Meta-analysis in Second Language Research: Choices and Challenges

By F. Oswald, Luke Plonsky. Annual Review of Applied Linguistics, 2010

206 citations recorded by the source corpus.

Subfields: Cognitive Neuroscience, Developmental and Educational Psychology, Language and Linguistics

View Paper: https://www.semanticscholar.org/paper/b278b5842409bcae2ef3bf888cc80ce95119351d

How researchers see this paper

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

In Cognitive Neuroscience

1. Dan Brown
2. Shaofeng Li
3. T. Cobb
4. Todd H. McKay
5. Xian Zhang
6. Songshan Zhang
7. Guangwei Hu
8. Alex Boulton

In Developmental and Educational Psychology

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

In Language and Linguistics

1. Luke Plonsky
2. Dan Brown
3. Xian Zhang
4. Shaofeng Li
5. Kazuya Saito
6. T. Cobb
7. Alex Boulton
8. Julia Goetze

Citations in the corpus

• Domain definition and search techniques in meta-analyses of L2 research (Or why 18 meta-analyses of feedback have different results) (2015, methodology): “Second, as argued throughout the metaanalytic literature (e.g. Oswald and Plonsky, 2010), decision points are found throughout the process of conducting a meta-analysis.”
• Corpus Use in Language Learning: A Meta-Analysis. (2017, methodology): “Both are what we would expect and did not provide much evidence of publication bias (Norris & Ortega, 2000; Oswald & Plonsky, 2010).”
• STUDY QUALITY IN SLA (2013, background): “Unlike SLA, however, they found regression and correlation to be second and third most frequent, and t tests were least frequent, behind factor analyses, cluster analyses, and nonparametric statistics.”
• SECOND LANGUAGE ANXIETY AND ACHIEVEMENT (2019, background): “…following Horwitz, Horwitz, and Cope’s (1986) seminal article and given the nowwidespread application of research synthesis in SLA (e.g., Norris & Ortega, 2006; Oswald & Plonsky, 2010; Plonsky & Oswald, 2012), it is surprising that no metaanalysis of L2 anxiety research has been conducted to date.”
• REEXAMINING EFFECTS OF FORM-FOCUSED INSTRUCTION ON L2 PRONUNCIATION DEVELOPMENT (2012, background): “According to Oswald and Plonsky ( 2010 ), effect sizes in the fi eld of instructed SLA are roughly classifi ed as small ( d 0.70), medium (0.70 ≤ d 1.00), or large (1.00 ≤ d ).”
• The Efficacy of Written Corrective Feedback in Improving L2 Written Accuracy: A Meta‐Analysis (2015, background): “Oswald and Plonsky (2010) propose that, within the context of SLA research, 0.40 should be interpreted as small, 0.70 as medium, and 1.0 as large.”
• TBLT implementation and evaluation: A meta-analysis (2019, methodology): “In an effort to include unpublished work (as suggested by, among others, Norris & Ortega, 2006; Oswald & Plonsky, 2010) and to avoid the potential for publication bias, Google Scholar, Google, and the biennial TBLT conference PowerPoint repository were also thoroughly searched.”
• Task-Based Learner Production: A Substantive and Methodological Review (2016, background): “Third, excluding unpublished studies often leads to an overestimate of meta-analytic effects (i.e., publication bias; see Oswald & Plonsky, 2010), which were not considered in the present study.”
• Exploring the relationship between metacognitive awareness and listening performance with questionnaire data (2014, methodology): “Cohen’s (1988) criterion for the medium effect size was adopted because a recent analysis of 27 meta-analyses of second language research by Oswald and Plonsky (2010) has found the mean effect sizes falling between Cohen’s criteria for medium and large effect sizes.”
• The type and linguistic foci of oral corrective feedback in the L2 classroom: A meta-analysis (2016, methodology): “…‘fugitive literature’ (Norris & Ortega, 2006), including any available doctoral and masters dissertations, as well as conference and working papers that could be retrieved in an attempt to both minimize publication bias (Oswald & Plonsky, 2010) and maximize the robustness of the data set.”
• Replication in Second Language Research: Narrative and Systematic Reviews and Recommendations for the Field. (2018, background): “…comment on the less-than-ideal comparability between studies in the domain under investigation (due to inconsistency of materials and measures etc.), and is one cause of low k in meta-analyses (e.g., Oswald & Plonsky, 2010, found a median of 16 studies reviewed in 27 meta-analyses in L2 research).”