Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
CoChat
Sign Up
Cited by 13

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 11 of the 11 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

The separate and combined effects of recasts and textual enhancement as two focus on form techniques on L2 development

Rassaei, Ehsan·2020·System
DOI 10.1016/j.system.2019.102193
Open this paper in CoChat — free account

Overview

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1016/j.system.2019.102193

Cites

11 of 11 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Verification

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Citations

Cites

Show all 11 references

Research works printed but not linked: 34

  1. Braidi, 2002, Reexamining the role of recasts in native speaker/nonnative-speaker interactions, Language Learning, 52, 1, 10.1111/1467-9922.00176 · DOI
  2. Ellis, 2006, Implicit and explicit corrective feedback and the acquisition of L2 grammar, Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 28, 339, 10.1017/S0272263106060141 · DOI · Paper page
  3. Goo, 2012, Corrective feedback and working memory capacity in interaction-driven L2 learning, Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 34, 445, 10.1017/S0272263112000149 · DOI
  4. Han, 2008, Textual enhancement of input: Issues and possibilities, Applied Linguistics, 29, 597, 10.1093/applin/amn010 · DOI
  5. Indrarathne, 2018, Modelling changes in the cognitive processing of grammar in implicit and explicit learning conditions: Insights from an eye-tracking study, Language Learning, 10.1111/lang.12290 · DOI
  6. Kim, 2018, Incidental focus on form and the role of learner extraversion, Language Teaching Research, 22, 698, 10.1177/1362168817699642 · DOI
  7. Kim, 2006, Effects of input elaboration on vocabulary acquisition through reading by Korean learners of English as a foreign language, Tesol Quarterly, 40, 341, 10.2307/40264526 · DOI
  8. LaBrozzi, 2016, The effects of textual enhancement type on L2 form recognition and reading comprehension in Spanish, Language Teaching Research, 20, 75, 10.1177/1362168814561903 · DOI
  9. Lee, 2007, Effects of textual enhancement and topic familiarity on Korean EFL students’ reading comprehension and learning of passive form, Language Learning, 57, 87, 10.1111/j.1467-9922.2007.00400.x · DOI · Paper page
  10. Leow, 2003, The Roles of Textual Enhancement and Type of Linguistic Item in Adult L2 Learners’ Comprehension and Intake, Applied Language Learning, 13, 1
  11. Li, 2019, The role of recasts and negotiated prompts in an FL learning context in China with non-English major university students, Language Teaching Research
  12. Li, 2018, Recasts and output-only prompts, individual learner factors and short-term EFL learning, System, 76, 103, 10.1016/j.system.2018.05.004 · DOI
  13. Loewen, 2016, The effectiveness of visual input enhancement on the noticing and L2 development of the Spanish past tense, Studies in Second Language Learning and Teaching, 6, 89, 10.14746/ssllt.2016.6.1.5 · DOI
  14. Lyddon, 2011, The efficacy of corrective feedback and textual enhancement in promoting the acquisition of grammatical redundancies, The Modern Language Journal, 95, 104, 10.1111/j.1540-4781.2011.01272.x · DOI
  15. Lyster, 2009, Prompts versus recasts in dyadic interaction, Language Learning, 59, 453, 10.1111/j.1467-9922.2009.00512.x · DOI · Paper page
  16. Mackey, 2007, Teachers’ intentions and learners’ perceptions about corrective feedback in the L2 classroom, Innovation in Language Learning and Teaching, 1, 129, 10.2167/illt047.0 · DOI
  17. Mackey, 2000, How do learners perceive interactional feedback?, Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 22, 471, 10.1017/S0272263100004010 · DOI · Paper page
  18. Mackey, 1998, Conversational interaction and second language development: Recasts, responses, and red herrings?, The Modern Language Journal, 82, 338, 10.1111/j.1540-4781.1998.tb01211.x · DOI · Paper page
  19. Meguro, 2019, Textual enhancement, grammar learning, reading comprehension, and tag questions, Language Teaching Research, 23, 58, 10.1177/1362168817714277 · DOI
  20. Nassaji, 2017, The effectiveness of extensive versus intensive recasts for learning L2 grammar, The Modern Language Journal, 101, 353, 10.1111/modl.12387 · DOI
  21. Nguyen, 2017, The effects of input enhancement and recasts on the development of second language pragmatic competence, Innovation in Language Learning and Teaching, 11, 45, 10.1080/17501229.2015.1026907 · DOI
  22. Pawlak, 2018, Teaching stylistic inversion to advanced learners of English: Interaction of input manipulation and individual difference variables, International Review of Applied Linguistics in Language Teaching
  23. Philp, 2003, Constraints on “noticing the gap:” Nonnative speakers’ noticing of recasts in NS-NNS interaction. Studies of Second Language, Acquisition, 25, 99
  24. Plonsky, 2014, How big is “big”? Interpreting effect sizes in L2 research, Language Learning, 64, 878, 10.1111/lang.12079 · DOI · Paper page
  25. Rassaei, 2013, Corrective feedback, learners’ perceptions, and second language development, System, 41, 472, 10.1016/j.system.2013.05.002 · DOI · Paper page
  26. Rassaei, 2015, Journal writing as a means of enhancing EFL learners’ awareness and effectiveness of recasts, Linguistics and Education, 32, 118, 10.1016/j.linged.2015.10.002 · DOI
  27. Rassaei, 2015, Effects of textual enhancement and input enrichment on L2 development, TESOL Journal, 6, 281, 10.1002/tesj.149 · DOI
  28. Révész, 2012, Working memory and the observed effectiveness of recasts on different L2 outcome measures, Language Learning, 62, 93, 10.1111/j.1467-9922.2011.00690.x · DOI
  29. Sagarra, 2013, Optimizing the noticing of recasts via computer-delivered feedback: Evidence that oral input enhancement and working memory help second language learning, The Modern Language Journal, 97, 196, 10.1111/j.1540-4781.2013.01427.x · DOI
  30. Sato, 2018, Metacognitive instruction enhances the effectiveness of corrective feedback: Variable effects of feedback types and linguistic targets, Language Learning, 68, 507, 10.1111/lang.12283 · DOI · Paper page
  31. Sheen, 2004, Corrective feedback and learner uptake in communicative classrooms across instructional settings, Language Teaching Research, 8, 263, 10.1191/1362168804lr146oa · DOI · Paper page
  32. Simard, 2009, Differential effects of textual enhancement formats on intake, System, 37, 124, 10.1016/j.system.2008.06.005 · DOI
  33. Skehan, 1996, A framework for the implementation of task-based instruction, Applied Linguistics, 17, 38, 10.1093/applin/17.1.38 · DOI · Paper page
  34. Szudarski, 2016, The role of input flood and input enhancement in EFL learners’ acquisition of collocations, International Journal of Applied Linguistics, 26, 245, 10.1111/ijal.12092 · DOI

Cited by

See all 13

Metadata

Authors
Rassaei, E.
Venue
System
Publisher
Elsevier BV
Published
2020-04
Volume
89
Pages
102193
ISSN
0346-251X
DOI
10.1016/j.system.2019.102193
Cited by
13
References
11
Language
en
Licence
  • www.elsevier.com/tdm/userlicense/1.0/ (tdm)
  • www.elsevier.com/legal/tdmrep-license (tdm)

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review

How to cite

Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.

This page
CoChat. (2026). Citation check: The separate and combined effects of recasts and textual enhancement as two focus on form techniques on L2 development. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1016/j.system.2019.102193
The paper
Rassaei, E. (2020). The separate and combined effects of recasts and textual enhancement as two focus on form techniques on L2 development. System. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.system.2019.102193

Data sources

Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.

Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).

Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.