Book contents
- The Cambridge Handbook of Language Learning
- Cambridge Handbooks in Language and Linguistics
- The Cambridge Handbook of Language Learning
- Copyright page
- Contents
- Figures
- Tables
- Contributors
- Acknowledgements
- Introduction
- Part I Theories
- Part II Methods
- Part III Skill Development
- Part IV Individual Differences
- Part V Pedagogical Interventions and Approaches
- Part VI Context and Environment
- Part VII Moving Forward
- Index
- References
Part V - Pedagogical Interventions and Approaches
Published online by Cambridge University Press: 25 June 2019
Book contents
- The Cambridge Handbook of Language Learning
- Cambridge Handbooks in Language and Linguistics
- The Cambridge Handbook of Language Learning
- Copyright page
- Contents
- Figures
- Tables
- Contributors
- Acknowledgements
- Introduction
- Part I Theories
- Part II Methods
- Part III Skill Development
- Part IV Individual Differences
- Part V Pedagogical Interventions and Approaches
- Part VI Context and Environment
- Part VII Moving Forward
- Index
- References
Summary
The role of instruction in L2 acquisition has been a key question and a theoretical issue in the field. It was directly addressed by Long (1983) in a paper in which he presented the results of several classroom-based empirical studies, all addressing the question of whether instruction can be beneficial for L2 learners. In his review, he considered eleven studies which examined whether the learners receiving instruction achieved a higher level of proficiency than those learners who did not. In these eleven studies, classroom only, naturalistic exposure only, and classroom plus naturalistic exposure were compared. Long concluded that the overall findings indicate that instruction is beneficial for adults (intermediate and advanced stages) as well as for children. It is beneficial both in acquisition-rich contexts (i.e., in which learners are exposed to the target language outside the classroom context) and acquisition-poor environments (i.e., in which learners are exposed to the target language only in a classroom context). Such benefits emerge despite the way proficiency is measured. Long concluded that a combination of instruction and naturalistic exposure to the input were optimal conditions as instruction seems to have an effect on the rate of and ultimate success in L2 acquisition.
- Type
- Chapter
- Information
- The Cambridge Handbook of Language Learning , pp. 475 - 646Publisher: Cambridge University PressPrint publication year: 2019
References
References
Benati, A. (2016). Input manipulation, enhancement and processing: Theoretical views and empirical research. Studies in Second Language Learning and Teaching, 6, 65–88.
Benati, A. (2017a). Classroom-oriented research: Processing Instruction (findings and implications). Language Teaching.
Benati, A (2018). Structured input. In Liontas, J. I. (ed.), TESOL Encyclopedia of English Language Teaching. New York: Wiley.
Benati, A. (forthcoming). Key issues in second language teaching. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Benati, A., & Batziou, M. (2017). The effects of structured-input and structured-output tasks on the acquisition of English causative. International Review of Applied Linguistics in Language Teaching.
Celce-Murcia, M., & Olshtain, E. (2001). Discourse and context in language teaching: A guide for language teachers. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Chomsky, N. (1965). Aspects of the theory of syntax. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
DeKeyser, R. (2015). Skill Acquisition Theory. In VanPatten, B. & Williams, J. (eds.), Theories in second language acquisition: An introduction (2nd edn., pp. 94–112). New York: Routledge.
Doughty, C., & Williams, J. (eds.) (1998). Focus on form in classroom second language acquisition. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Ellis, R. (1991). Grammar teaching practice or consciousness raising? In Ellis, R. (ed.), Second language acquisition and second language pedagogy (pp. 232–241). Clevedon: Multilingual Matters.
Ellis, R., & Wulff, S. (2015). Usage-based approaches to SLA. In VanPatten, B. & Williams, J. (eds.), Theories in second language acquisition: An introduction (2nd edn., pp. 75–93). New York: Routledge.
Gass, S. (1997). Input, interaction, and the second language learner. Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
Gass, S., & Mackey, A. (2015). Input, interaction, and output in second language acquisition. In VanPatten, B. & Williams, J. (eds.), Theories in second language acquisition: An introduction (2nd edn., pp. 180–206). New York: Routledge.
Hinkel, E. (2002a). Grammar teaching in writing classes: Tenses and cohesion. In Hinkel, E. & Fotos, S. (eds.), New perspectives on grammar teaching in second language classrooms (pp. 181–198). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
Hinkel, E. (2002b). Why English passive is difficult to teach (and learn). In Hinkel, E. & Fotos, S. (eds.), New perspectives on grammar teaching in second language classrooms (pp. 233–260). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
Hinkel, E. (ed.) (2005). The handbook of research in second language teaching and learning. Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
Krashen, S. D. (1982). Principles and practice in second language acquisition. London: Pergamon.
Krashen, S. D., & Terrell, T. (1983). The Natural Approach: Language acquisition in the classroom. Hayward, CA: Alemany.
Lantolf, J., Thorne, S., & Poehner, M. (2015). Sociocultural theory and second language development. In VanPatten, B. & Williams, J. (eds.), Theories in second language acquisition: An introduction (pp. 207–226). New York: Routledge.
Lightbown, P., & Spada, N. (2013) How languages are learned (4th edn.). Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Long, M. (1983). Does second language instruction make a difference? TESOL Quarterly, 17, 359–382.
Long, M. (1991). Focus on form: A design feature in language teaching methodology. In de Bot, K. (ed.), Foreign language research in cross-cultural perspectives (pp. 39–52). Amsterdam/Philadelphia, PA: Benjamins.
Long, M., & Doughty, C. (eds.) (2009). The handbook of language teaching. Oxford: Wiley-Blackwell.
Long, M., & Robinson, P. (1998). Focus on form: Theory, research and practice. In Doughty, C. & Williams, J. (eds.), Focus on form in classroom second language acquisition (pp. 15–41). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Mackey, A., & Goo, J. (2007). Interaction research in SLA: A meta-analysis and research synthesis. In Mackey, A. (ed.), Conversational interaction in second language acquisition: A collection of empirical studies (pp. 407–452). Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Nassaji, H., & Fotos, S. (2011). Teaching grammar in second language classrooms. New York: Routledge.
Pienemann, M., & Lenzing, A. (2015). Processability theory. In VanPatten, B. & Williams, J. (eds.), Theories in second language acquisition: An introduction (2nd edn., pp. 159–179). New York: Routledge.
Richards, J., & Rodgers, T. (2001). Approaches and methods in language teaching. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Schmidt, R. (1990). The role of consciousness in second language learning. Applied Linguistics, 11, 129–158.
Sharwood Smith, M. (1991). Speaking to many minds: On the relevance of different types of language information for the L2 learner. Second Language Research, 7, 118–132.
Sharwood Smith, M. (1993). Input enhancement in instructed SLA: Theoretical bases. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 15, 165–179.
Skehan, P. (1996). A framework for the implementation of task-based instruction. Applied Linguistics, 17, 38–62.
Spada, N. (1997). Form-focused instruction and second language acquisition: A review of classroom and laboratory research. Language Teaching, 30, 73–87.
Swain, M. (1985). Communicative competence: Some roles of comprehensible input and comprehensible output in its development. In Gass, S. & Madden, C. (eds.), Input in second language acquisition (pp. 235–256). New York: Newbury House.
Swain, M. (1995). Three functions of output in second language learning. In Cook, G. & Seidlhofer, B. (eds.), Principles and practice in the study of language. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Swain, M., & Lapkin, S. (2000). Task-based second language learning: The uses of the first language. Language Teaching Research, 4(3), 251–274.
Swain, M., & Lapkin, S. (2001). Focus on form through collaborative dialogue: Exploring task effects. In Bygate, M., Skehan, P., & Swain, M. (eds.), Researching pedagogic tasks: Second language learning, teaching and testing (pp. 99–118). Harlow: Pearson.
Thornbury, S. (2006). Grammar. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
VanPatten, B. (1996). Input processing and grammar instruction: Theory and research. Norwood, NJ: Ablex.
VanPatten, B. (ed.) (2004). Processing Instruction: Theory, research, and commentary. Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
VanPatten, B. (2015). Input processing. In VanPatten, B. & Williams, J. (eds.), Theories in second language acquisition: An introduction (2nd edn., pp. 113–134). New York: Routledge.
VanPatten, B. (2016). Language. New York: Routledge.
VanPatten, B., & Benati, A. (2015). Key terms in second language acquisition. London: Continuum.
VanPatten, B., & Williams, J. (2015). Theories in second language acquisition (2nd edn.). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Wajnryb, R. (1990). Grammar dictation. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
White, L. (2003). Second language acquisition and Universal Grammar. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Wong, W. (2005). Input enhancement: From theory and research to the classroom. New York: McGraw-Hill.
References
Aslin, R. N., & Newport, E. L. (2012). Statistical learning: From acquiring specific items to forming general rules. Current Directions in Psychological Science, 21(3), 170–176.
Avrich, P. (1980). The modern school movement. Anarchism and education in the United States. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
Benson, S. (2014). Task-based language teaching: An empirical study of task transfer. Language Teaching Research, 20(3), 341–365.
Bonilla, C. (2014). From number agreement to the subjunctive: Evidence for Processability Theory in L2 Spanish. Language Teaching Research, 31(1), 53–74.
Borro, I. (2017). Comparing the effectiveness of TBTL and PPP on L2 grammar learning. A self-paced-reading study with Chinese students of Italian L2. MS at the University of Portsmouth.
Brown, J. D., & Hudson, T. (2002). Criterion-referenced language testing. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Bryfonski, L., & McKay, T. (2017). TBLT implementation and evaluation: A meta-analysis. Language Teaching Research, 1–30.
Clahsen, H. (1987). Connecting theories of language processing and (second) language acquisition. In Pfaff, C. (ed.), First and second language acquisition processes (pp. 103–116). Cambridge, MA: Newbury House.
DeKeyser, R. D. (2015). Skill Acquisition Theory. In VanPatten, B. & Williams, J. (eds.), Theories in second language acquisition. An introduction (2nd edn.) (pp. 94–113). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
Dinsmore, D. (1985). Waiting for Godot in the EFL classroom. ELT Journal, 39(4), 225–234.
Eckerth, J. (2008). Investigating consciousness-raising tasks: Pedagogically targeted and non-targeted learning gains. International Journal of Applied Linguistics, 19(3), 119–145.
Ellis, N. (2017). Salience in usage-based SLA. In Gass, S., Spinner, P., & Behney, J. (eds.), Salience in second language acquisition (pp. 21–40). London: Routledge.
Ellis, R. (1989). Are classroom and naturalistic acquisition the same? A study of the classroom acquisition of German word order rules. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 11(3), 305–328.
Gilabert, R. (2005). Evaluating the use of multiple sources and multiple methods in needs analysis: A case study of journalists in the Autonomous Community of Catalonia (Spain). In Long, M. H. (ed.), Second language needs analysis (pp. 182–199). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Goo, J., & Mackey, A. (2013). The case against the case against recasts. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 35(1), 127–165.
Granena, G., & Long, M. H. (2013). Age of onset, length of residence, language aptitude, and ultimate L2 attainment in three linguistic domains. Second Language Research, 29(3), 311–343.
Hatch, E. M. (1978). Discourse analysis and second language acquisition. In Hatch, E. M. (ed.), Second language acquisition: A book of readings (pp. 402–435). Rowley, MA: Newbury House.
Hillman, K. K. (2017). Target tasks for US Foreign Service Officers: The challenge for TBLT of the Japanese celebration speech. Scholarly Paper produced as part of a PhD in SLA Program, University of Maryland.
Hoetker, J., & Ahlbrand, W. P. (1969). The persistence of the recitation. American Educational Research Journal, 6(1), 145–167.
Jackson, D. O., & Suethanapornkul, S. (2013). The Cognition Hypothesis: A synthesis and meta-analysis of research on second language task complexity. Language Learning, 63(2), 330–367.
Jasso-Aguilar, R. (2005). Sources, methods and triangulation in needs analysis: A critical perspective in a case study of Waikiki hotel maids. In Long, M. H. (ed.), Second language needs analysis (pp. 127–158). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Lee, J. (2018). Task complexity, cognitive load, and L1 speech. Applied Linguistics.
Li, S. (2010). The effectiveness of corrective feedback in SLA: A meta-analysis. Language Learning, 60(2), 309–365.
Long, M. H. (ed.) (2005). Second language needs analysis. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Long, M. H. (2009). Methodological principles for language teaching. In Long, M. H. & Doughty, C. J. (eds.), Handbook of language teaching (pp. 373–394). Oxford: Blackwell.
Long, M. H. (2013). Needs analysis. In Chapelle, C. (ed.), The encyclopedia of applied linguistics. Oxford: Wiley-Blackwell.
Long, M. H. (2015a). Second language acquisition and Task-Based Language Teaching. Malden, MA: Wiley.
Long, M. H. (2015b). Experimental perspectives on classroom interaction. In Markee, N. (ed.), Handbook of classroom discourse and interaction (pp. 60–73). Oxford: Wiley-Blackwell.
Long, M. H. (2016). In defense of tasks and TBLT: Non-issues and real issues. Annual Review of Applied Linguistics, 36, 5–33.
Long, M. H. (2017). Instructed second language acquisition (ISLA): Geopolitics, methodological issues, and some major research questions. Instructed Second Language Acquisition, 1(1), 7–44.
Long, M. H., Al-Thowaini, A., Al-Thowaini, B., Lee, J., & Vafaee, P. (2018). A micro process-product study of a CLIL lesson: Linguistic modifications, content dilution, and vocabulary knowledge. Instructed Second Language Acquisition, 2(1), 3–38.
Long, M. H., & Robinson, P. (1998). Focus on form: Theory, research and practice. In Doughty, C. & Williams, J. (eds.), Focus on form in second language acquisition (pp. 15–41). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Long, M. H., & Ross, S. (1993). Modifications that preserve language and content. In Tickoo, M. (ed.), Simplification: Theory and application (pp. 29–52). Singapore: SEAMEO Regional Language Centre.
Long, M. H., & Sato, C. J. (1983). Classroom foreigner talk discourse: Forms and functions of teachers’ questions. In Seliger, H. W. & Long, M. H. (eds.), Classroom-oriented research on second language acquisition (pp. 268–285). Rowley, MA: Newbury House.
Mackey, A., & Goo, J. (2007). Interaction research in SLA: A meta-analysis and research synthesis. In Mackey, A. (ed.), Conversational interaction in second language acquisition (pp. 407–452). Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Malicka, A., Gilabert, R., & Norris, J. M. (2017). From needs analysis to task design: Insights from an English for specific purposes context. Language Teaching Research, 1–29.
Malika, A., & Sasayama, S. (2017). Cognitive task complexity: A research synthesis. Paper presented at the Seventh International Conference on TBLT, University of Barcelona, 18–21 April.
Meisel, J. M., Clahsen, H., & Pienemann, M. (1981). On determining developmental stages in natural second language acquisition. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 3(1), 109–135.
Nation, I. S. P. (2006). How large a vocabulary is needed for reading and listening? Canadian Modern Language Review, 63, 59–82.
Nielson, K. B., Masters, M. C., Rhoades, E., & Freynik, S. (2009). Prototype implementation of an online Chinese course: An analysis of course implementation and learner performance. College Park, MD: University of Maryland Center for Advanced Study of Language.
Norris, J. M. (2009). Task-based teaching and testing. In Long, M. H. & Doughty, C. J. (eds.), Handbook of language teaching (pp. 578–594). Oxford: Blackwell.
O’Connell, S. (2014). A task-based language teaching approach to the police traffic stop. TESL Canada Journal, 31(8), 116–131.
Oh, S.-Y. (2001). Two types of input modification and EFL reading comprehension: Simplification versus elaboration. TESOL Quarterly, 35(1), 69–96.
Pienemann, M. (1984). Psychological constraints on the teachability of languages. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 6(2), 186–214.
Pienemann, M. (1998). Language processing and second language development. Processability theory. Amsterdam/Philadelphia,PA: John Benjamins.
Pienemann, M., & Kessler, J.-U. (2012). Processability Theory. In Gass, S. M. & Mackey, A. (eds.), The Routledge handbook of second language acquisition (pp. 228–246). New York: Routledge.
Révész, A. (2014). Towards a fuller assessment of cognitive models of task-based learning: Investigating task-generated cognitive demands and processes. Applied Linguistics, 35(1), 87–92.
Révész, A., Michel, M., & Gilabert, R. (2015). Measuring cognitive task demands using dual task methodology, subjective self-ratings, and expert judgments: A validation study. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 28(4), 1–35.
Robinson, P. (2007). Criteria for classifying and sequencing pedagogic tasks. In Garcia-Mayo, M. P. (ed.), Investigating tasks in formal language learning (pp. 7–26). Bristol: Multilingual Matters.
Robinson, P. (2009). Syllabus design. In Long, M. H. & Doughty, C. J. (eds.), Handbook of language teaching (pp. 294–310). Oxford: Blackwell.
Robinson, P. (2011). Second language task complexity, the Cognition Hypothesis, language learning, and performance. In Robinson, P. (ed.), Second language task complexity. Researching the Cognition Hypothesis of language learning and performance (pp. 3–37). Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
Robinson, P. (2015). The Cognition Hypothesis, second language task demands, and the SSARC model of pedagogic task sequencing. In Bygate, M. (ed.), Domains and directions in the development of TBLT: A decade of plenaries from the international conference (pp. 87–121). Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
Schmidt, R. W. (1990). The role of consciousness in second language learning. Applied Linguistics, 11(2), 129–158.
Sato, C. J. (1986). Conversation and interlanguage development: Rethinking the connection. In Day, R. R. (ed.), “Talking to learn”: Conversation in second language acquisition (pp. 23–45). Rowley, MA: Newbury House.
Sato, C. J. (1990). The syntax of conversation in interlanguage development. Tübingen: Gunter Narr.
Serafini, E. J., Lake, J. B., & Long, M. H. (2015). Methodological improvements in identifying specialized learner needs. English for Specific Purposes, 40, 11–26.
Shintani, N. (2011). A comparative study of the effects of input-based and production-based instruction on vocabulary acquisition by young EFL learners. Language Teaching Research, 15, 137–158.
Shintani, N. (2013). The effect of focus on form and focus on forms instruction on the acquisition of productive knowledge of L2 vocabulary by young beginner learners. TESOL Quarterly, 47(1), 36–62.
Shintani, N. (2016). Input-based tasks in foreign language instruction for young learners. Amsterdam/Philadelphia, PA: John Benjamins.
Skehan, P. (1998). A cognitive approach to language learning. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Skehan, P. (2015). Limited attention capacity and cognition: Two hypotheses regarding second language performance on tasks. In Bygate, M. (ed.), Domains and directions in the development of TBLT: A decade of plenaries from the international conference (pp. 123–155). Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
Smith, M. P. (1983). The libertarians and education. London: George Allen & Unwin.
Suissa, J. (2006). Anarchism and education. A philosophical perspective. London: Routledge.
Tomlin, R., & Villa, V. (1994). Attention in cognitive science and SLA. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 16, 183–204.
Van den Branden, K. (ed.) (2006). Task-based language education: From theory to practice. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Van Gorp, K., & Deygers, B. (2013). Task-based language assessment. In Kunan, A. (ed.), The companion to language assessment. Vol. 2: Approaches and development (pp. 578–593). Oxford: Wiley-Blackwell.
White, J., & Lightbown, P. M. (1984). Asking and answering in foreign language classes. Canadian Modern Language Review, 40, 228–244.
Whong, M., Gil, H.-G., & Marsden, E. (2014). Beyond paradigm: The “what” and the “how” of classroom research. Second Language Research, 30(4), 551–568.
Williams, J. N. (2009). Implicit learning. In Ritchie, W. C. & Bhatia, T. K. (eds.), The new handbook of second language acquisition (pp. 319–353). Bingley: Emerald Group Publishing.
Yano, Y., Long, M. H., & Ross, S. (1994). The effects of simplified and elaborated texts on foreign language reading comprehension. Language Learning, 44(2), 189–219.
Yilmaz, Y. (2016). The linguistic environment, interaction and negative feedback. Brill Research Perspectives on Multilingualism and Second Language Acquisition, 1(1), 45–86.
References
Anderson, L. W., Krathwohl, D. R., Airasian, P. W., Cruikshank, K. A., Mayer, R. E., Pintrich, P. R., …, Wittrock, M. C. (2001). A taxonomy for learning, teaching, and assessing: A revision of Bloom’s Taxonomy of educational objectives. New York: Pearson, Allyn & Bacon.
Arteaga, D., Gess, R., & Herschensohn, J. (2003). Focusing on phonology to teach morphological form in French. The Modern Language Journal, 87(1), 58–70.
Baralt, M., Gilabert, R., & Robinson, P. (2014). Task sequencing and instructed second language learning. London: Bloomsbury.
Beljaev, B. V. (Беляев, Б. В.) (1964). Psikhologicheskie voprosy usvoenija leksiki inostrannogo jazyka. (Психологические вопросы усвоения лексики иностранного языка). Moscow: Просвещение.
Beljaev, B. V. (Беляев, Б. В.) (1965). Ocherki po psikhologii obuchenija inostrannyv jazykam (Очерки по психологии обучения иностранным языкам. Издательство «Просвещение»). Moscow: Izdatel’stvo Proizveschenie.
Bygate, M. (2001). Effects of task repetition on the structure and control of oral language. In Bygate, M., Skehan, P., & Swain, M. (eds.), Researching pedagogic tasks. Second language learning, teaching, and testing (pp. 23–48). Harlow: Longman.
Bloom, B. S., Engelhart, M. D., Furst, E. J., Hill, W. H., & Krathwohl, D. R. (1956). Taxonomy of educational objectives, handbook I: The cognitive domain. New York: David McKay.
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, 357–386.
Castellví, J. & Markina, E. (2017). Designing a task-based syllabus for morphologically complex languages: The case of Russian as a foreign language. Paper given at the Task-based Language Teaching Conference, Barcelona, Spain.
Cho, M., & Reinders, R. (2013). The effects of aural input enhancement on L2 acquisition. In Bergsleithner, J. M., Frota, S. N., & Yoshioka, J. K. (eds.), Noticing and second language acquisition: Studies in honor of Richard Schmidt (pp. 133–148). Honolulu, HI: University of Hawaii, National Foreign Language Resource Center.
Comer, W. J. (2007). Implementing task-based language teaching from the ground up: Consideration for lesson planning and classroom practice. Russian Language Journal/Русский язык, 57, 181–203.
Comer, W.J. (2012). Communicative language teaching and Russian: The current state of the field. In Makarova, V. (ed.), Russian languages studies in North America: New perspectives from theoretical and applied linguistics. London: Anthem Press.
Council of Europe (2001). Common European framework of reference for languages: Learning, teaching, assessment. Cambridge: Press Syndicate of the University of Cambridge.
Doughty, C. (2001). Cognitive underpinnings of focus on form. In Robinson, P. (ed.), Cognition and second language instruction. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Doughty, C., & Williams, J. (eds.) (1998). Focus on form in classroom second language acquisition. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Gass, S. M., & Mackey, A. (2007). Input, interaction, and output in second language acquisition. In VanPatten, B. & Williams, J. (eds.), Theories in second language acquisition: An introduction (pp. 175–199). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
Gilabert, R., Manchón, R., & Vasylets, L. (2016). Mode in theoretical and empirical TBLT research: Advancing research agendas. Annual Review of Applied Linguistics, 36, 117–135.
Han, Z., Park, E. S., & Combs, C. (2008). Textual enhancement of input: Issues and possibilities. Applied Linguistics, 29(4), 597–618.
Housen, A., & Simoens, H. (2016). Introduction: Cognitive perspectives on difficulty and complexity in L2 acquisition. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 38, 163–175.
Lawson, B. (2005). How designers think: The design process demystified. Amsterdam: Elsevier.
Lee, S. K., & Huang, H. T. (2008). Visual input enhancement and grammar learning: A meta-analytic review. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 30(3), 307–331.
Leontjev, A. A. (Леонтьев, А. А.) (1970). Nekotorye problemy obuchenija russkomu jazyku kak inostrannomu (Некоторые проблемы обучения русскому языку как иностранному). Moscow: Izdatel’stvo Moskovskogo Universiteta.
Leow, R. P. (1995). Modality and intake in second language acquisition. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 17(1), 79–89.
Leow, R. P. (2000). A study of the role of awareness in foreign language behavior. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 22, 557–584.
Leow, R. P. (2015). Explicit learning in the L2 classroom: A student-centered approach. New York: Routledge.
Long, M. H. (2005). Second language needs analysis. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Long, M. H. (2015). Second language acquisition and task-based language teaching. Oxford: Wiley.
Long, M. H. (2016). In defense of tasks and TBLT: Nonissues and real issues. Annual Review of Applied Linguistics, 36, 5–33.
Malicka, A., Gilabert, R., & Norris, J. (2017). From needs analysis to task design: Insights from an English for specific purposes context. Language Teaching Research, 1–20.
Magnani, M., & Artoni, D. (2015). Teaching learnable grammar in Russian as a second language: A syllabus proposal for case. In Quero Gervilla, E. F., Barros García, B., Kopylova, T. R. (eds.), Trends in Slavic Studies. Moscow: Editorial URSS (pp. 57–70).
Michel, M. C. (2017). Complexity, accuracy and fluency in L2 production. In Loewen, S. & Sato, M. (eds.), Routledge handbook of instructed second language acquisition (pp. 50–68). London: Routledge.
Oh, S. Y. (2011). Two types of input modification and EFL reading comprehension: Simplification versus elaboration. TESOL Quarterly, 35(1), 69–96.
Palotti, G. (2009). CAF: Defining, refining and differentiating constructs. Applied Linguistics, 30, 590–601.
Palotti, G. (2014). A simple view of linguistic complexity. Second Language Research, 31(1), 117–134.
Platt, E., & Brooks, F. B. (2002). Task engagement: A turning point in foreign language development. Language Learning, 52, 365–400.
Révész, A. (2011). Task complexity, focus on L2 constructions, and individual differences: A classroom-based study. The Modern Language Journal, 95, 162–181.
Robinson, P. (1995). Attention, memory and the “noticing” hypothesis. Language Learning, 45, 283–331.
Robinson, P. (2001a). Task complexity, cognitive resources, and syllabus design: Atriadic framework for examining task influences on SLA. In Robinson, P. (ed.). Cognition and second language instruction (pp. 287–318). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Robinson, P. (2001b). Task complexity, task difficulty, and task production: Exploring interactions in a componential framework. Applied Linguistics, 22(1), 27–57.
Robinson, P. (2003). The Cognition Hypothesis, task design and adult task-based language learning. Second Language Studies, 21(2), 45–107.
Robinson, P. (2007). Task complexity, theory of mind, and intentional reasoning: Effects on L2 speech production, interaction, uptake and perceptions of task difficulty. International Review of Applied Linguistics, 45, 193–214.
Robinson, P., & Gilabert, R. (2007). Task complexity, the Cognition Hypothesis and second language learning and performance. International Review of Applied Linguistics, 45(3), 161–176.
Sasayama, S., Malicka, A., & Norris, J. (in press). Cognitive task complexity: A research synthesis and meta-analysis. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
Scherba, L. V. (Щерба, Л. В.) (1974a). Prepodavanie inostrannykh jazykov v srednej shkole. Obschie voprosy metodiki (Преподавание иностранных языков в средней школе. Общие вопросы методики). Moscow: Atel’stvo Vusshaja Shkola.
Scherba, L. V. (Щерба, Л. В.) (1974b). O trojakom aspekte jazykovykh javlenij i ob eksperimente v jazykoznanii (О трояком аспекте языковых явлений и об эксперименте в языкознании). In Scherba, L. V. (eds.), Jazykovaja sistema i rechevaja dejatel’nost’ (Щерба Л. В. Языковая система и речевая деятельность). Leningrad: Nauka.
Schmidt, R. (2001). Attention. In Robinson, P. (ed.), Cognition and second language instruction (pp. 3–32). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Serafini, E. J., Lake, J. B., & Long, M. H. (2015). Needs analysis for specialized learner populations: Essential methodological improvements. English for Specific Purposes, 40, 11–26.
Skehan, P. (1998). A cognitive approach to language learning. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Skehan, P. (2001). Tasks and language performance. In Bygate, M., Skehan, P., & Swain, M. (eds), Researching pedagogic tasks: Second language learning, teaching, and testing. Harlow: Pearson Education.
Skehan, P., & Foster, P. (1997). Task type and task processing conditions as influences on foreign language performance. Language Teaching Research, 1, 185–211.
Sweller, J. (1988). Cognitive load during problem solving: Effects on learning. Cognitive Science, 12, 257–285.
Sweller, J. (1994). Cognitive Load Theory, learning difficulty, and instructional design. Learning and Instruction, 4(4), 295–312.
Sweller, J., Van Merriënboer, J. J. G., & Paas, F. (1998). Cognitive architecture and instructional design. Educational Psychology Review, 10, 251–295.
Tsarfaty, R., Seddah, D., Kübler, S., & Nivre, J. (2013). Parsing morphologically rich languages: Introduction to the special issue. Computational Linguistics, 39, 15–22.
Van den Branden, K. (ed.) (2006). Task-based language teaching: From theory to practice. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Vygotsky, L. S. (1966). Мышление и речь Издательство. Моsсow: Академия педагогических наук РСФСР.
White, J. (1998). Getting learners’ attention: A typographical input enhancement study. In Doughty, C. & Williams, J. (eds.), Focus-on-form in classroom second language acquisition (pp. 85–113). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
References
ACTFL (1986). ACTFL proficiency guidelines 1986. Hastings-on-Hudson, NY: ACTFL.
ACTFL (2012a). ACTFL proficiency guidelines 2012. Alexandria, VA: ACTFL.
ACTFL (2012b). ACTFL performance descriptors for language learners. Alexandria, VA: ACTFL.
ACTFL (n.d.). Assigning CEFR ratings to ACTFL assessments. Alexandria, VA: ACTFL. Retrieved from https://www.actfl.org/sites/default/files/reports/Assigning_CEFR_Ratings_To_ACTFL_Assessments.pdf.
Alderson, J. C. (2007). The CEFR and the need for more research. The Modern Language Journal, 91(4), 659–663.
ALTE (2011). Manual for language test development. Strasbourg: Council of Europe. Retrieved from https://rm.coe.int/1680667a2b.
Bachman, L. F. (1988). Problems in examining the validity of the ACTFL oral proficiency interview. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 10(2), 149–164.
Bachman, L. F., & Savignon, S. J. (1986). The evaluation of communicative language proficiency: A critique of the ACTFL oral interview. The Modern Language Journal, 70(4), 380–390.
Berger, A. (2015). Validating analytic rating scales: A multi-method approach to scaling descriptors for assessing academic speaking. Frankfurt am Main: Peter Lang.
bmlv (2000). European language portfolio (Swiss model for adolescents and adults). Bern: Berner Lehrmittel- und Medienverlag.
Breiner-Sanders, K. E., Lowe, P. Jr., Miles, J., & Swender, E. (2000). ACTFL proficiency guidelines–Speaking, revised 1999. Foreign Language Annals, 33(1), 13–18.
Breiner-Sanders, K. E., Swender, E., & Terry, R. M. (2002). Preliminary proficiency guidelines—Writing revised 2001. Foreign Language Annals, 35(1), 9–15.
Byram, M., & Parmenter, L. (eds.) (2012). The common European framework of reference: The globalisation of language education policy. Bristol/Buffalo, NY: Multilingual Matters.
Council of Europe (1992). Transparency and coherence in language learning in Europe: Objectives, evaluation, certification. Strasbourg: Council of Europe.
Council of Europe (1996a). Common European framework of reference for language learning and teaching. Draft 1 of a framework proposal. Strasbourg: Council of Europe.
Council of Europe (1996b). Modern languages: Learning, teaching, assessment. A common European framework of reference. Draft 2 of a framework proposal. Strasbourg: Council of Europe.
Council of Europe (1997a). Language learning for European citizenship: Final report (1989–96). Strasbourg: Council of Europe.
Council of Europe (1997b). European language portfolio: Proposals for development. Strasbourg: Council of Europe.
Council of Europe (2000). European language portfolio (ELP): Principles and guidelines. Strasbourg: Council of Europe.
Council of Europe (2001a). Common European framework of reference for languages: Learning, teaching, assessment. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Retrieved from https://rm.coe.int/1680459f97.
Council of Europe (2001b). Cadre europe´en commun de re´fe´rence pour les langues: apprendre, enseigner, e´valuer. Paris: Didier. Retrieved from https://rm.coe.int/16802fc3a8.
Council of Europe (2011). European language portfolio (ELP): Principles and guidelines, with added explanatory notes. Strasbourg: Council of Europe. Retrieved from https://rm.coe.int/16804586ba.
Council of Europe (2018). Common European framework of reference for languages: Learning, teaching, assessment. Companion volume with new descriptors. Strasbourg: Council of Europe. Retrieved from https://rm.coe.int/cefr-companion-volume-with-new-descriptors-2018/1680787989.
Díez-Bedmar, M. (2018). Fine-tuning descriptors for CEFR B1 level: Insights from learner corpora. ELT Journal, 72(2), 199–209.
European Commission (2012). First European survey on language competences. Final report. Brussels: European Commission. Retrieved from https://crell.jrc.ec.europa.eu/sites/default/files/files/eslc/ESLC_Final%20Report_210612.pdf.
Figueras, N., North, B., Takala, S., Van Avermaet, P., & Verhelst, N. (2009). Relating language examinations to the Common European Framework of Reference for Languages: Learning, teaching, assessment (CEFR): A manual. Strasbourg: Council of Europe.
Fulcher, G. (1996). Invalidating validity claims for the ACTFL oral rating scale. System, 24(2), 163–172.
Fulcher, G. (2010). The reification of the Common European Framework of Reference (CEFR) and effect-driven testing. In Psaltou-Joycey, A. & Mattheoudakis, M. (eds.), Advances in research on language acquisition and teaching: Selected papers (pp. 15–26). Thessaloniki: Greek Applied Linguistics Association.
Goullier, F. (2007). The Common European Framework of Reference for Languages (CEFR) and the development of language policies: Challenges and responsibilities. Strasbourg: Council of Europe.
Green, A. (2012). Language functions revisited: Theoretical and empirical bases for language construct definition across the ability range. Cambridge/New York: Cambridge University Press.
Hawkins, J. A., & Filipovic´, L. (2012). Criterial features in L2 English: Specifying the reference levels of the Common European Framework. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Hulstijn, J. J. (2007). The shaky ground beneath the CEFR: Quantitative and qualitative dimensions of language proficiency. The Modern Language Journal, 91(4), 663–667.
Kramsch, C. (1986). From language proficiency to interactional competence. The Modern Language Journal, 70(4), 366–372.
Lantolf, J. P., & Frawley, W. (1985). Oral-proficiency testing: A critical analysis. The Modern Language Journal, 69(4), 337–345.
Liskin-Gasparro, J. E. (2003). The ACTFL proficiency guidelines and the oral proficiency interview: A brief history and analysis of their survival. Foreign Language Annals, 36(4), 483–490.
Little, D. (2002). The European Language Portfolio: Structure, origins, implementation and challenges. Language Teaching, 35(3), 182–189.
Little, D. (2016). The European Language Portfolio: Time for a fresh start? International Online Journal of Education and Teaching, 3(3), 162–172.
Little, D., Dam, L., & Legenhausen, L. (2017). Language learner autonomy: Theory, practice and research. Bristol: Multilingual Matters.
Little, D., Goullier, F., & Hughes, G. (2011). The European Language Portfolio: The story so far (1991–2011). Strasbourg: Council of Europe. Retrieved from https://rm.coe.int/16804595a7.
Little, D., & King, L. (2014). Talking with John Trim (1924–2013), Part II: Three decades of work for the Council of Europe. Language Teaching, 47(1), 118–132.
Met, M., & Byram, M. (1999). Standards for foreign language learning and the teaching of culture. The Language Learning Journal, 19(1), 61–68.
Ministry of Education and Sport, Albania (2016). Language education policy profile: Albania. Country report. Tirana: Ministry of Education and Sport. Retrieved from https://rm.coe.int/language-education-policy-profile-albania-country-report/168076362d.
Moeller, A. J., Theiler, J. M., & Wu, C. (2012). Goal setting and student achievement: A longitudinal study. The Modern Language Journal, 96(2), 153–169.
National Standards Collaborative Board (2015). World-readiness standards for learning languages (4th edn.). Alexandria, VA: National Standards Collaborative Board.
NCSSFL & ACTFL (2015). NCSSFL–ACTFL can-do statements: Performance indicators for language learners. Alexandria, VA: ACTFL.
Pulinx, R., Van Avermaet, P., & Extramiana, C. (2014). Linguistic integration of adult migrants: Policy and practice. Strasbourg: Council of Europe. Retrieved from https://rm.coe.int/16802fc1ce.
Scha¨rer, R. (2000). European Language Portfolio: Final report on the pilot project phase 1998–2000. Strasbourg: Council of Europe. Retrieved from https://rm.coe.int/16804586bb.
Swender, E. (2015). Response to letter to the editor. Foreign Language Annals, 48(4), 775–776.
Swender, E., & Duncan, G. (1998). ACTFL Performance Guidelines for K–12 learners. Foreign Language Annals, 31(4), 479–491.
Tschirner, E. (ed.) (2012). Aligning frameworks of reference in language testing: The ACTFL Proficiency Guidelines and the Common European Framework of Reference for Languages. Tu¨bingen: Stauffenburg.
van Ek, J. A. (1975). The threshold level. Strasbourg: Council of Europe.
van Ek, J. A., & Trim, J. L. M. (1991). Waystage. Strasbourg: Council of Europe.
van Ek, J. A., & Trim, J. L. M. (1998). Waystage 1990 (revised and corrected edn.). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
van Ek, J. A., & Trim, J. L. M. (2001). Vantage. New York: Cambridge University Press.
Ziegler, N. A. (2014). Fostering self-regulated learning through the European Language Portfolio: An embedded mixed methods study. The Modern Language Journal, 98(4), 921–936.
Ziegler, N. A., & Moeller, A. J. (2012). Increasing self-regulated learning through the LinguaFolio. Foreign Language Annals, 45(3), 330–348.
References
Abrams, Z. I. (2016a). Creating a social context through film: Teaching L2 pragmatics as a locally situated process. L2 Journal, 8(3), 23–45.
Abrams, Z. I. (2016b). Possibilities and challenges of learning German in a multimodal environment: A case study. ReCALL Journal, 28(3), 343–363.
Basharina, O. K. (2007). An activity theory perspective on student-reported contradictions in international telecollaboration. Language Learning & Technology, 11(2), 82–103.
Blake, R., Wilson, N. L., Cetto, M., & Pardo-Ballester, C. (2008). Measuring oral proficiency in distance, face-to-face, and blended classrooms. Language Learning & Technology, 12(3), 114–127.
Blin, F. (2004). CALL and the development of learner autonomy: Towards an activity-theoretical perspective. ReCALL Journal, 16(2), 377–395.
Cerezo, L., Baralt, M., Suh, B.-R., & Leow, R. P. (2014). Does the medium really matter in L2 development? The validity of CALL research designs. Computer Assisted Language Learning, 27(4), 294–310.
Chapelle, C. A. (1998). Multimedia CALL: Lessons to be learned from research on instructed SLA. Language Learning & Technology, 2(1), 22–34.
Chapelle, C. A. (2001). Computer applications in second language acquisition. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Chapelle, C.A. (2003). English language learning and technology: Lectures on applied linguistics in the age of information and communication technology. Amsterdam: John Benjamins Publishing. Retrieved from http://www.jbe-platform.com/content/books/9789027295958.
Chapelle, C. A. (2009). The relationship between SLA theory and CALL. the Modern Language Journal, 93(4), 742–754.
Chapelle, C. A. (2010). The spread of computer-assisted language learning. Language Teaching, 43(1), 66–74.
Chapelle, C. A. (2016). Teaching culture in introductory foreign language textbooks. London: Palgrave Macmillan.
Chapelle, C. A. (2017). Evaluation of technology and language learning. In Chapelle, C. A. & Sauro, S. (eds.), The handbook of technology and second language teaching and learning (pp. 378–392). Oxford: Wiley-Blackwell.
Chapelle, C.A., Cotos, E., & Lee, J. (2015). Diagnostic assessment with automated writing evaluation: A look at validity arguments for new classroom assessments. Language Testing, 32(3), 385–405.
Chapelle, C., & Jamieson, J. (1991). Internal and external validity issues in research on CALL effectiveness. In Dunkel, P. (ed.), Computer-assisted language learning and testing: Research issues and practice (pp. 37–59). New York: Newbury House.
Chapelle, C. A., & Jamieson, J. (2008). Tips for teaching with CALL: Practical approaches to computer assisted language learning. White Plains, NY: Pearson Education.
Chun, D. M., Kern, R., & Smith, B. (2016). Technology use, language teaching, and language learning. The Modern Language Journal, 100(S), 64–80.
Comas-Quinn, A. (2011). Learning to teach online or learning to become an online teacher: An exploration of teachers’ experiences in a blended learning course. ReCALL, 23(3), 218–232.
Compton, L. K. L. (2009). Preparing language teachers to teach language online: A look at skills, roles, and responsibilities. Computer Assisted Language Learning, 22(1), 73–99.
Cotos, E. (2017). Language for specific purposes and corpus-based pedagogy. In Chapelle, C. A. & Sauro, S. (eds.), The handbook of technology and second language teaching and learning (pp. 248–264). Oxford: Wiley-Blackwell.
Dooly, M. (2017). Telecollaboration. In Chapelle, C. A. & Sauro, S. (eds.), The handbook of technology and second language teaching and learning (pp. 169–183). Oxford: Wiley-Blackwell.
Doughty, C., & Long, M. H. (2003). Optimal psycholinguistic environments for distance foreign language learning. Language Learning & Technology, 7(3), 50–80.
Douglas Fir Group (2016). A transdisciplinary framework for SLA in a multilingual world. The Modern Language Journal, 100(S), 19–47.
Dunkel, P. (1991). The effectiveness research on computer-assisted instruction and computer-assisted language learning. In Dunkel, P. (ed.), Computer-assisted language learning and testing: Research issues and practice (pp. 5–36). New York: Newbury House.
Gass, S. M. (1997). Input, interaction, and the second language learner. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Golonka, E. M., Bowles, A. R., Frank, V. M., Richardson, D. L., & Freynik, S. (2014). Technologies for foreign language learning: A review of technology types and their effectiveness. Computer Assisted Language Learning, 27(1), 70–105.
Gonz´alez-Lloret, M. (2014). The need for needs analysis in technology-mediated TBLT. In Gonz´alez-Lloret, M. & Ortega, L. (eds.), Technology-mediated TBLT: Researching technology and tasks (pp. 23–50). Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
Gonz´alez-Lloret, M., & Ortega, L. (2014). Towards technology-mediated TBLT: An introduction. In Gonz´alez-Lloret, M. & Ortega, L. (eds.), Technology-mediated TBLT: Researching technology and tasks (pp. 1–22). Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
Grgurovic, M., Chapelle, C. A., & Shelley, M. C. (2013). A meta-analysis of effectiveness studies on computer technology-supported language learning. ReCALL Journal, 25(2), 165–198.
Gruba, P., C´ardenas-Claros, M. S., Suvorov, R., & Rick, K. (2016). Blended language program evaluation. London: Palgrave Macmillan.
Hafner, C. A., Chik, A., & Jones, R. H. (2015). Digital literacies and language learning. Language Learning & Technology, 19(3), 1–7.
Hampel, R. (2006). Rethinking task design for the digital age: A framework for language teaching and learning in a synchronous online environment. ReCALL, 18(1), 105–121.
Hauck, M. (2007). Critical success factors in a TRIDEM exchange. ReCALL, 19(2), 202–223.
Heift, T., & Vyatkina, N. (2017). Technologies for teaching and learning L2 grammar. In Chapelle, C. A. & Sauro, S. (eds.), The handbook of technology and second language teaching and learning (pp. 26–44). Oxford: Wiley-Blackwell.
Jamieson, J., & Chapelle, C. A. (2010). Evaluating CALL use across multiple contexts. System, 38, 357–369.
Jamieson, J., & Musumeci, M. (2017). Integrating assessment with instruction through technology. In Chapelle, C. A. & Sauro, S. (eds.), The handbook of technology and second language teaching and learning (pp. 293–316). Oxford: Wiley-Blackwell.
Karabulut, A., LeVelle, K., Li, J., & Suvorov, R. (2012). Technology for French learning: A mismatch between expectations and reality. CALICO Journal, 29(2), 341–366.
Kern, R. (2014). Technology as pharmakon: The promise and perils of the internet for foreign language education. The Modern Language Journal, 98(1), 340–357.
Kukulska-Hulme, A., Lee, H., & Norris, L. (2017). Mobile learning revolution: Implications for language pedagogy. In Chapelle, C. A. & Sauro, S. (eds.), The handbook of technology and second language teaching and learning (pp. 217–233). Oxford: Wiley-Blackwell.
Lai, C. (2013). A framework for developing self-directed technology use for language learning. Language Learning & Technology, 17(2), 100–122.
Lam, E. (2000). L2 literacy and the design of the self: A case study of a teenager writing on the internet. TESOL Quarterly, 34(3), 457–482.
Lantolf, J., & Thorne, S. (2006). Sociocultural theory and the genesis of L2 development. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Le, H. T. T. (2017). Investigating the language learning potential of data-driven teaching materials on source use for college students in a writing course. Unpublished PhD dissertation, Iowa State University, Ames, IA.
Lin, H. (2015). A meta-synthesis of empirical research on the effectiveness of computer-mediated communication (CMC) in SLA. Language Learning & Technology, 19(2) 85–117.
Long, M. H. (1996). The role of the linguistic environment in second language acquisition. In Ritchie, W. C. & Bahtia, T. K. (eds.), Handbook of second language acquisition (pp. 413–468). New York: Academic Press.
Ma, Q. (2017). Technologies for teaching and learning L2 vocabulary. In Chapelle, C. A. & Sauro, S. (eds.), The handbook of technology and second language teaching and learning (pp. 45–61). Oxford: Wiley-Blackwell.
Modern Language Association of America (2007). Foreign languages and higher education: New structures for a changed world: MLA ad hoc committee on foreign languages. New York: Modern Language Association of America.
Norris, J. M. (2006). The why (and how) of student learning outcomes assessment in college education. The Modern Language Journal, 90(4), 590–597.
Otto, S. E. K. (2017). From past to present: A hundred years of technology for L2 learning. In Chapelle, C. A. & Sauro, S. (eds.), The handbook of technology and second language teaching and learning (pp. 10–25). Oxford: Wiley-Blackwell.
Pederson, K. M. (1987). Research on CALL. In Smith, W. F. (ed.), Modern media in foreign language education: Theory and implementation (pp. 99–132). Lincolnwood, IL: National Textbook Company.
Reinhardt, J. (2017). Digital gaming. In Chapelle, C. and Sauro, S. (eds.), Handbook of technology in second language teaching and learning (pp. 202–216). Oxford: Wiley-Blackwell.
Risager, K. (2007). Language and culture pedagogy: From a national to a transnational paradigm. Clevedon: Multilingual Matters.
Risager, K. (2018). Representations of the world in language textbooks. Clevedon: Multilingual Matters.
Rodríguez, J. C. (2017). Design-based research. In Chapelle, C. A. & Sauro, S. (eds.), The handbook of technology and second language teaching and learning (pp. 364–377). Oxford: Wiley-Blackwell.
Rogers, E. (1995). Diffusion of innovations (5th edn.). New York: Free Press.
Rost, M., & Fuchs, M. (2004). Longman English Interactive 1–4. White Plains, NY: Pearson Education.
Russell, V. (2012). Learning complex grammar in the virtual classroom: A comparison of Processing Instruction, structured input, computerized visual input enhancement, and traditional instruction. Foreign Language Annals, 45(1), 42–71.
Sadler, R. W. (2017). The continuing evolution of virtual worlds for language learning. In Chapelle, C. A. & Sauro, S. (eds.), The handbook of technology and second language teaching and learning (pp. 184–201). Oxford: Wiley-Blackwell.
Sauro, S. 2014. Lessons from the fandom: Task models for technology-enhanced language learning. In Gonz´alez-Lloret, M. & Ortega, L. (eds.), Technology-mediated TBLT: Researching technology and tasks (pp. 239–262). Philadelphia, PA: John Benjamins.
Sauro, S., & Chapelle, C. A. (2017). Toward langua-technocultural competence. In Chapelle, C. A. & Sauro, S. (eds.), The handbook of technology and second language teaching and learning (pp. 184–201). Oxford: Wiley-Blackwell.
Sockett, G. (2013). Understanding the online informal learning of English as a complex dynamic system: An emic approach. ReCALL, 25, 48–62.
Straub, E. T. (2009). Understanding technology adoption: Theory and future directions for informal learning. Review of Educational Research, 79(2), 625–649.
Sylv´en, L. K., & Sundqvist, P. (2017). Computer-assisted language learning (CALL) in extracurricular/extramural contexts. CALICO Journal, 34(1), i–iv.
Thorne, S. L. (2003). Artifacts and cultures-of-use in intercultural communication. Language Learning & Technology, 7(2), 38–67.
Thorne, S. L. (2016). Cultures-of-use and morphologies of communicative action. Language Learning & Technology, 20(2), 185–191.
Tomlinson, B., & Masuhara, H. (eds.) (2013). Research for materials development in language learning: Evidence for best practice. London: Continuum.
VanPatten, B., & Cadierno, T. (1993). Input processing and second language acquisition: A role for instruction. The Modern Language Journal, 77, 45–57.
Ware, P. (2017). Technology, new literacies, and language learners. In Chapelle, C. A. & Sauro, S. (eds.), The handbook of technology and second language teaching and learning (pp. 265–277). Oxford: Wiley-Blackwell.
White, C. J. (2017). Distance language teaching with technology. In Chapelle, C. A. & Sauro, S. (eds.), The handbook of technology and second language teaching and learning (pp. 134–148). Oxford: Wiley-Blackwell.
Wong, W., Weber-F`eve, S., & VanPatten, B. (2017). Liaisons: An introduction to French (2nd edn.). Boston, MA: Cengage.
Zhao, Y. (2003). Recent developments in technology and language learning: A literature review and meta-analysis. CALICO Journal, 21(1), 7–27.
References
Arnau, J., & Vila, F. X. (2013). Language-in-education policies in the Catalan language area. In Arnau, J. (ed.), Reviving Catalan at school: Challenges and instructional approaches (pp. 1–28). Bristol: Multilingual Matters.
Baecher, L., Farnsworth, T., & Ediger, A. (2014). The challenges of planning language objectives in content-based ESL instruction. Language Teaching Research, 18, 118–136.
Baker, C. (2001). Foundations of bilingual education and bilingualism (3rd edn.). Clevedon: Multilingual Matters.
Ballinger, S. (2013). Towards a cross-linguistic pedagogy: Biliteracy and reciprocal learning strategies in French immersion. Journal of Immersion and Content-Based Language Education, 1, 131–148.
Ballinger, S., & Lyster, R. (2011). Student and teacher oral language use in a two-way Spanish/English immersion school. Language Teaching Research, 15, 289–306.
Bekerman, Z. (2005). Complex contexts and ideologies: Bilingual education in conflict-ridden areas. Journal of Language, Identity, and Education, 4, 1–20.
Bjötklund, S., Mard-Miettinen, K., & Savijärvi, M. (2013). Swedish immersion in the early years in Finland. International Journal of Bilingual Education and Bilingualism, 17(2), 197–214.
Bruton, A. (2011). Is CLIL so beneficial, or just selective? Re-evaluating some of the research. System, 39, 523–532.
Bruton, A. (2013). CLIL: Some of the reasons why … and why not. System, 41, 587–597.
Budach, G. (2009). Multilingual education in Germany: Discourses, practices and experiences in two-way immersion. In Torres-Guzman, M. E. & Gomez, J. (eds.), Global perspectives on multilingualism: Unity in diversity (pp. 106–133). New York: Teachers College Press.
Cammarata, L. (2009). Negotiating curricular transitions: Foreign language teachers’ learning experience with content-based instruction. Canadian Modern Language Review, 65, 559–585.
Cammarata, L., & Tedick, D. J. (2012). Balancing content and language in instruction: The experience of immersion teachers. The Modern Language Journal, 96, 251–269.
Cenoz, J. (2008). Achievements and the challenges in bilingual and multilingual education in the Basque Country. AILA Review, 21, 13–30.
Chen, Y., Yang, T., & Chen, H. L. (2017). Challenges encountered in a Chinese immersion program in the United States. The Asia-Pacific Education Researcher, 26, 163–170.
Cohen, A., & Swain, M. (1976). Bilingual education: The “immersion” model in the North American context. TESOL Quarterly, 10, 45–53.
Coyle, D. (2007). Content and language integrated learning: Towards a connected research agenda for CLIL pedagogies. International Journal of Bilingual Education and Bilingualism, 10, 543–562.
Coyle, D., Hood, P., & Marsh, D. (2010). Content and language integrated learning. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Cummins, J. (1983). Language proficiency, biliteracy and French immersion. Canadian Journal of Education, 8, 117–138.
Cummins, J., & Swain, M. (1986). Bilingualism in education: Aspects of theory, research and practice. London: Longman.
Dalton-Puffer, C. (2007). Discourse in content and language integrated learning (CLIL) classrooms. Amsterdam: John Benjamins Publishing.
Dalton-Puffer, C. (2008). Outcomes and processes in content and language integrated learning (CLIL): Current research from Europe. In Delanoy, D. W. & Volkmann, L. (eds.), In future perspectives for English language teaching (pp. 139–157). Heidelberg: Carl Winter.
Dalton-Puffer, C. (2011). Content-and-language integrated learning: From practice to principles? Annual Review of Applied Linguistics, 31, 182–204.
Day, E., & Shapson, S. (1991). Integrating formal and functional approaches to language teaching in French immersion: An experimental study. Language Learning, 41, 25–58.
De Jong, E. J., & Bearse, C. I. (2011). The same outcomes for all? High school students reflect on their two-way immersion program experiences. In Tedick, D. K., Christian, D., & Fortune, T. W. (eds.), Immersion education: Practices, policies, possibilities (pp. 104–122). Bristol: Multilingual Matters.
De Jong, E. J., & Bearse, C. I. (2014). Dual language programs as a strand within a secondary school: Dilemmas of school organization and the TWI mission. International Journal of Bilingual Education and Bilingualism, 17(1), 15–31.
Doughty, C., & Varela, E. (1998). Communicative focus on form. In Doughty, C. & Williams, J. (eds.), Focus on form in classroom second language acquisition (pp. 114–138). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Ellis, R. (2001). Introduction: Investigating form-focused instruction. Language Learning, 51, 1–46.
Fotos, S. (1993). Consciousness-raising and noticing through focus on form—Grammar task-performance versus formal instruction. Applied Linguistics, 14, 385–407.
Fotos, S., & Ellis, R. (1991). Communicating about grammar: A task-based approach. TESOL Quarterly, 25, 605–628.
Fotos, S., & Nassaji, H. (eds.) (2007). Form-focused instruction and teacher education: Studies in honour of Rod Ellis. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Freeman, D., & Freeman, Y. (1988). Sheltered English instruction. Eric digest. Retrieved from https://www.ericdigests.org/pre-9210/english.htm.
Genesee, F. (1978). A longitudinal evaluation of an early immersion school program. Canadian Journal of Education, 3(4), 31–50.
Genesee, F. (1987). Learning through two languages: Studies in immersion and bilingual education. New York: Newbury House.
Genesee, F. (2004). What do we know about bilingual education for majority language students? In Bhatia, G. T. K. & Ritchie, W. (eds.), Handbook of bilingualism (pp. 547–576). Malden, MA: Blackwell.
Genesee, F. (2007). French immersion and at-risk students: A review of research evidence. Canadian Modern Language Review, 63, 655–687.
Genesee, F., & Jared, D. (2008). Literacy development in early French immersion programs. Canadian Psychology/Psychologie canadienne, 49, 140–147.
Genesee, F., & Stanley, M. (1976). The development of English writing skills in French immersion school programs. Canadian Journal of Education, 1, 1–17.
Grim, F. (2008). Integrating focus on form in L2 content-enriched instruction lessons. Foreign Language Annals, 41, 321–346.
Harley, B. (1989). Functional grammar in French immersion: A classroom experiment. Applied Linguistics, 10, 331–359.
Harley, B. (1991). Directions in immersion research. Journal of Multilingual and Multicultural Development, 12, 9–19.
Harley, B. (1993). Instructional strategies and SLA in early French immersion. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 15, 245–259.
Harley, B. (1998). The role of focus on form in promoting child L2 acquisition. In Doughty, C. & William, J. (eds.), Focus on form in classroom language acquisition (pp. 156–174). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Harley, B., & Swain, M. (1984). The interlanguage of immersion students and its implications for second language teaching. In Davies, A., Criper, C., & Howatt, A. P. R. (eds.), Interlanguage (pp. 291–311). Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press.
Harrop, E. (2012). Content and language integrated learning (CLIL): Limitations and possibilities. Encuentro, 21, 57–70.
Hickey, T. (2001). Mixing beginners and native speakers in minority language immersion: Who is immersing whom? Canadian Modern Language Review, 57, 443–474.
Hoare, P., & Kong, S. (2008). Late immersion in Hong Kong: Still stressed but making progress? In Fortune, T. W. & Tedick, D. J. (eds.), Pathways to multilingualism: Emerging perspectives on immersion education (pp. 242–263). Clevedon: Multilingual Matters.
Howard, E. R., Sugarman, J., & Christian, D. (2003). Trends in two-way immersion education. A review of the research. Washington, DC: Center for Applied Linguistics.
Johnson, R. K., & Swain, M. (eds.) (1997). Immersion education: International perspectives. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Klee, C. A., & Tedick, D. J. (1997). The undergraduate foreign language immersion program in Spanish at the University of Minnesota. In Stryker, S. B. & Leaver, B. L. (eds.), Content-based instruction in foreign language education: Models and methods (pp. 141–173). Washington, DC: Georgetown University Press.
Kowal, M., & Swain, M. (1994). Using collaborative language production tasks to promote students’ language awareness. Language Awareness, 3, 73–93.
Kowal, M., & Swain, M. (1997). From semantic to syntactic processing: How can we promote it in the immersion classroom? In Johnson, R. K. & Swain, M. (eds.), Immersion education: International perspectives (pp. 284–309). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Krashen, S. D. (1982). Principles and practice in second language acquisition. New York: Pergamon Press.
Krashen, S. D. (1985). The input hypothesis: Issues and implications. Oxford: Pergamon Press.
Lambert, W. E., & Tucker, G. R. (1972). Bilingual education of children: The St. Lambert experiment. Rowley, MA: Newbury House.
Lapkin, S., Hart, D., & Swain, M. (1991). Early and middle French immersion programs—French-language outcomes. Canadian Modern Language Review, 48, 11–40.
Lapkin, S., & Swain, M. (2000). Task outcomes: A focus on immersion students’ use of pronominal verbs in their writing. Canadian Journal of Applied Linguistics, 3, 7–22.
Lapkin, S., & Swain, M. (2004). What underlies immersion students’ production: The case of “avoir besoin de”. Foreign Language Annals, 37, 349–355.
Lapkin, S., Swain, M., & Smith, M. (2002). Reformulation and the learning of French pronominal verbs in a Canadian French immersion context. The Modern Language Journal, 86, 485–507.
Lasagabaster, D. (2008). Foreign language competence in content and language integrated courses. The Open Applied Linguistics Journal, 1, 30–41.
Lasagabaster, D., & Sierra, J. M. (2009). Immersion and CLIL in English: More differences than similarities. ELT Journal, 64, 367–375.
Lazaruk, W. (2007). Linguistic, academic, and cognitive benefits of French immersion. Canadian Modern Language Review, 63, 605–627.
Leeman, J., Arteagoitia, I., Fridman, B., & Doughty, C. (1995). Integrating attention to form with meaning: Focus on form in content-based Spanish instruction. In Schmidt, R. (ed.), Attention and Awareness in Foreign Language (pp. 217–258). Honolulu: University of Hawai’i Press.
Lightbown, P. (2014). Focus on content-based language teaching. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Lightbown, P., & Spada, N. (1990). Focus on form and corrective feedback in communicative language teaching. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 12, 429–448.
Lightbown, P., & Spada, N. (2013). How languages are learned (4th edn.). Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Lim Falk, M. (2008). Svenska i engelskspråkig skolmiljö: Ämnesrelaterat språkbruk i två gymnasieklasser [Swedish in an English-speaking school context: Subject-related language use in two upper secondary classes]. Unpublished PhD dissertation, Stockholm University.
Lindholm-Leary, K. (2001). Dual language education. Clevedon: Multilingual Matters.
Lindholm-Leary, K. (2011). Student outcomes in Chinese two-way immersion programs: Language proficiency, academic achievement and student attitudes. In Tedick, D. J., Christian, D., & Fortune, T. W. (eds.), Immersion education: Practices, policies, possibilities (pp. 81–103). Bristol: Multilingual Matters.
Llinares, A., & Morton, T. (2017). Applied linguistics perspectives on CLIL. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
Long, M. (1991). Focus on form: A design feature in language teaching methodology. In DeBot, K., Ginsberge, R., & Kramsch, C. (eds.), Foreign language research in cross-cultural perspective (pp. 39–52). Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
Long, M. (2015). Second language acquisition and task-based language teaching. Oxford: Wiley-Blackwell.
Luning, R., & Yamauchi, L. (2010). The influences of indigenous heritage language education on students and families in a Hawaiian language immersion program. Heritage Language Journal, 7, 46–74.
Lyster, R. (1994). The effect of functional-analytic teaching on aspects of French immersion students’ sociolinguistic competence. Applied Linguistics, 15, 263–287.
Lyster, R. (1998a). Negotiation of form, recasts, and explicit correction in relation to error types and learner repair in immersion classrooms. Language Learning, 48, 183–218.
Lyster, R. (1998b). Recasts, repetition, and ambiguity in L2 classroom discourse. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 20, 51–81.
Lyster, R. (2004a). Differential effects of prompts and recasts in form-focused instruction. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 26, 399–432.
Lyster, R. (2004b). Research on form-focused instruction in immersion classrooms: Implications for theory and practice. Journal of French Language Studies, 14, 321–341.
Lyster, R. (2007). Learning and teaching languages through content: A counterbalanced approach. Amsterdam/Philadelphia, PA: John Benjamins.
Lyster, R. (2017). Content-based language teaching. In Loewen, S. & Sato, M. (eds.), The Routledge handbook of instructed second language acquisition (pp. 87–107). New York: Routledge.
Lyster, R., & Mori, H. (2006). Interactional feedback and instructional counterbalance. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 28, 269–300.
Lyster, R., & Ranta, L. (1997). Corrective feedback and learner uptake: Negotiation of form in communicative classrooms. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 19, 37–66.
Merino, J., & Lasagabaster, D. (2018). The effect of content and language integrated learning programmes’ intensity on English proficiency: A longitudinal study. International Journal of Applied Linguistics, 28, 18–30.
Musumeci, D. (1996). Teacher–learner negotiation in content-based instruction: Communication at cross-purposes? Applied Linguistics, 17, 286–325.
Nassaji, H. (2015). Interactional feedback dimension in instructed second language learning. London: Bloomsbury Publishing.
Nassaji, H. (2016). Anniversary article: Interactional feedback in second language teaching and learning: A synthesis and analysis of current research. Language Teaching Research, 20, 535–562.
Nassaji, H., & Fotos, S. (2004). Current developments in research on the teaching of grammar. Annual Review of Applied Linguistics, 24, 126–145.
Nassaji, H., & Fotos, S. (2010). Teaching grammar in second language classrooms: Integrating form-focused instruction in communicative context. London: Routledge.
Navés, T. (2009). Effective content and language integrated learning (CLIL) programmes. In Ruiz de Zarobe, Y. & Jimenez Catalan, R. M. (eds.), Content and language integrated learning: Evidence from research in Europe (pp. 22–40). Bristol: Multilingual Matters.
Netten, J., & Germain, C. (2004). Theoretical and research foundations of intensive French. Canadian Modern Language Review, 60, 275–294.
Netten, J., & Germain, C. (2009). The future of intensive French in Canada. Canadian Modern Language Review, 65, 757–786.
Nikula, T., & Dafouz, E. (2016). Conceptualising integration in CLIL and multilingual education. Bristol: Multilingual Matters.
Ó Baoill, D. (2007). Origins of Irish-medium education: The dynamic core of language revitalization in Northern Ireland. International Journal of Bilingual Education and Bilingualism, 10, 410–427.
Pérez Cañado, M. L. (2012). CLIL research in Europe: Past, present, and future. International Journal of Bilingual Education and Bilingualism, 15, 315–341.
Pérez Cañado, M. L., & Lancaster, N. K. (2017). The effects of CLIL on oral comprehension and production: A longitudinal case study. Language, Culture and Curriculum, 30, 300–316.
Peter, L. (2014). Language ideologies and Cherokee revitalization: Impracticality, legitimacy, and hope. Journal of Immersion and Content-Based Language Education, 2, 96–118.
Pica, T. (2002). Subject-matter content: How does it assist the interactional and linguistic needs of classroom language learners? The Modern Language Journal, 86, 1–19.
Pladevall-Ballester, E., & Vallbona, A. (2016). CLIL in minimal input contexts: A longitudinal study of primary school learners’ receptive skills. System, 58, 37–48.
Reedy, T. (2000). Te Reo Maori: The past 20 years and looking forward. Oceanic Linguistics, 39, 157–169.
Richards, J. C. (2006). Communicative language teaching today. Cambridge: Cambridge Univesity Press.
Ruiz de Zarobe, Y. (2010). Written production and CLIL: An empirical study. In Dalton-Puffer, C., Nikula, T., & Smit, U. (eds.), Language use and language learning in CLIL classrooms (pp. 191–209). Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
Spada, N. (1997). Form-focused instruction and second language acquisition: A review of classroom and laboratory research. Language Teaching, 29, 1–15.
Spada, N., & Lightbown, P. M. (2008). Form-focused instruction: Isolated or integrated? TESOL Quarterly, 42, 181–207.
Stern, H. (1978). French immersion in Canada: Achievements and directions. Canadian Modern Language Review, 34, 836–854.
Stoller, F., & Grabe, W. (1997). A six-T’s approach to content-based instruction. In Snow, M. A. & Brinton, D. M. (eds.), The content-based classroom: Perspectives on integrating language and content (pp. 78–94). New York: Longman.
Stryker, S. B., & Leaver, B. L. (eds.) (1997). Content-based instruction in foreign language education: Models and methods. Washington, DC: Georgetown University Press.
Swain, M. (1974). French immersion programs across Canada: Research findings. Canadian Modern Language Review, 31, 117–129.
Swain, M. (1985). Communicative competence: Some rules of comprehensible input and comprehensible output in its development. In Gass, S. & Madden, C. (eds.), Input in second language acquisition (pp. 235–253). Rowley, MA: Newbury House.
Swain, M. (1993). The Output Hypothesis: Just speaking and writing aren’t enough. Canadian Modern Language Review, 50, 158–164.
Swain, M. (2000). French immersion research in Canada: Recent contributions to SLA and applied linguistics. Annual Review of Applied Linguistics, 20, 199–212.
Swain, M., & Lapkin, S. (1982). Evaluating bilingual education: A Canadian case study. Clevedon: Multilingual Matters.
Swain, M., & Lapkin, S. (1995). Problems in output and the cognitive processes they generate: A step towards second language learning. Applied Linguistics, 16, 371–391.
Sylvén, L. K. (2013). CLIL in Sweden—why does it not work? A metaperspective on CLIL across contexts in Europe. International Journal of Bilingual Education and Bilingualism, 16, 301–320.
Turnbull, M., Lapkin, S., & Hart, D. (2001). Grade 3 immersion students’ performance in literacy and mathematics: Province-wide results from Ontario (1998–99). Canadian Modern Language Review, 58, 9–26.
Valeo, A. (2013). The integration of language and content: Form-focused instruction in a content-based language program. Canadian Journal of Applied Linguistics, 16, 25–50.
VanPatten, B. (2002). Processing Instruction: An update. Language Learning, 52, 755–803.
Washburn, L. (1997). English immersion in Sweden: A case study of Röllingby high school, 1987–1989. Unpublished PhD dissertation, Stockholm University.
Wesche, M. (2001). Editorial: French immersion and content-based language teaching in Canada. The Canadian Modern Language Review, 58, 1–8.
Whittaker, R., Llinares, A., & McCabe, A. (2011). Written discourse development in CLIL at secondary school. Language Teaching Research, 15, 343–362.
Zyzik, E., & Polio, C. (2008). Incidental focus on form in university Spanish literature courses. The Modern Language Journal, 92, 53–70.
References
Agassi, J. (1964). The nature of scientific problems and their roots in metaphysics. In Bunge, M. (ed.), The critical approach to science and philosophy (pp. 189–211). New York: The Free Press of Glencoe.
Atkinson, D. (ed.) (2011). Alternative approaches to second language acquisition. New York: Routledge.
Auerbach, E. R. (1992). Making meaning, making change. McHenry, IL: Delta Systems.
Benesch, S. (2017). Emotions and English language teaching: Exploring teachers’ emotion labor. New York: Routledge.
Benson, P. (2001). Teaching and researching autonomy in language learning. New York: Longman.
Block, D. (2014). Social class in applied linguistics. New York: Routledge.
Bloor, M., & Bloor, T. (2013). The practice of critical discourse analysis: An introduction. London: Routledge.
Bourdieu, P. (1990). The logic of practice. Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press.
Bourdieu, P., & Wacquant, L. (2002). An invitation to reflexive sociology. Cambridge: Polity.
Breen, M. P., & Littlejohn, A. (2000). Classroom decision-making: Negotiation and process syllabuses in practice. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Brenner, D. (2012). On critical pedagogy and foreign language/culture education. In Levine, G. S. & Phipps, A. (eds.), Critical and intercultural theory and language pedagogy (pp. 125–140). Boston, MA: Heinle Cengage Learning.
Brumfit, C. (1997). How applied linguistics is the same as any other science. International Journal of Applied Linguistics, 7(1), 86–94.
Bunge, M. (1998). Philosophy of science (Vol. 1). New Brunswick, NJ: Transaction.
Busse, C., Kach, A. P., & Wagner, S. M. (2017). Boundary conditions. Organi-zational Research Methods, 20(4), 574–609.
Chao, X. (2016). Community service learning as critical curriculum: Promoting international students’ second language practices. Critical Inquiry in Language Studies, 13(4), 289–318.
Chouliaraki, L., & Fairclough, N. (2002). Discourse in late modernity: Rethinking critical discourse analysis. Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press.
Clark, J. L. (1987). Curriculum renewal in school foreign language learning. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Crawford, L. (1978). Paulo Freire’s philosophy: Derivation of curriculum principles and their application to second language curriculum design. Unpublished PhD dissertation, University of Minnesota.
Crawford-Lange, L. M. (1981). Redirecting second language curricula: Paulo Freire’s contribution. Foreign Language Annals, 14(4 & 5), 257–268.
Crookes, G. V. (2011). Values, philosophies, and beliefs in TESOL. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Crookes, G. V. (2013). Critical ELT in action. New York: Routledge.
Darder, A. (2015). Freire and education. New York: Routledge.
Diemer, M. A., Rapa, L. J., Park, C. J., & Perry, J. C. (2017). Development and validation of the Critical Consciousness Scale. Youth & Society, 49(4), 461–483.
Duncan-Andrade, J. M. R., & Morrell, E. (2008). The art of critical pedagogy: Possibilities for moving from theory to practice in urban schools. Berlin: Peter Lang.
Engeström, Y. (1987). Learning by expanding: An activity theoretical approach to developmental research. Helsinki: Orienta-Konsultit.
Engeström, Y. (1993). Developmental studies of work as a test bench of activity theory: The case of primary care medical practice. In Lave, J. & Chaiklin, S. (eds.), Understanding practice: Perspectives on activity and context (pp. 64–103). New York: Cambridge University Press.
Fay, B. (1987). Critical social science. Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press.
Feinberg, J. (1973). Social philosophy. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.
Foley, R. (1999). Analysis. In Audi, Robert (ed.), The Cambridge dictionary of philosophy (2nd edn., p. 25). New York: Cambridge University Press.
Foucault, M. (1984). What is Enlightenment? In Rabinow, P. (ed.), The Foucault reader (pp. 32–50). New York: Pantheon Books.
Foucault, M. (2005). The order of things. New York, NY: Routledge. [Original work published in English in 1970]
Foucault, M. (2008) Introduction to Kant’s Anthropology (ed. Nigro, Roberto, trans. R. Nigro & K. Briggs). Los Angeles, CA: Semiotext(e). [Original work published in French in 1964]
Freebody, P., & Luke, A. (1990). Literacies programs: Debates and demands in cultural context. Prospect: Australian Journal of TESOL, 5(7), 7–16.
Freire, P. (1972). Pedagogy of the oppressed. New York: Penguin Books.
Freire, P. (1973). Education for critical consciousness. London: Continuum/Seabury Press.
Fridland, E., & Strasser, A. (2012). Philosophy of learning. In Encyclopedia of the sciences of learning (pp. 2615–2621). Boston, MA: Springer.
Gore, J. M. (1993). The struggle for pedagogies: Critical and feminist discourses as regimes of truth. New York: Routledge.
Grabe, W. (2002). Applied linguistics: An emerging discipline for the 21st century. In Kaplan, R. (ed.), The Oxford handbook of applied linguistics (pp. 3–12). Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Habermas, J. (1971). Knowledge and Human Interests (trans J. J. Shapiro). Boston, MA: Beacon. [originally published in German, 1968: Erkenntnis und Interesse. Frankfurt am Main: Suhrkamp]
Harré, R. (1985). The philosophies of science. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Holzkamp, K. (2013). Psychology from the standpoint of the subject: Selected writings of Klaus Holzkamp (trans. A. Boreham, eds. Schraube, E. & Osterkamp, U.). New York: Palgrave Macmillan.
Horkheimer, M. (1937/1972). Traditional and critical theory. In Horkheimer, M., Critical theory: Selected essays. New York: Herder & Herder.
Huh, S. (2016). Instructional model of critical literacy in an EFL context: Balancing conventional and critical literacy. Critical Inquiry in Language Studies, 13(3), 210–235.
James, W. (1899/1983). Talks to teachers on psychology and to students on some of life’s ideals. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
Kelly, L. G. (1969). 25 centuries of language teaching: An inquiry into the science, art, and development of language teaching methodology, 500 bc–1969. Rowley, MA: Newbury House Publishers.
Khatib, M., & Miri, M. (2016). Cultivating multivocality in language classrooms: Contribution of critical pedagogy-informed teacher education. Critical Inquiry in Language Studies, 13(2), 98–131.
Kubota, R., & Miller, E. R. (2017). Re-examining and re-envisioning criticality in language studies: Theory and praxis. Critical Inquiry in Language Studies, 15, 1–29.
Kumaravadivelu, K. (2001). Towards a postmethod pedagogy. TESOL Quarterly, 35(4), 537–560.
Lankshear, C. (1994). Afterword: Reclaiming empowerment and rethinking the past. In Escobar, M., Fernandez, A. L., Guevara-Niefla, G., & Freire, P. (eds.), Paulo Freire on higher education (pp. 161–185). Albany, NY: SUNY Press.
Lau, S. M. C., Juby-Smith, B., & Desbiens, I. (2017). Translanguaging for transgressive praxis: Promoting critical literacy in a multiage bilingual classroom. Critical Inquiry in Language Studies, 14(1), 99–127.
Lave, J., & Wenger, E. (1991). Situated learning. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Lynch, B. (2001). Rethinking assessment from a critical perspective. Language Testing, 18(4), 351–372.
Marx, K. (1859/1978). Marx on the history of his opinions. In Tucker, R. C. (ed.), The Marx–Engels reader (pp. 3–10). Original work published as A contribution to the critique of political economy; Preface.
McKinley, J. (2015). Critical argument and writer identity: Social constructivism as a theoretical framework for EFL academic writing. Critical Inquiry in Language Studies, 12(3), 161–230.
Megyes, P., & Nikolov, M. (2002). Curriculum development in foreign language education: The interface between political and professional decisions. In Kaplan, R. (ed.), The Oxford handbook of applied linguistics (pp. 263–274). Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Miller, E. R. (2012). Performativity theory and language learning: Sedimentating, appropriating, and constituting language and subjectivity. Linguistics and Education, 23, 88–99.
Morrow, R. A., & Brown, D. D. (1994). Contemporary social theory. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Olssen, M. (2003). Foucault and critique: Kant, humanism and the human sciences. Paper presented at the British Educational Research Association, Heriot-Watt University, Edinburgh, 11–13 September. Retrieved from http://www.leeds.ac.uk/educol/documents/00003388.htm.
Olssen, M. (2006). Foucault and critical theory. In Olssen, M., Michel Foucault: Materialism and education (pp. 121–151). London: Paradigm Publishers.
Ortactepe, D. (2013). “This is called free-falling theory not culture shock!” A narrative inquiry on second language socialization. Journal of Language, Identity, and Education, 12(4), 215–229.
Oskarsson, M. (1978). Approaches to self-assessment in foreign language learning. Oxford: Pergamon Press.
Panofsky, C. P. (2003). The relations of learning and student social class. In Kozulin, A., Gindis, B., Ageyev, V. S., & Miller, S. (eds.), Vygotsky’s educational theory in cultural context (pp. 411–431). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Peirce, B. N. (1995). Social identity, investment, and language learning. TESOL Quarterly, 29(1), 9–31.
Pennycook, A. (1990). Towards a critical applied linguistics for the 1990s. Issues in Applied Linguistics, 1(1), 8–28.
Pennycook, A. (1996). TESOL and critical literacies: Modern, post, or neo? TESOL Quarterly, 30(1), 163–171.
Pennycook, A. (1999). Introduction: Critical approaches to TESOL. TESOL Quarterly, 33, 329–348.
Pennycook, A. (2001). Critical applied linguistics. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
Price, S. (1999). Critical discourse analysis: Discourse acquisition and discourse practices. TESOL Quarterly, 33, 581–595.
Prilleltensky, I., & Nelson, G. (2002). Doing psychology critically: Making difference in diverse settings. New York: Palgrave Macmillan.
Ratner, C. (2000). Outline of a coherent, comprehensive concept of culture. Cross-Cultural Psychology Bulletin, 34(1–2), 5–11.
Reagan, T. G., & Osborn, T. A. (2002). The foreign language educator in society: Toward a critical pedagogy. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Assocs.
Sawchuk, P. H., & Stetsenko, A. (2008). Sociological understandings of conduct for a noncanonical activity theory: Exploring intersections and complementarities. Mind, Culture, and Activity, 15, 339–360.
Schraube, E. (2000). Reflecting on who we are in a technological world. In Sloan, T. (ed.), Critical psychology. London: Macmillan.
Shohamy, E. (2001). The power of tests: A critical perspective on the use of language tests. Harlow: Pearson.
Shor, I. (1980). Critical teaching and everyday life. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.
Shor, I. (1992). Empowering education. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.
Shor, I. (1996). When students have power. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.
Simmons, A. M. (2016). Supporting critical literacy in high school English by using systemic functional linguistics to analyze fantasy, canonical, and nonfiction texts. Critical Inquiry in Language Studies, 13(3), 183–209.
Stern, H. H. (1983). Fundamental concepts of language teaching. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Thorne, S. L. (2004). Cultural historical activity theory and the object of innovation. In van Esch, K. & St. John, O. (eds.), New insights into foreign language learning and teaching (pp. 51–68). Berlin: Peter Lang.
Thorne, S. L. (2005). Epistemology, politics, and ethics in sociocultural theory. The Modern Language Journal, 89(3), 393–409.
Tolman, C. W. (1994). Psychology, society, and subjectivity: An introduction to German critical psychology. London: Routledge.
Tolman, J. (2006). Learning, unlearning, and the teaching of writing: Educational turns in postcoloniality. Critical Inquiry in Language Studies, 3(2&3), 189–200.
Toohey, K., & Norton, B. (2003). Learner autonomy as agency in sociocultural settings. In Palfreyman, D. & Smith, R. C. (eds.), Learner autonomy across cultures: Language education perspectives (pp. 58–74). New York: Palgrave Macmillan.
Van der Veer, R., & Valsiner, J. (1988). Lev Vygotsky and Pierre Janet: On the origin of the concept of sociogenesis. Developmental Review, 8, 52–65.
van Eemeren, F. H., & Grootendorst, R. (1992). Argumentation, communication, and fallacies: A pragma-dialectical perspective. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
van Eemeren, F. H., Garssen, B., Krabbe, E. C. W., Snoeck Henkemans, F. A., Verheij, B., & Wagemans, J. H. M. (2014). Handbook of argumentation theory. Berlin: Springer.
Vygotsky, L. S. (1926/1997). Educational psychology (trans. R. Silverman). Boca Raton, FL: St. Lucie Press.
Vygotsky, L. S. (1962). Thought and language (eds. and trans. Hanfmann, E. & Vakar, G.). Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
Vygotsky, L. (1981). The genesis of higher mental functions. In Wertsch, J. V. (ed.), The concept of activity in Soviet psychology (pp. 144–188). Armonk, NY: Sharpe.
Wallace, C. (2003). Critical reading in language education. London: Palgrave Macmillan.
Wallerstein, N. (1983). Language and culture in conflict: Problem-posing in the ESL classroom. New York: AddisonWesley.
Wenger, E. (1998). Communities of practice. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Wheeler, G. (2013). Language teaching through the ages. New York: Routledge.
Williams, R. (1977). Marxism and literature. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Winch, C. (1998). The philosophy of human learning. London: Routledge.
Winther, R. G. (2016). The structure of scientific theories. In Zalta, E. N. (ed.), The Stanford encyclopedia of philosophy. Retrieved from https://plato.stanford.edu/archives/win2016/entries/structure-scientific-theories/.