Good One
Good One
Good One
*Corresponding author: Sin Wang Chong, University of St. Andrews, St. Andrews, UK,
E-mail: sinwangchong@gmail.com. https://orcid.org/0000-0002-4519-0544
Luke Plonsky, Northern Arizona University, Flagstaff, AZ, USA. https://orcid.org/0000-0002-5791-1839
Open Access. © 2023 the author(s), published by De Gruyter. This work is licensed under the
Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.
2 Chong and Plonsky
critique of the literature at hand (an alternative name of some traditional reviews is
“critical reviews”). This is especially true in traditional reviews which are published
as stand-alone journal articles in which researchers identify strengths and weak-
nesses of existing studies on a topic. Unlike systematic reviews, traditional reviews
do not generally extract data in any formalized way from primary studies. Finally,
such reviews usually also make suggestions for future research directions based on
the reviewers’ expert knowledge and/or based on gaps identified in the literature.
The other main family of secondary research is best characterized by a formal
set of methods that are applied to the review process. Such ‘systematic reviews’, or
research syntheses, have gained widespread popularity in Applied Linguistics
research in recent years, especially those that aggregate quantitative findings
(Chong et al. 2023). In addition to systematic reviews, a growing body of papers
concerning their methodology can also be found (e.g., Chong and Plonsky 2021; Chong
and Reinders 2021; Chong and Reinders 2022; Li and Wang 2018; Macaro 2020; Norris
and Ortega 2006; Plonsky and Brown 2015; Plonsky and Oswald 2015) and several new
contributions are underway (e.g., Norris and Plonsky In Preparation; Sterling and
Plonsky In Preparation). Indeed, Norris and Ortega’s (2007) prediction that research
syntheses “will continue to thrive in our field” (p. 812) has been borne out. Unlike
traditional or narrative reviews, systematic research syntheses refer to a “protocol-
driven and quality-focused approach” (Bearman et al. 2012, p. 625) to aggregate
research evidence to enlighten theory, research, policy, and practice.
In parallel to primary research, systematic research syntheses can be broadly
divided into two major types: qualitative and quantitative. Qualitative research
synthesis, also called “qualitative evidence synthesis” (e.g., Chong and Reinders
2020), assembles qualitative research evidence to “reveal deep insights into disparate
literature for future research” (Chen 2016, p. 387). Another purpose of qualitative
research synthesis is to strengthen and deepen qualitative evidence by unraveling
“multidimensions, varieties, and complexities” (Çiftçi and Savas 2017, p. 4) amongst
studies.
Quantitative research syntheses, as the name indicates, rely on quantitative data
as a means to understand a given domain. The most well-known synthesis of this type
is likely meta-analysis, which involves the statistical aggregation of effect sizes across
studies (e.g., In’nami and Kozumi 2009). However, a number of other types of
quantitative syntheses exist such as bibliometric reviews (see below). Figure 1 pre-
sents a visual of the basic breakdown of secondary research types introduced thus
far.
Whilst traditional literature reviews continue to appear in Applied Linguistics
journals and other outlets such as book chapters and monographs, systematic
research syntheses are gaining prominence. Such growth can be attributed to several
factors. First, the status of research synthesis has changed in recent years from a kind
A typology of secondary research 3
Literature
review/Secondary
research
SystemaƟc
TradiƟonal
(Non-systemaƟc) (Research
synthesis)
QualitaƟve QuanƟtaƟve
(1) Critical review: The purpose of a critical review is to explore prevalent views
in a research topic and offer alternative perspectives. Muñoz and Singleton
(2011), for instance, reviews and challenges the prevalent view of maturational
constraints toward second language acquisition. Moreover, this type of review
often discusses key questions within the target domain. Lai and Li (2011)
provide another example in their critical review on the intersection of tech-
nologies and task-based language teaching. Regarding the review process,
there is generally no explicit description of how literature included in the
review was searched and appraised, nor does it mention how the findings
from existing research are synthesized and analyzed. The text of a critical
review of literature takes a narrative approach, discussing prevalent issues
thematically, with arguments or views illustrated by individual studies. In
terms of product, a critical review often has a customized structure with
headings related to the specific prevalent issues. Unlike the majority of sec-
ondary research types, information in a critical review is usually represented
using only text and without the use of figures or tables.
(2) Meta-analysis: Meta-analysis is one of the most prominent types of systematic
research synthesis in Applied Linguistics (Plonsky 2014). It aims to consolidate
similarities and clarify conflicting findings. Given its quantitative nature,
synthesists who conduct meta-analyses are often interested in effects or
6
Critical review Lai and Li Technology CALICO – To explore com- Not stated Not stated Not stated – A narrative, – A customised
() and task- Journal mon views and thematic structure
based lan- offer alternative approach – Textual
Chong and Plonsky
Plonsky Task-based Annual Re- research a Explicitly Explicitly – Data are – Calculate – Textual repre-
and Kim language view of particular topic stated stated coded percentages sentation
() teaching Applied – To address – Reliability and together with
Linguistics methodological of coding frequencies figures, and
issues addressed – Calculate tables
means and
standard
deviation
Mixed review Jackson Second lan- Language Dependent on the Dependent Dependent Dependent on Dependent on the – A convergent
and Sue- guage task Learning types of research on the types on the types the types of types of research approach
thana- complexity synthesis of research of research research synthesis – A sequential
pornkul synthesis synthesis synthesis approach
() – With supple-
Marsden Replication of Language mentary online
et al. second lan- Learning materials
() guage
research
Narrative review DeKeyser L grammar Applied – To map the rapid Not stated Not stated Not stated – A narrative, – A customised
and Bot- acquisition Linguistics development of thematic structure
ana () a field (often approach – Textual repre-
written by – Support sentation only
A typology of secondary research
Table : (continued)
Thomson L pronuncia- Applied – To identify Explicitly Explicitly Not stated – Calculate – A standard
and Derw- tion Linguistics research gaps stated stated percentages structure of a
ing () instruction – Support primary study
Chong and Plonsky
State-of-the-art Bardovi- Language Studies in To identify patterns Explicitly Explicitly Not stated – A (personal), – A customised
review Harlig and attrition Second Lan- and gaps in a research stated stated narrative, structure
Stringer guage field through an thematic – Textual repre-
() Acquisition exhaustive survey approach sentation with
Chong and Plonsky
Historical review Boo et al. L motivation System Explore theoretical Explicitly Explicitly Explicitly stated Explicitly stated – A standard
() research and methodological stated stated structure of a
developments over primary study
time – Textual repre-
sentation with
figures, tables
Isaacs and L pronuncia- Language Mark milestones and Not stated Not stated Not stated Not stated Introduction plus
Harding tion Teaching trace the history of chronological pre-
() assessment research on L pro- sentation of land-
nunciation mark publications/
assessment events with
annotation
Bibliometric Hyland and Citation Applied Frequency, patterns, Explicitly Explicitly Explicitly stated Explicitly stated – A standard
review Jiang patterns Linguistics and associated lin- stated stated structure of a
() guistic features of primary study
citation over time and – Textual repre-
across disciplines sentation with
figures, tables
Aryadoust Eye-tracking in Computer- To identify citation Explicitly Explicitly Explicitly stated Explicitly stated – A standard
and Ang the language Assisted Lan- and publication clus- stated stated structure of a
() sciences guage ters and patterns of primary study
A typology of secondary research
Critical review + - − −
Meta-analysis + + + +
Methodological review + + + +
Mixed review + +/− +/− +/−
Narrative review + +/− +/− −
Qualitative research synthesis +/− + + +
Research agenda + − − +
Research into practice − − − −
Scoping review + + + +
State-of-the-art review + +/− +/− +
Systematic literature review +/− + + +
Historical review +/− +/− +/− +/−
Bibliometric review + + + +
efficacy of a particular intervention. For example, Kang and Han’s (2015) meta-
analysis quantified the overall effects of written corrective feedback on
improving linguistic accuracy of second language writers; as is typical in meta-
analysis, the study also identified a number of factors which moderate the
effect of written corrective feedback. The review process of meta-analysis is
documented in detail, usually in a separate ‘method’ section, with sub-sections
dedicated to the literature search, coding process, and analysis. The two meta-
analyses included in Table 1 reported how data were synthesized through
coding of the features of primary studies and how the reliability of the coding
was upheld (e.g., Teimouri et al. 2019). The synthesized data were then
analyzed using descriptive and inferential statistics to estimate and identify
effect sizes, outliers, publication bias, and moderators. The procedures
involved in ‘reliability generalization meta-analysis’, a particular type of meta-
analysis, are nearly identical to meta-analysis. However, the focus is on
aggregating estimates of measurement error (see, e.g., Plonsky 2017, 2019)
rather than effect sizes. As a type of systematic research synthesis, meta-
analysis follows a rather standard structure like a primary study, usually with
additional materials included as supplementary online documents (e.g., cod-
ing scheme of Teimouri et al. 2019, is made available on IRIS). In addition to
text-based explanations, meta-analyses frequently utilise figures, tables, and
bullet points to document the review procedure and make the otherwise
information-dense piece more reader-friendly.
A typology of secondary research 13
(3) Methodological synthesis: This type of research synthesis can take two
different approaches. Some focus on assessing the methodological approaches,
designs, tools, and so forth within a given substantive domain, as in Plonsky
and Gass’ (2011) review of interactionist research in second language acqui-
sition (SLA). Other methodological syntheses take as their defining principle a
particular research technique or tool. This approach can be seen, for example,
in Marsden et al.’s (2018) review of self-paced reading tasks. Concerning the
review process, the two reviews included in Table 1 represent a similarly
systematic approach (Crowther et al. 2021; Plonsky and Kim 2016). Similar to
meta-analysis, Plonsky and Kim (2016) documented the coding process and
how reliability of coding was maintained. In relation to how data were
analyzed, the calculated percentages and frequencies of different research
and reporting practices. These data are used to describe and evaluate the
methods in the domain in question as well as to provide empirically-grounded
recommendations for future research. Like other types of research synthesis,
the structure of a methodological synthesis conforms to that of the typical
empirical study in the social sciences.
(4) Mixed review: As the name suggests, this type of research synthesis is a
combination of two types of review. For example, Jackson and Suethana-
pornkul (2013) is a combination of a qualitative research synthesis and meta-
analysis on task complexity whilst Marsden et al.’s (2018) extensive work is a
presentation of a narrative and systematic literature review on replication
studies in second language research. The review process, textual structure,
and representation vary and are contingent on the types of studies being
included. For instance, Jackson and Suethanapornkul (2013) follow a system-
atic approach to research synthesis with explicit description of how the
included literature was searched, selected, extracted, and synthesized. As for
structure, two approaches are noted. In Jackson and Suethanapornkul (2013), a
convergent approach was adopted by presenting the qualitative research
synthesis and meta-analysis as one single review, with the findings of each
complementing each other (like the convergent design of mixed-methods
studies noted in Creswell and Clark 2017). Another structural approach is
sequential, meaning that one review is presented at a time (e.g., a narrative
review is first presented in Marsden et al. 2018 and then the systematic
literature review). When there are two reviews in a given report (sequential),
the first is usually broader with the second one being based on a subset of the
first (e.g., Yan et al.’s 2015, review and meta-analysis of elicited imitation).
Because of the profound breadth and depth of the work (see, e.g., Marsden
et al. 2018), mixed reviews often include additional online materials.
14 Chong and Plonsky
(5) Narrative review: This research-focused review aims to map the ‘state of the
art’ in a given domain. Often written by leaders in a particular domain, the
objective of this type of review is “to authoritatively answer particular
research questions, and to identify gaps in research methodologies” (Norris
and Ortega 2006, p. 4). Referring to the two included narrative reviews in
Table 1, there seems to be divergence in terms of how the review process is
enacted. In DeKeyser and Botana (2015), a narrative review is presented in the
form of a traditional research synthesis with a customised structure
addressing various facets of the research topic of L2 grammar acquisition. On
the contrary, Thomson and Derwing (2015) adopt a more systematic approach,
which is exemplified from the brief section on how studies were appraised and
how findings of the included studies were analysed by calculating percent-
ages. (We would note, however, that Thomson and Derwing’s choice to include
this information is atypical of this type of review.) Both reviews include
individual studies as examples of points of interest to substantiate their
arguments. However, neither of these narrative reviews describe their search
strategy or synthesis procedure. It appears that both reviews adopt a thematic
approach (as reflected in the section headings) despite not stating how these
themes are generated. In terms of structure, sections similar to a typical primary
study are found in Thomson and Derwing (2015) whilst a thematically-driven
organisation is found in DeKeyser and Botana (2015). Usually only textual rep-
resentation of results is found in these narrative reviews.
(6) Qualitative research synthesis: This type of systematic research synthesis is
dedicated to the aggregation of qualitative research evidence, usually in
classroom-based studies, to unravel complexities of ecological and naturalistic
research studies. Chong and Reinders (2020) for example, synthesizes findings
from students’ and teachers’ perception of technology-mediated task-based
language teaching. Like other types of systematic research synthesis such as
meta-analysis, qualitative research synthesis strictly follows a systematic
procedure of searching and selecting relevant literature. Due to its qualitative
nature, much attention is paid to ensure ‘openness’ in the data coding process
to fully capture emerging themes. Both Chen (2016) and Chong and Reinders
(2020) adopt the constant comparison method of grounded theory to perform
initial, focused, and axial coding of data (Charmaz 2006). Unlike meta-analysis,
however, reliability of coding of qualitative research synthesis is usually
achieved through multiple rounds of discussions between reviewers. As for its
structure, qualitative research synthesis follows the standard structure of a
research paper, with important textual information underscored using dia-
grams and tables.
A typology of secondary research 15
all respects except for the aggregation of effect sizes. A typical research paper
structure is adopted, with texts supplemented with figures and tables.
(12) Historical review: The review types discussed thus far generally treat their
target domains as a whole or perhaps in different groupings based on features
or variables shared across certain studies. By contrast, historical reviews use
time as an organizing principle and as a means to understand the theoretical
and/or methodological development that has taken place in a given domain.
Boo et al. (2015), for example, traced the recent history of L2 motivation
research, focusing on changes in theoretical models, research designs, and
target languages, among other features. The authors describe their methods in
detail and followed procedures much like those of other systematic review
types, presenting results in tables and figures to enhance clarity. Historical
reviews can also, however, take the form of a timeline. The journal Language
Teaching has published many reviews of this type. Timelines generally begin
with a broad introduction to situate the domain in question and to highlight
major themes and/or developments that have taken place. Landmark publi-
cations and other pertinent events are then presented chronologically, usually
accompanied by annotations as well as thematic indicators presented in the
introduction. See Isaacs and Harding’s (2017) timeline of pronunciation
assessment in L2 research as a prime example of this type of synthesis.
(13) Bibliometric review: As in other types of reviews, bibliometric analyses focus
on the study/report as the unit of analysis. However, the focus here is on
publication meta-data such as citation counts (co-)citation within and across
publications, authorship attributes (e.g., number, gender, language and
geographic background), article titles and keywords, and so forth. Biblio-
metric research is fairly new to Applied Linguistics, but it appears to be
surging as evident in the number of recent studies in a bibliography of bib-
liometric research in applied linguistics (Plonsky, N.D). Hyland and Jiang
(2019), for example, analyzed the frequency as well as linguistic and stylistic
features of citation patterns both over time and across four disciplines
including applied linguistics. (For another recent bibliometric analysis of
citation patterns, see Lei and Liu 2018.) Aryadoust and Ang (2021) take on a
narrower domain, that of eye-tracking research in the language sciences.
Using a sample of 341 publications, the authors extract and analyze citations
and co-citations as well as research affiliations and countries, among other
types of publication meta-data. The authors’ co-citation analysis found a
number of prominent ‘clusters’ of scholarly activity and influence. As in other
quantitative and systematic review types, bibliometric analyses often utilize
tables and figures to present their findings.
18 Chong and Plonsky
Regarding systematicity of the review process, the reviewed examples show that
there is a fairly even distribution of the 13 types of research synthesis on the
continuum. Five types of secondary research adopt a systematic approach and
traditional (non-empirical) approach to reviewing, respectively (meta-analysis,
systematic literature review, qualitative research synthesis, scoping review, meth-
odological review). Moreover, three types (mixed review, narrative review, state-of-
the-art review) utilize a mixture of systematic and narrative review strategies.
Research syntheses which embrace the more systematic review process include a
discrete ‘methodology’ section detailing the various stages of the review process
namely literature search strategy, inclusion and exclusion criteria, a coding scheme
for data extraction/collection, and data analysis. To reduce bias and increase cred-
ibility, these systematic research syntheses are transparent with their coding pro-
cedure, often sharing their coding scheme as supplementary materials or appendices
(e.g., Chen 2016), calculating inter-coder reliability (e.g., Larsson et al. 2020), and
describing strategies to resolve disagreement in the synthesis and analysis stage (e.g.,
resolving disagreement through discussions in Chong and Reinders 2020; Liu and
Chong 2023, in this special issue). By contrast, the three types of traditional secondary
research (critical review, research into practice, research agenda), tend to employ a
less systematic process. Resembling the ‘commentary’ style of secondary research,
these research syntheses do not describe how the review process is conducted nor do
they provide justifications for the adoption of a particular review protocol.
Based on the typology in Table 1, another observation is the ambiguity of the
review processes of some types of secondary research. With regards to the afore-
mentioned examples, mixed reviews, narrative review, and state-of-the-art review
do not demonstrate a consistent take on the systematicity of the process. While we
can understand that the systematicity of mixed reviews is contingent on the mixture
of the review types, it raises concerns regarding the stark contrast in the methods
used in the paired examples of the other two review types. Without a consensual
view towards review methodology, we are likely to encounter challenges for
researchers who want to conduct such kinds of review. It is imperative to conduct
comprehensive reviews on the methodologies used in each type of secondary
research and the variation thereof as a means to bring consistency to the field. It
would be fruitful to review methodologies of (a) earlier and more recent secondary
research; (b) secondary research published in top-tiered and less prestigious jour-
nals/outlets; (c) written by researchers at various career stages, and (d) published in
different sub-domains of Applied Linguistics. Despite being a strenuous task, such
work would yield valuable insights into the differentiation between ‘ideal’, ‘accept-
able’, and ‘unacceptable’ review protocols of each type of secondary research. (For an
A typology of secondary research 21
From a genre analysis perspective, some secondary research types adhere to a more
standardized structure while structures of others are more flexible. The kinds of
secondary research which follow a more standardized reporting structure are also
those which implement a more systematic review protocol, including meta-analysis,
systematic literature review, qualitative research synthesis, methodological syn-
thesis, bibliometric review, and scoping review. Their standardized organizational
approach comprises six structural components: introduction, background literature,
method, findings, discussion, implications/conclusion, in parallel to a typical primary
research paper. These types of research synthesis often include additional online
supplementary information such as coding schemes and bibliographical summaries
of the synthesized studies.
Secondary research types which adopt a less standardized structure are those
which employ a less systematic and rigorous review procedure (i.e., critical review,
research into practice, research agenda). These types of secondary research, which
narrate the synthesized findings through a thematic approach, organize the review
text based on prominent themes. An interesting observation emanating from this
comparison is found in the two examples of narrative review. Traditionally, a
narrative review is viewed as a type of secondary research that relies on a less
22 Chong and Plonsky
Referring to the analytical framework (see Figure 2), the representation of the review
text is another dimension of variation across review types. Over half of the secondary
research types adopt multimodal representation, using a combination of text,
figures, and tables. Among these types of secondary research, six (meta-analysis,
systematic literature review, qualitative research synthesis, scoping review, meth-
odological synthesis, bibliometric review) adopt systematic review protocols. To
present large sums of information in a clear and systematic manner, these reviews
utilize tables and figures to document the steps of the review and collate biblio-
graphical, substantive, and methodological information from the selected studies
(e.g., Chen 2016). By contrast, the four types of text which generally rely on mono-
modal text (i.e., narrative review, critical review, research into practice, research
agenda) represent the types of secondary research that follow a more flexible
mechanism of review.
A typology of secondary research 23
4 Conclusion
This article provided an overview of the common types of secondary research in the
field of Applied Linguistics (see Table 2 for a summary). The main objective of this
piece is to demonstrate the similarities and differences among types of secondary
research through four perspectives: topic (research/practice focus), review process
(systematic/traditional), structure (standardized/customized), and representation of
text (textual/multimodal). The typology presented will be useful to not only novice
reviewers as a primer for what is possible using secondary methods, but also
seasoned synthesists to explore different secondary research orientations and
options. Most importantly, we hope that this typology can serve as a catalyst to
facilitate discussions on secondary and synthetic research methodologies and, ulti-
mately, lead to the formulation of methodological guidelines for each type of sec-
ondary research for our own field.
References
Aryadoust, Vahid & Bee H. Ang. 2021. Exploring the frontiers of eye tracking research in language studies:
A novel co-citation scientometric review. Computer Assisted Language Learning 34(7). 898–933.
Bardovi-Harlig, Kathleen & Llorenç Comajoan-Colomé. 2020. The aspect hypotheses and the acquisition of
L2 past morphology in the last 20 years. Studies in Second Language Acquisition. 1–31.
Bardovi-Harlig, Kathleen & David Stringer. 2010. Variables in second language attrition: Advancing the
state of the art. Studies in Second Language Acquisition 32. 1–45.
Bearman, Margaret, Calvin D. Smith, Angela Carbone, Susan Slade, Chi Baik, Marnie Hughes-Warrington &
David L. Neumann. 2012. Systematic review methodology in higher education. Higher Education
Research and Development 31(5). 625–640.
24 Chong and Plonsky
Boo, Zann, Zoltan Dörnyei & Stephen Ryan. 2015. L2 motivation research 2005e2014: Understanding a
publication surge and a changing landscape. System 55. 145–157.
Brown, Alan V, Luke Plonsky & Yasser Teimouri. 2020. The use of course grades as metrics in L2 research: A
systematic review. Foreign Language Annals 51(4). 763–778.
Charmaz, Kathy. 2006. Constructing grounded theory, 2nd edn. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Chen, Tsuiping. 2016. Technology-supported peer feedback in ESL/EFL writing classes: A research
synthesis. Computer Assisted Language Learning 29(2). 365–397.
Chong, Sin Wang. 2020. The role of research synthesis in facilitating research-pedagogy dialogue. ELT
Journal 74(4). 484–487.
Chong, Sin Wang, Tinjun Lin & Yulu Chen. 2022. A methodological review of systematic literature reviews in
higher education: Heterogeneity and homogeneity. Educational Research Review 35. 100426.
Chong, Sin Wang & Luke Plonsky. 2021. A primer on qualitative research synthesis in TESOL. Tesol Quarterly
55(3). 1024–1034.
Chong, Sin Wang & Hayo Reinders. 2020. Technology-mediated task-based language teaching: A
qualitative research synthesis. Language, Learning and Technology 24(3). 70–86.
Chong, Sin Wang & Hayo Reinders. 2021. A methodological review of qualitative research synthesis in
CALL: The state-of-the-art. System 103. 102646.
Chong, Sin Wang & Hayo Reinders. 2022. Autonomy of English language learners: A scoping review of
research and practice. Language Teaching research. Advanced online publication. https://doi.org/10.
1177/13621688221075812.
Chong, Sin Wang, Bond, Melissa & Hamish Chalmers. 2023. Opening the methodological black box of
research synthesis in language education: where are we now and where are we heading? Applied
Linguistics Review. https://doi.org/10.1515/applirev-2022-0193.
Çiftçi, Emrullah Y. & Perihan Savas. 2017. The role of telecollaboration in language and intercultural
learning: A synthesis of studies published between 2010 and 2015. ReCALL 30(3). 278–298.
Cooper, Harris M. 1988. Organizing knowledge synthesis: A taxonomy of literature reviews. Knowledge in
Society 1. 104–126.
Creswell, John W. & Vicki L. P. Clark. 2017. Designing and conducting mixed methods research, 3rd edn.
Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Crowther, Dustin, Susie Kim, Jongbong Lee, Jungmin Lim & Shawn Loewen. 2021. Methodological
synthesis of cluster analysis in second language research. Language Learning 71. 99–130.
DeKeyser, Robert & Goretti P. Botana. 2015. The effectiveness of processing instruction in L2 grammar
acquisition: A narrative review. Applied Linguistics 36(3). 290–305.
Dixon-Woods, Mary, Alex Sutton, Rachel Shaw, Tina Miller, Jonathan Smith, Bridget Young, Sheila Bonas,
Andrew Booth & David Jones. 2007. Appraising qualitative research for inclusion in systematic
reviews: A quantitative and qualitative comparison of three methods. Journal of Health Services
Research and Policy 12(1). 42–47.
Ellis, Rod. 2015. Introduction: Complementarity in research syntheses. Applied Linguistics 36(3). 285–289.
Garzone, Giuliana E. 2015. Genre analysis. In Karen Tracy, Cornelia Ilie & Todd Sandel (eds.), The
international encyclopaedia of language and social interaction. Hoboken, NJ: Wiley.
Gough, David, James Thomas & Sandy Oliver. 2012. Clarifying differences between review designs and
methods. Systematic Reviews 1. 28.
Graham, Suzanne. 2017. Research into practice: Listening strategies in an instructed classroom setting.
Language Teaching 50(1). 107–119.
Grant, Maria J. & Andrew Booth. 2009. A typology of reviews: An analysis of 14 review types and associated
methodologies. Health Information and Libraries Journal 26. 91–108.
Hanks, Judith. 2019. From research-as-practice to exploratory practice-as-research in language teaching
and beyond. Language Teaching 52. 143–187.
A typology of secondary research 25
Hyland, Ken & Feng Jiang. 2019. Points of reference: Changing patterns of academic citation. Applied
Linguistics 40. 64–85.
In’nami, Yo & Rie Koizumi. 2009. A meta-analysis of test format effects on reading and listening test
performance: Focus on multiple-choice and open-ended formats. Language Testing 26(2). 219–244.
Isaacs, Talia & Luke Harding. 2017. Pronunciation assessment. Language Teaching 50. 347–366.
Jackson, Daniel O. & Sakol Suethanoapornkul. 2013. The cognition hypothesis: A synthesis and meta-
analysis of research on second language task complexity. Language Learning 63(2). 330–367.
Kang, EunYoung & Zhaohong Han. 2015. The efficacy of written corrective feedback in improving L2
written accuracy: A meta-analysis. The Modern Language Journal 99(1). 1–18.
Lai, Chun & Guofang Li. 2011. Technology and task-based language teaching: A critical review. CALICO
Journal 28(2). 498–521.
Language Teaching. 2020. Instructions for authors: Cambridge University Press. Available at: https://www.
cambridge.org/core/journals/language-teaching/information/instructions-contributors.
Larsson, Tove, Magali Paquot & Luke Plonsky. 2020. Inter-rater reliability in learner corpus research:
Insights from a collaborative study on adverb placement. International Journal of Learner Corpus
Research 6. 237–151.
Laurenz, Laurenz, Janice Tripney & David Gough. 2016. The Science of using science: Researching the Use of
research Evidence in decision-making: University College London. Available at: https://www.
alliance4usefulevidence.org/assets/Science-of-Using-Science-Final-Report-2016.pdf.
Lee, Icy. 2013. Research into practice: Written corrective feedback. Language Teaching 46(1). 108–119.
Lei, Lei & Dilin Liu. 2018. Research trends in applied linguistics from 2005 to 2016: A bibliometric analysis
and its implications. Applied Linguistics 40. 540–561.
Li, Shaofeng & Hong Wang. 2018. Traditional literature review and research synthesis. In Aek Phakiti,
Peter De Costa, Luke Plonsky & Sue Starfield (eds.), Palgrave handbook of applied linguistics research
methodology: Palgrave.
Littell, Julia H. 2018. Conceptual and practical classification of research reviews and other evidence
synthesis products. Campbell Systematic Reviews 14(1). 1–21.
Lou, Nigel M. & Kimberly A. Noels. 2019. Promoting growth in foreign and second language education:
A research agenda for mindsets in language learning and teaching. System 86. 10212.
Liu, Qi & Sin Wang Chong. 2023. Bilingual education in China: A qualitative synthesis of research on models
and perceptions. Applied Linguistics Review.
Macaro, Ernesto, Samantha Curle, Jack Pun, Jiangshan An & Julie Dearden. 2018. A systematic review of
English medium instruction in higher education. Language Teaching 51(1). 36–76.
Macaro, Ernesto 2020. Systematic reviews in applied linguistics. In Jim McKinley & Heath Rose (eds.), The
Routledge handbook of research methods in applied linguistics: Routledge.
Marsden, Emma, Kara Morgan-Short, Sophie Thompson & David Abugaber. 2018. Replication in second
language research: Narrative and systematic reviews and recommendations for the field. Language
Learning 68(2). 321–391.
Marsden, Emma, Sophie Thompson & Luke Plonsky. 2018. A methodological synthesis of self-paced
reading in second language research. Applied PsychoLinguistics 39. 861–904.
Munn, Zachary, Cindy Stern, Edoardo Aromataris, Craig Lockwood & Zoe Jordan. 2018. What kind of
systematic review should I conduct? A proposed typology and guidance for systematic reviewers in
the medical and health sciences. BMC Medical Research Methodology 18. 1–9.
Muñoz, Carmen & David Singleton. 2011. A critical review of age-related research on L2 ultimate
attainment. Language Teaching 44(1). 1–35.
Norris, John M. & Lourdes Ortega. 2006. Synthesizing research on language learning and teaching.
Amsterdam, The Netherlands: John Benjamins Publishing Company.
26 Chong and Plonsky
Norris, John M. & Lourdes Ortega. 2007. The future of research synthesis in applied linguistics: Beyond art
or science. Tesol Quarterly 41(4). 805–815.
Norris, John M. & Luke Plonsky. In preparation. Research synthesis and meta-analysis in applied linguistics: A
practical guide. New York, NY: Routledge.
Pham, Mai T., Andrijana Rajić, Judy D. Greig, Jan M. Sargeant, Andrew Papadopoulos & Scott A. McEwen.
2014. A scoping review of scoping reviews: Advancing the approach and enhancing consistency.
Research Synthesis Methods 5(4). 371–385.
Plonsky, Luke. 2014. Study quality in quantitative L2 research (1990-2010): A methodological synthesis and
call for reform. The Modern Language Journal 98. 450–470.
Plonsky, Luke. 2017. Quantitative research methods in instructed SLA. In Shawn Loewen & Masatoshi Sato
(eds.), The Routledge handbook of instructed second language acquisition, 505–521. New York, NY:
Routledge.
Plonsky, Luke. 2019. Language learning strategy instruction: Recent research and future directions. In
Anna U. Chamot & Vee Harris (eds.), Learning strategy instruction in the language classroom: Issues and
implementation, 3–21. Bristol, UK: Multilingual Matters.
Plonsky, Luke & Dan Brown. 2015. Domain definition and search techniques in meta-analyses of L2
research (Or why 18 meta-analyses of feedback have different results). Second Language Research 31.
267–278.
Plonsky, Luke & Susan Gass. 2011. Quantitative research methods, study quality, and outcomes: The case
of interaction research. Language Learning 61. 325–366.
Plonsky, Luke & YouJin Kim. 2016. Task-based learner production: A substantive and methodological
review. Annual Review of Applied Linguistics 36. 73–97.
Plonsky, Luke & Frederick L. Oswald. 2015. Meta-analyzing second language research. In Luke Plonsky
(ed.), Advancing quantitative methods in second language research, 106–128. New York, NY: Routledge.
Plonsky, Luke & Talip Gönülal. 2015. Methodological synthesis in quantitative L2 research: A review of
reviews and a case study of exploratory factor analysis. Language Learning 65(Supp. 1). 9–36 (edited
by John M. Norris, Steven J. Ross & Rob. Schoonen).
Sterling, Scott & Luke Plonsky. In preparation. Meta-research in applied linguistics. New York, NY:
Routledge.
Sutton, Anthea, Mark Clowes, Louise Preston & Andrew Booth. 2019. Meeting the review family: Exploring
review types and associated information retrieval requirements. Health Information and Libraries
Journal 36(3). 202–222.
Swales, John. 1990. Genre analysis. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
Svalberg, Agneta M.-L. 2012. Language awareness in language learning and teaching: A research agenda.
Language Teaching 45(3). 376–388.
Teimouri, Yasser, Julia Goetze & Luke Plonsky. 2019. Second language anxiety and achievement: A meta-
analysis. Studies in Second Language Acquisition 41. 363–387.
Thomson, Ron I. & Tracey M. Derwing. 2015. The effectiveness of L2 pronunciation instruction: A narrative
review. Applied Linguistics 36(3). 326–344.
Tullock, Brandon & Lourdes Ortega. 2017. Fluency and multilingualism in study abroad: Lessons from a
scoping review. System 71. 7–21.
Visonà, Mark W. & Luke Plonsky. 2020. Arabic as a heritage language: A scoping review. International
Journal of Bilingualism 24. 559–615.
Yan, Xun, Yukiko Maeda, Jing Lv & April Ginther. 2015. Elicited imitation as a measure of second language
proficiency: A narrative review and meta-analysis. Language Testing 33(4). 497–528.
Note: This service is not intended for secure transactions such as banking, social media, email, or purchasing. Use at your own risk. We assume no liability whatsoever for broken pages.
Alternative Proxies: