Pedagogical Interventions and Approaches

Part V - Pedagogical Interventions and Approaches

Published online by Cambridge University Press: 25 June 2019

Edited by

John W. Schwieter and

Alessandro Benati

Show author details

John W. Schwieter: Affiliation:
Wilfrid Laurier University
Alessandro Benati: Affiliation:
American University of Sharjah, United Arab Emirates

Book contents

Get access

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 - 646

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1017/9781108333603 [Opens in a new window]

Publisher: Cambridge University Press

Print publication year: 2019

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Benati, A. (2016). Input manipulation, enhancement and processing: Theoretical views and empirical research. Studies in Second Language Learning and Teaching, 6, 65–88.Google Scholar

Benati, A. (2017a). Classroom-oriented research: Processing Instruction (findings and implications). Language Teaching.Google Scholar

Benati, A (2018). Structured input. In Liontas, J. I. (ed.), TESOL Encyclopedia of English Language Teaching. New York: Wiley.Google Scholar

Benati, A. (forthcoming). Key issues in second language teaching. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar

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.Google Scholar

Celce-Murcia, M., & Olshtain, E. (2001). Discourse and context in language teaching: A guide for language teachers. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar

Chomsky, N. (1965). Aspects of the theory of syntax. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar

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.Google Scholar

Doughty, C., & Williams, J. (eds.) (1998). Focus on form in classroom second language acquisition. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar

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.Google Scholar

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.Google Scholar

Gass, S. (1997). Input, interaction, and the second language learner. Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.Google Scholar

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.Google Scholar

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.Google Scholar

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.Google Scholar

Hinkel, E. (ed.) (2005). The handbook of research in second language teaching and learning. Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.CrossRef Google Scholar

Krashen, S. D. (1982). Principles and practice in second language acquisition. London: Pergamon.Google Scholar

Krashen, S. D., & Terrell, T. (1983). The Natural Approach: Language acquisition in the classroom. Hayward, CA: Alemany.Google Scholar

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.Google Scholar

Lightbown, P., & Spada, N. (2013) How languages are learned (4th edn.). Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar

Long, M. (1983). Does second language instruction make a difference? TESOL Quarterly, 17, 359–382.Google Scholar

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.Google Scholar

Long, M., & Doughty, C. (eds.) (2009). The handbook of language teaching. Oxford: Wiley-Blackwell.Google Scholar

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.Google Scholar

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.Google Scholar

Nassaji, H., & Fotos, S. (2011). Teaching grammar in second language classrooms. New York: Routledge.Google Scholar

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.Google Scholar

Richards, J., & Rodgers, T. (2001). Approaches and methods in language teaching. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar

Schmidt, R. (1990). The role of consciousness in second language learning. Applied Linguistics, 11, 129–158.Google Scholar

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.Google Scholar

Sharwood Smith, M. (1993). Input enhancement in instructed SLA: Theoretical bases. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 15, 165–179.Google Scholar

Skehan, P. (1996). A framework for the implementation of task-based instruction. Applied Linguistics, 17, 38–62.Google Scholar

Spada, N. (1997). Form-focused instruction and second language acquisition: A review of classroom and laboratory research. Language Teaching, 30, 73–87.Google Scholar

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.Google Scholar

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.Google Scholar

Swain, M., & Lapkin, S. (2000). Task-based second language learning: The uses of the first language. Language Teaching Research, 4(3), 251–274.Google Scholar

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.Google Scholar

Thornbury, S. (2006). Grammar. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar

VanPatten, B. (1996). Input processing and grammar instruction: Theory and research. Norwood, NJ: Ablex.Google Scholar

VanPatten, B. (ed.) (2004). Processing Instruction: Theory, research, and commentary. Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.Google Scholar

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.Google Scholar

VanPatten, B. (2016). Language. New York: Routledge.Google Scholar

VanPatten, B., & Benati, A. (2015). Key terms in second language acquisition. London: Continuum.Google Scholar

VanPatten, B., & Williams, J. (2015). Theories in second language acquisition (2nd edn.). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.Google Scholar

Wajnryb, R. (1990). Grammar dictation. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar

White, L. (2003). Second language acquisition and Universal Grammar. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar

Wong, W. (2005). Input enhancement: From theory and research to the classroom. New York: McGraw-Hill.Google Scholar

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.Google Scholar

Avrich, P. (1980). The modern school movement. Anarchism and education in the United States. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar

Benson, S. (2014). Task-based language teaching: An empirical study of task transfer. Language Teaching Research, 20(3), 341–365.CrossRef Google Scholar

Bonilla, C. (2014). From number agreement to the subjunctive: Evidence for Processability Theory in L2 Spanish. Language Teaching Research, 31(1), 53–74.Google Scholar

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.Google Scholar

Brown, J. D., & Hudson, T. (2002). Criterion-referenced language testing. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar

Bryfonski, L., & McKay, T. (2017). TBLT implementation and evaluation: A meta-analysis. Language Teaching Research, 1–30.Google Scholar

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.Google Scholar

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.Google Scholar

Dinsmore, D. (1985). Waiting for Godot in the EFL classroom. ELT Journal, 39(4), 225–234.Google Scholar

Eckerth, J. (2008). Investigating consciousness-raising tasks: Pedagogically targeted and non-targeted learning gains. International Journal of Applied Linguistics, 19(3), 119–145.Google Scholar

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.Google Scholar

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.Google Scholar

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.Google Scholar

Goo, J., & Mackey, A. (2013). The case against the case against recasts. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 35(1), 127–165.Google Scholar

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.Google Scholar

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.Google Scholar

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.Google Scholar

Hoetker, J., & Ahlbrand, W. P. (1969). The persistence of the recitation. American Educational Research Journal, 6(1), 145–167.Google Scholar

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.Google Scholar

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.Google Scholar

Lee, J. (2018). Task complexity, cognitive load, and L1 speech. Applied Linguistics.Google Scholar

Li, S. (2010). The effectiveness of corrective feedback in SLA: A meta-analysis. Language Learning, 60(2), 309–365.Google Scholar

Long, M. H. (ed.) (2005). Second language needs analysis. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRef Google Scholar

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.Google Scholar

Long, M. H. (2013). Needs analysis. In Chapelle, C. (ed.), The encyclopedia of applied linguistics. Oxford: Wiley-Blackwell.Google Scholar

Long, M. H. (2015a). Second language acquisition and Task-Based Language Teaching. Malden, MA: Wiley.Google Scholar

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.Google Scholar

Long, M. H. (2016). In defense of tasks and TBLT: Non-issues and real issues. Annual Review of Applied Linguistics, 36, 5–33.Google Scholar

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.Google Scholar

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.Google Scholar

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.Google Scholar

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.Google Scholar

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.Google Scholar

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.Google Scholar

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.Google Scholar

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.Google Scholar

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.Google Scholar

Nation, I. S. P. (2006). How large a vocabulary is needed for reading and listening? Canadian Modern Language Review, 63, 59–82.Google Scholar

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.Google Scholar

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.Google Scholar

O’Connell, S. (2014). A task-based language teaching approach to the police traffic stop. TESL Canada Journal, 31(8), 116–131.Google Scholar

Oh, S.-Y. (2001). Two types of input modification and EFL reading comprehension: Simplification versus elaboration. TESOL Quarterly, 35(1), 69–96.Google Scholar

Pienemann, M. (1984). Psychological constraints on the teachability of languages. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 6(2), 186–214.Google Scholar

Pienemann, M. (1998). Language processing and second language development. Processability theory. Amsterdam/Philadelphia,PA: John Benjamins.Google Scholar

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.Google Scholar

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.Google Scholar

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.Google Scholar

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.Google Scholar

Robinson, P. (2009). Syllabus design. In Long, M. H. & Doughty, C. J. (eds.), Handbook of language teaching (pp. 294–310). Oxford: Blackwell.CrossRef Google Scholar

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.Google Scholar

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.Google Scholar

Schmidt, R. W. (1990). The role of consciousness in second language learning. Applied Linguistics, 11(2), 129–158.Google Scholar

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.Google Scholar

Sato, C. J. (1990). The syntax of conversation in interlanguage development. Tübingen: Gunter Narr.Google Scholar

Serafini, E. J., Lake, J. B., & Long, M. H. (2015). Methodological improvements in identifying specialized learner needs. English for Specific Purposes, 40, 11–26.Google Scholar

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.Google Scholar

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.Google Scholar

Shintani, N. (2016). Input-based tasks in foreign language instruction for young learners. Amsterdam/Philadelphia, PA: John Benjamins.Google Scholar

Skehan, P. (1998). A cognitive approach to language learning. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar

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.Google Scholar

Smith, M. P. (1983). The libertarians and education. London: George Allen & Unwin.Google Scholar

Suissa, J. (2006). Anarchism and education. A philosophical perspective. London: Routledge.Google Scholar

Tomlin, R., & Villa, V. (1994). Attention in cognitive science and SLA. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 16, 183–204.Google Scholar

Van den Branden, K. (ed.) (2006). Task-based language education: From theory to practice. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar

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.Google Scholar

White, J., & Lightbown, P. M. (1984). Asking and answering in foreign language classes. Canadian Modern Language Review, 40, 228–244.Google Scholar

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.Google Scholar

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.Google Scholar

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.Google Scholar

Yilmaz, Y. (2016). The linguistic environment, interaction and negative feedback. Brill Research Perspectives on Multilingualism and Second Language Acquisition, 1(1), 45–86.Google Scholar

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.Google Scholar

Arteaga, D., Gess, R., & Herschensohn, J. (2003). Focusing on phonology to teach morphological form in French. The Modern Language Journal, 87(1), 58–70.Google Scholar

Baralt, M., Gilabert, R., & Robinson, P. (2014). Task sequencing and instructed second language learning. London: Bloomsbury.Google Scholar

Beljaev, B. V. (Беляев, Б. В.) (1964). Psikhologicheskie voprosy usvoenija leksiki inostrannogo jazyka. (Психологические вопросы усвоения лексики иностранного языка). Moscow: Просвещение.Google Scholar

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.Google Scholar

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.Google Scholar

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.Google Scholar

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.Google Scholar

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.Google Scholar

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.Google Scholar

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.Google Scholar

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.Google Scholar

Council of Europe (2001). Common European framework of reference for languages: Learning, teaching, assessment. Cambridge: Press Syndicate of the University of Cambridge.Google Scholar

Doughty, C. (2001). Cognitive underpinnings of focus on form. In Robinson, P. (ed.), Cognition and second language instruction. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar

Doughty, C., & Williams, J. (eds.) (1998). Focus on form in classroom second language acquisition. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar

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.Google Scholar

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.Google Scholar

Han, Z., Park, E. S., & Combs, C. (2008). Textual enhancement of input: Issues and possibilities. Applied Linguistics, 29(4), 597–618.Google Scholar

Housen, A., & Simoens, H. (2016). Introduction: Cognitive perspectives on difficulty and complexity in L2 acquisition. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 38, 163–175.Google Scholar

Lawson, B. (2005). How designers think: The design process demystified. Amsterdam: Elsevier.Google Scholar

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.Google Scholar

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.Google Scholar

Leow, R. P. (1995). Modality and intake in second language acquisition. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 17(1), 79–89.Google Scholar

Leow, R. P. (2000). A study of the role of awareness in foreign language behavior. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 22, 557–584.Google Scholar

Leow, R. P. (2015). Explicit learning in the L2 classroom: A student-centered approach. New York: Routledge.Google Scholar

Long, M. H. (2005). Second language needs analysis. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar

Long, M. H. (2015). Second language acquisition and task-based language teaching. Oxford: Wiley.Google Scholar

Long, M. H. (2016). In defense of tasks and TBLT: Nonissues and real issues. Annual Review of Applied Linguistics, 36, 5–33.Google Scholar

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.Google Scholar

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).Google Scholar

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.Google Scholar

Oh, S. Y. (2011). Two types of input modification and EFL reading comprehension: Simplification versus elaboration. TESOL Quarterly, 35(1), 69–96.Google Scholar

Palotti, G. (2009). CAF: Defining, refining and differentiating constructs. Applied Linguistics, 30, 590–601.Google Scholar

Palotti, G. (2014). A simple view of linguistic complexity. Second Language Research, 31(1), 117–134.Google Scholar

Platt, E., & Brooks, F. B. (2002). Task engagement: A turning point in foreign language development. Language Learning, 52, 365–400.Google Scholar

Révész, A. (2011). Task complexity, focus on L2 constructions, and individual differences: A classroom-based study. The Modern Language Journal, 95, 162–181.Google Scholar

Robinson, P. (1995). Attention, memory and the “noticing” hypothesis. Language Learning, 45, 283–331.Google Scholar

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.Google Scholar

Robinson, P. (2001b). Task complexity, task difficulty, and task production: Exploring interactions in a componential framework. Applied Linguistics, 22(1), 27–57.Google Scholar

Robinson, P. (2003). The Cognition Hypothesis, task design and adult task-based language learning. Second Language Studies, 21(2), 45–107.Google Scholar

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.Google Scholar

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.Google Scholar

Sasayama, S., Malicka, A., & Norris, J. (in press). Cognitive task complexity: A research synthesis and meta-analysis. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar

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.Google Scholar

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.Google Scholar

Schmidt, R. (2001). Attention. In Robinson, P. (ed.), Cognition and second language instruction (pp. 3–32). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRef Google Scholar

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.Google Scholar

Skehan, P. (1998). A cognitive approach to language learning. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar

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.Google Scholar

Skehan, P., & Foster, P. (1997). Task type and task processing conditions as influences on foreign language performance. Language Teaching Research, 1, 185–211.Google Scholar

Sweller, J. (1988). Cognitive load during problem solving: Effects on learning. Cognitive Science, 12, 257–285.Google Scholar

Sweller, J. (1994). Cognitive Load Theory, learning difficulty, and instructional design. Learning and Instruction, 4(4), 295–312.Google Scholar

Sweller, J., Van Merriënboer, J. J. G., & Paas, F. (1998). Cognitive architecture and instructional design. Educational Psychology Review, 10, 251–295.Google Scholar

Tsarfaty, R., Seddah, D., Kübler, S., & Nivre, J. (2013). Parsing morphologically rich languages: Introduction to the special issue. Computational Linguistics, 39, 15–22.Google Scholar

Van den Branden, K. (ed.) (2006). Task-based language teaching: From theory to practice. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar

Vygotsky, L. S. (1966). Мышление и речь Издательство. Моsсow: Академия педагогических наук РСФСР.Google Scholar

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.Google Scholar

References

ACTFL (1986). ACTFL proficiency guidelines 1986. Hastings-on-Hudson, NY: ACTFL.Google Scholar

ACTFL (2012a). ACTFL proficiency guidelines 2012. Alexandria, VA: ACTFL.Google Scholar

ACTFL (2012b). ACTFL performance descriptors for language learners. Alexandria, VA: ACTFL.Google Scholar

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.Google Scholar

Alderson, J. C. (2007). The CEFR and the need for more research. The Modern Language Journal, 91(4), 659–663.Google Scholar

ALTE (2011). Manual for language test development. Strasbourg: Council of Europe. Retrieved from https://rm.coe.int/1680667a2b.Google Scholar

Bachman, L. F. (1988). Problems in examining the validity of the ACTFL oral proficiency interview. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 10(2), 149–164.Google Scholar

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.Google Scholar

Berger, A. (2015). Validating analytic rating scales: A multi-method approach to scaling descriptors for assessing academic speaking. Frankfurt am Main: Peter Lang.Google Scholar

bmlv (2000). European language portfolio (Swiss model for adolescents and adults). Bern: Berner Lehrmittel- und Medienverlag.Google Scholar

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.Google Scholar

Breiner-Sanders, K. E., Swender, E., & Terry, R. M. (2002). Preliminary proficiency guidelines—Writing revised 2001. Foreign Language Annals, 35(1), 9–15.Google Scholar

Byram, M., & Parmenter, L. (eds.) (2012). The common European framework of reference: The globalisation of language education policy. Bristol/Buffalo, NY: Multilingual Matters.Google Scholar

Council of Europe (1992). Transparency and coherence in language learning in Europe: Objectives, evaluation, certification. Strasbourg: Council of Europe.Google Scholar

Council of Europe (1996a). Common European framework of reference for language learning and teaching. Draft 1 of a framework proposal. Strasbourg: Council of Europe.Google Scholar

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.Google Scholar

Council of Europe (1997a). Language learning for European citizenship: Final report (1989–96). Strasbourg: Council of Europe.Google Scholar

Council of Europe (1997b). European language portfolio: Proposals for development. Strasbourg: Council of Europe.Google Scholar

Council of Europe (2000). European language portfolio (ELP): Principles and guidelines. Strasbourg: Council of Europe.Google Scholar

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.Google Scholar

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.Google Scholar

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.Google Scholar

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.Google Scholar

Díez-Bedmar, M. (2018). Fine-tuning descriptors for CEFR B1 level: Insights from learner corpora. ELT Journal, 72(2), 199–209.Google Scholar

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.Google Scholar

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.Google Scholar

Fulcher, G. (1996). Invalidating validity claims for the ACTFL oral rating scale. System, 24(2), 163–172.Google Scholar

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.Google Scholar

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.Google Scholar

Green, A. (2012). Language functions revisited: Theoretical and empirical bases for language construct definition across the ability range. Cambridge/New York: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar

Hawkins, J. A., & Filipovic´, L. (2012). Criterial features in L2 English: Specifying the reference levels of the Common European Framework. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar

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.Google Scholar

Kramsch, C. (1986). From language proficiency to interactional competence. The Modern Language Journal, 70(4), 366–372.Google Scholar

Lantolf, J. P., & Frawley, W. (1985). Oral-proficiency testing: A critical analysis. The Modern Language Journal, 69(4), 337–345.Google Scholar

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.Google Scholar

Little, D. (2002). The European Language Portfolio: Structure, origins, implementation and challenges. Language Teaching, 35(3), 182–189.Google Scholar

Little, D. (2016). The European Language Portfolio: Time for a fresh start? International Online Journal of Education and Teaching, 3(3), 162–172.Google Scholar

Little, D., Dam, L., & Legenhausen, L. (2017). Language learner autonomy: Theory, practice and research. Bristol: Multilingual Matters.Google Scholar

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.Google Scholar

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.Google Scholar

Met, M., & Byram, M. (1999). Standards for foreign language learning and the teaching of culture. The Language Learning Journal, 19(1), 61–68.Google Scholar

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.Google Scholar

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.Google Scholar

National Standards Collaborative Board (2015). World-readiness standards for learning languages (4th edn.). Alexandria, VA: National Standards Collaborative Board.Google Scholar

NCSSFL & ACTFL (2015). NCSSFL–ACTFL can-do statements: Performance indicators for language learners. Alexandria, VA: ACTFL.Google Scholar

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.Google Scholar

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.Google Scholar

Swender, E. (2015). Response to letter to the editor. Foreign Language Annals, 48(4), 775–776.Google Scholar

Swender, E., & Duncan, G. (1998). ACTFL Performance Guidelines for K–12 learners. Foreign Language Annals, 31(4), 479–491.Google Scholar

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.Google Scholar

van Ek, J. A. (1975). The threshold level. Strasbourg: Council of Europe.Google Scholar

van Ek, J. A., & Trim, J. L. M. (1991). Waystage. Strasbourg: Council of Europe.Google Scholar

van Ek, J. A., & Trim, J. L. M. (1998). Waystage 1990 (revised and corrected edn.). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar

van Ek, J. A., & Trim, J. L. M. (2001). Vantage. New York: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar

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.Google Scholar

Ziegler, N. A., & Moeller, A. J. (2012). Increasing self-regulated learning through the LinguaFolio. Foreign Language Annals, 45(3), 330–348.Google Scholar

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.Google Scholar

Abrams, Z. I. (2016b). Possibilities and challenges of learning German in a multimodal environment: A case study. ReCALL Journal, 28(3), 343–363.Google Scholar

Basharina, O. K. (2007). An activity theory perspective on student-reported contradictions in international telecollaboration. Language Learning & Technology, 11(2), 82–103.Google Scholar

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.Google Scholar

Blin, F. (2004). CALL and the development of learner autonomy: Towards an activity-theoretical perspective. ReCALL Journal, 16(2), 377–395.Google Scholar

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.Google Scholar

Chapelle, C. A. (1998). Multimedia CALL: Lessons to be learned from research on instructed SLA. Language Learning & Technology, 2(1), 22–34.Google Scholar

Chapelle, C. A. (2001). Computer applications in second language acquisition. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar

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.Google Scholar

Chapelle, C. A. (2009). The relationship between SLA theory and CALL. the Modern Language Journal, 93(4), 742–754.Google Scholar

Chapelle, C. A. (2010). The spread of computer-assisted language learning. Language Teaching, 43(1), 66–74.Google Scholar

Chapelle, C. A. (2016). Teaching culture in introductory foreign language textbooks. London: Palgrave Macmillan.Google Scholar

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.Google Scholar

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.Google Scholar

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.Google Scholar

Chapelle, C. A., & Jamieson, J. (2008). Tips for teaching with CALL: Practical approaches to computer assisted language learning. White Plains, NY: Pearson Education.Google Scholar

Chun, D. M., Kern, R., & Smith, B. (2016). Technology use, language teaching, and language learning. The Modern Language Journal, 100(S), 64–80.Google Scholar

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.Google Scholar

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.Google Scholar

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.Google Scholar

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.Google Scholar

Doughty, C., & Long, M. H. (2003). Optimal psycholinguistic environments for distance foreign language learning. Language Learning & Technology, 7(3), 50–80.Google Scholar

Douglas Fir Group (2016). A transdisciplinary framework for SLA in a multilingual world. The Modern Language Journal, 100(S), 19–47.Google Scholar

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.Google Scholar

Gass, S. M. (1997). Input, interaction, and the second language learner. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.Google Scholar

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.Google Scholar

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.Google Scholar

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.Google Scholar

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.Google Scholar

Gruba, P., C´ardenas-Claros, M. S., Suvorov, R., & Rick, K. (2016). Blended language program evaluation. London: Palgrave Macmillan.Google Scholar

Hafner, C. A., Chik, A., & Jones, R. H. (2015). Digital literacies and language learning. Language Learning & Technology, 19(3), 1–7.Google Scholar

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.Google Scholar

Hauck, M. (2007). Critical success factors in a TRIDEM exchange. ReCALL, 19(2), 202–223.Google Scholar

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.Google Scholar

Jamieson, J., & Chapelle, C. A. (2010). Evaluating CALL use across multiple contexts. System, 38, 357–369.Google Scholar

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.Google Scholar

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.Google Scholar

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.Google Scholar

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.Google Scholar

Lai, C. (2013). A framework for developing self-directed technology use for language learning. Language Learning & Technology, 17(2), 100–122.Google Scholar

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.Google Scholar

Lantolf, J., & Thorne, S. (2006). Sociocultural theory and the genesis of L2 development. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar

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.Google Scholar

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.Google Scholar

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.Google Scholar

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.Google Scholar

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.Google Scholar

Norris, J. M. (2006). The why (and how) of student learning outcomes assessment in college education. The Modern Language Journal, 90(4), 590–597.Google Scholar

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.Google Scholar

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.Google Scholar

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.Google Scholar

Risager, K. (2007). Language and culture pedagogy: From a national to a transnational paradigm. Clevedon: Multilingual Matters.Google Scholar

Risager, K. (2018). Representations of the world in language textbooks. Clevedon: Multilingual Matters.Google Scholar

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.Google Scholar

Rogers, E. (1995). Diffusion of innovations (5th edn.). New York: Free Press.Google Scholar

Rost, M., & Fuchs, M. (2004). Longman English Interactive 1–4. White Plains, NY: Pearson Education.Google Scholar

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.Google Scholar

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.Google Scholar

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.Google Scholar

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.Google Scholar

Sockett, G. (2013). Understanding the online informal learning of English as a complex dynamic system: An emic approach. ReCALL, 25, 48–62.Google Scholar

Straub, E. T. (2009). Understanding technology adoption: Theory and future directions for informal learning. Review of Educational Research, 79(2), 625–649.Google Scholar

Sylv´en, L. K., & Sundqvist, P. (2017). Computer-assisted language learning (CALL) in extracurricular/extramural contexts. CALICO Journal, 34(1), i–iv.Google Scholar

Thorne, S. L. (2003). Artifacts and cultures-of-use in intercultural communication. Language Learning & Technology, 7(2), 38–67.Google Scholar

Thorne, S. L. (2016). Cultures-of-use and morphologies of communicative action. Language Learning & Technology, 20(2), 185–191.Google Scholar

Tomlinson, B., & Masuhara, H. (eds.) (2013). Research for materials development in language learning: Evidence for best practice. London: Continuum.Google Scholar

VanPatten, B., & Cadierno, T. (1993). Input processing and second language acquisition: A role for instruction. The Modern Language Journal, 77, 45–57.Google Scholar

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.Google Scholar

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.Google Scholar

Wong, W., Weber-F`eve, S., & VanPatten, B. (2017). Liaisons: An introduction to French (2nd edn.). Boston, MA: Cengage.Google Scholar

Zhao, Y. (2003). Recent developments in technology and language learning: A literature review and meta-analysis. CALICO Journal, 21(1), 7–27.Google Scholar

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.Google Scholar

Baecher, L., Farnsworth, T., & Ediger, A. (2014). The challenges of planning language objectives in content-based ESL instruction. Language Teaching Research, 18, 118–136.Google Scholar

Baker, C. (2001). Foundations of bilingual education and bilingualism (3rd edn.). Clevedon: Multilingual Matters.Google Scholar

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.Google Scholar

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.Google Scholar

Bekerman, Z. (2005). Complex contexts and ideologies: Bilingual education in conflict-ridden areas. Journal of Language, Identity, and Education, 4, 1–20.Google Scholar

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.Google Scholar

Bruton, A. (2011). Is CLIL so beneficial, or just selective? Re-evaluating some of the research. System, 39, 523–532.Google Scholar

Bruton, A. (2013). CLIL: Some of the reasons why … and why not. System, 41, 587–597.Google Scholar

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.Google Scholar

Cammarata, L. (2009). Negotiating curricular transitions: Foreign language teachers’ learning experience with content-based instruction. Canadian Modern Language Review, 65, 559–585.Google Scholar

Cammarata, L., & Tedick, D. J. (2012). Balancing content and language in instruction: The experience of immersion teachers. The Modern Language Journal, 96, 251–269.Google Scholar

Cenoz, J. (2008). Achievements and the challenges in bilingual and multilingual education in the Basque Country. AILA Review, 21, 13–30.Google Scholar

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.Google Scholar

Cohen, A., & Swain, M. (1976). Bilingual education: The “immersion” model in the North American context. TESOL Quarterly, 10, 45–53.Google Scholar

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.Google Scholar

Coyle, D., Hood, P., & Marsh, D. (2010). Content and language integrated learning. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar

Cummins, J. (1983). Language proficiency, biliteracy and French immersion. Canadian Journal of Education, 8, 117–138.Google Scholar

Cummins, J., & Swain, M. (1986). Bilingualism in education: Aspects of theory, research and practice. London: Longman.Google Scholar

Dalton-Puffer, C. (2007). Discourse in content and language integrated learning (CLIL) classrooms. Amsterdam: John Benjamins Publishing.Google Scholar

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.Google Scholar

Dalton-Puffer, C. (2011). Content-and-language integrated learning: From practice to principles? Annual Review of Applied Linguistics, 31, 182–204.Google Scholar

Day, E., & Shapson, S. (1991). Integrating formal and functional approaches to language teaching in French immersion: An experimental study. Language Learning, 41, 25–58.Google Scholar

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.Google Scholar

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.Google Scholar

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.Google Scholar

Ellis, R. (2001). Introduction: Investigating form-focused instruction. Language Learning, 51, 1–46.Google Scholar

Fotos, S. (1993). Consciousness-raising and noticing through focus on form—Grammar task-performance versus formal instruction. Applied Linguistics, 14, 385–407.Google Scholar

Fotos, S., & Ellis, R. (1991). Communicating about grammar: A task-based approach. TESOL Quarterly, 25, 605–628.Google Scholar

Fotos, S., & Nassaji, H. (eds.) (2007). Form-focused instruction and teacher education: Studies in honour of Rod Ellis. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar

Freeman, D., & Freeman, Y. (1988). Sheltered English instruction. Eric digest. Retrieved from https://www.ericdigests.org/pre-9210/english.htm.Google Scholar

Genesee, F. (1978). A longitudinal evaluation of an early immersion school program. Canadian Journal of Education, 3(4), 31–50.Google Scholar

Genesee, F. (1987). Learning through two languages: Studies in immersion and bilingual education. New York: Newbury House.Google Scholar

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.Google Scholar

Genesee, F. (2007). French immersion and at-risk students: A review of research evidence. Canadian Modern Language Review, 63, 655–687.Google Scholar

Genesee, F., & Jared, D. (2008). Literacy development in early French immersion programs. Canadian Psychology/Psychologie canadienne, 49, 140–147.Google Scholar

Genesee, F., & Stanley, M. (1976). The development of English writing skills in French immersion school programs. Canadian Journal of Education, 1, 1–17.Google Scholar

Grim, F. (2008). Integrating focus on form in L2 content-enriched instruction lessons. Foreign Language Annals, 41, 321–346.Google Scholar

Harley, B. (1989). Functional grammar in French immersion: A classroom experiment. Applied Linguistics, 10, 331–359.Google Scholar

Harley, B. (1991). Directions in immersion research. Journal of Multilingual and Multicultural Development, 12, 9–19.Google Scholar

Harley, B. (1993). Instructional strategies and SLA in early French immersion. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 15, 245–259.Google Scholar

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.Google Scholar

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.Google Scholar

Harrop, E. (2012). Content and language integrated learning (CLIL): Limitations and possibilities. Encuentro, 21, 57–70.Google Scholar

Hickey, T. (2001). Mixing beginners and native speakers in minority language immersion: Who is immersing whom? Canadian Modern Language Review, 57, 443–474.Google Scholar

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.Google Scholar

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.Google Scholar

Johnson, R. K., & Swain, M. (eds.) (1997). Immersion education: International perspectives. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar

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.Google Scholar

Kowal, M., & Swain, M. (1994). Using collaborative language production tasks to promote students’ language awareness. Language Awareness, 3, 73–93.Google Scholar

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.Google Scholar

Krashen, S. D. (1982). Principles and practice in second language acquisition. New York: Pergamon Press.Google Scholar

Krashen, S. D. (1985). The input hypothesis: Issues and implications. Oxford: Pergamon Press.Google Scholar

Lambert, W. E., & Tucker, G. R. (1972). Bilingual education of children: The St. Lambert experiment. Rowley, MA: Newbury House.Google Scholar

Lapkin, S., Hart, D., & Swain, M. (1991). Early and middle French immersion programs—French-language outcomes. Canadian Modern Language Review, 48, 11–40.Google Scholar

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.Google Scholar

Lapkin, S., & Swain, M. (2004). What underlies immersion students’ production: The case of “avoir besoin de”. Foreign Language Annals, 37, 349–355.Google Scholar

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.Google Scholar

Lasagabaster, D. (2008). Foreign language competence in content and language integrated courses. The Open Applied Linguistics Journal, 1, 30–41.Google Scholar

Lasagabaster, D., & Sierra, J. M. (2009). Immersion and CLIL in English: More differences than similarities. ELT Journal, 64, 367–375.Google Scholar

Lazaruk, W. (2007). Linguistic, academic, and cognitive benefits of French immersion. Canadian Modern Language Review, 63, 605–627.Google Scholar

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.Google Scholar

Lightbown, P. (2014). Focus on content-based language teaching. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar

Lightbown, P., & Spada, N. (1990). Focus on form and corrective feedback in communicative language teaching. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 12, 429–448.Google Scholar

Lightbown, P., & Spada, N. (2013). How languages are learned (4th edn.). Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar

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.Google Scholar

Lindholm-Leary, K. (2001). Dual language education. Clevedon: Multilingual Matters.Google Scholar

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.Google Scholar

Llinares, A., & Morton, T. (2017). Applied linguistics perspectives on CLIL. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar

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.Google Scholar

Long, M. (2015). Second language acquisition and task-based language teaching. Oxford: Wiley-Blackwell.Google Scholar

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.Google Scholar

Lyster, R. (1994). The effect of functional-analytic teaching on aspects of French immersion students’ sociolinguistic competence. Applied Linguistics, 15, 263–287.Google Scholar

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.Google Scholar

Lyster, R. (1998b). Recasts, repetition, and ambiguity in L2 classroom discourse. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 20, 51–81.Google Scholar

Lyster, R. (2004a). Differential effects of prompts and recasts in form-focused instruction. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 26, 399–432.Google Scholar

Lyster, R. (2004b). Research on form-focused instruction in immersion classrooms: Implications for theory and practice. Journal of French Language Studies, 14, 321–341.Google Scholar

Lyster, R. (2007). Learning and teaching languages through content: A counterbalanced approach. Amsterdam/Philadelphia, PA: John Benjamins.Google Scholar

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.Google Scholar

Lyster, R., & Mori, H. (2006). Interactional feedback and instructional counterbalance. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 28, 269–300.Google Scholar

Lyster, R., & Ranta, L. (1997). Corrective feedback and learner uptake: Negotiation of form in communicative classrooms. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 19, 37–66.Google Scholar

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.Google Scholar

Musumeci, D. (1996). Teacher–learner negotiation in content-based instruction: Communication at cross-purposes? Applied Linguistics, 17, 286–325.Google Scholar

Nassaji, H. (2015). Interactional feedback dimension in instructed second language learning. London: Bloomsbury Publishing.Google Scholar

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.Google Scholar

Nassaji, H., & Fotos, S. (2004). Current developments in research on the teaching of grammar. Annual Review of Applied Linguistics, 24, 126–145.Google Scholar

Nassaji, H., & Fotos, S. (2010). Teaching grammar in second language classrooms: Integrating form-focused instruction in communicative context. London: Routledge.Google Scholar

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.Google Scholar

Netten, J., & Germain, C. (2004). Theoretical and research foundations of intensive French. Canadian Modern Language Review, 60, 275–294.Google Scholar

Netten, J., & Germain, C. (2009). The future of intensive French in Canada. Canadian Modern Language Review, 65, 757–786.Google Scholar

Nikula, T., & Dafouz, E. (2016). Conceptualising integration in CLIL and multilingual education. Bristol: Multilingual Matters.Google Scholar

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.Google Scholar

Pérez Cañado, M. L. (2012). CLIL research in Europe: Past, present, and future. International Journal of Bilingual Education and Bilingualism, 15, 315–341.Google Scholar

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.Google Scholar

Peter, L. (2014). Language ideologies and Cherokee revitalization: Impracticality, legitimacy, and hope. Journal of Immersion and Content-Based Language Education, 2, 96–118.Google Scholar

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.Google Scholar

Pladevall-Ballester, E., & Vallbona, A. (2016). CLIL in minimal input contexts: A longitudinal study of primary school learners’ receptive skills. System, 58, 37–48.Google Scholar

Reedy, T. (2000). Te Reo Maori: The past 20 years and looking forward. Oceanic Linguistics, 39, 157–169.Google Scholar

Richards, J. C. (2006). Communicative language teaching today. Cambridge: Cambridge Univesity Press.Google Scholar

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.Google Scholar

Spada, N. (1997). Form-focused instruction and second language acquisition: A review of classroom and laboratory research. Language Teaching, 29, 1–15.Google Scholar

Spada, N., & Lightbown, P. M. (2008). Form-focused instruction: Isolated or integrated? TESOL Quarterly, 42, 181–207.Google Scholar

Stern, H. (1978). French immersion in Canada: Achievements and directions. Canadian Modern Language Review, 34, 836–854.Google Scholar

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.Google Scholar

Stryker, S. B., & Leaver, B. L. (eds.) (1997). Content-based instruction in foreign language education: Models and methods. Washington, DC: Georgetown University Press.Google Scholar

Swain, M. (1974). French immersion programs across Canada: Research findings. Canadian Modern Language Review, 31, 117–129.Google Scholar

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.Google Scholar

Swain, M. (1993). The Output Hypothesis: Just speaking and writing aren’t enough. Canadian Modern Language Review, 50, 158–164.Google Scholar

Swain, M. (2000). French immersion research in Canada: Recent contributions to SLA and applied linguistics. Annual Review of Applied Linguistics, 20, 199–212.Google Scholar

Swain, M., & Lapkin, S. (1982). Evaluating bilingual education: A Canadian case study. Clevedon: Multilingual Matters.Google Scholar

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.Google Scholar

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.Google Scholar

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.Google Scholar

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.Google Scholar

VanPatten, B. (2002). Processing Instruction: An update. Language Learning, 52, 755–803.Google Scholar

Washburn, L. (1997). English immersion in Sweden: A case study of Röllingby high school, 1987–1989. Unpublished PhD dissertation, Stockholm University.Google Scholar

Wesche, M. (2001). Editorial: French immersion and content-based language teaching in Canada. The Canadian Modern Language Review, 58, 1–8.Google Scholar

Whittaker, R., Llinares, A., & McCabe, A. (2011). Written discourse development in CLIL at secondary school. Language Teaching Research, 15, 343–362.Google Scholar

Zyzik, E., & Polio, C. (2008). Incidental focus on form in university Spanish literature courses. The Modern Language Journal, 92, 53–70.Google Scholar

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.Google Scholar

Atkinson, D. (ed.) (2011). Alternative approaches to second language acquisition. New York: Routledge.Google Scholar

Auerbach, E. R. (1992). Making meaning, making change. McHenry, IL: Delta Systems.Google Scholar

Benesch, S. (2017). Emotions and English language teaching: Exploring teachers’ emotion labor. New York: Routledge.Google Scholar

Benson, P. (2001). Teaching and researching autonomy in language learning. New York: Longman.Google Scholar

Block, D. (2014). Social class in applied linguistics. New York: Routledge.Google Scholar

Bloor, M., & Bloor, T. (2013). The practice of critical discourse analysis: An introduction. London: Routledge.Google Scholar

Bourdieu, P. (1990). The logic of practice. Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press.Google Scholar

Bourdieu, P., & Wacquant, L. (2002). An invitation to reflexive sociology. Cambridge: Polity.Google Scholar

Breen, M. P., & Littlejohn, A. (2000). Classroom decision-making: Negotiation and process syllabuses in practice. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar

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.Google Scholar

Brumfit, C. (1997). How applied linguistics is the same as any other science. International Journal of Applied Linguistics, 7(1), 86–94.Google Scholar

Bunge, M. (1998). Philosophy of science (Vol. 1). New Brunswick, NJ: Transaction.Google Scholar

Busse, C., Kach, A. P., & Wagner, S. M. (2017). Boundary conditions. Organi-zational Research Methods, 20(4), 574–609.Google Scholar

Chao, X. (2016). Community service learning as critical curriculum: Promoting international students’ second language practices. Critical Inquiry in Language Studies, 13(4), 289–318.Google Scholar

Chouliaraki, L., & Fairclough, N. (2002). Discourse in late modernity: Rethinking critical discourse analysis. Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press.Google Scholar

Clark, J. L. (1987). Curriculum renewal in school foreign language learning. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar

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.Google Scholar

Crawford-Lange, L. M. (1981). Redirecting second language curricula: Paulo Freire’s contribution. Foreign Language Annals, 14(4 & 5), 257–268.Google Scholar

Crookes, G. V. (2011). Values, philosophies, and beliefs in TESOL. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar

Crookes, G. V. (2013). Critical ELT in action. New York: Routledge.Google Scholar

Darder, A. (2015). Freire and education. New York: Routledge.Google Scholar

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.Google Scholar

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.Google Scholar

Engeström, Y. (1987). Learning by expanding: An activity theoretical approach to developmental research. Helsinki: Orienta-Konsultit.Google Scholar

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.Google Scholar

Fay, B. (1987). Critical social science. Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press.Google Scholar

Feinberg, J. (1973). Social philosophy. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.Google Scholar

Foley, R. (1999). Analysis. In Audi, Robert (ed.), The Cambridge dictionary of philosophy (2nd edn., p. 25). New York: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar

Foucault, M. (1984). What is Enlightenment? In Rabinow, P. (ed.), The Foucault reader (pp. 32–50). New York: Pantheon Books.Google Scholar

Foucault, M. (2005). The order of things. New York, NY: Routledge. [Original work published in English in 1970]Google Scholar

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]Google Scholar

Freebody, P., & Luke, A. (1990). Literacies programs: Debates and demands in cultural context. Prospect: Australian Journal of TESOL, 5(7), 7–16.Google Scholar

Freire, P. (1972). Pedagogy of the oppressed. New York: Penguin Books.Google Scholar

Freire, P. (1973). Education for critical consciousness. London: Continuum/Seabury Press.Google Scholar

Fridland, E., & Strasser, A. (2012). Philosophy of learning. In Encyclopedia of the sciences of learning (pp. 2615–2621). Boston, MA: Springer.Google Scholar

Gore, J. M. (1993). The struggle for pedagogies: Critical and feminist discourses as regimes of truth. New York: Routledge.Google Scholar

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.Google Scholar

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]Google Scholar

Harré, R. (1985). The philosophies of science. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar

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.Google Scholar

Horkheimer, M. (1937/1972). Traditional and critical theory. In Horkheimer, M., Critical theory: Selected essays. New York: Herder & Herder.Google Scholar

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.Google Scholar

James, W. (1899/1983). Talks to teachers on psychology and to students on some of life’s ideals. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar

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.Google Scholar

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.Google Scholar

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.Google Scholar

Kumaravadivelu, K. (2001). Towards a postmethod pedagogy. TESOL Quarterly, 35(4), 537–560.Google Scholar

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.Google Scholar

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.Google Scholar

Lave, J., & Wenger, E. (1991). Situated learning. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar

Lynch, B. (2001). Rethinking assessment from a critical perspective. Language Testing, 18(4), 351–372.Google Scholar

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.Google Scholar

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.Google Scholar

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.Google Scholar

Miller, E. R. (2012). Performativity theory and language learning: Sedimentating, appropriating, and constituting language and subjectivity. Linguistics and Education, 23, 88–99.Google Scholar

Morrow, R. A., & Brown, D. D. (1994). Contemporary social theory. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.Google Scholar

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.Google Scholar

Olssen, M. (2006). Foucault and critical theory. In Olssen, M., Michel Foucault: Materialism and education (pp. 121–151). London: Paradigm Publishers.Google Scholar

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.Google Scholar

Oskarsson, M. (1978). Approaches to self-assessment in foreign language learning. Oxford: Pergamon Press.Google Scholar

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.Google Scholar

Peirce, B. N. (1995). Social identity, investment, and language learning. TESOL Quarterly, 29(1), 9–31.Google Scholar

Pennycook, A. (1990). Towards a critical applied linguistics for the 1990s. Issues in Applied Linguistics, 1(1), 8–28.Google Scholar

Pennycook, A. (1996). TESOL and critical literacies: Modern, post, or neo? TESOL Quarterly, 30(1), 163–171.Google Scholar

Pennycook, A. (1999). Introduction: Critical approaches to TESOL. TESOL Quarterly, 33, 329–348.Google Scholar

Pennycook, A. (2001). Critical applied linguistics. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.Google Scholar

Price, S. (1999). Critical discourse analysis: Discourse acquisition and discourse practices. TESOL Quarterly, 33, 581–595.Google Scholar

Prilleltensky, I., & Nelson, G. (2002). Doing psychology critically: Making difference in diverse settings. New York: Palgrave Macmillan.Google Scholar

Ratner, C. (2000). Outline of a coherent, comprehensive concept of culture. Cross-Cultural Psychology Bulletin, 34(1–2), 5–11.Google Scholar

Reagan, T. G., & Osborn, T. A. (2002). The foreign language educator in society: Toward a critical pedagogy. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Assocs.Google Scholar

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.Google Scholar

Schraube, E. (2000). Reflecting on who we are in a technological world. In Sloan, T. (ed.), Critical psychology. London: Macmillan.Google Scholar

Shohamy, E. (2001). The power of tests: A critical perspective on the use of language tests. Harlow: Pearson.Google Scholar

Shor, I. (1980). Critical teaching and everyday life. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar

Shor, I. (1992). Empowering education. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar

Shor, I. (1996). When students have power. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar

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.Google Scholar

Stern, H. H. (1983). Fundamental concepts of language teaching. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar

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.Google Scholar

Thorne, S. L. (2005). Epistemology, politics, and ethics in sociocultural theory. The Modern Language Journal, 89(3), 393–409.Google Scholar

Tolman, C. W. (1994). Psychology, society, and subjectivity: An introduction to German critical psychology. London: Routledge.Google Scholar

Tolman, J. (2006). Learning, unlearning, and the teaching of writing: Educational turns in postcoloniality. Critical Inquiry in Language Studies, 3(2&3), 189–200.Google Scholar

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.Google Scholar

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.Google Scholar

van Eemeren, F. H., & Grootendorst, R. (1992). Argumentation, communication, and fallacies: A pragma-dialectical perspective. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.Google Scholar

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.Google Scholar

Vygotsky, L. S. (1926/1997). Educational psychology (trans. R. Silverman). Boca Raton, FL: St. Lucie Press.Google Scholar

Vygotsky, L. S. (1962). Thought and language (eds. and trans. Hanfmann, E. & Vakar, G.). Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar

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.Google Scholar

Wallace, C. (2003). Critical reading in language education. London: Palgrave Macmillan.Google Scholar

Wallerstein, N. (1983). Language and culture in conflict: Problem-posing in the ESL classroom. New York: AddisonWesley.Google Scholar

Wenger, E. (1998). Communities of practice. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar

Wheeler, G. (2013). Language teaching through the ages. New York: Routledge.Google Scholar

Williams, R. (1977). Marxism and literature. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar

Winch, C. (1998). The philosophy of human learning. London: Routledge.Google Scholar

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/.Google Scholar

Book contents

Part V - Pedagogical Interventions and Approaches

Summary

Access options

References

References

References

References

References

References

References

References

Save book to Kindle

Save book to Dropbox

Save book to Google Drive