The Guidance Regarding Eff ective Practice in Second Language Classroom
Abstract
Keywords
Full Text:
PDFReferences
[1] Birdsong, D. (1999). Second language acquisition and the critical period hypothesis. London:Routledge Press.
[2] Dornyei, Z. (1998). Motivation in second and foreign language learning. Language Teaching, 31(3), 117-135.
[3] Dornyei, Z. and Skehan, P. (2003). Individual differences in language learning. The Handbook of Second Language Acquisition,589-639.
[4] Gardner, R. C. (1985). Social psychology and second language learning: the role of attitudes and motivation. London: Edward Arnold Press.
[5] Gass, S. M. and Varonis, E. M. (1994). Input, interaction, and second language production. Studies in Second Language Acquisi-tion, 16(3), 283-302.
[6] Hakuta, K., Bialystok, E., and Wiley, E. (2003). Critical evidence: A test of the critical-period hypothesis for second-language acquisition. Psychological Science, 14(1), 31-38.
[7] Johansson, S. (1991). Universal grammar and the innateness hypothesis. Retrieved June, 22, 1-10.
[8] Krashen, S. D. (1985). The input hypothesis: Issues and implications. Harlow: Longman Press.
[9] Larsen-Freeman, D. and Long, M. H. (1991). An introduction to second language acquisition research. Harlow: Longman Press.
[10] Lenneberg, E. (1967). Biological foundations of language. New York: Wiley Press.
[11] Mackey, A. (1999). Input, interaction, and second language development: An empirical study of question formation in ESL. Stu-dies in Second Language Acquisition, 21(4), 557-587.
[12] Sawyer, M. and Ranta, L. (2001). Aptitude, individual differences, and instructional design. Cognition and Second Language Instruction, 319-353.
[13] White, L. (1989). Universal grammar and second language acquisition. Amsterdam: John Benjamins Publishing Company Press.
DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.18686/ahe.v6i21.6669
Refbacks
- There are currently no refbacks.