Article published in:
Theoretical and Methodological Developments in Processability Theory
Edited by Kristof Baten, Aafke Buyl, Katja Lochtman and Mieke Van Herreweghe
[Processability Approaches to Language Acquisition Research & Teaching 4] 2015
► pp. 175204
Cited by

Cited by other publications

Baten, Kristof
2019.  In Teachability and Learnability across Languages [Processability Approaches to Language Acquisition Research & Teaching, 6],  pp. 97 ff. Crossref logo

This list is based on CrossRef data as of 28 december 2020. Please note that it may not be complete. Sources presented here have been supplied by the respective publishers. Any errors therein should be reported to them.

References

References

Allwright, R.L.
(1984) Why don’t learners learn what teachers teach? – The interaction hypothesis. In D.M. Singleton & D.G. Little (Eds.), Language learning in formal and informal contexts (pp. 3-18). Dublin: IRAAL.Google Scholar
Baten, K., Keßler, J.-U., & Pienemann, M.
in prep.). Research timeline: The role of instruction: Teachability and processability. Language Teaching.
Breidbach, S., & Viebrock, B.
(2012) CLIL in Germany: Results from recent research in a contested field of education. International CLIL Research Journal http://​www​.icrj​.eu​/14​/article1​.html (10 September 2013).Google Scholar
Dalton-Puffer, C.
(2007) Discourse in content and language integrated learning (CLIL) classrooms. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Dalton-Puffer, C., & Nikula, T.
(2006) Pragmatics of content-based instruction: Teacher and student directives in Finnish and Austrian classrooms. Applied Linguistics, 27(2), 241-267. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Ellis, R.
(2003) Task-based language learning and teaching. Oxford: OUP.Google Scholar
Engel, G., Groot-Wilken, B., & Thürmann, E.
(Eds.) (2009) Englisch in der Primarstufe – Chancen und Herausforderungen. Berlin: Cornelsen.Google Scholar
Elsner, D. & Keßler, J.-U.
(2011) Bilinguales Lernen in offenen Unterrichtsarrangements – erste Ergebnisse aus der Schulbegleitforschung Hamburg Flachsland und deren Konsequenzen für die Unterrichtsentwicklung. In M. Kötter & J. Rymarczyk (Eds.), Fremdsprachenunterricht in der Grundschule: Forschungsergebnisse und Vorschläge zu seiner weiteren Entwicklung (pp. 163-183). Frankfurt: Peter Lang.Google Scholar
Elsner, D., & Keßler, J.-U.
(2012) Autonomous learning and CLIL at primary level. Results of a case study at Flachsland future school, Hamburg. In D. Marsh & O. Meyer (Eds.), Examining evidence & exploring solutions in CLIL (pp. 37-52). Eichstätt: Eichstätt Academy Press.Google Scholar
(2013) Bilingual approaches to foreign language education in primary school. In D. Elsner & J.-U. Keßler (Eds.), Bilingual education in primary school. Aspects of immersion, CLIL, and bilingual modules (pp. 16-27). Tübingen: Narr.Google Scholar
Erickson, F.
(1982) Classroom discourse as improvisation: Relationships between academic task structure and social participation structure in lessons. In L.C. Wilkinson (Ed.), Communication in the Classroom (pp. 153-181). New York: Academic Press.Google Scholar
Firth, A., & Wagner, J.
(1997) On discourse, communication, and (some) fundamental concepts in SLA research. The Modern Language Journal, 81(3), 285-300. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Freeman, D.
(2007) Research 'fitting' practice: Firth and Wagner, classroom language teaching, and language teacher education. The Modern Language Journal, 91, 893-906. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Gass, S., Madden, C., Preston, D., & Selinker, L.
(Eds.) (1989) Variation in second language acquisition. Clevedon: Multilingual Matters.Google Scholar
Goffman, E.
(1981) Forms of talk. Oxford: Blackwell.Google Scholar
Hall, J.K., & Verplaetse, L.S.
(2000) Second and foreign language learning through classroom interaction. In J.K. Hall & L.S. Verplaetse (Eds.), Second and foreign language learning through classroom interaction (pp. 1-20). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.Google Scholar
Hollm, J., Keßler, J.-U., & Schwab, G.
(2012) 'Bili HauptSchule' – Wissenschaftliche Begleitung des Projekts Bilingualer Sachfachunterricht an der Hermann-Butzer Schule Schwieberdingen,http://​www​.ph​-ludwigsburg​.de​/fileadmin​/subsites​/2b​-engl​-t​-01​/user​_files​/schwab​/Material​/1207​_Abschlussbericht​_BiliHS​.pdf (2 August 2013).Google Scholar
Kasper, G.
(2009) Locating cognition in second language interaction and learning: Inside the skull or in public view? IRAL, 47(1), 11-36. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Keßler, J.-U.
(2006) Englischerwerb im Anfangsunterricht diagnostizieren. Linguistische Profilanalysen am Übergang von der Primar- in die Sekundarstufe I. (Giessener Beiträge zur Fremdsprachendidaktik). Tübingen: Narr.Google Scholar
(2007) Assessing EFL-development online: A feasibility study of Rapid Profile.In F. Mansouri (Ed.), Second language acquisition research. Theory-construction and testing (pp. 119-143). Newcastle upon Tyne: Cambridge Scholars.Google Scholar
(Ed.) (2008a) Processability approaches to second language development and second language learning. Newcastle upon Tyne: Cambridge Scholars.Google Scholar
(2008b) Communicative tasks and second language profiling: Linguistic and pedagogical implications. In J. Eckerth & S. Siepmann (Eds.), Research on task-based language learning and teaching. Theoretical, methodological and pedagogical perspectives (pp. 291-310). Frankfurt: Peter Lang.Google Scholar
(2009) Zum mündlichen englischen Sprachgebrauch von Grundschulkindern in Nordrhein-Westfalen am Ende des vierten Schuljahres. In G. Engel, B. Groot-Wilken, & E. Thürmann (Eds.), Englisch in der Primarstufe – Chancen und Herausforderungen (pp. 158-178). Berlin: Cornelsen.Google Scholar
Keßler, J.-U., & Keatinge, D.
(2008) Profiling oral second language development. In J.-U. Keßler (Ed.), Processability approaches to second language development and second language learning (pp. 167-197). Newcastle upon Tyne: Cambridge Scholars.Google Scholar
Keßler, J.-U., & Liebner, M.
(2011) Diagnosing L2 development: Rapid Profile. In M. Pienemann & J.-U. Keßler (Eds.), Studying Processability Theory. An introductory textbook (pp. 133-147). Amsterdam: John Benjamins. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Keßler, J.-U., & Plesser, A.
(2011) Teaching grammar. StandardWissen Lehramt Englisch. Paderborn: Schöning/UTB.Google Scholar
Kramsch, C.J.
(2002) Language acquisition and language socialization: Ecological perspectives. London: Continuum.Google Scholar
Krashen, S.
(1981) Second language acquisition and second language learning. Oxford: Pergamon.Google Scholar
Kriviec, A.
(2012) Zielsprachliche Entwicklung im bilingualen Sachfachunterricht an einer Hauptschule. Unpublished Masterthesis. Ludwigsburg University of Education.Google Scholar
Lantolf, J.P.
(Ed.) (2000) Sociocultural theory and second language learning. Oxford: OUP.Google Scholar
Lave, J., & Wenger, E.
(1991) Situated learning. Legitimate peripheral participation. Cambridge: CUP. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Lenzing, A.
(2013) The development of the grammatical system in early second language acquisition: The Multiple Constraints Hypothesis. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Long, M.H.
(1981) Input, interaction and second language acquisition. In H. Winitz (Ed.), Native and foreign language acquisition (pp. 259-278). New York, NY: Annals of the New York Academy of Science.Google Scholar
(1985) A role for instruction in second language acquisition: Task-based language teaching. In M. Pienemann & K. Hyltenstam (Eds.), Modelling and assessing second language acquisition (pp. 77-99). Clevedon: Multilingual Matters.Google Scholar
(1996) The role of linguistic environment in second language acquisition. In W. Ritchie & T. Bhatia (Eds.), Handbook of research on second language acquisition (pp. 413-468). New York, NY: Academic Press.Google Scholar
Markee, N.
(2008) Toward a learning behavior tracking methodology for CA-for-SLA. Applied Linguistics, 29(3), 404-427. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Markee, N., & Kasper, G.
2004Classroom talks: An introduction. The Modern Language Journal, 88(4), 491-500. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Mayer, M.
(1969) Frog, where are you? New York: Puffin Books.Google Scholar
Markee, N.
(2000) Conversation analysis. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.Google Scholar
Mondada, L., & Pekarek Doehler, S.
(2004) Second language acquisition as situated practice. Task accomplishment in the French second language classroom. The Modern Language Journal, 88(4), 501-518. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Mori, J. & Hasegawa A.
(2009) Doing being a foreign language learner in a classroom: Embodiment of cognitive states as social events. IRAL, 47(1), 65-94. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Pienemann, M.
(1984) Psychological constraints on the teachability of languages. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 6(2), 186-214. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
(1989) Is language teachable? Psycholinguistic experiments and hypotheses. Applied Linguistics, 10(1), 52-79. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
(1992) Assessing second language acquisition through Rapid Profile. Ms. Sydney.
(1998) Language processing and second language development: Processability Theory. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
(Ed.) (2005) Cross-linguistic aspects of Processability Theory. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
(2011a) Learner variation. In M. Pienemann & J.-U. Keßler (Eds.), Studying Processability Theory. An introductory textbook (pp. 12-23). Amsterdam: John Benjamins. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
(2011b) The psycholinguistic basis of PT. In M. Pienemann & J.-U. Keßler (Eds.), Studying Processability Theory. An introductory textbook (pp. 27-49). Amsterdam: John Benjamins. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Pienemann, M., Keßler, J.-U., & Liebner, M.
(2006) Englischerwerb in der Grundschule: Untersuchungsergebnisse im Überblick. In M. Pienemann, J.-U. Keßler & E. Roos (Eds.), Englischerwerb in der Grundschule (pp. 67-88). Paderborn: Schöningh/UTB.Google Scholar
Pienemann, M. & Keßler, J.-U.
(Eds.) (2011) Studying Processability Theory. An Introductory textbook. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
(2012) Processability Theory. In S. Gass & A. Mackey (Eds.), Handbook of second language acquisition (pp. 228-247). New York, NY: Routledge.Google Scholar
Richards, K.
(2006) 'Being the teacher': Identity and classroom conversation. Applied Linguistics, 27(1), 51-77. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Roos, E.
(2006) Unterrichtskonzeption und Spracherwerb. In M. Pienemann, J.-U. Keßler, & E. Roos (Eds.), Englischerwerb in der Grundschule (pp. 217-235). Paderborn: Schöningh/UTB.Google Scholar
Roos, J.
(2007) Spracherwerb und Sprachproduktion: Lernziele und Lernergebnisse im Englischunterricht der Grundschule. Tübingen: Narr.Google Scholar
Savignon, S.J.
(1990) In second language acquisition/foreign language learning, nothing is more practical than a good theory. In B. VanPatten & J.F. Lee (Eds.), Second language acquisition – Foreign language learning (pp. 185-197). Clevedon: Multilingual Matters.Google Scholar
Schegloff, E.
(2007) Sequence organization in interaction. A primer in conversation analysis I. Cambridge: CUP. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Schwab, G.
(2009) Gesprächsanalyse und Fremdsprachenunterricht. Landau: Verlag Empirische Pädagogik.Google Scholar
(2011) From dialogue to multilogue: A different view on participation in the English foreign language classroom. Classroom Discourse, 2(1), 3-19. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
(2013) Bili für alle? Ergebnisse und Perspektiven aus einem Forschungsprojekt zur Einführung bilingualer Module in einer Hauptschule. In S. Breidbach & B. Viebrock (Eds.), Content and Language Integrated Learning (CLIL) in Europe. Research Perspectives on Policy and Practice (pp. 297-314). Frankfurt: Peter Lang.Google Scholar
(2015) Looking into a unique CLIL classroom in Germany. In P. Seedhouse & C. Jenks (Eds.), International Perspectives on ELT Classroom Interaction (pp. 11-27). Houndmills: Palgrave MacMillan.Google Scholar
Schwab, G., Keßler, J.-U., & Hollm, J.
(2014) CLIL goes Hauptschule - Chancen und Herausforderungen bilingualen Unterrichts an einer Hauptschule. Zentrale Ergebnisse einer Longitudinalstudie. ZFF, 25(1), 3-37.Google Scholar
Seedhouse, P.
(2004) The interactional architecture of the language classroom: A conversation analysis perspective. Oxford: Blackwell.Google Scholar
Seedhouse, P., Walsh, S. & Jenks; C.
(Eds.) (2010) Conceptualising 'learning' in applied linguistics. Houndmills: Palgrave Macmillian. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Sinclair, J.M., & Coulthard, R.M.
(1975) Towards an analysis of discourse. The English used by teachers and pupils. Oxford: OUP.Google Scholar
Sharwood Smith, M.
(1994) Second language learning: Theoretical foundations. London: Longman.Google Scholar
Ur, P.
(1996) A course in language teaching. Cambridge: CUP.Google Scholar
van Lier, L.
(2000) From input to affordance: Social-interactive learning from an ecological perspective. In J.P. Lantolf (Ed.), Sociocultural theory and language learning (pp. 245-259). Oxford: OUP.Google Scholar
Vygotsky, L.S.
(1978) Mind in society: The development of higher psychological processes. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
Zuengler, J., & Miller, E.R. (2006) Cognitive and sociocultural perspectives: Two parallel SLA worlds? TESOL Quarterly, 35-58. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Zydatiß, W.
(2007) Deutsch-Englische Züge in Berlin (DEZIBEL). Eine Evaluation des bilingualen Sachfachunterrichts an Gymnasien. Frankfurt: Peter Lang.Google Scholar