SYSTEMATIC REVIEW ARTICLE The Effectiveness of Second Language Strategy Instruction: A Meta-analysis

By Luke Plonsky. 2011

306 citations recorded by the source corpus.

Subfields: Developmental and Educational Psychology, Language and Linguistics, Literature and Literary Theory

View Paper: https://www.semanticscholar.org/paper/a5c70524435e88537d57ad29b44c060987bfb965

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. Dan Brown
2. Xian Zhang
3. Songshan Zhang
4. E. Marsden
5. T. Cobb
6. Alex Boulton
7. F. Oswald
8. K. Morgan‐Short

In Language and Linguistics

1. Dan Brown
2. F. Oswald
3. T. Cobb
4. Alex Boulton
5. Luke Plonsky
6. E. Marsden
7. Xian Zhang
8. Songshan Zhang

In Literature and Literary Theory

1. K. Morgan‐Short
2. E. Marsden
3. Xian Zhang
4. Songshan Zhang
5. Dan Brown
6. T. Cobb
7. Alex Boulton
8. M. Pawlak

Citations in the corpus

• Explicit reading strategy instruction or daily use of strategies? Studying the teaching of reading comprehension through naturalistic classroom observation in English L2 (2019, background): “While the majority of studies have focused on the effectiveness of strategy instruction (Boardman et al., 2017; Meyer, Wijekumar, & Lei, 2018; Plonsky, 2011), classroom observation remains an understudied area (Pearson, & Cervetti, 2017).”
• The relationship between vocabulary knowledge and L2 reading/listening comprehension: A meta-analysis (2020, methodology): “Following the procedure in previous meta-analyses (e.g. Boulton and Cobb, 2017; Plonsky, 2011), we calculated the percentage of agreement between the two coders.”
• Replication in Second Language Research: Narrative and Systematic Reviews and Recommendations for the Field. (2018, background): “Though the extent of field-wide publication bias in L2 research has not yet been systematically studied, its existence is likely (Fanelli, 2012; Plonsky, 2013) and several meta-analysts have found evidence of it in specific domains (Lee & Huang, 2008; Lee, Jang, & Plonsky, 2015; Plonsky, 2011).”
• Do Language Learning Strategies Need to Be Self‐Directed? Disentangling Strategies From Self‐Regulated Learning (2018, background): “‘that can be employed autonomously’ (Plonsky, 2011); ‘chosen by learners for the purpose of regulating’ (Griffiths, 2013); ‘chosen by a language learner’ (Gregersen & MacIntyre, 2014); ‘chosen by learners’ (Griffiths, 2017); and ‘selected and used by learners’ (Oxford, 2017).”
• Domain definition and search techniques in meta-analyses of L2 research (Or why 18 meta-analyses of feedback have different results) (2015, background): “For example, Taylor et al. (2006) and Plonsky (2011) were both interested in the effects of L2 strategy instruction.”
• How Big Is “Big”? Interpreting Effect Sizes in L2 Research (2014, result): “Although their results showed larger effects for studies that did not report estimates of reliability or validity, the opposite pattern has been observed in several subsequent reviews (e.g., Adesope, Lavin, Thompson, & Ungerleider, 2010; Plonsky, 2011a).”
• Investigating language learning strategies: Prospects, pitfalls and challenges (2019, background): “For this to happen, we need more consistent findings that would be disseminated among teachers in language they comprehend, tangible benefits of SBI would need to be shown, and pedagogical recommendations would need to be realistic and sensitive to the realities of specific educational contexts.”