Synthesizing research on language learning and teaching

By J. Norris, L. Ortega. 2006

337 citations recorded by the source corpus.

Subfields: Developmental and Educational Psychology, Language and Linguistics

View Paper: https://www.semanticscholar.org/paper/68e33773decc01168eef0894efd0aa4a1dc07869

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. Dan Brown
4. F. Oswald
5. R. Lyster
6. Masatoshi Sato
7. T. Cobb
8. N. Spada

In Language and Linguistics

1. Luke Plonsky
2. Kazuya Saito
3. Dan Brown
4. R. Lyster
5. F. Oswald
6. Masatoshi Sato
7. N. Spada
8. T. Cobb

Citations in the corpus

• EFFECTS OF FORM-FOCUSED PRACTICE AND FEEDBACK ON CHINESE EFL LEARNERS’ ACQUISITION OF REGULAR AND IRREGULAR PAST TENSE FORMS (2010, methodology): “Taking into account the nature of instructed SLA studies, Cohen’s d index was chosen following recommendations by Norris and Ortega ( 2000 , 2006 ) and effects were considered as small ( d ≤ 0.20), medium (0.20 < d < 0.80), or large ( d ≥ 0.80).”
• TBLT implementation and evaluation: A meta-analysis (2019, methodology): “Notes In the spirit of synthetic ethics (e.g. Larson-Hall & Plonsky, 2015; Norris & Ortega, 2000, 2006), all materials from this study, including the coding scheme and raw data, can be accessed at the following website: https://sites.google.com/site/toddhavilandmckay (accessed November 2017).”
• The type and linguistic foci of oral corrective feedback in the L2 classroom: A meta-analysis (2016, methodology): “To help address these concerns, research synthesis has quickly gained prominence in applied linguistics as an effective systematic tool to review primary research (see also Norris & Ortega, 2006; Oswald & Plonsky, 2010).”
• ORAL FEEDBACK IN CLASSROOM SLA (2010, methodology): “As Norris and Ortega ( 2006 ) claimed, “the problem is to defi ne what makes studies ‘similar enough’ to be included in a review, or ‘different enough’ to be excluded, the so-called apples and oranges problem” (p. 16).”
• Interactions between Type of Instruction and Type of Language Feature: A Meta-Analysis. (2010, methodology): “In spite of the tendency to have statistically biased effect sizes due to lack of control groups (Norris & Ortega, 2006), we included as many published SLA studies as possible in order to examine Language Learning 60:2, June 2010, pp. 263–308 290 Spada and Tomita Type of Instruction and Language…”