This meta-analysis offers a snapshot of thirty-five years (1980–2015) of research on instructed second language acquisition (ISLA). Fifty-four empirical studies involving a total of 5,051 second language learners – sampled from six applied linguistics journals, Applied Linguistics, Language Learning, Language Teaching Research, The Modern Language Journal, Studies in Second Language Acquisition, and TESOL Quarterly – were aggregated for the effects of second language (L2) instruction, yielding an overall large effect size, g = 1.06, 95 % CI = 0.84−1.29. Data were further analysed to identify factors that can modulate the efficacy of instruction. While a minor difference was detected between explicit and implicit instruction, statistically significant effects were found for modes of outcome measures, learners’ onset L2 proficiency, research settings, and intensity of instruction.
*AkakuraM. (2012). Evaluating the effectiveness of explicit instruction on implicit and explicit L2 knowledge. Language Teaching Research, 16, 9–37.
2.
*AmmarA.SpadaN. (2006). One size fits all?: Recasts, prompts, and L2 learning. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 28, 543–574.
3.
*AndringaS.de GlopperK.HacquebordH. (2011). Effect of explicit and implicit instruction on free written response task performance. Language Learning, 61, 868–903.
4.
BenatiA. (2005). The effects of processing instruction, traditional instruction and meaning–output instruction on the acquisition of the English past simple tense. Language Teaching Research, 9, 67–93.
BorensteinM.HedgesL.V.HigginsJ.P.T.RothsteinH.R. (2011). Introduction to metaanalysis. West Sussex: Wiley.
7.
*CarrollS.SwainM. (1993). Explicit and implicit negative feedback: An empirical study of the learning of linguistic generalizations. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 15, 357–386.
8.
*DayE.ShapsonS. (1991). Integrating formal and functional approaches to language teaching in French immersion: An experimental study. Language Learning, 41, 25–58.
9.
*de GraaffR. (1997). The eXperanto experiment: Effects of explicit instruction on second language acquisition. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 19, 249–297.
10.
*De JongN. (2005). Can second language grammar be learned through listening?: An experimental study. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 27, 205–234.
11.
*DeKeyserR.M.SokalskiK.J. (1996). The differential role of comprehension and production practice. Language Learning, 46, 613–642.
12.
*DoughtyC. (1991). Second language instruction does make a difference: Evidence from an empirical study of ESL relativization. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 13, 431–469.
13.
DoughtyC. (2003). Instructed SLA: Constraints, compensation, and enhancement. In LongMDoughtyC. (Eds.), Handbook of second language acquisition (pp. 257–310). Malden, MA: Blackwell.
14.
DoughtyC.WilliamsJ. (1998). Issues and terminology. In DoughtyC.WilliamsJ. (Eds.), Focus on form in classroom second language acquisition (pp. 1–12). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
15.
DuvalS.TweedieR. (2000). Trim and fill: A simple funnel-plot–based method of testing and adjusting for publication bias in meta-analysis. Biometrics, 56, 455–463.
16.
EllisR. (2005). Measuring implicit and explicit knowledge of a second language: A psychometric study. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 27, 141–172.
17.
EllisR. (2015). Understanding Second Language Acquisition: 2nd Edition. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
18.
*EllisR.LoewenS.ErlamR. (2006). Implicit and explicit corrective feedback and the acquisition of L2 grammar. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 28, 339–368.
19.
*ErlamR. (2003). The effects of deductive and inductive instruction on the acquisition of direct object pronouns in French as a second language. The Modern Language Journal, 87, 242–260.
20.
*FernándezC. (2008). Reexamining the role of explicit information in processing instruction. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 30, 277–305.
21.
*FotosS.EllisR. (1991). Communicating about grammar: A task-based approach. TESOL Quarterly, 25, 605–628.
22.
FredericksonN.ReedP.CliffordV. (2005). Evaluating web-supported learning versus lecture-based teaching: Quantitative and qualitative perspectives. Higher Education, 50, 645–664.
23.
*GooJ. (2012). Corrective feedback and working memory capacity in interaction-driven L2 learning. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 34, 445–474.
24.
GooJ.GranenaG.YilmazY.NovellaM. (2015). Implicit and explicit instruction in L2 learning: Norris & Ortega (2000) revisited and updated. In RebuschatP. (Ed.), Implicit and explicit learning of languages (pp. 443–483). Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
25.
*HanZ.-H. (2002). A study of the impact of recasts on tense consistency in L2 output. TESOL Quarterly, 36, 543–572.
26.
HanZ-H. (2011). Fossilization – A classic concern of SLA research. In GassS.MackeyA. (Eds.), The Routledge handbook of second language acquisition (pp. 476–490). New York: Routledge.
27.
HanZ-H. (2014). From julie to wes to alberto: Revisiting the construct of fossilization. In HanZ-H.TaroneE. (Eds.), Interlanguage: Forty years later (pp. 47–74). Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
28.
HanZ-H. (2015). Striving for complementarity between narrative and meta-analytic reviews. Applied Linguistics, 36(3), 409–415.
29.
*HarleyB. (1989). Functional grammar in French immersion: A classroom experiment. Applied Linguistics, 10, 331–359.
30.
*HenshawF. (2012). How effective are affective activities? Relative benefits of two types of structured input activities as part of a computer-delivered lesson on the Spanish subjunctive. Language Teaching Research, 16, 393–414.
31.
*HinenoyaK.LysterR. (2015). Identifiability and accessibility in learning definite article usages: A quasi-experimental study with Japanese learners of English. Language Teaching Research, 19, 397–415.
32.
*IwashitaN. (2003). Negative feedback and positive evidence in task-based interaction. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 25, 1–36.
33.
*IzumiS. (2002). Output, input enhancement, and the noticing hypothesis. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 24, 541–577.
34.
KangE.HanZ. (2015). The efficacy of written corrective feedback in improving L2 written accuracy: A meta-analysis. The Modern Language Journal, 99, 1–18.
35.
*KartchavaE.AmmarA. (2014). The noticeability and effectiveness of corrective feedback in relation to target type. Language Teaching Research, 18, 428–452.
36.
*LeeS.-K. (2007). Effects of textual enhancement and topic familiarity on Korean EFL students’ reading comprehension and learning of passive form. Language Learning, 57, 87–118.
37.
LeeJ.JangJ.PlonskyL. (2015). The effectiveness of second language pronunciation instruction: A meta-analysis. Applied Linguistics, 36, 345–366.
38.
*LeemanJ. (2003). Recasts and second language development. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 25, 37–63.
39.
*LeowR.P. (1998). The effects of amount and type of exposure on adult learners’ L2 development in SLA. The Modern Language Journal, 82, 49–68.
40.
*LiQ. (2012). Effects of instruction on adolescent beginners’ acquisition of Request Modification. TESOL Quarterly, 46, 30–55.
41.
LiShaofeng (2010). The effectiveness of corrective feedback in SLA: A meta-analysis. Language Learning, 60, 309–365.
42.
*LiShaofeng (2013). The interactions between the effects of implicit and explicit feedback and individual differences in language analytic ability and working memory. The Modern Language Journal, 97, 634–654.
43.
LiShaofeng (2015). The associations between language aptitude and second language grammar acquisition: A meta-analytic review of five decades of research. Applied Linguistics, 36, 385–408.
44.
*LiShuai (2012). The effects of input-based practice on pragmatic development of requests in L2 Chinese. Language Learning, 62, 403–438.
LongM. (1983). Does second language instruction make a difference?: A review of the Research. TESOL Quarterly, 17, 359–382.
47.
*LongM.H.InagakiS.OrtegaL. (1998). The role of implicit negative feedback in SLA: Models and recasts in Japanese and Spanish. The Modern Language Journal, 82, 357–371.
48.
*LoschkyL. (1994).Comprehensible input and second language acquisition: What is the relationship?Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 16, 303–323.
49.
*LyddonP.A. (2011). The efficacy of corrective feedback and textual enhancement in promoting the acquisition of grammatical redundancies. The Modern Language Journal, 95, 104–129.
50.
*LysterR. (1994). The effect of functional-analytic teaching on aspects of French immersion students’ sociolinguistic competence. Applied Linguistics, 15, 263–287.
51.
*LysterR. (2004). Differential effects of prompts and recasts in form-focused instruction. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 26, 399–432.
52.
MackeyA.GooJ.(2007). Interaction research in SLA: A meta-analysis and research synthesis. In MackeyA. (Ed.), Conversational interaction in second language acquisition: A collection of empirical studies (pp. 407–452). Oxford: Oxford University Press.
53.
*MarsdenE.ChenH.-Y. (2011). The roles of structured input activities in processing instruction and the kinds of knowledge they promote. Language Learning, 61, 1058–1098.
54.
*Morgan-ShortK.BowdenH.W. (2006). Processing instruction and meaningful output-based instruction: Effects on second language development. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 28, 31–65.
55.
*NagataN. (1993). Intelligent computer feedback for second language instruction. The Modern Language Journal, 77, 330–339.
56.
NorrisJ.OrtegaL. (2000). Effectiveness of L2 instruction: A research synthesis and quantitative meta-analysis. Language Learning, 50, 417–528.
57.
PlonskyL. (2016). Applying meta-analysis in instructed L2 research. Unpublished post-conference workshop, The 35th Second Language Research Forum (SLRF 2016), Columbia University, New York. Abstract available at: http://www.tc.columbia.edu/slrf2016/workshops (accessed June 2018).
58.
*RassaeiE. (2014). Scaffolded feedback, recasts, and L2 development: A sociocultural perspective. The Modern Language Journal, 98, 417–431.
59.
*RassaeiE. (2015). Recasts, field dependence/independence cognitive style, and L2 development. Language Teaching Research, 19, 499–518.
60.
*RévészA. (2009). Task complexity, focus on form, and second language development. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 31, 437–470.
61.
*RévészA. (2012). Working memory and the observed effectiveness of recasts on different L2 outcome measures. Language Learning, 62, 93–132.
62.
*RévészA.SachsR.HamaM. (2014). The effects of task complexity and input frequency on the acquisition of the past counterfactual construction through recasts. Language Learning, 64, 615–650.
63.
*RosaE.O’NeillM. D. (1999). Explicitness, intake and the issue of awareness. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 21, 511–556.
64.
RussellJ.SpadaN. (2006). The effectiveness of corrective feedback for the acquisition of L2 grammar: A meta-analysis of the research. In NorrisJ.M.OrtegaL. (Eds.), Synthesizing research on language learning and teaching (pp. 133–164). Philadelphia, PA: John Benjamins.
65.
*SagarraN.AbbuhlR. (2013). Optimizing the noticing of recasts via computer-delivered feedback: Evidence that oral input enhancement and working memory help second language learning. The Modern Language Journal, 97, 196–216.
66.
SaitoK. (2013). Reexamining effects of form-focused instruction on L2 pronunciation development: The role of explicit phonetic information. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 35(1), 1–29.
67.
ScammaccaN.RobertsG.StuebingK. K. (2014). Meta-analysis with complex research designs: Dealing with dependence from multiple measures and multiple group comparisons. Review of Educational Research, 84(3), 328–364.
68.
*SheenY. (2008). Recasts, language anxiety, modified output, and L2 learning. Language Learning, 58, 835–874.
69.
*SheenY. (2010). Differential effects of oral and written corrective feedback in the ESL classroom. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 32, 203–234.
70.
*ShintaniN. (2012). Input-based tasks and the acquisition of vocabulary and grammar: A process-product study. Language Teaching Research, 16, 253–279.
71.
*ShintaniN.EllisR. (2010). The incidental acquisition of English plural –s by Japanese children in comprehension-based and production-based lessons. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 32, 607–637.
72.
*ShintaniN.EllisR.SuzukiW. (2014). Effects of written feedback and revision on learners’ accuracy in using two English grammatical structures. Language Learning, 64, 103–131.
73.
ShintaniN.LiS.EllisR. (2013). Comprehension-based versus production-based grammar instruction: A meta-analysis of comparative studies. Language Learning, 63, 296–329.
74.
SmithB. (2004). Computer-mediated negotiated interaction and lexical acquisition. Studies in second language acquisition, 26, 365–398.
75.
SpadaN.TomitaY. (2010). Interactions between type of instruction and type of language feature: A meta-analysis. Language Learning, 60, 263–308.
76.
*StaffordC.A.BowdenH.W.SanzC. (2012). Optimizing language instruction: Matters of explicitness, practice, and cue learning. Language Learning, 62, 741–768.
77.
*StefanouC.RévészA. (2015). Direct written corrective feedback, learner differences, and the acquisition of second language article use for generic and specific plural reference. The Modern Language Journal, 99, 263–282.
78.
Van BeuningenC. G.De JongN. H.KuikenF. (2012). Evidence on the effectiveness of comprehensive error correction in second language writing. Language Learning, 62(1), 1–41.
79.
*VanPattenB.CadiernoT. (1993). Explicit instruction and input processing. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 15, 225–241.
80.
*VanPattenB.OikkenonS. (1996). Explanation versus structured input in processing instruction. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 18, 495–510.
81.
*WhiteL. (1991). Adverb placement in second language acquisition: Some effects of positive and negative evidence in the classroom. Second Language Research, 7, 133–161.
82.
*YangY.LysterR. (2010). Effects of form-focused practice and feedback on Chinese ESL learners’ acquisition of regular and irregular past tense forms. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 32, 235–263.
83.
*YilmazY. (2012). The relative effects of explicit correction and recasts on two target structures via two communication modes. Language Learning, 62, 1134–1169.
84.
ZieglerN. (2016). Synchronous computer-mediated communication and interaction: A meta- analysis. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 38, 553–586.
Supplementary Material
Please find the following supplemental material available below.
For Open Access articles published under a Creative Commons License, all supplemental material carries the same license as the article it is associated with.
For non-Open Access articles published, all supplemental material carries a non-exclusive license, and permission requests for re-use of supplemental material or any part of supplemental material shall be sent directly to the copyright owner as specified in the copyright notice associated with the article.
