Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
CoChat
Sign Up
Cited by 1,250

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 2 of the 2 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

Towards an Organic Approach to Investigating CAF in Instructed SLA: The Case of Complexity

Norris, J. M., Ortega, L.·2009·Applied Linguistics
DOI 10.1093/applin/amp044
Open this paper in CoChat — free account

Abstract

In this article, we examine current practices in the measurement of syntactic complexity to illustrate the need for more organic and sustainable practices in the measurement of complexity, accuracy, and fluency (CAF) in second language production. Through in-depth review of examples drawn from research on instructed second language acquisition, we identify and discuss challenges to the evidentiary logic that underlies current approaches. We also illuminate critical mismatches between the interpretations that researchers want to make and the complexity measures that they use to make them. Building from the case of complexity, we point to related concerns with impoverished operationalizations of multidimensional CAF constructs and the lack of attention to CAF as a dynamic and interrelated set of constantly changing subsystems. In conclusion, we offer suggestions for addressing these challenges, and we call for much closer articulation between theory and measurement as well as more central roles for multidimensionality and dynamicity in future CAF research.

Overview

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1093/applin/amp044

Cites

2 of 2 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Verification

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Citations

Cites

Show all 2 references

Cited by

Metadata

Authors
Norris, J. M., & Ortega, L.
Venue
Applied Linguistics
Publisher
Oxford University Press (OUP)
Published
2009-11-20
Volume
30
Issue
4
Pages
555-578
ISSN
  • 0142-6001 (ISSN-L)
  • 1477-450X
DOI
10.1093/applin/amp044
OpenAlex
W2047957794
Cited by
1,250
References
2
FWCI
157.72
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review

Data sources

Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.

Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).

Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.