Does type of instruction make a difference? Substantive findings from a meta-analytic review

Language Learning

Volumn 51, Issue PART 1, 2001, Pages 157-213

  Norris, John M ^a   Ortega, Lourdes ^a  

^a NONE

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

EID: 0035611793     PISSN: 00238333     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1111/j.1467-1770.2001.tb00017.x     Document Type: Article

References (106)

1. Alanen, R. (1995). Input enhancement and rule presentation in second language acquisition. In R. Schmidt (Ed.), Attention and awareness in foreign language learning and teaching (Technical Report No. 9) (pp. 259-302). Honolulu: University of Hawai'i.
2. Bangert-Drowns, R. L. (1986). Review of developments in meta-analytic method. Psychological Bulletin, 99, 388-399.
3. Begg, C. (1994). Publication bias. In H. Cooper & L. Hedges (Eds.), Handbook of research synthesis (pp. 399-409). New York: Russell Sage Foundation.
4. Bushman, B. (1994). Vote-counting procedures in meta-analysis. In H. Cooper & L. Hedges (Eds.), The handbook of research synthesis (pp. 193-214). New York: Russell Sage Foundation.
5. Cadierno, T. (1992). Explicit instruction in grammar: A comparison of input-based and output-based instruction in second language acquisition. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, University of Illinois.
6. Cadierno, T. (1995). Formal instruction from a processing perspective: An investigation into the Spanish past tense. Modern Language Journal, 79, 179-193.
7. Carroll, S., Roberge, Y., & Swain, M. (1992). The role of feedback in adult second language acquisition: Error correction and morphological generalization. Applied Psycholinguistics, 13, 173-189.
8. Carroll, S., & Swain, M. (1993). Explicit and implicit negative feedback: An empirical study of the learning of linguistic generalizations. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 15, 357-386.
9. Chaudron, C. (1977). A descriptive model of discourse in the corrective treatment of learners' errors. Language Learning, 27, 29-46.
10. Chaudron, C. (1985). Intake: On models and methods for discovering learners' processing of input. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 7, 1-14.
11. Cohen, J. (1988). Statistical power analysis for the behavioral sciences (2nd ed.). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
12. Cooper, H. (1998). Synthesizing research: A guide for literature reviews (3rd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
13. Cooper, H., & Hedges, L. V. (Eds.). (1994a). The handbook of research synthesis. New York: Russell Sage Foundation.
14. Cooper, H., & Hedges, L. V. (1994b). Research synthesis as a scientific enterprise. In H. Cooper & L. Hedges (Eds.), The handbook of research synthesis (pp. 3-14). New York: Russell Sage Foundation.
15. Day, E., & Shapson, S. (1991). Integrating formal and functional approaches to language teaching in French immersion: An experimental study. Language Learning, 41, 25-58.
16. de Graaff, R. (1997). The eXperanto experiment: Effects of explicit instruction on second language acquisition. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 19, 249-297.
17. DeKeyser, R. M. (1995). Learning second language grammar rules: An experiment with a miniature linguistic system. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 17, 379-410.
18. DeKeyser, R. M. (1997). Beyond explicit rule learning: Automatizing second language morphosyntax. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 19, 195-221.
19. DeKeyser, R. M., & Sokalski, K. J. (1996). The differential role of comprehension and production practice. Language Learning, 46, 613-642.
20. Doughty, C. (1991). Second language instruction does make a difference: Evidence from an empirical study of ESL relativization. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 13, 431-469.
21. Doughty, C. (1997, October). Meeting the criteria of focus on form. Paper presented at the 17th Second Language Research Forum, Michigan State University, East Lansing, MI.
22. Doughty, C., & Varela, E. (1998). Communicative focus on form. In C. Doughty & J. Williams (Eds.), Focus on form in classroom second language acquisition (pp. 114-138). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
23. Doughty, C., & Williams, J. (Eds.). (1998a). Focus on form in classroom second language acquisition. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
24. Doughty, C., & Williams, J. (1998b). Issues and terminology. In C. Doughty & J. Williams (Eds.), Focus on form in classroom second language acquisition (pp. 1-12). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
25. Doughty, C., & Williams, J. (1998c). Pedagogical choices in focus on form. In C. Doughty & J. Williams (Eds.), Focus on form in classroom second language acquisition (pp. 197-261). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
26. Dubin, R., & Taveggia, T. (1968). The teaching-learning paradox: A comparative analysis of college teaching methods. Eugene, OR: University of Oregon Press.
27. Ellis, N. (1993). Rules and instances in foreign language learning: Interactions of implicit and explicit knowledge. European Journal of Cognitive Psychology, 5, 289-319.
28. Ellis, N. (1994). Introduction: Implicit and explicit language learning - An overview. In N. Ellis (Ed.), Implicit and explicit learning of languages (pp. 1-31). London: Academic Press.
29. Ellis, N. C., & Laporte, N. (1997). Contexts of acquisition: Effects of formal instruction and naturalistic exposure on second language acquisition. In A. de Groot & J. Kroll (Eds.), Tutorials in bilingualism: Psycholinguistic perspectives (pp. 53-83). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
30. Fotos, S. (1993). Consciousness raising and noticing through focus on form: Grammar task performance versus formal instruction. Applied Linguistics, 14, 385-407.
31. Fotos, S., & Ellis, R. (1991). Communicating about grammar: A task-based approach. TESOL Quarterly, 25, 605-628.
32. Harley, B. (1989). Functional grammar in French immersion: A classroom experiment. Applied Linguistics, 10, 331-359.
33. Harley, B. (1998). The role of focus on form in promoting child L2 acquisition. In C. Doughty & J. Williams (Eds.), Focus on form in classroom second language acquisition (pp. 156-174). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
34. Herron, C., & Tomasello, M. (1988). Learning grammatical structures in foreign language: Modelling versus feedback. The French Review, 61, 910-922.
35. Hulstijn, J. H. (1997). Second language acquisition research in the laboratory: Possibilities and limitations. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 19, 131-144.
36. Hulstijn, J. H., & de Graaff, R. (1994). Under what conditions does explicit knowledge of a second language facilitate the acquisition of implicit knowledge? A research proposal. AILA Review, 11, 97-112.
37. Krashen, S. (1985). The input hypothesis. London: Longman.
38. Krashen, S. (1999). Seeking a role for grammar: A review of some recent studies. Foreign Language Annals, 32, 245-257.
39. Kubota, M. (1994). The role of negative feedback on the acquisition of the English dative alternation by Japanese college students of EFL. Institute for Research in Language Teaching Bulletin, 8, 1-36. (ERIC ED 386023)
40. Kubota, M. (1995a). The Garden Path technique: Is it really effective? Working Papers of Chofu Gakuen Women's Junior College, 27, 21-48. (ERIC ED 386021)
41. Kubota, M. (1995b). Teachability of conversational implicature to Japanese EFL learners. Institute for Research in Language Teaching Bulletin, 9, 35-67. (ERIC ED 397640)
42. Kubota, M. (1996). The effects of instruction plus feedback on Japanese university students of EFL: A pilot study. Bulletin of Chofu Gakuen Women's Junior College, 18, 59-95. (ERIC ED 397641)
43. Leeman, J., Arteagoitia, I., Fridman, B., & Doughty, C. (1995). Integrating attention to form with meaning: Focus on form in content-based Spanish instruction. In R. Schmidt (Ed.), Attention and awareness in foreign language learning (Technical Report No. 9) (pp. 217-258). Honolulu: University of Hawai'i.
44. Leow, R. P. (1998a). The effects of amount and type of exposure on adult learners' L2 development in SLA. The Modern Language Journal, 82, 49-68.
45. Leow, R. P. (1998b). Toward operationalizing the process of attention in SLA: Evidence for Tomlin and Villa's (1994) fine-grained analysis of attention. Applied Psycholinguistics, 19, 133-159.
46. Light, R., & Pillemer, D. (1984). Summing up: The science of reviewing research. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
47. Light, R., & Smith, P. (1971). Accumulating evidence: Procedures for resolving contradictions among different studies. Harvard Educational Review, 41, 429-471.
48. Lightbown, P. (1985). Can language acquisition be altered by instruction? In K. Hyltenstam & M. Pienemann (Eds.), Modelling and assessing second language acquisition (pp. 101-112). Clevedon, Avon: Multilingual Matters.
49. Lightbown, P. (1998). The importance of timing in focus on form. In C. Doughty & J. Williams (Eds.), Focus on form in classroom second language acquisition (pp. 177-196). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
50. Lightbown, P., & Spada, N. (1990). Focus on form and corrective feedback in communicative language teaching: Effects on second language learning. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 12, 429-448.
51. Long, M. H. (1983). Does second language instruction make a difference? A review of the research. TESOL Quarterly, 17, 359-382.
52. Long, M. H. (1991). Focus on form: A design feature in language teaching methodology. In K. de Bot, R. Ginsberg, & C. Kramsch (Eds.), Foreign language research in cross-cultural perspective (pp. 39-52). Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
53. Long, M. H. (1997). Focus on form in task-based language teaching. Presentation at the Annual McGraw-Hill Teleconference in Second Language Teaching. Available: [http://www.mhhe.com/socscience/foreignlang/ top.htm]
54. Long, M. H., & Crookes, G. (1992). Three approaches to task-based syllabus design. TESOL Quarterly, 26, 27-56.
55. Long, M. H., & Crookes, G. (1993). Units of analysis in syllabus design: The case for task. In G. Crookes & S. Gass (Eds.), Tasks in a pedagogical context: Integrating theory and practice (pp. 9-56). Clevedon, Avon: Multilingual Matters.
56. Long, M. H., Inagaki, S., & Ortega, L. (1998). The role of implicit negative feedback in SLA: Models and recasts in Japanese and Spanish. Modern Language Journal, 82, 357-371.
57. Long, M. H., & Robinson, P. (1998). Focus on form: Theory, research, and practice. In C. Doughty & J. Williams (Eds.), Focus on form in classroom second language acquisition (pp. 15-41). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
58. Loschky, L., & Bley-Vroman, R. (1993). Grammar and task-based methodology. In G. Crookes & S. Gass (Eds.), Tasks and language learning (pp. 123-167). Clevedon, Avon: Multilingual Matters.
59. Lyster, R. (1990). The role of analytic language teaching in French immersion programs. The Canadian Modern Language Review, 47, 159-176.
60. Lyster, R. (1994). The effect of functional-analytic teaching on aspects of French immersion students' sociolinguistic competence. Applied Linguistics, 15, 263-287.
61. Lyster, R. (1998). Negotiation of form, recasts, and explicit correction in relation to error types and learner repair in immersion classrooms. Language Learning, 48, 183-218.
62. Mackey, A., & Philp, J. (1998). Conversational interaction and second language development: Recasts, responses, and red herrings? Modern Language Journal, 82, 338-356.
63. Matt, G., & Cook, T. (1994). Threats to the validity of research synthesis. In H. Cooper & L. Hedges (Eds.), The handbook of research synthesis (pp. 503-520). New York: Russell Sage Foundation.
64. McLaughlin, B. (1990). Restructuring. Applied Linguistics, 11, 1-16.
65. McLaughlin, B., & Heredia, R. (1996). Information-processing approaches to research on second language acquisition and use. In W. C. Ritchie & T. K. Bhatia (Eds.), Handbook of second language acquisition (pp. 213-228). New York: Academic Press.
66. Mellow, D., Reeder, K., & Forster, E. (1996). Using time-series research designs to investigate the effects of instruction on SLA. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 18, 325-350.
67. Messick, S. (1989). Validity. In R. Linn (Ed.), Educational measurement (3rd ed., pp. 13-103). New York: American Council on Education and Macmillan.
68. Nagata, N. (1993). Intelligent computer feedback for second language instruction. Modern Language Journal, 77, 330-339.
69. Nagata, N. (1998). Input vs. output practice in educational software for second language acquisition. Language Learning & Technology, 1(2), 23-40.
70. Nobuyoshi, J., & Ellis, R. (1993). Focused communication tasks and second language acquisition. ELT Journal, 47, 203-210.
71. Norris, J. M., & Ortega, L. (2000). Effectiveness of L2 instruction: A research synthesis and quantitative meta-analysis. Language Learning, 50, 417-528.
72. Norris, J. M., & Ortega, L. (in press). Defining and measuring acquisition. In C. Doughty & M. Long (Eds.), Handbook of second language acquisition. London: Blackwell.
73. Paradis, M. (1994). Neurolinguistic aspects of implicit and explicit memory: Implications for bilingualism and SLA. In N. C. Ellis (Ed.), Implicit and explicit learning of languages (pp. 393-419). London: Academic Press.
74. Pienemann, M. (1984). Psychological constraints on the teachability of languages. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 6, 186-214.
75. Pienemann, M. (1989). Is language teachable? Applied Linguistics, 10, 52-79.
76. Robinson, P. (1995). Attention, memory, and the "noticing" hypothesis. Language Learning, 45, 283-331.
77. Robinson, P. (1996a). Consciousness, rules, and instructed second language acquisition. New York: Peter Lang.
78. Robinson, P. (1996b). Learning simple and complex second language rules under implicit, incidental, rule-search, and instructed conditions. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 18, 27-68.
79. Robinson, P. (1997). Generalizability and automaticity of second language learning under implicit, incidental, enhanced, and instructed conditions. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 19, 233-247.
80. Rosenthal, R (1991). Meta-analytic procedures for social research. Newbury Park, CA: Sage.
81. Rosenthal, R. (1994). Parametric measures of effect size. In H. Cooper & L. Hedges (Eds.), Handbook of research synthesis (pp. 231-244). New York: Russell Sage Foundation.
82. Rosenthal, R. (1995). Writing meta-analytic reviews. Psychological Bulletin, 118, 183-192.
83. Rosenthal, R., & Rubin, D. (1986). Meta-analytic procedures for combining studies with multiple effect sizes. Psychological Bulletin, 99, 400-406.
84. Salaberry, M. R. (1997). The role of input and output practice in second language acquisition. Canadian Modern Language Review, 53, 422-451.
85. Schmidt, R. (1993). Awareness and second language acquisition. Annual Review of Applied Linguistics, 13, 206-226.
86. Schmidt, R. (1997, October). There is no learning without attention. Paper presented at the 17th Second Language Research Forum, Michigan State University, East Lansing, MI.
87. Schwartz, B. D. (1993). On explicit and negative data effecting and affecting competence and linguistic behaviour. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 15, 147-163.
88. Scott, V. (1989). An empirical study of explicit and implicit teaching strategies in French. The Modern Language Journal, 72, 14-22.
89. Scott, V. M. (1990). Explicit and implicit grammar teaching: New empirical data. French Review, 63, 779-788.
90. Sharwood Smith, M. (1981). Consciousness-raising and second language acquisition theory. Applied Linguistics, 2, 159-168.
91. Sharwood Smith, M. (1993). Input enhancement in instructed SLA: Theoretical based. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 15, 165-179.
92. Skehan, P. (1998). A cognitive approach to language learning. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
93. Spada, N. (1997). Form-focussed instruction and second language acquisition: A review of classroom and laboratory research. Language Teaching, 29, 1-15.
94. Swain, M. (1998). Focus on form through conscious reflection. In C. Doughty & J. Williams (Eds.), Focus on form in classroom second language acquisition (pp. 64-81). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
95. Terrell, T. (1991). The role of grammar instruction in a communicative approach. Modern Language Journal, 75, 52-63.
96. Thomas, M. (1994). Assessment of L2 proficiency in second language acquisition research. Language Learning, 44, 307-336.
97. Tomlin, R., & Villa, V. (1994). Attention in cognitive science and second language acquisition. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 16, 183-204.
98. VanPatten, B., & Cadierno, T. (1993a). Explicit instruction and input processing. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 15, 225-241.
99. VanPatten, B., & Cadierno, T. (1993b). Input processing and second language acquisition: A role for instruction. Modern Language Journal, 77, 45-57.
100. VanPatten, B., & Oikkenon, S. (1996). Explanation versus structured input in processing instruction. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 18, 495-510.
101. VanPatten, B., & Sanz, C. (1995). From input to output: Processing instruction and communicative tasks. In F. Eckman, D. Highland, P. Lee, J. Mileham, & R. Weber (Eds.), SLA theory and pedagogy (pp. 169-185). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
102. White, L. (1991). Adverb placement in second language acquisition: Some effects of positive and negative evidence in the classroom. Second Language Research, 7, 133-161.
103. Williams, J., & Evans, J. (1998). What kind of focus and on which forms? In C. Doughty & J. Williams (Eds.), Focus on form in classroom second language acquisition (pp. 139-155). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
104. Woods, A., Fletcher, P., & Hughes, A. (1986). Statistics in language studies. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
105. Young-Scholten, M. (1999, March). Focus on form and linguistic competence: Why Krashen is still right. Paper presented at the Annual Conference of the American Association for Applied Linguistics, Stamford, Connecticut.
106. Zobl, H. (1985). Grammars in search of input and intake. In S. Gass & C. Madden (Eds.), Input in SLA (pp. 329-344). Rowley, MA: Newbury House.