Volume 1, Issue 2
  • ISSN 2542-3835
  • E-ISSN: 2542-3843
Buy:$35.00 + Taxes


Meta-analysis has become increasingly popular in second language acquisition research (SLA) and has provided valuable summative information about a number of key areas. There are, however, dangers. This article examines a number of key issues that need to be considered in conducting a meta-analysis – inclusiveness, the heterogeneity of language learners, the definition of the independent and dependent variables, the need to consider alternative explanations of observed effects, the importance of examining the quality of the studies included in the analysis, and the apples and oranges problem. These issues are illustrated in a discussion of number of SLA meta-analyses (e.g. Norris and Ortega, 2000 ; Plonsky, 2011 ; Qureshi, 2016 ; Spada and Tomita, 2010 ). The article concludes by suggesting a number of factors that need to be considered in deciding whether to conduct a meta-analysis and when carrying one out. I argue the need for systematic reviews but suggest that these can often best present their findings in narrative form rather than statistically. I also suggest that a preliminary narrative account of the findings of s systematic review can indicate whether a meta-analysis is appropriate.


Article metrics loading...

Loading full text...

Full text loading...


  1. Berns, M.
    (1990) ‘Second’ and ‘foreign’ in second language acquisition? Foreign language learning: A sociolinguistic perspectives. In B. VanPatten & J. Lee (Eds), Second language acquisition – foreign language learning (pp.3–11). Clevedon: Multilingual Matters.
    [Google Scholar]
  2. Bialystok, E. , & Hakuta, K.
    (1999) Confounded age: Linguistic and cognitive factors in age differences for second language acquisition. In D. Birdsong (Ed.), Second language acquisition and the critical period hypothesis. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
    [Google Scholar]
  3. Birdsong, D.
    (2006) Age and second language acquisition and processing: A selective overview. In M. Gullberg & P. Indefrey (Eds.), The cognitive neuroscience of second language acquisition (pp.9–49). Malden, MA: Blackwell.
    [Google Scholar]
  4. Borenstein, M. , Hedges, L. , Higgins, J. , & Rothstein, H.
    (2006) Comprehensive meta-analysis (Version 2.2.027) [Computer software]. Englewood, NJ: Biostat.
  5. (2009) Introduction to meta-analysis. Hoboken, NJ: John Wiley and Sons.10.1002/9780470743386
    https://doi.org/10.1002/9780470743386 [Google Scholar]
  6. Cohen, J.
    (1988) Statistical power analysis for the behavioral sciences (2nd ed.). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
    [Google Scholar]
  7. Cooper, H.
    (2010) Research synthesis and meta-analysis. Los Angeles, CA: Sage.
    [Google Scholar]
  8. DeKeyser, R.
    (2003) Implicit and explicit learning. In C. Doughty & M. Long (Eds.), The handbook of second language acquisition (pp.313–348). Malden, MA: Blackwell.10.1002/9780470756492.ch11
    https://doi.org/10.1002/9780470756492.ch11 [Google Scholar]
  9. Ellis, N.
    (2006) Meta-analysis, human cognition, and language learning. In J. Norris & L. Ortega (Eds.), Synthesizing research on language teaching and learning (pp.301–322). Amsterdam: John Benjamins.10.1075/lllt.13.16ell
    https://doi.org/10.1075/lllt.13.16ell [Google Scholar]
  10. Ellis, R.
    (1991) Grammar teaching – practice or consciousness-raising. In R. Ellis (Ed.), Second language acquisition and second language pedagogy (pp.232–241). Clevedon: Multilingual Matters.
    [Google Scholar]
  11. (1997) SLA research and language teaching. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  12. (2007) The differential effects of corrective feedback on two grammatical structures. In A. Mackey (Ed.), Conversational interaction and second language acquisition: A series of empirical studies (pp.339–360). Oxford: Oxford University Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  13. (2012) Second language research and language pedagogy. Malden, MA: Wiley Blackwell.
    [Google Scholar]
  14. (2015) Understanding second language acquisition (2nd ed.). Oxford: Oxford University Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  15. (2015b) Introduction: Complementarity in research syntheses. Applied Linguistics, 36(3), 258–259.10.1093/applin/amv015
    https://doi.org/10.1093/applin/amv015 [Google Scholar]
  16. Eysenck, H.
    (1984) Meta-analysis: An abuse of research integration. Journal of Special Education, 15, 9–11.
    [Google Scholar]
  17. (1994) Systematic reviews: Meta-analysis and its problems. British Medication Journal, 309, 789–792.10.1136/bmj.309.6957.789
    https://doi.org/10.1136/bmj.309.6957.789 [Google Scholar]
  18. Glass, G.
    (1976) Primary, secondary and meta-analysis of Research. Educational Researcher, 5, 3–8.10.3102/0013189X005010003
    https://doi.org/10.3102/0013189X005010003 [Google Scholar]
  19. Glass, S. , & Smith, M.
    (1979) Meta-analysis on class size and achievement. Educational Evolution and Policy Analysis, 1, 2–16.10.3102/01623737001001002
    https://doi.org/10.3102/01623737001001002 [Google Scholar]
  20. Goo, J. , Granena, G. , Novella, M. , & Yilmaz, M.
    (2009) Implicit and explicit instruction in L2 learning: Norris and Ortega (2000) revisited. Paper presented atthe Second Language Research Forum. East Lansing, MI.
    [Google Scholar]
  21. Jeon, E. , & Kaya, T.
    (2006) Effects of L2 instruction on interlanguage pragmatic development: A meta-analysis. In J. Norris & L. Ortega (Eds.), Synthesizing research on language teaching and learning (pp.165–212). Amsterdam: John Benjamins.10.1075/lllt.13.10jeo
    https://doi.org/10.1075/lllt.13.10jeo [Google Scholar]
  22. Johnson, J. , & Newport, E.
    (1989) Critical period effects in second language learning: The influence of maturational state on the acquisition of English as a second language. Cognitive Psychology, 21, 60–99.10.1016/0010‑0285(89)90003‑0
    https://doi.org/10.1016/0010-0285(89)90003-0 [Google Scholar]
  23. Khan, S. , Kunz, R. , Kleijnen, M. , & Antes, G.
    (2003) Five steps to conducing a systematic review. Journal of the Royal Society of Medicine, 96, 118–121.10.1258/jrsm.96.3.118
    https://doi.org/10.1258/jrsm.96.3.118 [Google Scholar]
  24. Li, S.
    (2010) The effectiveness of corrective feedback in SLA; A meta-analysis. Language Learning, 60, 309–365.10.1111/j.1467‑9922.2010.00561.x
    https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-9922.2010.00561.x [Google Scholar]
  25. Li, S. , Shitani, N. , & Ellis, R.
    (2013) Doing meta-analysis in SLA: Practices, choices and standards. Contemporary Foreign Language Studies, 384, 1–17.
    [Google Scholar]
  26. Lipsey, M. , & Wilson, D.
    (2001) Practical meta-analysis. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
    [Google Scholar]
  27. Long, M.
    (1988) Maturational constraints on language development. University of Hawai’i Working Papers in ESL, 7(1), 1–53.
    [Google Scholar]
  28. (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.10.1075/sibil.2.07lon
    https://doi.org/10.1075/sibil.2.07lon [Google Scholar]
  29. Lyster, R. , & Saito, K.
    (2010) Oral feedback in SLA: A meta-analysis. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 32, 265–302.10.1017/S0272263109990520
    https://doi.org/10.1017/S0272263109990520 [Google Scholar]
  30. Mackey, A. , & Goo, J.
    (2007) Interaction research in SLA: A meta-analysis and research (pp.407–449). In. A. Mackey (Eds.), Conversational interaction in second language acquisition: A collection of empirical studies (pp.407–452). Oxford: Oxford University Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  31. Norris, J. , & Ortega, L.
    (2000) Effectiveness of L2 instruction: A research synthesis and quantitative meta-analysis. Language Learning, 50, 417–528.10.1111/0023‑8333.00136
    https://doi.org/10.1111/0023-8333.00136 [Google Scholar]
  32. (2006) The value and practice of research synthesis for language learning and teaching. In J. Norris & L. Ortega (Eds.), Synthesizing research on language learning and teaching (pp.1–50). Amsterdam: John Benjamins.10.1075/lllt.13.04nor
    https://doi.org/10.1075/lllt.13.04nor [Google Scholar]
  33. Oswald, L. , & Plonsky, L.
    (2010) Meta-analysis in second language research: Choices and challenges. Annual Review of Applied Linguistics, 30, 85–110.10.1017/S0267190510000115
    https://doi.org/10.1017/S0267190510000115 [Google Scholar]
  34. Plonsky, L.
    (2011) The effectiveness of second language strategy instruction: A meta-analysis. Language Learning, 61, 993–1038.10.1111/j.1467‑9922.2011.00663.x
    https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-9922.2011.00663.x [Google Scholar]
  35. Personal website downloaded on 31/7/17 from https://lukeplonsky.wordpress.com/bibliographies/meta-analysis/
  36. Plonsky, L. , & Oswald, F.
    (2012) How to do a meta-analysis. In A. Mackey & S. Gass (Eds.), Research methods in second language acquisition: A practical introduction (pp.275–295). Malden, MA: Blackwell.10.1002/9781444347340.ch14
    https://doi.org/10.1002/9781444347340.ch14 [Google Scholar]
  37. Qureshi, M.
    (2016) A meta-analysis: Age and second language grammar acquisition. System, 60, 147–160.10.1016/j.system.2016.06.001
    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.system.2016.06.001 [Google Scholar]
  38. Ross, S.
    (1998) Self-assessment in second language testing: A meta-analysis and analysis of experiential factors. Language Testing, 15, 1–20.10.1177/026553229801500101
    https://doi.org/10.1177/026553229801500101 [Google Scholar]
  39. Russo, M.
    (2007) How to review a meta-analysis. Gastroenterology and Hepatology, 3(8), 637–642.
    [Google Scholar]
  40. Shintani, N. , Li, S. , & Ellis, R.
    (2013) Comprehension-based versus production-based grammar instruction: A meta-analysis of comparative studies. Language Learning, 63(2), 296–329.10.1111/lang.12001
    https://doi.org/10.1111/lang.12001 [Google Scholar]
  41. Shintani, N.
    (2015) The effectiveness of processing instruction and production-based instruction on L2 grammar acquisition: A meta-analysis. Applied Linguistics, 36(3), 306–325.10.1093/applin/amu067
    https://doi.org/10.1093/applin/amu067 [Google Scholar]
  42. Smith, M. , & Glass, G.
    (1977) Meta-analysis of psychotherapy outcome studies. American Psychology, 32, 752–60.10.1037/0003‑066X.32.9.752
    https://doi.org/10.1037/0003-066X.32.9.752 [Google Scholar]
  43. Smith, M. , Glass, G. , & Miller, T.
    (1980) The benefits of psychotherapy. Baltimore, MD: Johns Hopkins Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  44. Spada, N. , & Lightbown, P.
    (2008) Form-focused instruction: Isolated or integrated?TESOL Quarterly, 42, 181–207.10.1002/j.1545‑7249.2008.tb00115.x
    https://doi.org/10.1002/j.1545-7249.2008.tb00115.x [Google Scholar]
  45. Spada, N. , & Tomita, Y.
    (2010) Interactions between type of instruction and type of language feature: A meta-analysis. Language Learning, 60, 268–308.10.1111/j.1467‑9922.2010.00562.x
    https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-9922.2010.00562.x [Google Scholar]
  46. The International Research Foundation for English language Education
  47. Truscott, J.
    (2007) The effect of error correction on learners’ ability to write accurately. Journal of Second Language Writing, 16, 255–272.10.1016/j.jslw.2007.06.003
    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jslw.2007.06.003 [Google Scholar]
  48. VanPatten, B.
    (1996) Input processing and grammar instruction in second language acquisition. Norwood, NJ: Ablex.
    [Google Scholar]
  49. Walker, E. , Hernandez, A. , & Katten, M.
    (2008) Meta-analysis: Its strength and limitations. Cleveland. Clinic Journal of Medicine, 75, 431–439.
    [Google Scholar]
  • Article Type: Research Article
Keyword(s): limitations; meta-analysis; narrative accounts; SLA
This is a required field
Please enter a valid email address
Approval was successful
Invalid data
An Error Occurred
Approval was partially successful, following selected items could not be processed due to error