Developing content and form: Encouraging evidence from Italian content-based instruction

Modern Language Journal

Volumn 90, Issue 3, 2006, Pages 373-386

  Rodgers, Daryl M ^a  

^a UNIVERSITY OF ILLINOIS AT URBANA CHAMPAIGN   (United States)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

EID: 33748359519     PISSN: 00267902     EISSN: 15404781     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1111/j.1540-4781.2006.00430.x     Document Type: Article

References (17)

1. Doughty, C., & Varela, E. (1998). Communicative focus on form. In C. Doughty & J. Williams (Eds.), Focus on form in classroom second language acquisition (pp. 114-138). New York: Cambridge University Press.
2. Harley, B. (1989). Functional grammar in French immersion: A classroom experiment. Applied Linguistics, 10, 331-359.
3. Kowal, M., & Swain, M. (1997). From semantic to syntactic processing: How can we promote it in the immersion classroom? In R. K. Johnson & M. Swain (Eds.), Immersion education: International perspectives (pp. 284-309). New York: Cambridge University Press.
4. La nuova geografia Loescher: ITALIA (2nd ed.). (1998). Torino, Italy: Loescher Editore.
5. Lapkin, S., Swain, M., & Smith, M. (2002). Reformulation and the learning of French pronominal verbs in a Canadian French immersion context. Modern Language Journal, 86, 485-507.
6. Lightbown, P. (2000). Anniversary article. Classroom SLA research and second language teaching. Applied Linguistics, 21, 431-462.
7. Long, M. H., & Robinson, P. (1998). Focus on form: Theory, research, and practice. In C. Doughty & J. Williams (Eds.), Focus on form in classroom second language acquisition (pp. 15-41). New York: Cambridge University Press.
8. Musumeci, D. (1996). Teacher-learner negotiation in content-based instruction: Communication at cross-purposes? Applied Linguistics, 17, 286-325.
9. Norris, J., & Ortega, L. (2000). Effectiveness of L2 instruction: A research synthesis and quantitative meta-analysis. Language Learning, 50, 417-528.
10. Pica, T. (2002). Subject matter content: How does it assist the interactional linguistic needs of classroom language learners? Modern Language Journal, 86, 1-19.
11. Swain, M. (1985). Communicative competence: Some roles of comprehensible input and comprehensible output in its development. In S. Gass & C. Madden (Eds.), Input in second language acquisition (pp. 235-253). Rowley, MA: Newbury House.
12. Swain, M. (1995). Three functions of output in second language learning. In G. Cook & B. Seidlhofer (Eds.), Principles and practice in applied linguistics: Studies in honour of H. G. Widdowson (pp. 125-144). Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.
13. 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). New York: Cambridge University Press.
14. Swain, M., & Lapkin, S. (1995). Problems in output and the cognitive processes they generate: A step toward second language learning. Applied Linguistics, 16, 371-391.
15. VanPatten, B. (1996). Input processing and grammar instruction in second language acquisition. Norwood, NJ: Ablex.
16. Williams, J. (2001). The effectiveness of spontaneous attention to form. System, 29, 325-340.
17. Zuengler, J., & Brinton, D. M. (1997). Linguistic form, pragmatic function: Relevant research from content-based instruction. In M. A. Snow & D. M. Brinton (Eds.), The content-based classroom: Perspectives on integrating language and content (pp. 263-273). White Plains, NY: Longman.