra, N., & Abbuhl, R.
(2013) Optimizing the noticing of recasts via computer-delivered feedback: Evidence that oral input enhancement and working memory help second language learning. Modern Language Journal, 97, 196–216. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Salaberry, M.R.
(2000) Pedagogical design of computer-mediated communication tasks: Learning objectives and technological capabilities. Modern Language Journal, 84, 28–37. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Samuda, V., & Bygate, M.
(2008) Tasks in second language learning. Houndmills, UK: Palgrave Macmillan.Google Scholar
Sauro, S.
(2011) SCMC for SLA: A research synthesis. CALICO Journal, 28, 369–391. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Sedghi, A.
(2014, February 4). Facebook: 10 years of social networking, in numbers. The Guardian Web Report. Retrieved January 1 2015 from http://​www​.theguardian​.com​/news​/datablog​/2014​/feb​/04​/facebook​-in​-numbers​-statisticsGoogle Scholar
Skehan, P.
(1998) A Cognitive approach to language learning. Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
(2003) Focus on form, tasks, and technology. Computer Assisted Language Learning, 16, 391–411. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Skehan, P., & Foster, P.
(2007) Complexity, accuracy, fluency and lexis in task-based performance: A meta-analysis of the Ealing Research. In S. Van Daele, A. Housen, F. Kuiken, M. Pierrard, & I. Vedder (Eds.), Complexity, accuracy, and fluency in second language use, learning, and teaching (pp. 207–226). Brussels: University of Brussels Press.Google Scholar
Smith, B.
(2001) Taking students to task: Task-based computer-mediated communication and negotiated interaction in the ESL classroom. Unpublished doctoral dissertation. University of Arizona, Tucson.Google Scholar
(2003) Computer-mediated negotiated interaction: An expanded model. Modern Language Journal, 87, 38–57. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
(2008) Methodological hurdles in capturing CMC data: The case of the missing self-repair. Language Learning & Technology, 12(1), 85–103.Google Scholar
(2009) The relationship between scrolling, negotiation, and self-initiated self-repair in an SCMC environment. CALICO Journal, 26, 231–245.Google Scholar
Solares, M.E.
(2014) Textbooks, tasks, and technology: An action research study in textbook-bound EFL context. In M. González-Lloret & L. Ortega (Eds.), Technology-mediated TBLT: Researching technology and tasks (pp. 79–114). Amsterdam: John Benjamins. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Souleles, N.
(2012) Perceptions of undergraduate Graphic Design students on the educational potential of Facebook. Research in Learning Technology, 20, 241–252. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Sparrow, B., & Chatman, L.
(2013) Social cognition in the Internet age: Same as it ever was? Psychological Inquiry, 24, 273–292. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Sparrow, B., Liu, J., & Wegner, D.M.
(2011) Google effects on memory: Cognitive consequences of having information at our fingertips. Science, 333(art. no. 6043), 776–778. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Spector, J.M.
(2013) Emerging educational technologies and research directions. Educational Technology & Society, 16(2), 21–30.Google Scholar
Šumak, B., Heričko, M., & Pušnik, M.
(2011) A meta-analysis of e-learning technology acceptance: The role of user types and e-learning technology types. Computers in Human Behavior, 27, 2067–2077. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Sundqvist, P., & Sylvén, L.K.
(2014) Language-related computer use: Focus on young L2 English learners in Sweden. ReCALL, 26, 3–20. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Sykes, J.M., & Reinhardt, J.
(2012) Language at play: digital games in second and foreign language teaching and learning. New York: Pearson-Prentice Hall.Google Scholar
Thomas, M.
(2013) Research on TBLT and technology. In M. Thomas, H. Reinders & M. Warschauer (Eds.), Contemporary computer-assisted language learning (pp. 341–358). London: Continuum.Google Scholar
Thomas, M., & Peterson, M.
(2014) Editorial for the special issue: Web 2.0 and language learning: Rhetoric and reality. CALICO Journal, 31, i–iii. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Thomas, M., & Reinders, H.
(Eds.) (2010) Task-based language learning and teaching with technology. London: Continuum.Google Scholar
Van den Branden, K., Bygate, M., & Norris, J.M.
(2009) Task-based language teaching: Introducing the reader. In K. Van den Branden, M. Bygate, & J.M. Norris (Eds.), Task-based language teaching: A reader (pp. 1–13). Amsterdam: John Benjamins. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Van Dusen, G.C.
(2014) The virtual campus: Technology and reform in higher education. ASHE-ERIC Higher Education Report Volume 25, No. 5. Retrieved April 4 2015 from http://​repositorio​.ub​.edu​.ar:8080​/xmlui​/handle​/123456789​/2144Google Scholar
Wang, S., & Vásquez, C.
(2012) Web 2.0 and second language learning: What does the research tell us? CALICO Journal, 29, 412–430. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Warschauer, M.
(2006) Laptops and literacy: Learning in the wireless classroom. New York, NY: Teachers College Press.Google Scholar
Yilmaz, Y.
(2011) Task effects on focus on form in synchronous computer-mediated communication. Modern Language Journal, 95, 115–132. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Yilmaz, Y., & Granena, G.
(2010) The effects of task type in synchronous computer-mediated communication. ReCALL, 22, 20–38. CrossrefGoogle Scholar