Interactions between Type of Instruction and Type of Language Feature: A Meta-Analysis.

By N. Spada, Yasuyo Tomita. 2010

723 citations recorded by the source corpus.

Subfields: Developmental and Educational Psychology, Language and Linguistics

View Paper: https://www.semanticscholar.org/paper/102ed332f87c8457886d226b8943bb78cea783d8

How researchers see this paper

The researchers whose trusted networks rank it highest, strongest advocate first. Every researcher gets a different order.

In Developmental and Educational Psychology

1. Kazuya Saito
2. Luke Plonsky
3. K. Rajagopalan
4. F. Oswald
5. R. Lyster
6. T. Cobb
7. N. Spada
8. Xianghua Wu

In Language and Linguistics

1. Kazuya Saito
2. Luke Plonsky
3. K. Rajagopalan
4. R. Lyster
5. F. Oswald
6. T. Cobb
7. Xianghua Wu
8. N. Spada

Citations in the corpus

• The Role of Metalanguage in Supporting Academic Language Development. (2013, background): “Meta-analyses of focus on form and explicit focus on rules in language teaching (e.g., Spada & Tomita, 2010) have shown that such focus can be effective in promoting more accurate use of the L2 (e.g., Simard & Jean, 2011).”
• Effects of Form-Focused Instruction and Corrective Feedback on L2 Pronunciation Development of /ɹ/ by Japanese Learners of English (2012, background): “Given the overall effectiveness of FFI on grammatical development (see meta-analyses by Norris & Ortega, 2000; Spada & Tomita, 2010), we consider it timely to explore the feasibility of FFI tasks that target pronunciation in meaning-oriented contexts and to assess their impact on L2 pronunciation…”
• Video-Based Interaction, Negotiation for Comprehensibility, and Second Language Speech Learning: A Longitudinal Study (2017, background): “…via free-constructed tasks (e.g., picture narratives) by inducing L2 learners to pay equal attention not only to pronunciation, fluency, vocabulary, and grammar (i.e., linguistic form) but also to successful task completion (i.e., meaning) under time pressure conditions (Spada & Tomita, 2010).”
• Meta-analysis in Second Language Research: Choices and Challenges (2010, background): “…error correction within larger bodies of research on the effectiveness of instruction (Norris & Ortega, 2000, replicated by Goo, Granena, Novella, & Yilmaz, 2009; Spada & Tomita, 2010) and on the effects of L2 interaction (Keck, Iberri-Shea, Tracy-Ventura, & Wa-Mbaleka, 2006; Mackey & Goo, 2007).”
• Isolated and Integrated form-focused instruction: Effects on different types of L2 knowledge (2014, background): “There is increasing evidence in several meta-analyses of instructed SLA consistently showing significant benefits for instructed groups over control groups with large populations of diverse learners in different contexts (e.g. Norris & Ortega, 2000; Spada & Tomita, 2010).”
• Explicit and Implicit Lexical Knowledge: Acquisition of Collocations Under Different Input Conditions (2013, background): “Spada and Tomita (2010) concluded that there is a need for more validation studies to develop new measures and evaluate what they are assessing.”
• Corpus Use in Language Learning: A Meta-Analysis. (2017, background): “This is not uncommon (cf. Burston, 2015; Shintani, Li, & Ellis, 2013; Spada & Tomita, 2010), and these cases were counted as a single study, based on one main publication backed up where necessary with extra information from the secondary source(s).”
• Differential effects of instruction on the development of second language comprehensibility, word stress, rhythm, and intonation: The case of inexperienced Japanese EFL learners (2017, background): “…suprasegmentals I Introduction Within the area of instructed second language acquisition (SLA), which has typically focused on grammar teaching (Spada & Tomita, 2010) and vocabulary teaching (Schmitt, 2008), researchers have recently begun to pay attention to examining the role of formfocused…”
• Implicit and explicit knowledge in second language acquisition—CORRIGENDUM (2012, background): “Other studies have compared implicit and explicit learning more directly, frequently with the objective of determining the effectiveness of different instructional treatments (e.g., Alanen, 1995; de Graaff, 1997; for meta-analyses, see Norris & Ortega, 2000; Spada & Tomita, 2010).”