CoChat
Sign Up
Cited by 267Educational Research and MethodsEFL/ESL Teaching and LearningMeta-analysis and systematic reviews

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 122 of the 123 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

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

Plonsky, Luke, Gass, Susan·2011·Language Learning
DOI 10.1111/j.1467-9922.2011.00640.x
Open this paper in CoChat — free account

Abstract

This article constitutes the first empirical assessment of methodological quality in second language acquisition (SLA). We surveyed a corpus of 174 studies (N = 7,951) within the tradition of research on second‐language interaction, one of the longest and most influential traditions of inquiry in SLA. Each report was coded for methodological features, statistical analyses, and reporting practices associated with research quality, and the resulting data were examined both cumulatively and over time. The findings indicate not only strengths and weaknesses but a possible relationship between study quality and outcomes; improvements over time and methodological trends are also noted. In addition to providing direction for future research and research practices, the study's findings are discussed and contextualized within the research culture of SLA.

Overview

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1111/j.1467-9922.2011.00640.x

Cites

122 of 122 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Verification

Claims the paper makes

We couldn’t retrieve this paper’s full text, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

Citations

Cites

Research works printed but not linked: 26

  1. Byrnes H., 2008, [Review of the book Synthesizing research on language learning and teaching], Modern Language Journal, 92, 48
  2. Flahive D., 2010, Power analysis in applied linguistics research
  3. Gass S., 2006, AILA Review, 3
  4. Gass S., 1985, Input in second language acquisition
  5. Gass S., 1985, Input in second language acquisition, 149
  6. Godfroid A., 2010, Attention and awareness in SLA: An attempt to refine the construct of “noticing
  7. Hauser E., 2001, The statistical power of second language acquisition research: A review
  8. Hawkins B., 1985, Input in second language acquisition, 162
  9. Hirvonen T., 1985, Input in second language acquisition, 137
  10. Jefferson T. O., 2003, The Cochrane Library, Issue 4
  11. Kleifgen J. A., 1985, Input in second language acquisition, 59
  12. Mackey A., 2007, Conversational interaction in second language acquisition: A collection of empirical studies
  13. Mackey A., 2007, Conversational interaction in second language acquisition: A collection of empirical studies, 1
  14. Mackey A., Research methodologies in second language acquisition
  15. Mackey A., 2007, Conversational interaction in second language acquisition: A collection of empirical studies, 407
  16. Pica T., 1985, Input in second language acquisition, 115
  17. Plonsky L., Study quality: Assessing quantitative research methods and reporting practices in SLA
  18. Plonsky L., 2010, Interpreting mean differences in L2 research: Cohen's d‐value, revisited
  19. Plonsky L., A guide to research methods in second language acquisition
  20. Publication manual of the American Psychological Association(6th ed.). (2010). Washington DC :American Psychological Association.
  21. Sato C. J., 1986, Talking to learn: Conversation in second language, 23
  22. Sheen Y., 2007, Conversational interaction in second language acquisition: A collection of empirical studies, 301
  23. Swain M., 1985, Input in second language acquisition, 235
  24. VanPatten B., 2002, Research criteria for tenure in second language acquisition: Results from a survey of the field
  25. Wa‐Mbaleka S., 2006, A meta‐analysis investigating the effects of reading on second language vocabulary learning
  26. Wilson D. B., 2009, The handbook of research synthesis, 159

Cited by

Sorted by citations

See all 267

Related

See all

Metadata

Authors
Plonsky, L., & Gass, S.
Affiliations
Michigan State University (US)
Corresponding author
Plonsky, Luke
ORCID
Venue
Language Learning
Publisher
Wiley
Published
2011-03-28
Volume
61
Issue
2
Pages
325-366
ISSN
  • 0023-8333 (ISSN-L)
  • 1467-9922
DOI
10.1111/j.1467-9922.2011.00640.x
OpenAlex
W2171052005
Cited by
267
References
123
Citations by year
2026: 9 · 2025: 19 · 2024: 16 · 2023: 22 · 2022: 10 · 2021: 20 · 2020: 35 · 2019: 41 · 2018: 22 · 2017: 12 · 2016: 17 · 2015: 17 · 2014: 12 · 2013: 9 · 2012: 3
FWCI
41.55
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Licence
onlinelibrary.wiley.com/termsAndConditions#vor (vor)
Locations
  • Language Learning (publishedVersion)
  • UCL Discovery (University College London) (submittedVersion)
Topics
  • Social Sciences › Education › Educational Research and Methods
  • Social Sciences › Arts and Humanities › Language and Linguistics › EFL/ESL Teaching and Learning
  • Social Sciences › Decision Sciences › Statistics, Probability and Uncertainty › Meta-analysis and systematic reviews
Keywords
second language interaction, methodological quality, research quality, quantitative methods, reporting practices, statistical analysis, research trends over time, research culture, second language acquisition

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