Study quality in SLA

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

85 Citations (Scopus)

Abstract

This study assesses research and reporting practices in quantitative second language (L2) research. A sample of 606 primary studies, published from 1990 to 2010 in Language Learning and Studies in Second Language Acquisition, was collected and coded for designs, statistical analyses, reporting practices, and outcomes (i.e., effect sizes). The results point to several systematic strengths as well as many flaws, such as a lack of control in experimental designs, incomplete and inconsistent reporting practices, and low statistical power. I discuss these trends, strengths, and weaknesses in comparison with methodological reviews of L2 research (e.g., Plonsky & Gass, 2011) as well as reviews from other fields (e.g., education, Skidmore & Thompson, 2010). On the basis of the findings, I also make a number of suggestions for methodological reforms in applied linguistics.

Original languageEnglish (US)
Pages (from-to)655-687
Number of pages33
JournalStudies in Second Language Acquisition
Volume35
Issue number4
DOIs
StatePublished - 2013

Fingerprint

language
language acquisition
linguistics
reform
lack
trend
learning
education
Incomplete
Experimental Design
Applied Linguistics
Education
Language Studies
Language
Effect Size
Second Language Acquisition
Language Acquisition

ASJC Scopus subject areas

  • Education
  • Linguistics and Language
  • Language and Linguistics

Cite this

Study quality in SLA. / Plonsky, Luke D.

In: Studies in Second Language Acquisition, Vol. 35, No. 4, 2013, p. 655-687.

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

@article{07ab5bd58ab94449a7e9873e99e3ba8c,
title = "Study quality in SLA",
abstract = "This study assesses research and reporting practices in quantitative second language (L2) research. A sample of 606 primary studies, published from 1990 to 2010 in Language Learning and Studies in Second Language Acquisition, was collected and coded for designs, statistical analyses, reporting practices, and outcomes (i.e., effect sizes). The results point to several systematic strengths as well as many flaws, such as a lack of control in experimental designs, incomplete and inconsistent reporting practices, and low statistical power. I discuss these trends, strengths, and weaknesses in comparison with methodological reviews of L2 research (e.g., Plonsky & Gass, 2011) as well as reviews from other fields (e.g., education, Skidmore & Thompson, 2010). On the basis of the findings, I also make a number of suggestions for methodological reforms in applied linguistics.",
author = "Plonsky, {Luke D}",
year = "2013",
doi = "10.1017/S0272263113000399",
language = "English (US)",
volume = "35",
pages = "655--687",
journal = "Studies in Second Language Acquisition",
issn = "0272-2631",
publisher = "Cambridge University Press",
number = "4",

}

TY - JOUR

T1 - Study quality in SLA

AU - Plonsky, Luke D

PY - 2013

Y1 - 2013

N2 - This study assesses research and reporting practices in quantitative second language (L2) research. A sample of 606 primary studies, published from 1990 to 2010 in Language Learning and Studies in Second Language Acquisition, was collected and coded for designs, statistical analyses, reporting practices, and outcomes (i.e., effect sizes). The results point to several systematic strengths as well as many flaws, such as a lack of control in experimental designs, incomplete and inconsistent reporting practices, and low statistical power. I discuss these trends, strengths, and weaknesses in comparison with methodological reviews of L2 research (e.g., Plonsky & Gass, 2011) as well as reviews from other fields (e.g., education, Skidmore & Thompson, 2010). On the basis of the findings, I also make a number of suggestions for methodological reforms in applied linguistics.

AB - This study assesses research and reporting practices in quantitative second language (L2) research. A sample of 606 primary studies, published from 1990 to 2010 in Language Learning and Studies in Second Language Acquisition, was collected and coded for designs, statistical analyses, reporting practices, and outcomes (i.e., effect sizes). The results point to several systematic strengths as well as many flaws, such as a lack of control in experimental designs, incomplete and inconsistent reporting practices, and low statistical power. I discuss these trends, strengths, and weaknesses in comparison with methodological reviews of L2 research (e.g., Plonsky & Gass, 2011) as well as reviews from other fields (e.g., education, Skidmore & Thompson, 2010). On the basis of the findings, I also make a number of suggestions for methodological reforms in applied linguistics.

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=84887088275&partnerID=8YFLogxK

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=84887088275&partnerID=8YFLogxK

U2 - 10.1017/S0272263113000399

DO - 10.1017/S0272263113000399

M3 - Article

VL - 35

SP - 655

EP - 687

JO - Studies in Second Language Acquisition

JF - Studies in Second Language Acquisition

SN - 0272-2631

IS - 4

ER -