Instrument Reporting Practices in Second Language Research

TESOL Quarterly

Volumn 50, Issue 1, 2016, Pages 132-153

  Derrick, Deirdre J ^a  

^a NORTHERN ARIZONA UNIVERSITY   (United States)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

EID: 85000788626     PISSN: 00398322     EISSN: 15457249     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1002/tesq.217     Document Type: Article

References (40)

1. Ardasheva, Y., & Tretter, T. R. (2013). Strategy inventory for language learning-ELL student form: Testing for factoral validity. Modern Language Journal, 97, 474-489. doi:10.1111/j.1540-4781.2013.12011.x
2. Bachman, L. F. (1990). Fundamental considerations in language testing. Oxford, England: Oxford University Press.
3. Bachman, L. F., & Cohen, A. D. (1998). Interfaces between SLA and language testing research. Cambridge, England: Cambridge University Press.
4. Bachman, L. F., & Palmer, A. (2010). Language assessment in practice. Oxford, England: Oxford University Press.
5. Brown, J. D. (2014). Classical theory reliability. In A. J. Kunnan (Ed.), The companion to language assessment (pp. 1-17). doi:10.1002/9781118411360.wbcla054
6. Chapelle, C. A., & Duff, P. (2003). Some guidelines for conducting quantitative and qualitative research in TESOL. TESOL Quarterly, 37, 157-178. doi:10.2307/3588471
7. Chaudron, C. (2001). Progress in language classroom research: Evidence from The Modern Language Journal, 1961-2000. Modern Language Journal, 85, 57-76. doi:10.1111/0026-7902.00097
8. Cohen, A. D., & Macaro, E. (2010). Research methods in second language acquisition. In E. Macaro (Ed.), The Bloomsbury companion to second language acquisition (pp. 107-133). New York, NY: Bloomsbury Academic.
9. Cooper, C., Appelbaum, M., Maxwell, S., Stone, A., & Sher, K. J. (2008). Reporting standards for research in psychology: Why do we need them? What might they be? American Psychologist, 63, 839-851. doi:10.1037/0003-066X.63.9.839
10. Davies, A., Brown, A., Elder, C., Hill, K., Lumley, T., & McNamara, T. (1999). A dictionary of language testing. Cambridge, England: Cambridge University Press.
11. Egbert, J. (2007). Quality analysis of journals in TESOL and applied linguistics. TESOL Quarterly, 41, 157-171. doi:10.1002/j.1545-7249.2007.tb00044.x
12. Funder, D. C., Levine, J. M., Mackie, D. M., Morf, C. C., Sansone, C., Vazire, S., & West, S. G. (2013). Improving the dependability of research in personality and social psychology: Recommendations for research and educational practice. Personality and Social Psychology Review, 18, 3-12. doi:10.1177/1088868313507536
13. Gass, S. M. (2009). A historical survey of SLA research. In W. C. Ritchie & T. K. Bhatia (Eds.), The new handbook of second language acquisition (pp. 3-28). Bingley, England: Emerald Group.
14. Gutiérrez, J. (2013). The construct validity of grammaticality judgment tests as measures of implicit and explicit knowledge. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 35, 423-449. doi:10.1017/S0272263113000041
15. Hatch, E., & Lazaraton, A. (1991). The research manual: Design and statistics for applied linguistics. Boston, MA: Heinle & Heinle.
16. Henning, G. (1986). Quantitative methods in language acquisition research. TESOL Quarterly, 20, 701-708. doi:10.2307/3586520
17. Knoch, U., & McNamara, T. (in press). Rasch analysis. In L. Plonsky (Ed.), Advancing quantitative methods in second language research. New York, NY: Routledge.
18. Larson-Hall, J. (2012). Our statistical intuitions may be misleading us: Why we need robust statistics. Language Teaching, 45, 460-474. doi:10.1017/S0261444811000127
19. Larson-Hall, J., & Plonsky, L. (in press). Reporting and interpreting quantitative research findings: What gets reported, how, and why? In J. M. Norris, S. Ross, & R. Schoonen (Eds.), Currents in language learning: Improving quantitative reasoning in L2 research. Malden, MA: Wiley.
20. Lazaraton, A. (2005). Quantitative research methods. In E. Hinkel (Ed.), Handbook of research in second language teaching and learning (pp. 209-224). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
21. Lee, J., Jang, J., & Plonsky, L. (2014). The effectiveness of second language pronunciation instruction: A meta-analysis. Applied Linguistics. doi:10.1093/applin/amu040
22. Marsden, E., & Mackey, A. (2014). IRIS: A new resource for second language research. Linguistic Approaches to Bilingualism, 4, 125-130. doi:10.1075/lab.4.1.05mar
23. Miles, M. B., Huberman, A. M., & Saldaña, J. (2014). Qualitative data analysis (3rd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
24. Miller, M. D., Linn, R. L., & Gronlund, N. E. (2009). Measurement and assessment in teaching (10th ed.). Upper Saddle River, NJ: Pearson.
25. Nekrasova, T., & Becker, T. (2009). Effectiveness of practice: A research synthesis and quantitative meta-analysis. Unpublished manuscript.
26. Norris, J. M., & Ortega, L. (2000). Effectiveness of L2 instruction: A research synthesis and quantitative meta-analysis. Language Learning, 50, 417-528. doi:10.1111/0023-8333.00136
27. Norris, J. M., & Ortega, L. (2012). Assessing learner knowledge. In S. Gass & A. Mackey (Eds.), The Routledge handbook of second language acquisition (pp. 573-589). New York, NY: Routledge.
28. Plonsky, L. (2013). Study quality in SLA: An assessment of designs, analyses, and reporting practices in quantitative L2 research. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 35, 655-687. doi:10.1017/S0272263113000399
29. Plonsky, L. (2014). Study quality in quantitative L2 research (1990-2010): A methodological synthesis and call for reform. Modern Language Journal, 98, 440-460. doi:10.1111/j.1540-4781.2014.12058.x
30. Plonsky, L., & Gass, S. (2011). Quantitative research methods, study quality, and outcomes: The case of interaction research. Language Learning, 61, 325-366. doi:10.1111/j.1467-9922.2011.00640.x
31. Plonsky, L., & Oswald, F. L. (2012). How to do a meta-analysis. In A. Mackey & S. M. Gass (Eds.), Research methods in second language acquisition: A practical guide (pp. 275-295). Hoboken, NJ: Blackwell.
32. Read, J. (2007). Toward a new collaboration: Research in SLA and language testing. New Zealand Studies in Applied Linguistics, 13, 22-35.
33. Shohamy, E. (1994). The role of language tests in the construction and validation of second-language acquisition theories. In E. E. Tarone, S. M. Gass, & A. D. Cohen (Eds.), Research methodology in second-language acquisition (pp. 133-142). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
34. Shohamy, E. (2004). Reflections on research guidelines, categories, and responsibility. TESOL Quarterly, 38, 728-731. doi:10.2307/3588291
35. Spada, N., & Tomita, Y. (2010). Interactions between type of instruction and type of language feature: A meta-analysis. Language Learning, 60, 263-308. doi:10.1111/j.1467-9922.2010.00562.x
36. Thomas, M. (2006). Research synthesis and historiography: The case of assessment of second language proficiency. In J. M. Norris & L. Ortega (Eds.), Synthesizing research on language learning and teaching (pp. 279-298). Philadelphia, PA: John Benjamins.
37. Tremblay, A. (2011). Proficiency assessment standards in second language acquisition research: "Clozing" the gap. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 33, 339-372. doi:10.1017/S0272263111000015
38. Watanabe, Y., & Koyama, D. (2008). A meta-analysis of second language cloze testing research. Second Language Studies, 26, 103-133.
39. Weideman, A. (2006). Transparency and accountability in applied linguistics. Southern African Linguistics and Applied Language Studies, 24, 71-86. doi:10.2989/16073610609486407
40. Ziegler, N. (2013). Synchronous computer-mediated communication and interaction: A research synthesis and meta-analysis (Unpublished doctoral dissertation). Washington, DC: Georgetown University.