advocated the use of negative feedback to promote learner noticing of errors and the internalization of correct forms. At the same time, the true efficacy of this practice is uncertain, for it not only entails additional linguistic input but may generally enhance otherwise non-salient language features as well (Leeman, 2003). This study examined the development of theà/au/en/aux distinction before French toponyms among 136 2nd-semester university French learners randomly assigned to an interactive, computer-based reading lesson featuring either textually enhanced or unenhanced target forms and one of four types of corrective feedback: meaningfocused, implicit form-focused, non-metalinguistic explicit form-focused, or metalinguistic explicit form-focused. Learners in all treatment groups showed continuous improvement in mean target item accuracy. However, no differences were observed between any of the conditions. These findings suggest no benefit for highlighting or repeated correction and explanation, at least for the structures in question. Thus, instructors who feel the need to teach these types of necessary grammatical redundancies should perhaps focus on maximizing learners' opportunities to process them through meaningful interaction rather than concentrate on the forms themselves.DESPITE ITS WIDESPREAD ACCEPTANCE IN general parlance, the idea that "we learn from our mistakes" has long been a source of debate in the field of second language acquisition (SLA). Whereas the highly corrective, form-focused Audiolingual Method has been criticized as having failed to foster skills transfer to situations of real communication (Richards & Rodgers, 2001), so too has the more permissive, meaning-based ap-

As the number of language instructors seeking to implement digital technologies in their teaching continues to grow, so does the need for direction with regard to making pedagogically sound decisions concerning digital tool use. One popular and useful guide for considering the educational potential of digital technologies has been Puentedura’s (2006) Substitution-Augmentation-Modification-Redefinition (SAMR) model, with its four levels of progressive technological integration. However, the degree of technological integration truly possible or even desirable for individual teachers in their given context depends on a number of complex, interrelated, largely non-technological factors, including implementation motives, pedagogical purview, educational philosophy, theory of learning, teaching style, and situational constraints. Generally unconscious, these factors often go ignored, leaving teachers susceptible to technological decisions that can lead them to lose their prescribed pedagogical focus or unwittingly contradict their core professional beliefs. After a brief, situated overview of the SAMR model, this article introduces and illustrates a five-stage SAMR-embedded reflective approach to systematically eliminating irrelevant, unacceptable, and unfeasible instructional uses of technology and, thereby, revealing potential for expanding pedagogical capacity in language teaching. À mesure que grandit le nombre de professeurs de langue qui cherchent à mettre les technologies numériques au service de leur enseignement, il devient plus important de savoir prendre des décisions pédagogiques judicieuses concernant le recours aux outils numériques. Populaire et utile avec ses quatre niveaux d’intégration progressive de la technologie, le modèle SAMR (Substitution, Augmentation, Modification, Redéfinition) de Puentedura (2006) a guidé maints utilisateurs intéressés par le potentiel éducatif des technologies numériques. Toutefois, le degré d’intégration technologique effectivement possible ou même désirable pour les professeurs individuels dans leur contexte particulier dépend de facteurs complexes, interdépendants et essentiellement non technologiques tels que les motifs invoqués en faveur du recours à la technologie, le ressort en matière de pédagogie, la philosophie éducative, la théorie de l’apprentissage, le style pédagogique et les contraintes situationnelles. Généralement inconscients, ces facteurs restent souvent ignorés, ce qui risque de confronter les professeurs à des décisions technologiques susceptibles de leur faire perdre la focalisation pédagogique qui leur a été prescrite ou de contredire involontairement leurs convictions professionnelles fondamentales. Après avoir brièvement replacé le modèle SAMR dans son contexte, le présent article introduit et illustre une approche réflective en cinq étapes intégrées au modèle SAMR qui est destinée à éliminer systématiquement les utilisations non pertinentes, inacceptables et irréalisables de la technologie, et ouvrant ainsi la perspective d’enrichir le potentiel pédagogique de l’enseignement des langues.

Computer‐mediated communication is an increasingly popular means of conducting classroom language exchanges, but those requiring asynchronous modes must generally forgo oral options in favor of text. This study explores the potential of asynchronous video, focusing on 15 university learners of Japanese in the United States in an interclass project with 26 English‐learning peers in Japan. Both groups performed online video self‐introductions in their second language (L2) before modeling the same task in their first language, completing a language awareness–raising activity on target language models of their choice, and performing a second self‐introduction in L2. The second L2 performances showed more elaborate discourse but no improvement in syntactic complexity. Implications are discussed for maximizing the pedagogical benefits of similar asynchronous online exchanges.

No abstract

The past decade has seen a growing interest in "flipped teaching", an inversion of traditional teaching methods, whereby instruction formerly taking place in the classroom is made accessible online and lesson time is spent on interaction. Until very recently, flipped learning was largely limited to the Science, Technology, Engineering, and Math (STEM) fields and/or the teaching of blended courses, but some foreign language professionals have also now begun to take notice. At first glance, the approach may appear promising, as it would normalize computers in general instruction and allow teachers to serve more as facilitators and managers rather than purveyors of knowledge. However, reports of its efficacy have so far been mostly anecdotal. Moreover, most flipped teaching as currently practiced assumes top-down presentation that ignores fundamental differences in the nature and purpose of instructional input when content learning is the main, if not sole, objective and language acquisition occurs only incidentally, if at all. As such, without thoughtful adaptation, it is inconsistent with and unsuited for contemporary foreign language pedagogy. This paper discusses potential advantages and disadvantages to consider in the decision of whether to flip the foreign language classroom.