Article published in:
Developing, Modelling and Assessing Second Languages
Edited by Jörg-U. Keßler, Anke Lenzing and Mathias Liebner
[Processability Approaches to Language Acquisition Research & Teaching 5] 2016
► pp. 193206
References

References

Cook, V.
(1996) Second language learning and second language teaching. London: Arnold.Google Scholar
DiBiase, B.
(2008) Focus-on-form and development in L2 learning. In J.-U. Keßler (Ed.), Processability approaches to second language development and second language learning. Newcastle upon Tyne: Cambridge Scholars.Google Scholar
Duncan, L.
(1978) Killing Mr. Griffin. Easy reader. Britt Keson (Ed.) (2005) Egmont: Aschehough & Alinea.Google Scholar
Eckerth, J.
(2008) Task-based language learning and teaching – old wine in new bottles? In Eckerth & Siepmann (Eds.), pp. Research on task-based language learning and teaching. Theoretical, methodological and pedagogical perspectives, 13-46.Google Scholar
Eckerth, J., & Siepmann, S.
(Eds.) (2008) Research on task-based language learning and teaching. Theoretical, methodological and pedagogical perspectives. Frankfurt: Peter Lang.Google Scholar
Ellis, R.
(2003) Task-based language learning and teaching. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Gil, G.
(2002) Two complementary modes of foreign language classroom interaction. EFL Journal, 56(3), 273-279.Google Scholar
Grießhaber, W.
(2005) Sprachstandsdiagnose im Zweitspracherwerb: Funktional-pragmatische Fundierung der Profilanalyse. Accessed on 6 March 2009 from: http://​spzwww​.uni​-muenster​.de​/~griesha​/pub​/tprofilanalyse​-azm​-05​.pdf
Keßler, J.-U.
(2005) Fachdidaktik meets Psycholinguistik – Heterogenität im Englischunterricht erkennen, verstehen und als Chance nutzen, In K. Bräu & U. Schwerdt (Eds.), Heterogenität als Chance. Vom Umgang mit Gleichheit und Differenz in der Schule (pp. 263-284). Münster: LIT; S.Google Scholar
(2006) Englischerwerb im Anfangsunterricht diagnostizieren. Linguistische Profilanalysen am Übergang von der Primarstufe in die Sekundarstufe I. Tübingen: Narr.Google Scholar
(2008) Communicative tasks and second language profiling: Linguistic and pedagogical implications. In Eckerth & Siepmann (Eds.), pp. Research on task-based language learning and teaching. Theoretical, methodological and pedagogical perspectives, 291-310.Google Scholar
(2009) Englischdidaktik in ‚Erklärungsnot’: Implizites und explizites Wissen und die Rolle der Bewusstmachung im schulischen Englischerwerb. In R. Vogt (Eds.), Erklären: Gesprächsanalytische und fachdidaktische Perspektiven (pp. 93-107). Tübingen: Stauffenberg.Google Scholar
Keßler, J.-U., & Keatinge, D.
(2008) Profiling oral second language development. In J.-U. Keßler (Eds.), Processability approaches to second language development and second language learning (pp. 167-197). Newcastle upon Tyne: Cambridge Scholars.Google Scholar
Keßler, J.-U., & Kohli, V.J.
(2006) Erhebung von Sprachprofilen im frühen Englischerwerb: Kommunikative Tasks in Forschung und Fremdsprachenunterricht. In M. Pienemann, J.-U. Keßler, & E. Roos (Eds.), Englischerwerb in der Grundschule. Ein Studien- und Arbeitsbuch (pp. 89-96). Paderborn: Schöningh/UTB.Google Scholar
Keßler, J.-U., & Liebner, M.
(2011) Diagnosing L2 development: Rapid Profile. In M. Pienemann & J.-U. Keßler (Eds.), Studying Processability Theo6ry. An introductory textbook (pp. 133-147). Amsterdam: John Benjamins. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
(2012) Medienbasierte Lernstandsdiagnostik und individuelle Lernerförderung – Neokommunikativer Fremdsprachenunterricht in heterogenen Lerngruppen. In M. Reinfried & L. Volkmann (Eds.), Medien im neokommunikativen Fremdsprachenunterricht. Einsatzformen, Inhalte, Lernerkompetenzen (pp. 303-317). Frankfurt: Peter Lang.Google Scholar
Keßler, J.-U., & Plesser, A.
(2011) Teaching grammar. Paderborn: Schöning/UTB.Google Scholar
Lightbown, P., & Spada, N.
(2006) How languages are learned (3rd rev. ed.). Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Long, M.H.
(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
Müller-Hartmann, A., & Schocker-von-Ditfurth, M.
(2011) Teaching English: Task-supported language learning. Paderborn: Schöningh/UTB.Google Scholar
Pienemann, M.
(1992) Assessing second language acquisition through Rapid Profile. Ms. Sydney.Google Scholar
(1998) Language processing and second language development: Processability Theory. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
(2005) Cross-linguistic aspects of Processability Theory. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
(2006) Spracherwerb in der Schule. Was in den Köpfen der Kinder vorgeht. In M. Pienemann, J.-U. Keßler, & E. Roos (Eds.), Englischerwerb in der Grundschule. Ein Studien- und Arbeitsbuch (pp. 33-63). Paderborn: Schöningh/UTB.Google Scholar
(2011) 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.
(2007) Measuring bilingualism. In P. Auer & L. Wei (Eds.), Handbook of applied linguistics, Vol. 5: Multilingualism and multilingual communication (pp. 247-275). Berlin: Mouton/de Gruyter.Google Scholar
(2012) Processability Theory, In S. Gass & A. Mackey (Eds.), Handbook of second language acquisition (pp. 228-247). New York, NY: Routledge.Google 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. Ein Studien- und Arbeitsbuch (pp. 67-88). Paderborn: Schöningh/UTB.Google Scholar
Seedhouse, P.
(1997) Combining form and meaning. ELT Journal, 5(14), 336-344. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Vollmer, H.J.
(2008) Constructing tasks for content and language integrated learning and assessment. In Eckerth & Siepmann (Eds.), (pp. Research on task-based language learning and teaching. Theoretical, methodological and pedagogical perspectives, 227-290).Google Scholar