Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-r5fsc Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-24T22:36:05.810Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

The Research Programme Subjective Theories

A New Approach in Second Language Research

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  07 November 2008

Rudiger Grotjahn
Rudiger Grotjahn
Affiliation:
Ruhr-Universität Bochum
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

Subjective theories are very complex cognitive structures: they are highly individual, relatively stable, and relatively enduring. Examples are learners' and teachers' general beliefs about language, and about learning and teaching. In psychology and educational science it has been demonstrated that subjective theories are an important tool for the explanation and prediction of human action and thinking, and a special methodology for their analysis has been developed. It is characteristic of this methodology that it is based on both hermeneutics and empiricism, which are integrated into a coherent framework. In the present article, it is argued that the concept of subjective theory and the corresponding methodology have a considerable potential for second language research. The methodology is discussed at some length, and its application to second language research is shown.

Type
Articles
Information
Studies in Second Language Acquisition , Volume 13 , Issue 2 , June 1991 , pp. 187 - 214
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 1991

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

REFERENCES

Abraham, R. G., & Vann, R. J. (1987). Strategies of two language learners: A case study. In Wenden, A. & Rubin, J. (Eds.), Learner strategies in language learning (pp. 85–102). Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.Google Scholar
Alisch, L.-M. (1982). Theoretische Überlegungen zum Konzept der subjektiven Theorien. In Dann, H.-D., Humpert, W., Krause, F., & Tennstädt, K.-C. (Eds), AnalyseundModifikationsubjektiver Theorien von Lehrern (pp. 40–61). Universitat Konstanz: Zentrum 1 Bildungsforschung.Google Scholar
Altmann, G., & Grotjahn, R. (1988). Linguistische MeβSverfahren. In Ammon, U., Dittmar, N., & Mattheier, K. J. (Eds.), Sociolinguistics: An international handbook of the science of language and society (Vol. 2, pp. 1026–1039). Berlin and New York: De Gruyter.Google Scholar
Antaki, C. (1988). Explanations, communication and social cognition. In Antaki, C. (Ed.), Analysing everyday explanation: A casebook of methods (pp. 1–14). London: Sage.Google Scholar
Atkinson, P., Delamount, S., & Hammersley, M. (1988). Qualitative research traditions: A British response to Jacob. Review of Educational Research, 58, 231–250.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Baars, B. J. (1986). The cognitive revolution in psychology. New York: Guilford.Google Scholar
Baars, B. J. (1988). A cognitive theory of consciousness. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Ballstaedt, S.-P., & Mandl, H. (1985). Diagnosis of knowledge structures in text learning (Forschungsbericht 37). Universität Tübingen: Deutsches Institut für Fernstudien.Google Scholar
Bannister, D., & Fransella, F. (1971). Inquiring man: The theory of personal constructs. Harmondsworth, U.K.: Penguin.Google Scholar
Ben-Peretz, M. (1984). Kelly's theory of personal constructs as a paradigm for investigating teacher thinking. In Halkes, R. & Olson, J. K. (Eds.), Teacher thinking: A new perspective on persisting problems in education (pp. 103–111). Lisse, The Netherlands: Swets & Zeitlinger.Google Scholar
Ben-Peretz, M., Bromme, R., & Halkes, R. (Eds.). (1986). Advances of research on teacher thinking. Lisse, The Netherlands: Swets & Zeitlinger.Google Scholar
Bergold, J. B., & Breuer, F. (1987). Methodologische und methodische Probleme bei der Erforschung der Sicht des Subjekts. In Bergold, J. B. & Flick, U. (Eds.), Ein-Sichten: Zügdnge zur Sicht des Subjekts mittels qualitatiuer Forschung (pp. 20–52). Tübingen: Deutsche Gesellschaft fur Verhaltenstherapie.Google Scholar
Bergold, J. B., & Flick, U. (Eds.). (1987). Ein-Sichten: Zugänge zur Sicht des Subjekts mittels qualitativer Forschung. Tübingen: Deutsche Gesellschaft für Verhaltenstherapie.Google Scholar
Birkhan, G. (1987). Die Sicht mehrerer Subjekte: Probleme der Zusammenfassung von subjektiven Theorien. In Bergold, J. B. & Flick, U. (Eds.), Ein-Sichten: Zugänge zur Sicht des Subjekts mittels qualitativer Forschung (pp. 230–246). Tübingen: Deutsche Gesellschaft für Verhaltenstherapie.Google Scholar
Brewer, J., & Hunter, A. (1989). Multimethod research. Newbury Park, CA: Sage.Google Scholar
Bromme, R. (1984). On the limitations of the theory metaphor for the study of teachers' expert knowledge. In Halkes, R. & Olson, J. K. (Eds.), Teacher thinking: A new perspective on persisting problems in education (pp. 43–57). Lisse, The Netherlands: Swets & Zeitlinger.Google Scholar
Bromme, R. (1985). Aufgaben- und Problemanalyse bei der Untersuchung des problemlösenden Denkens. In Jüttemann, G. (Ed.), Qualitative Forschung in der Psychologie: Grundfragen, Verfahrensweisen, Anwen-dungsfelder (pp. 259–281). Weinheim and Basel: Beltz.Google Scholar
Brown, A. L, Bransford, J. D., Ferrara, R. A., & Campione, J. C. (1983). Learning, remembering, and understanding. In Flavell, J. H. & Markman, E. M. (Eds.), Handbook of child psychology (Vol. 3, pp. 77–166). New York: Wiley.Google Scholar
Chaudron, C. (1986). The interaction of quantitative and qualitative approaches to research: A view of the second language classroom. TESOL Quarterly, 20, 709–717.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Chaudron, C. (1988). Second language classrooms: Research on teaching and learning. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Clark, C. M., & Peterson, P. L. (1986). Teachers' thought processes. In Wittrock, M. C. (Ed.), Handbook of research on teaching (3rd ed., pp. 255–296). New York: Macmillan.Google Scholar
Cohen, A. D. (1984). Studying second-language learning: How do we get the information? Applied Linguistics, 5, 101–112.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cohen, A. D. (1990). Language learning: Insights for learners, teachers, and researchers. New York: Newbury House.Google Scholar
Cohen, A. D. (1991). Feedback on writing: The use of verbal report. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 13, 133–159.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Crookes, G. (1986). Task classification: A cross-disciplinary review (Technical Report No. 4). Honolulu: University of Hawaii, Center for Second Language Classroom Research.Google Scholar
Crookes, G. (1988). Planning, monitoring, and second language development (Technical Report No. 6). Honolulu: University of Hawaii, Center for Second Language Classroom Research.Google Scholar
Davidson, D. (1963). Actions, reasons, and causes. The Journal of Philosophy, 60, 685–700.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Deffner, G. (1988). Concurrent thinking aloud: An on-line tool for studying representations used in text understanding. Text, 8, 351–367.Google Scholar
Denzin, N. K. (1988). Triangulation. In Keeves, J. P. (Ed.), Educational research, methodology, and measurement: An international handbook (pp. 511–513). Oxford: Pergamon.Google Scholar
Ehlich, K., & Rehbein, J. (1986). Muster und Institution: Untersuchungen zur schulischen Kommunikation. Tübingen: Narr.Google Scholar
Ellis, G., & Sinclair, B. (1989). Learning to learn English. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Ericsson, K. A. (1988). Concurrent verbal reports on text comprehension: A review. Text, 8, 295–325.Google Scholar
Ericsson, K. A., & Oliver, W. (1988). Methodology for laboratory research on thinking: Task selection, collection of observations, and data analysis. In Sternberg, R. J. & Smith, E. E. (Eds.), The psychology of human thought (pp. 392–428). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Ericsson, K. A., & Simon, H. A. (1984). Protocol analysis: Verbal reports as data. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Ericsson, K. A., & Simon, H. A. (1987). Verbal reports on thinking. In Faerch, C. & Kasper, G. (Eds.), Introspection in second language research (pp. 24–53). Clevedon, U.K.: Multilingual matters.Google Scholar
Faerch, C., & Kasper, G. (1987a). From product to process-introspective methods in second language research. In Faerch, C. & Kasper, G. (Eds.), Introspection in second language research (pp. 5–23). Clevedon, UK.: Multilingual matters.Google Scholar
Faerch, C., & Kasper, G. (Eds.). (1987b). Introspection in second language research. Clevedon, U.K.: Multilingual matters.Google Scholar
Flick, U. (1987a). Methodenangemessene Gutekriterien in der qualitativ-interpretativen Forschung. In Bergold, J. B. & Flick, U. (Eds.), Ein-Sichten: Zugänge zur Sicht des Subjekts mittels qualitativer Forschung (pp. 247–262). Tubingen: Deutsche Gesellschaft fur Verhaltenstherapie.Google Scholar
Flick, U. (1987b). Das Subjekt als Theoretiker?-Zur Subjektivität Subjektiver Theorien. In Bergold, J. B. & Flick, U. (Eds.), Ein-Sichten: Zugänge zur Sicht des Subjekts mittels qualitativer Forschung (pp. 125–134). Tübingen: Deutsche Gesellschaft für Verhaltenstherapie.Google Scholar
Freeman, D. (1989). Teacher training, development, and decision making: A model of teaching and related strategies for language teacher education. TESOL Quarterly, 23, 27–45.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gasser, M. (1990). Connectionism and universals of second language acquisition. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 12, 179–199.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gigerenzer, G. (1981). Messung und Modellbildung in der Psychologie. München: Reinhardt.Google Scholar
Groeben, N. (1981). Die Handlungsperspektive als Theorierahmen für Forschung im pädagogischen Feld. In Hofer, M. (Ed.), Informationsverarbeitung und Entscheidungsverhalten von Lehrern (pp. 17–48). Munchen: Urban & Schwarzenberg.Google Scholar
Groeben, N. (1986). Handeln, Tun, Verhalten als Einheiten einer verstehend-erklärenden Psychologie. Tübingen: Francke.Google Scholar
Groeben, N. (1990). Subjective theories and the explanation of human action. In Semin, G. R. & Gergen, K. J. (Eds.), Everyday understanding: Social and scientific implications (pp. 19–44). London: Sage.Google Scholar
Groeben, N., & Scheele, B. (1977). Argumente für eine Psychologie des reflexiven Subjekts: Paradigmawechsel vom behavioralen zum epistemologischen Menschenbild. Darmstadt: Steinkopff.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Groeben, N., & Scheele, B. (1982). Einige Sprachregelungsvorschläge für die Erforschung subjektiver Theorien. In Dann, H.-D., Humpert, W., Krause, F., & Tennstädt, K.-C. (Eds.), Analyse und Modifikation subjektiver Theorien von Lehrern (pp. 13–39). Universitat Konstanz: Zentrum I Bildungsforschung.Google Scholar
Groeben, N., Wahl, D., Schlee, J., & Scheele, B. (1988). Forschungsprogramm Subjektive Theorien: Eine Einfuhrung in die Psychologie des reflexiven Subjekts. Tubingen: Francke.Google Scholar
Grotjahn, R. (1986). Test validation and cognitive psychology: Some methodological considerations. Language Testing, 3, 159–185.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Grotjahn, R. (1987). On the methodological basis of introspective methods. In Faerch, C. & Kasper, G. (Eds.), Introspection in second language research (pp. 54–81). Clevedon, U.K.: Multilingual matters.Google Scholar
Grotjahn, R. (1990). The Research Programme Subjective Theories: Integrating hermeneutics and empiricism. Unpublished manuscript.Google Scholar
Habermas, J. (1972). Towards a theory of communicative competence. In Dreitzel, H. (Ed.), Recent sociology: No. 2. Patterns of communicative behavior (pp. 114–148). New York: Macmillan.Google Scholar
Habermas, J. (1973). Wahrheitstheorien. In Fahrenbach, H. (Ed.), Wirklichkeit und Reflexion: Walter Schulz zum 60. Geburtstag (pp. 211–265). Pfullingen, Germany: Neske.Google Scholar
Halkes, R., & Olson, J. K. (Eds.). (1984). Teacher thinking: A new perspective on persisting problems in education. Lisse, The Netherlands: Swets & Zeitlinger.Google Scholar
Heider, F. (1958). The psychology of interpersonal relations. New York: Wiley.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Henrici, G. (1990). “L2 Classroom Research”: Die Erforschung des gesteuerten Fremdsprachenerwerbs. Zeitschrift fur Fremdsprachenforschung, 1, 21–61.Google Scholar
Hofer, M. (1986). Sozialpsychologie erzieherischen Handelns: Wie das Denken und Verhalten von Lehrern organisiert ist. Göttingen: Hogrefe.Google Scholar
Hofer, M. (Ed.). (1987). Thema: Denkprozesse von Lehrern. Unterrichtswissenschaft, 15.Google Scholar
Holec, H. (1987). The learner as a manager: Managing learning or managing to learn? In Wenden, A. & Rubin, J. (Eds.), Learner strategies in language learning (pp. 145–156). Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.Google Scholar
Horgan, T., & Woodward, J. (1990). Folk psychology is here to stay. In Lycan, W. G. (Ed.), Mind and cognition: A reader (pp. 399–420). Oxford: Basil Blackwell. (Reprinted from The Philosophical Review, XCIV, No. 2 [1985])Google Scholar
Horwich, P. (1990). Truth. Oxford: Blackwell.Google Scholar
Horwitz, E. K. (1987). Surveying student beliefs about language learning. In Wenden, A. & Rubin, J. (Eds.), Learner strategies in language learning (pp. 119–128). Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.Google Scholar
Hosenfeld, C. (1978). Students' mini-theories of second language learning. Association Bulletin, 30(2), 1–3.Google Scholar
Hosenfeld, C. (1984). Case studies of ninth grade readers. In Alderson, J. C. & Urquhart, A. (Eds.), Reading in a foreign language (pp. 231–244). London: Longman.Google Scholar
Huber, G. L., & Mandl, H. (1984). Access to teacher cognitions: Problems of assessment and analysis. In Halkes, R. & Olson, J. K. (Eds.), Teacher thinking: A new perspective on persisting problems in education (pp. 68–72). Lisse, The Netherlands: Swets & Zeitlinger.Google Scholar
Hulstijn, J. (1989). A cognitive view on interlanguage variability. In Eisenstein, M. E. (Ed.), The dynamic interlanguage: Empirical studies in second language variation (pp. 17–31). New York: Plenum.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Husén, T. (1988). Research paradigms in education. In Keeves, J. P. (Ed.), Educational research, methodology, and measurement: An international handbook (pp. 17–20). Oxford: Pergamon.Google Scholar
Kasper, G., & Dahl, M. (1991). Research methods in interlanguage pragmatics. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 75, 215–247.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Keeves, J. P. (1988). Introduction: Towards a unified approach. In Keeves, J. P. (Ed.), Educational research, methodology, and measurement: An international handbook (pp. 3–8). Oxford: Pergamon.Google Scholar
Kelly, G. (1955). The psychology of personal constructs. New York: Norton.Google Scholar
Kleppin, K., & Königs, F. G. (in press). Der Korrektur auf der Spur: Untersuchungen zum mündlichen Kor-rekturverhalten von Fremdsprachenlehrern. Bochum: Universitätsverlag Dr. N. Brockmeyer.Google Scholar
Kluwe, R. H. (1988). Methoden der Psychologie zur Gewinnung von Daten über menschliches Wissen. In Mandl, H. & Spada, H. (Eds.), Wissenspsychologie (pp. 359–385). München & Weinheim: Psychologie Verlags Union.Google Scholar
Krause, F. (1986). Subjective theories of teachers: Reconstruction through stimulated recall, interview and graphic representation of teacher thinking. In Ben-Peretz, M., Bromme, R., & Halkes, R. (Eds.), Advances of research on teacher thinking (pp. 159–171). Lisse, The Netherlands: Swets & Zeitlinger.Google Scholar
Kübler, S. (1990). And what do the learners think? Bulletin CILA, 51, 29–37.Google Scholar
Laine, E. J. (1988). The affective filter in foreign language learning and teaching (Jyväskylä Cross-Language Studies No. 15). University of Jyvaskylä: Dept. of English.Google Scholar
Lakomski, G. (1988). Critical theory. In Keeves, J. P. (Ed.), Educational research, methodology, and measurement: An international handbook (pp. 54–59). Oxford: Pergamon.Google Scholar
Laucken, U. (1974). Naive Verhaltenstheorie. Stuttgart: Klett.Google Scholar
Lechler, P. (1982). Kommunikative Validierung. In Huber, G. L. & Mandl, H. (Eds.), Verbale Daten (pp. 243–258). Weinheim and Basel: Beltz.Google Scholar
Lennon, P. (1989). Introspection and intentionality in advanced second language acquisition. Language Learning, 39, 375–396.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Littlewood, W. (1990). Theory, research and practice in foreign language teaching. Unpublished manuscript.Google Scholar
Lycan, W. A. (Ed). (1990). Mind and cognition: A reader. Oxford: Basil Blackwell.Google Scholar
Lyons, W. (1986). The disappearance of introspection. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Mandl, H., & Huber, G. L. (1983). Subjektive Theorien von Lehrern. Psychologie in Erziehung und Unterricht, 30, 98–112.Google Scholar
Mehan, H. (1978). Structuring school structure. Harvard Educational Review, 48, 32–64.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Morton, A. (1980). Frames of mind. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Murray, H. (1990). Tracing the development of language awareness in EFL teacher trainees. Bulletin CILA, 51, 21–28.Google Scholar
Naiman, N., Fröhlich, M., Stern, H. H., & Todesco, A. (1978). The good language learner. Toronto, Ontario: Institute for Studies in Education.Google Scholar
Nisbett, R. E., & Wilson, T. D. (1977). Telling more than we can know: Verbal reports on mental processes. Psychological Review, 84, 231–259.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Nunan, D. (1991). Methods in second language classroom-oriented research: A critical review. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 13, 249–274.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ödman, P.-J. (1988). Hermeneutics. In Keeves, J. P. (Ed.), Educational research, methodology, and measurement: An international handbook (pp. 63–70). Oxford: Pergamon.Google Scholar
Oldenbürger, H. A. (1986). Does a tendency to group pupils or attributes exist within teachers' cognitions/ judgements? In Ben-Peretz, M., Bromme, R., & Halkes, R. (Eds.), Advances of research on teacher thinking (pp. 186–200). Usse, The Netherlands: Swets & Zeitlinger.Google Scholar
Oldenbürger, H. A. (1987). Lehrerkognitionen uber Schülereigenschaften-Theoretische und methodologische Perspektiven. Unterrichtswissenschaft, 15, 261–273.Google Scholar
O'Malley, J. M., & Chamot, A. U. (1990). Learning strategies in second language acquisition. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Oxford, R. L. (1990). Language learning strategies: What every teacher should know. New York: Newbury House.Google Scholar
Poulisse, N. (1990). The use of compensatory strategies by Dutch learners of English. Dordrecht: Foris.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Scheele, B., & Groeben, N. (1986). Methodological aspects of illustrating the cognitive-reflective function of aesthetic communication. Employing a stracture-formation-technique with readers of (positive) literary Utopias. Poetics, 15, 527–554.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Scheele, B., & Groeben, N. (1988). Dialog-Konsens-Methoden zur Rekonstruktion Subjektiver Theorien: Die Heidelberger Struktur-Lege-Technik (SLT), konsensuale Ziel-Mittel-Argumentation und kommunikative Fluβdiagramm-Beschreibung von Handlungen. Tübingen: Francke.Google Scholar
Schmidt, R. W. (1990). The role of consciousness in second language learning. Applied Linguistics, 11, 129–158.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Seliger, H. W. (1983). The language learner as linguist: Of metaphors and realities. Applied Linguistics, 4, 179–191.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Seliger, H. W., & Shohamy, E. (1989). Second language research methods. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Shavelson, R. J., & Stern, P. (1981). Research on teachers' pedagogical thoughts, judgments, decisions, and behavior. Review of Educational Research, 51, 455–498.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Skehan, P. (1991). Individual differences in second language learning. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 13, 275–298.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Spöhring, W. (1989). Qualitative Sozialforschung. Stuttgart: Teubner.Google Scholar
Stemmer, B. (in press). What's on a C-test taker's mind? Mental processes in C-test making. Bochum: Universi-tätsverlag Dr. N. Brockmeyer.Google Scholar
Stephens, R. G., Bhaskar, R., & Dillard, J. F. (1981). The role of task analysis in understanding problem-solving behavior. Instructional Science, 10, 23–45.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Stich, S. P. (1983). From folk psychology to cognitive science. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Terhart, E. (1981). Intuition–Interpretation–Argumentation: Zum Problem der Geltungsbegründung von Interpretationen. Zeitschrift für Pädagogik, 27, 769–793.Google Scholar
Terhart, E. (1982). Interpretative approaches in educational research: A consideration of some theoretical issues-with particular reference to recent developments in West Germany. Cambridge Journal of Education, 12, 141–160.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Treiber, B., & Groeben, N. (1981). Handlungsforschung und epistemologisches Subjektmodell. Zeitschrift fur Sozialisationsforschung und Erziehungssoziologie, 1, 117–138.Google Scholar
Treiber, B., & Groeben, N. (1983). Vorarbeiten zu einer Reflexiven Sozialtechnologie-Die Integration von dialog-konsenstheoretischem Wahrheits- sowie Falsifikationskriterium am Beispiel subjektiver Theorien von Lehrern. In Zedler, P. & Moser, H. (Eds.), Aspekte qualitativer Sozialforschung: Studien zur Aktionsfor-schung, empirischer Hermeneutik und reflexiver Sozialtechnologie (pp. 163–208). Opladen, Germany: Leske & Budrich.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Van Lier, L. (1988). The classroom and the language learner: Ethnography and second-language classroom research. London: Longman.Google Scholar
Verloop, N. (1987). Investigating teacher cognitions: Report on the third ISATT Conference. ISATT Newsletter, 5, 23–32.Google Scholar
Wagner, A. C. (1984). Conflicts in consciousness: Imperative cognitions can lead to knots in thinking. In Halkes, R. & Olson, J. K. (Eds.), Teacher thinking: A new perspective on persisting problems in education (pp. 163–175). Lisse, The Netherlands: Swets & Zeitlinger.Google Scholar
Wagner, A. C. (1987). ‘Knots’ in teacher's thinking. In Calderhead, J. (Ed.), Exploring teachers' thinking (pp. 161–178). London: Cassell.Google Scholar
Wagner, J. (1983). Kommunikation und Spracherwerb im Fremdsprachenunterricht. Tübingen: Narr.Google Scholar
Wagner, J. (1988). Innovation in foreign language teaching. AILA Review, 5, 99–117.Google Scholar
Wahl, D. (1982). Handlungsvalidierung. In Huber, G. L. & Mandl, H. (Eds.), Verbale Daten (pp. 259–274). Weinheim and Basel: Beltz.Google Scholar
Watson-Gegeo, K. A. (1988). Ethnography in ESL: Defining the essentials. TESOL Quarterly, 22, 575–592.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wenden, A. (1986a). Helping language learners think about learning. English Language Teaching Journal, 40, 3–12.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wenden, A. (1986b). What do second-language learners know about their language learning? A second look at retrospective accounts. Applied Linguistics, 7, 186–205.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wenden, A. (1987). How to be a successful language learner: Insights and prescriptions from L2 learners. In Wenden, A. & Rubin, J. (Eds.), Learner strategies in language learning (pp. 103–117). Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.Google Scholar
Wenden, A., & Rubin, J. (Eds.). (1987). Learner strategies in language learning. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.Google Scholar
White, P. A. (1988). Knowing more about what we can tell: ‘Introspective access’ and causal report accuracy 10 years later. British Journal of Psychology, 79, 13–45.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
White, P. A. (1989). Evidence for the use of information about internal events to improve the accuracy of causal reports. British Journal of Psychology, 80, 375–382.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wittrock, M. C. (1986). Students' thought processes. In Wittrock, M. C. (Ed.), Handbook of research on teaching (3rd ed., pp. 297–314). New York: Macmillan.Google Scholar
Zimmermann, G. (1990). Grammatik im Fremdsprachenunterricht der Erwachsenenbildung: Ergebnisse empirischer Untersuchungen. Munchen: Hueber.Google Scholar