Replication studies in language learning and teaching: Questions and answers

Language Teaching

Volumn 41, Issue 1, 2007, Pages 1-14

[No Author Info available]

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

EID: 85011486690     PISSN: 02614448     EISSN: 14753049     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1017/S0261444807004727     Document Type: Article

References (46)

1. Adams R. 2003. L2 output, reformulation and noticing: Implications for IL development. Language Teaching Research 7. 3, 347–376.
2. Allison D., Varghese S. & Mei W. S. 1999. Local coherence and its limits: A second look at second sentences. Journal of Second Language Writing 8. 1, 77–97.
3. Ashwell T. 2000. Patterns of teacher response to student writing in a multiple-draft composition classroom: Is content feedback followed by form feedback the best method? Journal of Second Language Writing 9. 3, 227–257.
4. Bitchener J., Young S. & Cameron D. 2005. The effect of different types of corrective feedback on ESL student writing. Journal of Second Language Writing 12. 3, 191–205.
5. Bowles M. 2003. The effects of textual input enhancement on language learning: An online/offline study of fourth-semester Spanish students. In Kempchinsky P. & Piñeros C. E. (eds.), Theory, practice, and acquisition: The 6th Hispanic Linguistics Symposium and the 5th Conference on the Acquisition of Spanish and Portuguese. Somerville, MA: Cascadilla Press, 395–411.
6. Brumfit C. 2005. Teacher professionalism and research. In Cook G. & Seidlhofer B. (eds.), Principle and practice in applied linguistics: Studies in honour of H. G. Widdowson. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 27–42.
7. Carver R. P. 1978. The case against statistical significance testing. Harvard Educational Review 48, 378–399.
8. Chandler J. 2003. The efficacy of various kinds of error feedback for improvement in the accuracy and fluency of L2 student writing. Journal of Second Language Writing 12, 267–296.
9. Cobb T. 2003. Analyzing late interlanguage with learner corpora: Quebec replications of three European studies. The Canadian Modern Language Review 59. 3, 393–423.
10. Cohen J. 1990. Things I have learned (so far). American Psychologist 45, 1304–1312.
11. Conrad S. M. & Goldstein L. M. 1999. ESL student revision after teacher-written comments: Text, contexts, and individuals. Journal of Second Language Writing 8. 2, 147–179.
12. Devenney R. 1989. How ESL teachers and peers evaluate and respond to student writing. RELC Journal 20. 1, 77–90.
13. Ellis R., Loewen S. & Erlam R. 2006. Implicit and explicit corrective feedback and the acquisition of L2 grammar. Studies in Second Language Acquisition 28, 339–368.
14. Fathman A. K. & Whalley E. 1990. Teacher response to student writing: Focus on form versus content. In Kroll B. (ed.), Second language writing: Research insights for the classroom. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 178–190.
15. Fazio J. L. 2001. The effect of corrections and commentaries on the journal writing accuracy of minority- and majority-language students. Journal of Second Language Writing 10, 235–249.
16. Ferris D. R. 2004. The ‘grammar correction’ debate in L2 writing: Where are we, and where do we go from here? (and what do we do in the meantime. ?). Journal of Second Language Writing 13. 1, 49–62.
17. Ferris D. R., Pezone S., Tade C. R. & Tinti S. 1997. Teacher commentary on student writing: Descriptions and implications. Journal of Second Language Writing 6. 2, 155–182.
18. Ferris D. R. & Roberts B. 2001. Error feedback in L2 writing classes: How explicit does it need to be? Journal of Second Language Writing. 10-3: 161-184.
19. Firestone W. A. 1993. Alternative arguments for generalizing from data as applied to qualitative research. Educational Researcher 22, 16–23.
20. Gascoigne C. 2004. Examining the effect of feedback in beginning L2 composition. Foreign Language Annals 37. 1, 71–76.
21. Gass S., Mackey A. & Ross-Feldman L. 2005. Task-based interactions in classroom and laboratory settings. Language Learning 55. 4, 575–611.
22. Goodwin C. J. 1998. Research in psychology: Methods and design (2nd edn.). New York: John Wiley & Sons Inc.
23. Hendrik C. 1991. Replications, strict replications, and conceptual replications: Are they important? In Neuliep J. W. (ed.), Replication research in the social sciences. Newbury Park, CA: Sage Publications, 41–49.
24. Hyland F. 2003. Focusing on form: Student engagement with teacher feedback. System 31. 2, 217–230.
25. Kepner C. G. 1991. An experiment in the relationship of types of written feedback to the development of second-language writing skills. The Modern Language Journal 75. 3, 305–313.
26. Lalande J. F. 1982. Reducing composition errors: An experiment. The Modern Language Journal 66, 140–149.
27. Lee I. 1997. ESL learners’ performance in error correction in writing: Some implications for teaching. System 25. 4, 465–477.
28. Leow R. P. 1999. The role of attention in second/foreign language classroom research: Methodological issues. In Gutiérrez-Rexach F. M-G. J. (ed.), Advances in Hispanic linguistics: The 2nd Hispanic Linguistics Symposium. Somerville, MA: Cascadilla, 60–71.
29. Mackey A. & Gass S. 2005. Second language research: Methodology and design. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
30. Mackey A., Gass S. & McDonough K. 2000. How do learners perceive interactional feedback? Studies in Second Language Acquisition 22. 4, 471–497.
31. McDonough J. & McDonough S. 1997. Research methods for English language teachers. London: Arnold.
32. Neale J. M. & Liebert R. M. 1986. Science and behavior: An introduction to methods of research (3rd edn.). Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.
33. Polio C. & Gass S. 1997. Replication and reporting: A commentary. Studies in Second Language Acquisition 19, 499–508.
34. Robb T., Ross S. & Shortreed I. 1986. Salience of feedback on error and its effect on EFL writing quality. TESOL Quarterly 20. 1, 83–95.
35. Rosnow R. L. & Rosenthal R. 1989. Statistical procedures and the justification of knowledge in psychological science. American Psychologist 44, 1276–1284.
36. Semke H. D. 1984. Effects of the red pen. Foreign Language Annals 17. 3, 195–202.
37. Sheppard K. 1992. Two feedback types: Do they make a difference? RELC Journal 23. 1, 103–110.
38. Thompson B. 1992. Two and one-half decades of leadership in measurement and evaluation. Journal of Counseling and Development 70, 434–438.
39. Thompson B. 1994. The pivotal role of replication in psychological research: Empirically evaluating the replicability of sample results. Journal of Personality 62, 157–176.
40. Titscher S., Meyer C., Wodak R. & Vetter E. 2000. Methods of text and discourse analysis. London: Sage Publications.
41. Truscott J. 1996. The case against grammar correction in L2 writing classes. Language Learning 46. 2, 327–369.
42. Valdman A. 1993. Replication study. Studies in Second Language Acquisition 15, 505.
43. Van Der Veer R., van IJzendoorn M. & Valsiner J. 1994. General introduction. In van der Veer R., van IJzendoorn M. & Valsiner J. (eds.), Reconstructing the mind: Replicability in research on human development. Norwood, NJ: Ablex, 1–9.
44. VanPatten B. 1990. Attending to form and content in the input. Studies in Second Language Acquisition 12, 287–301.
45. Wong W. 2001. Modality and attention to meaning and form in the input. Studies in Second Language Acquisition 23. 3, 345–368.
46. Yates R. & Kenkel J. 2002. Responding to sentence-level errors in writing. Journal of Second Language Writing 1, 29–47.