Language-related episodes and learner proficiency during collaborative dialogue in CLIL

References

• Adams, R., & Ross-Feldman, L. (2008). Does writing influence learner attention to form? In D. Belcher & A. Hirvela (Eds.), The oral/literate connection: Perspectives on L2 speaking/writing connections (pp. 243–267). Ann Arbor, MI: University of Michigan Press.
   Google Scholar
• Admiraal, W., Westhoff, G., & de Bot, K. (2006). Evaluation of bilingual secondary education in the Netherlands: Students’ language proficiency in English. Educational Research and Evaluation, 12(1), 75–93. doi: 10.1080/13803610500392160
   Google Scholar
• Bao, T., Zhou, B., & Gu, W. (2013). The effect of language proficiency on focus on form in doing dictogloss task. Chinese Journal of Applied Linguistics, 36(4), 479–494.
   Google Scholar
• Basterrechea, M., & García Mayo, M. P. (2013). Language-related episodes (LREs) during collaborative tasks: A comparison of CLIL and EFL learners. In K. McDonough, & A. Mackey (Eds.). Second language interaction in diverse educational contexts (pp. 25–43). Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
   Google Scholar
• Basterrechea, M., García Mayo, M. P., & Leeser, M. J. (2014). Pushed output and noticing in a dictogloss: Task implementation in the CLIL classroom. Porta Linguarum, 22, 7–22.
   Google Scholar
• Benson, C., Pavitt, J., & Jenkins, M. (2005). The use of dictogloss to encourage discussion of language use. Edinburgh Working Papers, 14, 1–17.
   Google Scholar
• Bongartz, C. (2003). Grammar growth and L1 transfer: On accuracy development in immersion programs. In J. Rymarczyk & H. Haudeck (Eds.), In search of the active learner (pp. 99–115). Frankfurt am Main: Peter Lang.
   Google Scholar
• Collentine, J., & Freed, B. (2004). Learning context and its effects on second language acquisition: Introduction. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 26(2), 153–171.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Council of Europe. (2001). Common European framework of reference for languages: Learning, teaching, assessment. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Coyle, D. (2007). Content and language integrated learning: Toward a connected research agenda for CLIL pedagogies The International Journal of Bilingual Education and Bilingualism, 10, 543–562.
   Google Scholar
• Coyle, D. (2013). Listening to learners: An investigation into ‘successful learning’ across CLIL contexts. International Journal of Bilingual Education and Bilingualism, 16, 244–266.
   Google Scholar
• Dalton-Puffer, C. (2007). Discourse in content-and-language-integrated learning (CLIL) classrooms. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
   Google Scholar
• Dalton-Puffer, C. (2011). Content-and-language integrated learning: From practice to principles? Annual Review of Applied Linguistics, 31, 182–204. doi: 10.1017/S0267190511000092
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Dalton-Puffer, C., Llinares, A., Lorenzo, F., & Nikula, T. (2014). ‘You can stand under my umbrella’. Immersion, CLIL and bilingual education. A response to Cenoz, Genesee & Gorter (2013). Applied Linguistics, 35(2), 213–218. doi: 10.1093/applin/amu010
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• De Graaff, R., Koopman, G. J., Anikina, Y., & Westhoff, G. (2007). An observation tool for effective L2 pedagogy in content and language integrated learning (CLIL). International Journal of Bilingual Education and Bilingualism, 10(5), 603–624. doi: 10.2167/beb462.0
   Google Scholar
• Dulay, H. C., & Burt, M. K. (1974). Natural sequences in child second language acquisition. Language Learning, 24(1), 37–53. doi: 10.1111/j.1467-1770.1974.tb00234.x
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Ellis, R. (1994). The study of second language acquisition. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Eurydice European Network. (2006). Content and language integrated learning (CLIL) at school in Europe. Retrieved from http://eacea.ec.europa.eu/ressources/eurydice/pdf/0_integral/071EN.pdf
   Google Scholar
• Fortune, A. (2005). Learners’ use of metalanguage in collaborative form-focused L2 output tasks. Language Awareness, 14(1), 21–38. doi: 10.1080/09658410508668818
   Google Scholar
• García Mayo, M. P. (2002a). The effectiveness of two form-focused tasks in advanced EFL pedagogy. International Journal of Applied Linguistics, 12, 156–175.
   Google Scholar
• García Mayo, M. P. (2002b). Interaction in advanced EFL pedagogy: A comparison of form-focused activities. International Journal of Educational Research, 37, 323–341.
   Google Scholar
• García Mayo, M. P., & Basterrechea, M. (2017). CLIL and SLA: Insights from an interactionist perspective. In A. Llinares & T. Morton (Eds.), Applied Linguistics Perspectives on CLIL (pp. 33–50). Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
   Google Scholar
• Gass, S., & Mackey, A. (2007). Input, interaction and output in second language acquisition. In B. VanPatten & J. Williams (Eds.), Theories in second language acquisition. An introduction (pp. 175–199). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
   Google Scholar
• Goldshneider, J., & DeKeyser, R. (2005). Explaining the ‘natural order of L2 morpheme acquisition’ in English: A meta-analysis of multiple determinants. Language Learning, 55(Suppl. 1), 27–77. doi: 10.1111/j.0023-8333.2005.00295.x
   Google Scholar
• Haznedar, B. (2001). The acquisition of the IP system in child L2 English. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 23(1), 1–39. doi: 10.1017/S0272263101001012
   Google Scholar
• Kim, Y., & McDonough, K. (2008). The effect of interlocutor proficiency on the collaborative dialogue between Korean as a second language learners. Language Teaching Research, 12(2), 211–234. doi: 10.1177/1362168807086288
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Kowal, M., & Swain, M. (1994). Using collaborative language production tasks to promote students’ language awareness. Language Awareness, 3(2), 73–93. doi: 10.1080/09658416.1994.9959845
   Google Scholar
• LaPierre, D. (1994). Language output in a cooperative learning setting: Determining its effects on second language learning (Unpublished master’s thesis). University of Toronto.
   Google Scholar
• Lardiere, D. (1998). Case and tense in the ‘fossilized’ steady state. Second Language Research, 14(1), 1–16. doi: 10.1191/026765898674105303
   Google Scholar
• Lardiere, D. (2000). Mapping features to forms in second language acquisition. In J. Archibald (Ed.), Second language acquisition and linguistic theory (pp. 102–129). Cambridge, MA: Blackwell.
   Google Scholar
• Lasagabaster, D., & Doiz, A. (2016). CLIL students’ perceptions of their language learning process: delving into self-perceived improvement and instructional preferences. Language Awareness, 25, 101–126.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Leeser, M. J. (2004). Learner proficiency and focus on form during collaborative dialogue. Language Teaching Research, 8(1), 55–81. doi: 10.1191/1362168804lr134oa
   Google Scholar
• Llinares, A. (2015). Integration in CLIL: A proposal to inform research and successful pedagogy. Language, Culture and Curriculum, 28(1), 58–73. doi: 10.1080/07908318.2014.1000925
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Llinares, A., Morton, T., & Whittaker, R. (2012). The roles of language in CLIL. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Llinares, A., & Whittaker, R. (2010). Writing and speaking in the history class: A comparative analysis of CLIL and first language contexts. In C. Dalton-Puffer, T. Nikula, T. & U. Smit (Eds.), Language use and language learning in CLIL classrooms (pp. 125–144). Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
   Google Scholar
• Lyle, C. (2015). The complex nature of Language-related Episodes. In D. Koike & C. S. Blyth (Eds.), Dialogue in multilingual and multimodal communities (pp. 25–48). Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
   Google Scholar
• Mackey, A. (Ed.). (2007). Conversational interaction in second language acquisition. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Malmqvist, A. (2005). How does group discussion in reconstruction tasks affect written language output? Language Awareness, 14(2–3), 128–141. doi: 10.1080/09658410508668829
   Google Scholar
• Mehisto, P., Frigols, M., & Marsh, D. (2008). Uncovering CLIL: Content and language integrated learning in bilingual and multilingual education. Oxford: MacMillan.
   Google Scholar
• Morton, T., & Llinares, A. (2017). Content and language integrated learning (CLIL): Type of programme or pedagogical model? In A. Llinares &T. Morton (Eds.), Applied linguistics perspectives on CLIL (pp. 1–16). Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
   Google Scholar
• Spada, N., & Tomita, Y. (2010). Interactions between type of instruction and type of language feature: A meta-analysis. Language Learning, 60, 1–46.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Storch, N. (2002). Patterns of interaction in ESL pairwork. Language Learning, 52(1), 119–158. doi: 10.1111/1467-9922.00179
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Storch, N., & Aldosari, A. (2013). Pairing learners in pair work activity. Language Teaching Research, 17(1), 31–48. doi: 10.1177/1362168812457530
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Swain, M. (1995). Three functions of output in second language learning. In G. Gook & B. Seidlhofer (Eds.), Principle and practice in applied linguistics (pp. 125–144). Oxford: Oxford University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Swain, M. (1998). Focus on form through conscious reflection. In C. Doughty & J. Williams (Eds.), Focus on form in classroom second language acquisition (pp. 64–81). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Swain, M., & Lapkin, S. (1998). Interaction and second language learning: Two adolescent French ­immersion students working together. The Modern Language Journal, 82(3), 320–337. doi: 10.1111/j.1540-4781.1998.tb01209.x
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Syndicate, UCLE. (2001). Quick Placement Test. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
   Google Scholar
• VanPatten, B. (1996). Input processing and grammar instruction. New York: Ablex.
   Google Scholar
• VanPatten, B. (2007). Input processing in adult second language acquisition. In B. VanPatten & J. Williams (Eds.), Theories in second language acquisition. An introduction (pp. 115–135). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
   Google Scholar
• Wajnryb, R. (1990). Grammar dictation. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Watanabe, Y., & Swain, M. (2007). Effects of proficiency differences and patterns of pair interaction on second language learning: Collaborative dialogue between adult ESL learners. Language Teaching Research, 11(2), 121–142. doi: 10.1177/136216880607074599
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• White, L. (2003). Fossilization in steady state L2 grammars: Persistent problems with inflectional morphology. Bilingualism: Language and Cognition, 6(2), 129–141. doi: 10.1017/S1366728903001081
   Google Scholar
• Williams, J. (1999). Learner-generated attention to form. Language Learning, 51, 303–346. doi: 10.1111/j.1467-1770.2001.tb00020.x
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Williams, J. (2001). The effectiveness of spontaneous attention to form. System, 29(3), 325–340. doi: 10.1016/S0346-251X(01)00022-7
   Google Scholar