Elamur Research⌕
☰
home / papers / 2024 / Recast frequency and the acquisition of English articles in a computer-mediated context

Recast frequency and the acquisition of English articles in a computer-mediated context

Paper · 2024 · Hedayat Sarandi and Hossein Nassaji

Summary

The study asks whether the amount of corrective feedback matters for second-language grammar learning. Earlier work often found recasts weak, possibly because short treatments delivered too few of them. The authors manipulated recast frequency directly. Sixty-one pre-intermediate university learners in Turkey were randomly assigned to four groups: high-frequency recasts (five tasks), low-frequency recasts (two tasks), a test-only control, and a task-only control that did the five tasks without feedback on the target form. The tasks ran over video-conferencing, and learners received oral recasts when they misused English articles, specifically for first versus previous mention of an entity. Learning was measured with an online picture description task and an error correction task, given before and after treatment and again later. The high-frequency group did best in oral picture description. In error correction its advantage was short-lived. Gains in picture description correlated with the number of recasts each learner received, but error-correction gains did not. The authors conclude that feedback quantity is a key variable, and that studies using too little feedback should not declare it ineffective.

Key points

  • The sample was 61 pre-intermediate learners in four groups: HF recast, LF recast, test control and task control. HF learners completed five tasks and LF learners completed two.
  • Feedback consisted of oral recasts on article errors in a computer-mediated, video-conferencing setting. Two article functions were targeted: new entity versus previously mentioned entity.
  • In picture description, the HF group beat the LF group and both controls. In error correction, the HF group's advantage disappeared by the delayed posttest.
  • The number of recasts per learner correlated with gains in the immediate and delayed picture description tests, but not in the error correction tests.
  • The authors list several limitations:
    • Learners scoring above 80 on the pretest were dropped to avoid ceiling effects, which caused attrition.
    • Subgroup sizes were uneven.
    • Peer interaction was not recorded.
    • The test control group has no delayed error-correction data.

Interesting ideas

  • I1. Two kinds of control are used: one group only takes the tests, and another does the same practice without the treatment, which separates testing effects from practice effects.
  • I2. Treatment dose is the manipulated variable, and dose is also correlated per learner with gain rather than compared only between groups.
  • I3. Cases that are already near ceiling at pretest are excluded so that improvement stays measurable.
  • I4. A free production measure and a recognition/correction measure gave different results, and only production tracked feedback amount.
  • I5. Article use is framed by discourse status: whether the entity was mentioned before or is new.

For Mova

How these ideas could serve Mova, our small open language model — its files, stages and tests:

  • I1 (learn): When judging a new repair rule or training round, compare against both an untouched baseline and a run with matching extra training but no new signal. This shows whether the gain really comes from the signal.
  • I2 (learn): Plot per-construction accuracy gain against how many silver or teacher corrections that construction got, to find how much correction is enough before calling a fix useless.
  • I3 (answer): Build test suites mainly from items the current system fails or barely passes, so that improvements are visible rather than hidden by easy items.
  • I4 (back): Evaluate article choice both by generating text from the meaning graph and by judging given sentences, since one ability may improve without the other.
  • I5 (world): Tie a/the choice and interpretation to the text world's record of introduced entities, feeding coreference and generation of definite versus indefinite noun phrases.

Our summary of the paper, in our own words — not its text. The work belongs to its authors; read it at the links above.

 Institutions

🎓University of VictoriaVictoria · Canada2 works · 1,006 citations

Also on the byline: İstanbul Sabahattin Zaim Üniversitesi.

 Fields, topics and concepts

📚 Shelves 4The field of science this work belongs to (OpenAlex fields).Arts and Humanities · 16,039 worksLanguage and Linguistics · 15,891 worksPsychology · 1,552 worksDevelopmental and Educational Psychology · 499 works

🧭 Topics 1Research subjects and languages the work is about.English · 2,263 works

Cite

Cite as Hedayat Sarandi and Hossein Nassaji. 2024. Recast frequency and the acquisition of English articles in a computer-mediated context. Studies in Second Language Learning and Teaching 14.

The paper itself, not this page. BibTeX from the library's record of the work. DOI 10.14746/ssllt.30085

@article{sarandi2024recast,
  title = {{Recast frequency and the acquisition of English articles in a computer-mediated context}},
  author = {Hedayat Sarandi and Hossein Nassaji},
  journal = {Studies in Second Language Learning and Teaching 14},
  year = {2024},
  doi = {10.14746/ssllt.30085},
  url = {https://doi.org/10.14746/ssllt.30085}
}

References

71 references, 0 of them with a card of ours. ↗ leads to the work, «find» searches for one we have no id for yet.

  1. Ahn, J., & Kim, Y. (2016). The effects of recasts and working memory on the development of implicit and explicit knowledge. Chinese Journal of Applied Linguistics, 39(1), 3-25. https://doi.org/10.1515/cjal-2016-0001 ↗
  2. Akiyama, Y. (2017). Learner beliefs and corrective feedback in telecollaboration: A longitudinal investigation. System, 64, 58-73. https://doi.org/10.1016/j. system.2016.12.007 Aljaafreh, A. & Lantolf, J. P. (1994). Negative feedback as regulation and second language learning in the zone of proximal development. Modern Language Journal, 78(4), 465-483. https://doi.org/10.2307/328585 ↗
  3. Ammar, A. (2008). Prompts and recasts: Differential effects on second language morphosyntax. Language Teaching Research, 12(2), 183-210. https://doi.org/ 10.1177/1362168807086287 ↗
  4. Ammar, A., & Spada, N. (2006). One size fits all: Recasts, prompts and L2 learning. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 28(4), 544-548. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0272263106060268 Asari, Y. (2017). Salience-enhanced recasts and their effects on learners’ production of uptake and modified output. Journal of Pan-Pacific Association of Applied Linguistics, 21(1), 65-84. ↗
  5. Bao, R. (2019). Oral corrective feedback in L2 Chinese classes: Teachers’ beliefs versus their practices. System, 82, 140-150. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.syst em.2019.04.004 Blaxton, T. A. (1989). Investigating dissociations among memory measures: Support for a transfer appropriate processing framework. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning. Memory & Cognition, 15(4), 657-668. https://doi.org/10.1037/0278-7393.15.4.657 Brown, D. (2016). The type and linguistic foci of oral corrective feedback in the L2 classroom: A meta-analysis. Language Teaching Research, 20(4), 436-458. https://doi.org/10.1177/1362168814563200 ↗
  6. Butler, Y. (2002). Second language learners’ theories on the use of English articles. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 24(3), 451-480. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0272263102003042 Carroll, S., & Swain, M. (1993). Explicit and implicit negative feedback: An empirical study of the learning of linguistic generalizations. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 15(3), 357-386. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0272263100012158 ↗
  7. Dede, M. (1986). Studies in Turkish linguistics. John Benjamins. find
  8. Doughty, C., & Varela, E. (1998). Communicative focus on form. In C. Doughty & J. Williams (Eds.), Focus on form in classroom second language acquisition (pp. 114-138). Cambridge University Press. find
  9. Egi, T. (2007). Interpreting recasts as linguistic evidence: The roles of linguistic target, length, and degree of change. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 29(4), 511-537. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0272263107070416 ↗
  10. Egi, T. (2010). Uptake, modified output, and learner perceptions of recasts: Learner responses as language awareness. Modern Language Journal, 94(1), 1-21. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1540-4781.2009.00980.x ↗
  11. Ellis, N. C. (2002). Frequency effects in language acquisition: A review with implications for theories of implicit and explicit language acquisition. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 24(2), 143-188. https://doi.org/10.1017/ S0272263102002024 Ellis, N. C. (2005). At the interface: Dynamic interactions of explicit and implicit language knowledge. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 27(2), 305-352. https://doi.org/10.1017/S027226310505014X ↗
  12. Ellis, N. C. (2014). Implicit and explicit learning of language. In P. Rebuschat (Ed.), Implicit and explicit learning of language (pp. 3-23). John Benjamins. find
  13. Ellis, N. C. (2017). Salience in usage-based SLA. In S. Gass, P. Spinner, & J. Behney (Eds.), Saliency in second language acquisition (pp. 22-40). Routledge. ↗
  14. Ellis, R. (2001). Introduction: Investigating form-focused instruction. Language Learning, 51(1), 1-46. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-1770.2001.tb00013.x ↗
  15. Ellis, R. (2003). Task-based language learning and teaching. Oxford University Press. ↗
  16. Ellis, R. (2007). The differential effects of corrective feedback on two grammatical structures. In A. Mackey (Ed.), Conversational interaction in second language acquisition: A collection of empirical studies (pp. 339-360). Oxford University Press. https://doi.org/10.1017/S027226310606027X ↗
  17. Ellis, R., Loewen, S., & Erlam, R. (2006). Implicit and explicit corrective feedback and the acquisition of L2 grammar. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 28(3), 339-368. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0272263106060141 ↗
  18. Ellis, R., & Sheen, Y. (2006). Reexamining the role of recasts in second language acquisition. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 28(4), 575-600. ↗
  19. Ellis, R., Sheen, Y., Murakami, M., & Takashima, H. (2008). The effects of focused and unfocused written corrective feedback in an English as a foreign language context. System, 36(3), 353-371. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.system.2008.02.001 ↗
  20. Erlam, R., & Loewen, S. (2010). Implicit and explicit recasts in L2 oral French interaction. The Canadian Modern Language Review, 66(6), 877-905. https://doi.org/10.3138/cmlr.66.6.877 Fu, T., & Nassaji, H. (2016). Corrective feedback, learner uptake, and feedback perception in a Chinese as a foreign language classroom. Studies in Second Language Learning and Teaching, 6(1), 159-181. https://doi.org/10.14746/ssllt.2016.6.1.8 Gass, S. (1997). Input, interaction, and the second language learner. Lawrence Erlbaum. ↗
  21. Goo, J. (2012). Corrective feedback and working memory capacity in interaction-driven L2 learning. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 34(3), 445-474. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0272263112000149 ↗
  22. Goo, J. (2020). Research on the role of recasts in L2 learning. Language Teaching, 53(3), 1-27. https://doi.org/10.1017/S026144482000004X ↗
  23. Goo, J., & Mackey, A. (2013). The case against the case against recasts. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 35(1), 127-165. https://doi.org/10.1017/ S0272263112000708 Han, Z. (2002). A Study of the impact of recasts on tense consistency in L2 output. TESOL Quarterly, 36(4), 543-572. https://doi.org/10.2307/3588240 ↗
  24. Hassanzadeh M., Marefat, F., & Ramezani A. (2019). The impact of single versus multiple recasts on L2 learners’ implicit and explicit knowledge. Heliyon, 5(5), 1-9. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.heliyon.2019.e01748 ↗
  25. Huebner, T. (1983). A longitudinal analysis of the acquisition of English. Karoma. find
  26. Huebner, T. (1985). System and variability in interlanguage syntax. Language Learning, 35(2), 141-163. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-1770.1985.tb01022.x ↗
  27. Ishida, M. (2004). Effects of recasts on the acquisition of the aspectual form -te i-(ru) by learners of Japanese as a foreign language. Language Learning, 54(2), 311-394. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-9922.2004.00257.x ↗
  28. Iwashita, N. (2003). Negative feedback and positive evidence in task-based interaction: Differential effects of L2 development. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 25(1), 1-36. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0272263103000019 ↗
  29. Kamiya, N. (2015). The effectiveness of intensive and extensive recasts on L2 acquisition for implicit and explicit knowledge. Linguistics and Education, 29, 59-72. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.linged.2014.11.002 ↗
  30. Kim, J. H. (2021). The relative effect of recasts on L2 Korean learners’ accuracy development of two different forms and its relationship with language analytic ability. Language Teaching Research, 25(3), 451-475. https://doi.org/ 10.1177/1362168819859910 ↗
  31. Kim, Y., Payant, C., & Pearson, P. (2015). The intersection of task-based interaction, task complexity, and working memory: L2 question development through recasts in a laboratory setting. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 37(2), 549-581. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0272263114000618 ↗
  32. Kourtali, N. E. (2022). The effects of face-to-face and computer-mediated recasts on L2 development. Language Learning and Technology, 26(1), 1-20. http://hdl.handle.net/10125/73457 Kourtali, N. E., & Borges, L. (2023). The effects of feedback timing on L2 development in written SCMC. Computer Assisted Language Learning. https://doi.org/10.1080/09588221.2023.2171066 ↗
  33. Lee, E. J. (2013). Corrective feedback preferences and learner repair among advanced ESL students. System, 41(2), 217-230. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.sy stem.2013.01.022 Li, H. (2018). Recasts and output-only prompts, individual learner factors and short-term EFL learning. System, 76, 103-115. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.s ystem.2018.05.004 Li, S. (2014). The interface between feedback type, L2 proficiency, and the nature of the linguistic target. Language Teaching Research, 18(3), 373-396. https://doi.org/10.1177/1362168813510384 ↗
  34. Loewen, S., & Erlam, R. (2006). Corrective feedback in the chatroom: An experimental study. Computer Assisted Language Learning, 19(1), 1-14. https://doi.org/10.1080/09588220600803311 Loewen, S., & Nabei, T. (2007). Measuring the effects of oral corrective feedback on L2 knowledge. In A. Mackey (Ed.), Conversational interaction in second language acquisition (pp. 361-377). Oxford University Press. ↗
  35. Loewen, S., & Philp, J. (2006). Recasts in the adult English L2 classroom: Characteristics, explicitness, and effectiveness. Modern Language Journal, 90(4), 536-556. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1540-4781.2006.00465.x ↗
  36. Long, M. (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). Academic Press. ↗
  37. Long, M. (2007). Problems in SLA. Lawrence Erlbaum. find
  38. Long, M., Inagaki, S., & Ortega, L. (1998). The role of implicit negative feedback in SLA: Models and recasts in Japanese and Spanish. Modern Language Journal, 82(3), 357-371. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1540-4781.1998.tb01213.x ↗
  39. Lyster, R. (2004). Differential effects of prompts and recasts in form-focused instruction. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 26(3), 399-432. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0272263104263021 Lyster, R., & Ranta, L. (1997). Corrective feedback and learner uptake: Negotiation of form in communicative classrooms. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 19(1), 37-66. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0272263197001034 ↗
  40. Lyster, R., & Saito, K. (2010). Oral feedback in classroom SLA: A meta-analysis. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 32(2), 265-302. https://doi.org/ 10.1017/S0272263109990520 ↗
  41. 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. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0261444812000365 ↗
  42. Mackey, A. (2006). Feedback, noticing and instructed second language learning. Applied Linguistics, 27(3), 405-430. https://doi.org/10.1093/applin/ami051 ↗
  43. Mackey, A., & Philp, J. (1998). Conversational interaction and second language development: Recasts, responses, and red herrings? Modern Language Journal, 82(3), 338-356. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1540-4781.1998.tb01211.x ↗
  44. Mackey, A., & Sachs, R. (2012). Older learners in SLA research: A first look at working memory, feedback, and L2 development. Language Learning, 62(3), 704-740. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-9922.2011.00649.x ↗
  45. Master, P. (2002). Information structure and English article pedagogy. System, 30(3), 331-348. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0346-251X(02)00018-0 ↗
  46. McDonough, K. (2007). Interactional feedback and the emergence of simple past activity verbs in L2 English. In A. Mackey (Ed.), Conversational interaction in second language acquisition (pp. 323-338). find
  47. Oxford University Press McDonough, K., & Mackey, A. (2006). Responses to recasts: Repetitions, primed production, and linguistic development. Language Learning, 56(4), 693-720. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-9922.2006.00393.x ↗
  48. Monteiro, K. (2014). An experimental study of corrective feedback during video conferencing. Language Learning & Technology, 18(3), 56-79. https://doi.org/10125/44384 Morris, D., Bransford, J. D., & Franks, J. J. (1977). Levels of processing versus transfer appropriate processing. Journal of Verbal Learning & Verbal Behavior, 16(5), 519-533. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0022-5371(77)80016-9 ↗
  49. Muranoi, H. (2000). Focus on form through interaction enhancement: Integrating formal instruction into a communicative task in EFL classrooms. Language Learning, 50(4), 617-673. https://doi.org/10.1111/0023-8333.00142 ↗
  50. Nakatsukasa, K. (2016). Efficacy of recasts and gestures on the acquisition of locative prepositions. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 38(4), 771-799. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0272263115000467 ↗
  51. Nassaji, H. (2016). Anniversary article interactional feedback in second language teaching and learning: A synthesis and analysis of current research. Language Teaching Research, 20(4), 535-562. https://doi.org/10.1177/1362 168816644940 Nassaji, H. (2017). The effectiveness of extensive versus intensive recasts for learning L2 grammar. Modern Language Journal, 101(2), 353-368. https://doi.org/10.1111/modl.12387 Nassaji, H., & Kartchava, E. (2020). Corrective feedback and good language teachers. In C. Griffiths & Z. Tajeddin (Eds.), Lessons from good language teachers (pp. 151-163). Cambridge University Press. ↗
  52. Öztürk, B., (2005). Case, referentiality and phrase structure. John Benjamins. ↗
  53. Panova, I., & Lyster, R. (2002). Patterns of corrective feedback and uptake in an adult ESL classroom. TESOL Quarterly, 36(4), 573-595. https://doi.org/10. 2307/3588241 ↗
  54. Rassaei, E. (2017). Video chat vs. face-to-face recasts, learners’ interpretations and L2 development: A case of Persian EFL learners. Computer Assisted Language Learning, 30(1-2), 133-148. https://doi.org/10.1080/09588221.2016.1275702 ↗
  55. Rassaei, E. (2020). The separate and combined effects of recasts and textual enhancement as two focus on form techniques on L2 development. System 89, 102-193. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.system.2019.102193 ↗
  56. Rassaei, E. (2022). The effects of recasts on L2 grammar: A meta-analysis. The Language Learning Journal. https://doi.org/10.1080/09571736.2022.2097298 ↗
  57. Révész, A. (2012). Working memory and the observed effectiveness of recasts on different L2 outcome measures. Language Learning, 62(1), 93-132. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-9922.2011.00690.x Révész, A., & Han, Z. (2006). Task content familiarity, task type, and efficacy of recasts. Language Awareness, 15(3), 160-179. https://doi.org/10.2167/la401.0 ↗
  58. Roothooft, H. (2014). The relationship between adult EFL teachers’ oral feedback practices and their beliefs. System, 46, 65-79. https://doi.org/10.10 16/j.system.2014.07.012 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(1), 196-216. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1540-4781.2013.01427.x ↗
  59. Sarandi, H. (2016). Oral corrective feedback: A question of classification and application. TESOL Quarterly, 50(1), 235-46. https://doi.org/10.1002/tesq.285 ↗
  60. Sarandi H. (2020). Mixed corrective feedback and the acquisition of third person “-s.” The Language Learning Journal, 48(4), 402-413. https://doi.org/10.10 80/09571736.2017.1400579 Sarandi, H., & Çelik, M. (2019). The effects of explicit recasts and output-only prompts on learning L2 grammar. Hacettepe University Journal of Education, 34(4), 981-998. https://doi.org/10.16986/HUJE.2018043537 ↗
  61. Sauro, S. (2009). Computer-mediated corrective feedback and the development of L2 grammar. Language Learning & Technology, 13(1), 96-120. https://doi.org/10125/44170 Schachter, J. (1991). Corrective feedback in historical perspective. Second Language Research, 7(2), 89-102. https://doi.org/10.1177/026765839100700202 ↗
  62. Schmidt, R. (1990). The role of consciousness in second language learning. Applied Linguistics, 11(2), 129-158. https://doi.org/10.1093/applin/11.2.129 ↗
  63. Schmidt, R. (2001). Attention. In P. Robinson (Ed.), Cognition and second language instruction (pp. 3-32). Cambridge University Press. find
  64. Sheen, Y. (2004). Corrective feedback and learner uptake in communicative classrooms across instructional settings. Language Teaching Research, 8(3), 263-300. https://doi.org/10.1191/1362168804lr146oa ↗
  65. Sheen, Y. (2007). The effects of corrective feedback, language aptitude, and learner attitudes on the acquisition of English articles. In A. Mackey (Ed.), Conversational interaction in second language acquisition (pp. 301-322). Oxford University Press. find
  66. Sheen, Y. (2008). Recasts, language anxiety, modified output, and L2 learning. Language Learning, 58(4), 835-874. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-9922 .2008.00480.x Sheen, Y., Wright, D., & Moldawa, A. (2009). Differential effects of focused and unfocused written correction on the accurate use of grammatical forms by adult ESL learners. System, 37(4), 556-569. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.sy stem.2009.09.002 Swain, M. (1993). The output hypothesis: Just speaking and writing aren’t enough. Canadian Modern Language Review, 50(1), 158-164. https://doi.org/10.31 38/cmlr.50.1.158 Swain, M. (1995). Three functions of output in second language learning. In G. Cook & B. Seidlhofer (Eds.), Principle and practice in applied linguistics: Studies in honour of H. G. Widdowson (pp. 125-144). Oxford University Press. ↗
  67. Tabachnick, B. G., & Fidell, L. S. (2013). Using multivariate statistics (6th ed.). Pearson. van de Guchte, M., Braaksma, M., Rijlaarsdam, G., & Bimmel, P. (2015). Learning new grammatical structures in task-based language learning: The effects of recasts and prompts. Modern Language Journal, 99(2), 246-262. https://doi.org/10.1111/modl.12211 Wacha, R. C., & Liu, Y. T. (2017). Testing the efficacy of two new variants of recasts with standard recasts in communicative conversational settings: An exploratory longitudinal study. Language Teaching Research, 21(2), 189-216. https://doi.org/10.1177/1362168815624268 ↗
  68. Yilmaz, Y. (2012). The relative effects of explicit correction and recasts on two target structures via two communication modes. Language Learning, 62(4), 1134-1169. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-9922.2012.00726.x ↗
  69. Yilmaz, Y. (2013). The relative effectiveness of mixed, explicit and implicit feedback in the acquisition of English articles. System, 41(3), 691-705. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.system.2013.07.020 Yilmaz, Y. (2016). The role of exposure condition in the effectiveness of explicit correction. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 38(1), 65-96. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0272263115000212 Yoshida, R. (2010). How do teachers and learners perceive corrective feedback in the Japanese language classroom? Modern Language Journal, 94(2), 293-314. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1540-4781.2010.01022.x ↗
  70. Zhao, Y. (2015). The effects of explicit and implicit recasts on the acquisition of two grammatical structures and the mediating role of working memory (Unpublished doctoral dissertation, University of Auckland). find
  71. Zhao, Y., & Ellis, R. (2022). The relative effects of implicit and explicit corrective feedback on the acquisition of 3rd person -s by Chinese university students: A classroom-based study. Language Teaching Research, 26(3), 361-381. https://doi.org/10.1177/1362168820903343 ↗

Updated

↑ back to top

This page in Markdown → https://md.research.elamur.ai/free/en/papers/sarandi-2024-recast-frequency-acquisition-english-articles/