|
References Allen, L. Q. (2000). Form-meaning connections and the French causative. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 22, 69-84. Benati, A. (2001). A comparative study of the effect of processing instruction and meaning-based instruction on the acquisition of Italian future tense. Language Teaching Research, 5, 95-127. Benati, A. (2004). The effects of structured input activities and explicit information on the acquisition of the Italian future tense. In B. VanPatten (Ed.). Processing instruction: Theory, research, and commentary (pp. 207-218). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum. Benati, A. (2005). The effects of processing instruction, traditional instruction and meaning-based output instruction on the acquisition of English past simple tense. Language Teaching Research, 9, 67-96. Brown, H. D. (2001). Teaching by principles: An interactive approach to language pedagogy. Second Edition. White Plains, NY: Pearson Education. Cadierno, T. (1995). Formal instruction from a processing perspective: An investigation into the Spanish tense. Modern Language Journal, 79, 179-193. Cheng, A. (1995). Grammar instruction and input processing: The acquisition of Spanish ser and estar. Unpublished doctoral thesis, University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign. Cheng, A. C. (2004). Processing instruction and Spanish ser and estar: Forms with semantic-aspectual values. In VanPatten, B. (ed.), Processing Instruction: Theory, Research, and Commentary (pp. 119-141). Albex Publishing Cooperation. Norwood, New Jersey. Collentine, J. (1998). Processing instruction and the subjunctive. Hispania, 81, 576-587. Combs, C. (2008). Topic familiarity and input enhancement: An empirical investigation. TESOL & Applied Linguistics, 8, 22-43. Dekeyser, R. (1998). Beyond focus on form: Cognitive perspectives on learning and practicing second language grammar. In C. Doughty & J. Williams (Ed.), Focus on form in classroom language acquisition (pp. 42-63). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Dekeyser, R. M., & Sokalski, K. J. (1996). The differential role of comprehension and productive practice. Language Learning, 46, 613-642. Dekeyser, R. M. & Sokalski, K. J. (2001). The differential role of comprehension and production practice. Language Learning, 51, 81-112. Dekeyser, R. M., Salaberry, R., Robinson, P., & Harrionton, M. (2002). What gets processed in processing instruction: A response to Bill VanPatten’s “Update”. Language Learning, 52, 805-823. Doughty, C. & Varela, E. (1998). Communicative focus on form. In C. Doughty & J. Williams (Eds.), Focus on form in classroom language acquisition (pp. 114-138). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Doughty, C. & Williams, J. (1998). Issues and terminology. In C. Doughty & J. Williams (Eds.), Focus on form in classroom second language acquisition (pp. 1-11). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Doughty, C. (1991). Second language instruction does make a difference: Evidence from an empirical study of ESL relativization. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 13, 431-469. Ellis, R. (1990). Formal instruction and language learning. Instructed second language acquisition. Cambridge: Basil Blackwell. Ellis, R. (1994). The study of second language acquisition. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Ellis, R. (2002). The place of grammar instruction in the second/foreign curriculum. In E. Hinkel & S. Fotos (Eds.), New perspectives on grammar teaching in second language classrooms (pp. 17-34). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates. Ellis, R. (2006). Current issues in the teaching of grammar: An SLA perspective. TESOL Quarterly, 40, 83-107. Ellis, R. (2008). The study of Second Language Acquisition. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Erlam, R. (2003). Evaluating the relative effectiveness of structured-input and output-based instruction in foreign language learning. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 25, 559-582. Farley, A. P. (2001). Processing instruction and meaning-based output instruction: A comparative study. Studies in Applied Linguistics, 5, 57-93. Farley, A. P. (2004). The relative effects of processing instruction and meaning-based output instruction. In B. VanPatten (Ed.). Processing instruction: Theory, research, and commentary (pp. 143-168). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum. Farley, A. P. (2005). Structured input: Grammar instruction for the acquisition-oriented classroom. Taipei: McGraw-Hill. Fotos, S. (1993). Consciousness raising and noticing through focus on form: Grammar task performance vs. formal instruction. Applied Linguistics, 14, 385-407. Fotos, S. (2002). Structured-based interactive tasks for the EFL grammar learner. In E. Hinkel & S. Fotos (Ed.), New Perspectives on grammar teaching in second language classrooms (pp. 135-155). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum. Harley, B. (1998). The role of focus on form tasks in promoting child L2 acquisition. In C. Doughty & J. Williams (Eds.), Focus on form in second language classroom acquisition (pp. 139-155). Cambridge, MA: Cambridge University Press. Hsieh, C. M. (2005). A study of junior high school English teacher’s beliefs and practices in grammar instruction. Unpublished Master thesis. Department of English, National Changhua University of Education, ROC. Hsieh, W. J. (2007). Effects of task-based form-focused instruction Taiwanese junior high school students learning the English relative construction. Unpublished Master thesis. Department of English, National Changhua University of Education, ROC. Hsieh, W. J. & Kung, H. A. (2006). Effects of task-based form-focused instruction on junior high school EFL students in Taiwan. Selected papers from May and June 2006 conferences on language teaching, literature, linguistics, translation, and interpretation (pp. 259-79). Changhua: Crane. Isumi, S. & Bigelow, M. (2000). Does output promote noticing and second language acquisition? TESOL Quarterly, 34 (2), 239-261. Isumi, S. (2002). Output, input enhancement and the noticing hypothesis: An experimental study on ESL relativization. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 24, 541-577. Krashen, S. D. (1982). Principles and practice in second language acquisition. New Work: Pergamon. Krashen, S. D. (1985). The input hypothesis. London: Longman. Krashen, S. D. (1992). Teaching issues: Formal grammar instruction. TESOL Quarterly, 26 (2), 409-411. Krashen, S. D. (1993). The effect of formal grammar study: Still Peripheral. TESOL Quarterly, 24, 722-725. Krashen, S. D. (1999). Seeking a role for grammar: A review of some recent studies. Foreign Language Annals, 33, 245-257. Lai, S. J. (2004). High school English teacher’s beliefs on grammar instruction in Taiwan. Unpublished Master thesis. Department of English, National Taiwan Normal University. Larsen-Freeman, D. & Long, M. (1991). An introduction to second language acquisition research. London: Longman. Li, Y. C. (2001). Effects of the ‘Focus on form’ approach on EFL learning in an immersion program in Taiwan. Unpublished Master thesis. National Chinghua University. Lightbown, P. & Pienemann, M. (1993). Comments on Stephen D. Krashen’s “Teaching Issues: Formal Instruction.” TESOL Quarterly, 24, 717-722. Lightbown, P. & Spada, N. (1990). Focus on form and corrective feedback in communicative language teaching: Effects on second language learning. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 12, 429-428. Liu, M. H. (2009). Rethinking grammar instruction: Processing instruction (PI) as a potential alternative approach. Studies in English Language and Literature, 24, 107-130. Long, M. & Robinson, P. (1998). Focus on form: Theory, research, and practice. In C. Doughty & J. Williams (Eds.), Focus on form in classroom language acquisition (pp. 15-41). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Long, M. (1990). Maturational constraints on language development. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 12, 251-286. Long, M. (1991). Focus on form: A design feature in language teaching methodology. In K. de Bot, R. Ginsberg, & C. Kramsch (Eds.), Foreign language research in cross-cultural perspective (pp. 39-52). Amsterdam: John Benjamins. Long, M. H. (1983). Does second language instruction make a difference? A review of research. TESOL Quarterly, 17, 359-381. Morgan-Short, K. & Bowden, H. (2006). Processing instruction and meaningful output-based instruction: Effects on second language development. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 28, 31-65. Norris, J. & Ortega, L. (2000). Effectiveness of L2 instruction: A research synthesis and quantitative meta-analysis. Language Learning, 50, 417-528. Overstreet, M. H. (2002). The effect of textual enhancement on second language reading comprehension and form recognition. Unpublished thesis, Urbana, University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign. Qin, J. (2008). The effects of processing instruction and dictogloss tasks on acquisition of the English passive voice. Language Learning Research, 12, 61-82. Richards, J. C. & Rodgers, T. S. (2001). Approaches and methods in language teaching. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Rutherford, W., & Shardwood Smith, M. (1985). Consciousness-raising and universal grammar. Applied Linguistucs, 6, 274-282. Salaberry, M. R. (1997). The role of input and output practice in second language acquisition. Canadian Modern Language Review, 53, 422-451. Shook, J. D. (1994). FL/L2 reading, grammatical information, and the input to intake phenomenon. Applied Language Learning, 5, 57-93. Spada, N. & Lightbown, P. M. (2008). Form-focused instruction: isolated or integrated? TESOL Quarterly, 42, 181-207. Spada, N. (1997). Form-focused instruction and second language acquisition: A review of classroom and laboratory research. Language teaching, 29, 1-15. 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. Swain, M. (1985). Communicative competence: Some roles of comprehensible input and comprehensible output in its development. In S. Gass & C. Madden (Eds.), Input and second language acquisition (pp. 235-253). Rowley, MA: Newbury House. Swain, M. (1998). Focus on form through conscious reflection. In C. Doughty & J. Williams (Eds.), Focus on form in classroom language acquisition (pp. 64-81). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Takimoto, M. (2008). The effects of deductive and inductive instruction on the development of language learners’ pragmatic competence. The Modern Language Journal, 369-385. Trahey, M. & White, L. (1993). Positive evidence and preemption in the second language classroom. Studies in second language acquisition, 16, 183-203. VanPatten, B. & Wong, W. (2004). Processing instruction and the French causative: another replication. In B. VanPatten (Ed.). Processing instruction: Theory, research, and commentary (pp. 97-118). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum. VanPatten, B. & Oikkenon, S. (1996). Explanation versus structured input in processing instruction. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 18, 495-510. VanPatten, B. & Sanz, C. (1995). From input to output: Processing instruction and communicative tasks. In F. Ecjman, D. Highland, P. Lee, J. Mileham, & R. Weber (Eds.), Second language theory and pedagogy (pp. 169-186). Philadephia: Lawerance Earlbaum. VanPatten, B. (1993). Grammar teaching for the acquisition-rich classroom. Foreign Langugae Annals, 26, 435-450. VanPatten, B. (1996). Input processing and grammar instruction in second language acquisition. Norwood, NJ: Ablex. VanPatten, B. (2002). Processing instruction: An update. Language Learning, 52, 755-803. VanPatten, B. (2002). Processing the content of input processing and processing instruction research: A response to Dekeyser, Salaberry, Robinson and Harrington. Language Learning, 52, 825-831. VanPatten, B. (2003). From input to output: A teacher’s guide to second language acquisition. New York: McGraw-Hill. VanPatten, B. (2004). Input processing in second language acquisition. Processing Instruction: Theory, Research, and Commentary. Albex Publishing Cooperation. Norwood, New Jersey. VanPatten, B. & Cadierno, T. (1993). Explicit instruction and input processing. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 15, 225-241. VanPatten, B. & Fernandez, C. (2004). The long-term effects of processing instruction. In VanPatten, B. (ed.), Processing Instruction: Theory, Research, and Commentary (pp. 273-289). Albex Publishing Cooperation. Norwood, New Jersey. VanPatten, Bill. (2004). Input processing in second language acquisition. In VanPatten, B. (ed.), Processing Instruction: Theory, Research, and Commentary (pp. 5-31). Albex Publishing Cooperation. Norwood, New Jersey. White, J. (1998). Getting learners’ attention: A typographical input enhancement study. In C. Doughty & J. Williams (Eds.), Focus on form in second language classroom acquisition (pp. 85-133). Cambridge, MA: Cambridge University Press. White, L. (1989). Universal grammar and second language acquisition. Amsterdam: Benjamins. White, L. (1991). Adverb placement in second language acquisition: Some positive and negative evidence in the classroom. Second Language Research, 12, 133-161. White, L., Spada, N., Lighbown, P., & Ranta, L. (1991). Input enhancement and L2 question formation. Applied Linguistics, 12, 416-432. Williams, J., & Evans, J. (1998). What kind of focus and on which forms? In C. Doughty & J. Williams (Eds.), Focus on form in second language classroom acquisition (pp. 139-155). Cambridge, MA: Cambridge University Press. Wong, W. (2004). Processing instruction in French: The roles of explicit information and structured input. In VanPatten, B. (ed.), Processing Instruction: Theory, Research, and Commentary (pp. 187-205). Albex Publishing Cooperation. Norwood, New Jersey. Wong, W. (2005). Input enhancement: From theory and research to the classroom. Taipei: McGraw Hill. Wu, C. M. (2003). A study of the comparative effect of input-based grammar instruction and output-based instruction on the acquisition of the English Subjunctive mood. Unpublished master thesis. National Taiwan Normal University. Xu, J. A. (2001) Using processing instruction to teach wh-questions in secondary EFL classes in Taiwan. Unpublished master thesis. National Chinghua University, ROC.
|