Anderson, J. (1983). The architecture of cognition. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
Balcom, P., & Bouffard, P. (2015). The effect of input flooding and explicit instruction on learning adverb placement in L3 French. The Canadian Journal of Applied Linguistics, 2(18), 1-27.
Balcom, P., & Lee. S. H. (2009). The effect of extensive instruction on learning the passive voice in intermediate SLA. International Journal of Applied Linguistics, 157, 45-74.
Benati, A. (2004). The effects of structured input activities and explicit information on the acquisition of Italian tense. In B. van Patten (Ed.), Processing instruction: Theory, research, and commentary (pp. 207-225). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
Carrol, S., Swain, M., & Rodger, Y. (1992). The role of feedback in adult second language acquisition: Error correction and morphological generalizations. Applied Psycholinguistics, 13, 173-198.
Carrol, S., & Swain, M. (1993). Explicit and implicit negative feedback: An empirical study of the learning of linguistic generalizations. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 15, 357-366.
Corbeil, G. (2005). Effectiveness of focus-on-form instruction. The Canadian Journal of Applied Linguistics, 8, 27-46.
Cruttenden, A. (1981). Item-learning and system-learning. Journal of Psycholinguistic Research, 10(1), 79-88.
De la Fuente, M. (2009). The role of pedagogical tasks and focus on form in acquisition of discourse markers by advanced learners. Little words: Their history, phonology, syntax, semantics, pragmatics, and acquisition. Washington, DC: Georgetown University Press.
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: Cambridge University Press.
Doughty, C., & Williams, J. (1998). Pedagogical choices in focus on form. In C. Doughty & J. Williams (Eds.), Focus on form in classroom second language acquisition (pp.114-138). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Ellis, R. (1997). SLA research and language teaching. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Ellis, R. (2005). Instructed second language acquisition: A literature review. Auckland: Auckland University Press.
Ellis, R. (2012). Language teaching research and language pedagogy. Malden, MA: Wily-Blackwell.
Hernandez, T. A. (2008). The effect of explicit instruction and input flood on students’ use of discourse markers on a simulated oral proficiency interview. Hispania, 91, 11-20.
Hernandez, T. A. (2011). Re-examining the role of explicit instruction and input flood on the acquisition of Spanish discourse markers. Language Teaching Research, 15(2), 159-182.
Izumi, S. (2002). Output, input enhancement, and the noticing hypothesis: An experimental study on ESL relativization. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 24(4), 541-77.
Izumi, S. (2003). Visual input enhancement as focus on form. Sophia Linguistica, 51, 1-30.
Jafarigohar, M., & Jalali, L. (2014). The effects of processing instruction, consciousness-raising tasks, and textual input enhancement on intake and acquisition of the English causative structures. Iranian Journal of Applied Linguistics, 17(1), 93-118.
Jourdenais, R. M. (1998).The effects of textual enhancement on the acquisition of the Spanish preterit and imperfect. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Georgetown University: Washington, DC.
Jourdenais, R. O. M., Stauffer, S., Boyson, B., & Doughty, C. (1995). Does textual enhancement promote noticing? A think-aloud protocol analysis. In R. Schmidt (Ed.), Attention and awareness in foreign language learning (pp. 183-216). Manoa: Second Language Teaching Curriculum Center, University of Hawaii.
Krashen, S. (1982). Principles and practice in second language acquisition. Oxford: Pergamon.
Krashen, S. (1985). The input hypothesis: Issues and implications. London: Longman Press.
Larsen-Freeman, D., & Long, M. (1991). An introduction to second language research. London: Longman Press.
Lee, S. k. (2007). Effects of textual enhancement and topic familiarity on Korean EFL students reading comprehension and learning of passive voice. Language Learning, 57(1), 87-118.
Lee, S. K., & Huang, H.T. (2008). Visual input enhancement and grammar learning: A meta-analytic review. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 30, 307-331.
Leow, R. (2001). Do learners notice enhanced forms while interacting with the L2? An online and offline study of the role of written input enhancement in L2 reading. Hispania, 84, 496-509.
Leow, R. (2007). Input in the L2 classroom: An attentional perspective on receptive practice. In R. DeKeyser (Ed.), Practice in a second language: Perspectives from applied linguistics and cognitive psychology (pp. 21-50) Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Levenson, E. (1979). Second language lexical acquisition: Issues and problems. Interlanguage Studies Bulletin, 4, 147-60.
Long, M. (1991). Focus on form: A design feature in language teaching methodology. In K. de Bot Ginsberg & C. Kramsch (Eds.), Foreign language research in cross-cultural perspective (pp. 39-52). Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
Nahavandi, N., & Mukundan, J. (2013). The impact of textual input enhancement and explicit rule presentation on Iranian EFL learners' intake of simple past tense. English Language Teaching, 6(1), 92-102.
Norris, J. M., & Ortega, L. (2000). Effectiveness of L2 instruction: A research synthesis and quantitative meta‐analysis. Language Learning, 50(3), 417-528.
Norris, J., & Ortega, L. (2001). Effectiveness of L2 instruction: A research synthesis and quantitative meta-analysis. Language Learning, 50, 417-528.
Reinders, H. (2012). Towards a definition of intake in second language acquisition. Applied Research in English, 1(2), 15-36.
Reinders, H., & R. Ellis. (2009). Effects of two types of positive enhanced input on intake and L2 acquisition. In T. Ellis, R. S. Loewen, R. Erlm, J. Philp, C. Elder, & H. Reinders (Eds.), Intake in second language acquisition (pp. 27-41).Clevedon: Multilingual Matters.
Rosa, E. E., & O'Neil, M. (1999). Explicitness, intake, and the issue of awareness: Another piece to the puzzle. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 21, 511-566.
Sanz, C., & Morgan-Short, K. (2004). Positive evidence vs. explicit rule presentation and explicit negative feedback: A computer-assisted study. Language Learning, 54, 35-78.
Sarkhosh, M., Taghipour, B., & Sarkhosh, H. (2013). Differential effect of different textual enhancement formats on intake. Proceedia: Social and Behavioral Sciences, 70, 544-559.
Schmidt, R. (1993). Consciousness, learning, and interlanguage pragmatics. Interlanguage Pragmatics, 21, 42- 53.
Schmidt, R. (1994). Deconstructing consciousness in search of useful definitions for applied linguistics. ALLA Review, 11, 11-26.
Schmidt, R. (1995). Consciousness and foreign language learning. Honolulu: University of Hawaii.
Schmidt, R. (2001). Attention. In P. Robinson (Ed.), Cognition and second language instruction. Cambridge: Cambridge University press.
Sharwood Smith, M. (1993). Input enhancement in instructed SLA. Theoretical bases. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 15, 165-179.
Shegar, C., Zhang, J. L., & Ling Low, E. (2013). Effects of an input-output mapping practice task on EFL learners’ acquisition of two grammatical structures. System, 17, 1-19.
Shook, D. J. (1994). FL/L2 reading, grammatical information, and the input to intake phenomenon. Applied Language Learning, 5, 57-93.
Simard, D. (2009). Differential effects of textual enhancement formats on intake. System, 37, 124-135.
Spada, N. (1997). Form-focused instruction and second language acquisition. A review of classroom and laboratory research. Language Teaching, 30, 73-87.
Spada, N., & Lightbown, P. (2008). Form-focused instruction: Isolated or integrated? TESOL Quarterly, 42, 181-247.
Stern, H. (1990). Analysis and experience as a variable in second language pedagogy. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Swain, M. (1985). Communicative competence: Some roles of comprehensible input and comprehensible output in its development. In S. Gass & C. Madden (Eds.), Input in second language acquisition (pp. 90-118). Rowley, MA: Newbury House.
Swain, M. (1993). The output hypothesis: Just speaking and writing are not enough. Canadian Modern Language Review, 50, 158-164.
Swain, M. (1995). Three functions of output in second language learning. In G. Cook & B. Seildhofer (Eds.), Principles and practice in the study of language (pp. 125-1440). Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Swain, M. (1998). Focus on form through conscious reflection. In C. Doughty & J. Williams (Eds.), Focus on form in classroom second language acquisition (pp. 64-81). New York: Cambridge University Press.
Swain, M. (2000). The output hypothesis and beyond: Mediating acquisition through collaborative dialogue. In J. Lantolf (Ed), Sociocultural theory and second language learning. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Swain, M. (2005). The output hypothesis: Theory and research. Handbook of Research in Second Language Teaching and Learning, 1, 471-483.
van Patten, B. (2004). Processing instruction. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associate.
Williams, J., & Evans, J. (1998). What kind of focus and on which forms? In C. Doughty & J. Williams (Eds.), Focus on form in classroom second language acquisition (pp. 139-55). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Williams, J. (2005). Form-focused instruction. In E. Hinkel (Ed.), Handbook of research in second language teaching (pp. 671-691). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associate.
Wong, W. (2003). Textual enhancement and simplified input: Effects on L2 comprehension and acquisition of nonmeaningful grammatical form. Applied Language Learning, 13, 17-45.
Wong, W. (2004). Processing instruction in French: The role of explicit information and structured input. In B. van Patten (Ed.), Processing instruction: Theory, research, and commentary (pp. 185-205). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
Wong, W. (2005). Input enhancement: From theory and research to the classroom. NY: McGraw Hill.
Yoshimi, D. R. (2001). Explicit instruction and EFL learners' use of interactional discourse markers. In K. Rose & G. Kasper (Eds.), Pragmatics in language teaching (pp. 223-244). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.