Quantitative Research Methods, Study Quality, and Outcomes: The Case of Interaction Research

By Luke Plonsky, S. Gass. 2011

256 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/c4bf3864c81e8ea8140ee2f91eb555110ffb0e1b

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. Luke Plonsky
2. Dan Brown
3. Masatoshi Sato
4. Kazuya Saito
5. S. Loewen
6. F. Oswald
7. E. Marsden
8. Ali H. Al-Hoorie

In Language and Linguistics

1. Luke Plonsky
2. Masatoshi Sato
3. Dan Brown
4. Kazuya Saito
5. S. Loewen
6. F. Oswald
7. Youjin Kim
8. Joseph P. Vitta

In Literature and Literary Theory

1. Masatoshi Sato
2. Luke Plonsky
3. S. Loewen
4. Dan Brown
5. Kazuya Saito
6. F. Oswald
7. K. Morgan‐Short
8. E. Marsden

Citations in the corpus

• Task-Based Learner Production: A Substantive and Methodological Review (2016, background): “Investigating complexity, accuracy and fluency in SLA (pp. 121–142).”
• The type and linguistic foci of oral corrective feedback in the L2 classroom: A meta-analysis (2016, background): “This line of research stems, pedagogically, from the shift towards communicative language teaching with a focus on form (e.g. Norris & Ortega, 2000) and, theoretically, from the long-standing interactionist tradition of SLA (e.g. Gass, Mackey & Pica, 1998; Plonsky & Gass, 2011).”
• Replication in Second Language Research: Narrative and Systematic Reviews and Recommendations for the Field. (2018, methodology): “…for initial studies, and n = 36.4 for replications (compare with the median 12 of n = 19 reported by Plonsky, 2013; the mean of n = 22 reported by Plonsky & Gass, 2011; the medians per condition of 26 [within-subject designs] and 20 [between-subject and mixed designs] reported by Lindstromberg,…”
• MULTIPLE REGRESSION AS A FLEXIBLE ALTERNATIVE TO ANOVA IN L2 RESEARCH (2016, background): “A common and serious lack of transparency in L2 research lies in failing to report the standard deviations (SDs) associated with the group means being compared (Plonsky & Gass, 2011).”
• STUDY QUALITY IN SLA (2013, methodology): “Each study was surveyed using a modifi ed version of the protocol developed and fi rst used by Plonsky and Gass ( 2011 ).”
• A methodological synthesis and meta-analysis of judgment tasks in second language research (2020, background): “…area deal with issues particular to a given substantive domain (e.g. for L2 written feedback, see Liu and Brown, 2015; for interactionist SLA, see Plonsky and Gass, 2011; for learner corpus research, see Paquot and Plonsky, 2017; and for interaction and computer-mediated communication, see…”
• Interaction and instructed second language acquisition (2018, background): “…influenced by different characteristics (e.g. Gass 2003; Keck et al. 2006; Russell & Spada 2006; Mackey & Goo 2007; Li, 2010; Lyster & Saito 2010; Plonsky & Gass 2011; Mackey et al. 2012; Goo & Mackey 2013; Lyster & Ranta 2013; Lyster et al. 2013; Plonsky & Brown 2015; Ziegler 2016a; Brown 2016;…”
• The Utility and Application of Mixed-Effects Models in Second Language Research (2015, methodology): “The reporting of whether assumptions are met is rare in SLA (Plonsky, 2011; Plonsky & Gass, 2011).”