1. LET 20142 in 2014915 eywatar@ipc.shizuoka.ac.jp References: http://bit.ly/metho201409watari

2.

3.

4. , 2002, p. 1 (2013): http://www.urano-ken.com/blog/ 2013/10/25/methoken-in-akita/

5. Mizumoto, A., Urano, K., & Maeda, H. () (2014). A systematic review of published articles in ARELE 1-24: Focusing on their themes, methods, and outcomes. ARELE, 25, 33-48. (g = 0.76, 95% CI [0.59, 0.93]) 29

6. Plonskys list: 187 (September, 2014) oak.ucc.nau.edu/ldp3/bib_metaanalysis.html ; META-ANALYSIS IN L2 RESEARCH 87 1 2 2 10 14 16 14 12 10 8 6 4 2 0 1996-1998 1999-2001 2002-2004 2005-2007 2008-in press Year of meta-analysis Number of meta-analyses Fig. 1. Growth of meta-analysis in L2 research. Oswald & Plonsky (2010, p. 87) magnitudes and patterns of relationships as well as the circumstances that affect them.

7. Plonsky & Brown (2014) Corrective feedback 13 (d = -0.16 to 1.16)

8. Plonsky, L. (2014) Paper presented at AILA Worlds Congress 2014.

9. Plonsky (2012) L2 44

10.

11.

12.

13. Norris & Ortega (2000) Effectiveness of L2 instruction: A research synthesis and quantitative meta-analysis. Language Learning, 50, 417528. META-ANALYSIS IN L2 RESEARCH 87 1 2 2 10 14 16 14 12 10 8 6 4 2 0 1996-1998 1999-2001 2002-2004 2005-2007 2008-in press Year of meta-analysis Number of meta-analyses Fig. 1. Growth of meta-analysis in L2 research. Oswald & Plonsky (2010, p. 87) magnitudes and patterns of relationships as well as the circumstances that affect them. The third problem with narrative review concerns the limitations of the re-viewers

14. Norris & Ortega (2000) 40(k = 71) d = 1.13 95% CI [0.93, 1.33] 19(k = 29) d = 0.54 95% CI [0.26, 0.82] Watari (2013; 2014)

15. Norris & Ortega (2000) 38(40)(Explicit, k = 71) + Rule explanation (deductive/metalinguistic, Exp. FonFs) (k = 47) d = 1.08 95% CI [0.80, 1.36] + direction to attend to forms and arrive at rules (explicit induction) (Exp. FonF, k =24) d = 1.22 95% CI [0.91, 1.53]

16. In Norris & Ortega (2000) DeKeyser (1997, p. 208) Exp. FonFs vs. Control Artificial Number/person/gender Leow (1998, p. 55) MLJ Exp. FonF vs. Exp. FonFs Spanish Number/person/gender

17. Shin (2010)

18. , 2012, p. 18 Apples and oranges problem: Garbage in, garbage out: File drawer problem:

19. When the outcome is reported on a meaningful scale and all studies in the analysis use the same scale, the meta-analysis can be performed directly on the raw difference in means. (Borenstein, et al., 2009, Chapter 4, Section 2, para. 1)

20.

21. , 2012, pp. 29-30 : xy :

22. Cf. (40) in untimed GJT timed GJT

23. ; Innami & Koizumi (2009)

24. In Norris & Ortega (2000) VanPatten & Cadierno (1993): Cadierno (1995), VanPatten & Sanz (1995), DeKeyser & Sokalski (1996), VanPatten & Oikkenon (1996), (Kubota (1996)), Salaberry (1997) Tomasello & Herron (1988, 1989): (Fotos & Ellis (1991)), Ellis et al. (1994), Kubota (1995a) (Cf. Shintani, 2015)

25. In Norris & Ortega (2000) VanPatten & Cadierno (1993)(n = 7; k = 29): g = 0.55, 95% CI [0.27, 0.83] 0.24 [-0.26, 0.74] 0.68 [0.30, 1.07] 0.84 [0.13, 1.56] 0.25 [-0.80, 1.30]

26. In Norris & Ortega (2000) GJT():

27.

28. Borenstein, et al., 2009; , 2012, p. 104 Cohens d, Hedges g () Fishers z

29.

30. Norris & Ortega (2000) 1. 1 Cohens d(n = 10) 2. (n = 20) 3. (n = 4) 4. (n = 5) 5. (n = 10)

31.

32. Watari (2014) watariyoichi.net research and on the L2 types of specific because mechanisms a series point. sample to be Table 2. Types of comparison & timing of metalinguistic intervention Before B&W While After None g (95% CI) Focus on FormS Exp. vs Control 10 9 20 0 3 [0.60, 1.13] vs Focus on FormS Exp. 2 0 7 0 3 [0.05, 1.05] vs Focus on Form Imp. 2 0 2 0 0 [-0.84, 0.85] vs Focus on FormS Imp. 0 2 0 0 0 [-1.29, 1.02] FonF Exp. vs Control 16 2 4 0 9 [0.75, 1.37] vs Focus on Form Imp. 1 0 11 0 0 [0.28, 1.24] vs Focus on FormS Exp. 2 4 0 0 0 [0.22, 1.58] vs Focus on Form Exp. 2 0 0 0 0 [-0.25, 2.20] g (95% CI) [0.53, 1.11] [0.21, 0.99] [0.72, 1.22] N/A [0.25, 1.11] [0.66, 0.99] Biased toward giving rule description deductively, so we cant get the whole picture unless we construct and include rule discovery kind of instruction, with

33. Norris & Ortega (2000) n, M, SDCohens d(58) n, t dfCohens d n, F dfCohens d 3

34. In Norris & Ortega (2000) Cadierno (1995, p. 186) Exp. FonF vs. Control Exp. FonFs vs. Control Spanish, Tense/Time phrases

35. d g2 2 2 (, 2012, p. 229)

36.

37. Innami & Koizumi (2009) When multiple effect sizes were available in a single study, a weighted mean of the means was calculated, along with a weighted mean of the SDs, Thus, each study contributed a single effect size. This weighted-average procedure for means and SDs is widely used to reduce the bias caused by dependency between the effect sizes in one study. However, this procedure might mix up some potentially important variables that the primary researcher independently investigated; therefore, information on moderator variables could be lost. (p. 229-230)

38. Innami & Koizumi (2009) 1 (p. 229-230)

39. Norris & Ortega (2000) (FonF/FonFs/Explicit/Implicit) (brief/short/medium/long) (constrained constructed response, free response, metalinguistic judgements, selected response)

40. Norris & Ortega (2006) ; or Lipsey & Wilson (2001) : (a) (b) (c)

41. Norris & Ortega (2006) (b) Given the limitations of (a), and the technical and primary study reporting demands of (c), we would suggest that option (b) generally provides the most broadly applicable strategy for the basic interpretive demands of meta-analysis in LL&LT research. (p. 30)

42. Norris & Ortega (2006) (b) (b) (p. 30)

43.

44.

45. Review Narrative Review subjective & qualitative Systematic Review objective & quali/quanti-tative Meta-Analysis quantitative

46. E.g., Jeon & Yamashita (2014, p. 176) Cf. Innami & Koizumi (2010) principled & traceable

47. ry) 3 (, 2012, p. 228) 3 (, 2012, p. 248)

48. ?! and/or

49. Or

50. accessibility langtest.jp

51. LET 20142 in 2014915 eywatar@ipc.shizuoka.ac.jp ; ; access; principled & traceable References: http://bit.ly/metho201409watari