The DOI matches its Crossref record; 11 of the 11 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
Effects of Second Language Pronunciation Teaching Revisited: A Proposed Measurement Framework and Meta‐Analysis
Open accessAbstract
We propose a new framework for conceptualizing measures of instructed second language (L2) pronunciation performance according to three sets of parameters: (a) the constructs (focused on global vs. specific aspects of pronunciation), (b) the scoring method (human raters vs. acoustic analyses), and (c) the type of knowledge elicited (controlled vs. spontaneous). Adopting this model (Framework for L2 Pronunciation Measurement) as a synthetic tool, we coded the instruments found in 77 studies of L2 pronunciation teaching published between 1982 and 2017. We calculated the frequency of each measurement type and reexamined the interaction of instructional effectiveness and measurement within the sample. According to the results, instruction is most effective when it targets learners’ monitored production of specific segmental or suprasegmental features. The efficacy of instruction remains relatively unclear when gains are measured globally via subjective, human judgments, especially at a spontaneous level. Open Practices: This article has been awarded an Open Materials badge. All materials are publicly accessible via the IRIS database at https://www.iris-database.org. Learn more about the Open Practices badges from the Center for Open Science: https://osf.io/tvyxz/wiki.
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.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
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.
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
Effectiveness of L2 instruction: A research synthesis and quantitative meta-analysis
Norris, J. M., & Ortega, L. (2000) · Language Learning · doi:10.1111/0023-8333.00136 · Cited by 2,569 · cited 8×
“When Norris and Ortega (2000) conducted their first meta-analytic review of L2 grammar teaching studies published between 1980 and 1998, the effectiveness of instruction was identified as having a medium-to-large effect size.”
BackgroundMethodInfluentialEarly language acquisition: cracking the speech code
Kuhl, P. K. (2004) · Nature Reviews Neuroscience · doi:10.1038/nrn1533 · Cited by 2,291
ORAL FEEDBACK IN CLASSROOM SLA: A Meta-Analysis
Lyster, R., & Saito, K. (2010) · Studies in Second Language Acquisition · doi:10.1017/s0272263109990520 · Cited by 838
Self-citationInteractions between type of instruction and type of language feature: A meta-analysis
Spada, N., & Tomita, Y. (2010) · Language Learning · doi:10.1111/j.1467-9922.2010.00562.x · Cited by 746
L2 SELVES, EMOTIONS, AND MOTIVATED BEHAVIORS
Teimouri, Y. (2017) · Studies in Second Language Acquisition · doi:10.1017/s0272263116000243 · Cited by 348 · cited 1×
“…researchers in pronunciation teaching to consider going one step further by applying psychometric ‘corrections’ to their analyses when suboptimal reliability estimates are obtained (see Muchinsky, 1996; for recent examples in applied linguistics, see Llosa & Malone, in press, and Teimouri, 2017).”
BackgroundTASK REPETITION AND SECOND LANGUAGE SPEECH PROCESSING
Lambert, C., Kormos, J., & Minn, D. (2017) · Studies in Second Language Acquisition · doi:10.1017/s0272263116000085 · Cited by 281
Quantitative Research Methods, Study Quality, and Outcomes: The Case of Interaction Research
Plonsky, L., & Gass, S. (2011) · Language Learning · doi:10.1111/j.1467-9922.2011.00640.x · Cited by 267
Self-citationde Jong, N., & Perfetti, C. A. (2011) · Language Learning · doi:10.1111/j.1467-9922.2010.00620.x · Cited by 250
Repeating a Monologue Under Increasing Time Pressure: Effects on Fluency, Complexity, and Accuracy
Thai, C., & Boers, F. (2016) · TESOL Quarterly · doi:10.1002/tesq.232 · Cited by 131
Saito, K. (2013) · Language Learning · doi:10.1111/lang.12015 · Cited by 75
Self-citationParlak, Ö., & Ziegler, N. (2017) · Studies in Second Language Acquisition · doi:10.1017/s0272263116000310 · Cited by 58
Cited by
The Effects of Spaced Practice on Second Language Learning: A Meta‐Analysis
Kim, S. K., & Webb, S. (2022) · Language Learning · doi:10.1111/lang.12479 · Cited by 119
Saito, K. (2020) · Language Learning · doi:10.1111/lang.12387 · Cited by 74
Self-citationELICITED IMITATION TASKS AS A MEASURE OF L2 PROFICIENCY: A META-ANALYSIS
Kostromitina, M., & Plonsky, L. (2022) · Studies in Second Language Acquisition · doi:10.1017/s0272263121000395 · Cited by 61
Self-citationSaito, K. (2023) · Language Teaching · doi:10.1017/s0261444822000453 · Cited by 26
Self-citationBarra–García, C. F., Véliz-Campos, M., Figueroa Candia, M. A., Pereira-Reyes, Y., & Kartsevski Dune, M. (2026) · Language Teaching Research Quarterly · doi:10.32038/ltrq.2026.55.04
Metadata
- Authors
- Saito, K., & Plonsky, L.
- Venue
- Language Learning
- Publisher
- Wiley
- Published
- 2019-04-30
- Volume
- 69
- Issue
- 3
- Pages
- 652-708
- ISSN
- 0023-8333 (ISSN-L)
- 1467-9922
- OpenAlex
- W2943218783
- Cited by
- 282
- References
- 11
- FWCI
- 29.93
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- green
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.