Balancing linguistic and extra-linguistic gains in CLIL: a case for content-based structured input

References

• Benati, A. G., and J. F. Lee. 2008. Grammar Acquisition and Processing Instruction. Bristol: Multilingual Matters.
   Google Scholar
• Benati, A. G., and J. F. Lee. 2010. Processing Instruction and Discourse. London: Continuum International.
   Google Scholar
• Braidi, S. M. 1999. The Acquisition of Second-Language Syntax. London: Arnold.
   Google Scholar
• Cammarata, L., and D. J. Tedick. 2012. “Balancing Content and Language in Instruction: The Experience of Immersion Teachers.” The Modern Language Journal 96 (ii): 251–269. doi:10.1111/j.1540-4781.2012.01330.x0026-7902/12/251-269 doi: 10.1111/j.1540-4781.2012.01330.x
   Google Scholar
• Coyle, D., P. Hood, and D. Marsh. 2010. CLIL. Content and Language Integrated Learning. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Dalton-Puffer, C. 2007. Discourse in Content and Language Integrated Learning (CLIL) Classrooms. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
   Google Scholar
• DeKeyser, R. M. 2009. “Cognitive-psychological Processes in Second Language Learning.” In The Handbook of Language Teaching, edited by M. H. Long, and C. J. Doughty, 119–138. Malden, MA: Wiley-Blackwell.
   Google Scholar
• DeKeyser, R., R. Salaberry, P. Robinson, and M. Harrington. 2002. “What Gets Processed in Processing Instruction? A Commentary on Bill VanPatten’s Processing Instruction: An Update.” Language Learning 52 (4): 805–823. doi: 10.1111/1467-9922.00204
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Dörnyei, Z. 2007. Research Methods in Applied Linguistics. Quantitative, Qualitative and Mixed Methodologies. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Dyson, B. 2010. “Review of Lee, J. F. & A. G. Benati (2007) Second Language Processing and Delivering Processing Instruction in Classrooms and Virtual Contexts: Research and Practice.” Australian Review of Applied Linguistics 33 (1): 10.1–10.5. doi:10.2104/aral 1010 doi: 10.2104/aral1010
   Google Scholar
• Ellis, R. 2009a. “Implicit and Explicit Learning, Knowledge and Instruction.” In Implicit and Explicit Knowledge in Second Language Learning, Testing and Teaching, edited by R. Ellis, S. Loewen, C. Elder, R. Erlam, J. Philp, and H. Reinders, 3–25. Bristol: Multilingual Matters.
   Google Scholar
• Ellis, R. 2009b. “Measuring Implicit and Explicit Knowledge of a Second Language.” In Implicit and Explicit Knowledge in Second Language Learning, Testing and Teaching, edited by R. Ellis, S. Loewen, C. Elder, R. Erlam, J. Philp, and H. Reinders, 31–64. Bristol: Multilingual Matters.
   Google Scholar
• Gozdawa-Gołębiowski, R. 2003. Interlanguage Formation: A Study of the Triggering Mechanisms. Warszawa: Instytut Anglistyki Uniwersytetu Warszawskiego.
   Google Scholar
• Harley, B. 1998. “The Role of Focus-on-Form Tasks in Promoting Child L2 Acquisition.” In Focus on Form in Second Language Acquisition, edited by C. Doughty, and J. Williams, 156–174. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Izumi, S. 2003. “Processing Difficulty in Comprehension and Production of Relative Clauses by Learners of English as a Second Language.” Language Learning 53 (2): 285–323. doi: 10.1111/1467-9922.00218
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Jiménez Catalán, R. M., and Y. Ruiz de Zarobe. 2009. “The Receptive Vocabulary of EFL Learners in two Instructional Contexts: CLIL Versus non-CLIL Instruction.” In Content and Language Integrated Learning: Evidence From Research in Europe, edited by Y. Ruiz de Zarobe, and R. M. Jiménez Catalán, 81–92. Bristol, UK: Multilingual Matters.
   Google Scholar
• Krashen, S. D. 1981. Second Language Acquisition and Second Language Learning. Oxford: Pergamon Press.
   Google Scholar
• Larsen-Freeman, D. 2003. Teaching Language. From Grammar to Grammaring. Boston: Thomson/Heinle.
   Google Scholar
• Lee, J. F., and A. G. Benati. 2009. Research and Perspectives on Processing Instruction. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.
   Google Scholar
• Leeman, J., I. Arteagoitia, B. Fridman, and C. Doughty. 1995. “Integrating Attention to Form with Meaning: Focus on Form in Content-Based Spanish Instruction.” In Attention and Awareness in Foreign Language Learning. Technical Report #9, edited by R. Schmidt, 217–258. Honolulu, Ha: Second Language Teaching and Curriculum Center University of Hawaii.
   Google Scholar
• Lyster, R. 2007. Learning and Teaching Languages Through Content. A Counterbalanced Approach. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
   Google Scholar
• Mehisto, P., D. Marsh, and M. J. Frigols. 2008. Uncovering CLIL. Content and Language Integrated Learning in Bilingual Education. Oxford: Macmillan.
   Google Scholar
• Morgan, C. 1999. “Teaching History in a Foreign Language: What Language?” In Learning Through a Foreign Language: Models, Methods and Outcomes, edited by J. Masih, 30–45. London: CILT.
   Google Scholar
• Quirk, R., S. Greenbaum, G. Leech, and J. Svartvik. 1985. A Comprehensive Grammar of the English Language. New York: Longman.
   Google Scholar
• Skehan, P. 1998. A Cognitive Approach to Language Learning. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Snow, M. A. 1991. “Teaching Language Through Content.” In Teaching English as a Second or Foreign Language. 2nd ed., edited by M. Celce-Murcia, 315–328. Boston: Heinle and Heinle Publishers.
   Google Scholar
• Śpiewak, G., and L. Gołębiowska. 2001. “Polish Learners.” In Learner English. A Teacher’s Guide to Interference and Other Problems, edited by M. Swan, and B. Smith, 162–178. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Swain, M. 1985. “Communicative Competence: Some Roles of Comprehensible Input and Comprehensible Output in its Development.” In Input in Second Language Acquisition, edited by S. Gass, and C. Madden, 235–253. Rowley, MA: Newbury House.
   Google Scholar
• Swain, M. 1998. “Focus on Form Through Conscious Reflection.” In Focus on Form in Second Language Acquisition, edited by C. Doughty, and J. Williams, 64–81. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Tedick, D. J., and L. Cammarata. 2012. “Content and Language Integration in K-12 Contexts: Student Outcomes, Teacher Practices, and Stakeholder Perspectives.” Foreign Language Annals 45 (S1): S28–S53. doi:10.111/j.1944-9720.2012.01178.x doi: 10.1111/j.1944-9720.2012.01178.x
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• VanPatten, B. 1996. Input Processing and Grammar Instruction in Second Language Acquisition. Norwood, NJ: Ablex.
   Google Scholar
• VanPatten, B. 2015a. “Foundations of Processing Instruction.” International Reviewof Applied Linguistics 53 (2): 91–109. doi:10.1515/iral-2015-0005.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• VanPatten, B. 2015b. “Input Processing in Adult SLA.” In Theories in Second Language Acquisition, edited by B. VanPatten, and J. Williams, 2nd ed., 113–135. New York: Routledge.
   Google Scholar
• Walenta, M. 2016a. “Interlanguage Stretching. Processing Form Through Meaningful Input.” In Young Scholars on Theoretical and Applied Linguistics: Research Projects, edited by M. Wysocka, D. Gałajda, P. Zakrajewski, and A. Kijak, 172–189. Sosnowiec: Oficyna Wydawnicza Humanitas.
   Google Scholar
• Walenta, M. 2016b. “Reconciling SLA Theories with Classroom Practice. Designing a Principled Eclectic Bridge.” In Classroom-oriented Research. Reconciling Theory and Practice, edited by M. Pawlak, 243–259. Springer International. doi:10.1007/978-3-319-30373-4_16.
   Google Scholar
• Wright, C. 2008. “The Role of Working Memory in the Development of L2 Grammatical Proficiency.” In Issues in Second Language Proficiency, edited by A. G. Benati, 45–60. London: Continuum International.
   Google Scholar
• Yu, X. 2013. “From Memorized Chunks to Rule Formation: A Study of Adult Chinese.” International Journal of Applied Linguistics & English Literature 2 (1): 98–111. doi: 10.7575/ijalel.v.2n.1p.98
   Google Scholar