Abstract
The exponential growth of research and enormity of the body of knowledge that has been accumulated in applied linguistics make the need for quality and reliable synthesis of the available research more pressing than ever. Traditional reviews seek to critique existing research, provide an overview of the research, and/or contextualize a new study. Research syntheses aim at reaching conclusions by means of aggregating the totality of the empirical research that has been carried out on a certain topic. This chapter discusses the procedures and best practices of each of the two approaches and concludes by making a comparison between the two approaches and proposing ways to integrate them.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Access this chapter
Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout
Purchases are for personal use only
References
American Psychological Association. (2001). Publication manual of the American Psychological Association (5th ed.). Washington, DC: American Psychological Association.
Booth, W., Colomb, G., & Williams, J. (1995). The craft of research. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press.
Bronson, D., & Davis, T. (2012). Finding and evaluating evidence: Systematic reviews and evidence-based practice. New York: Oxford University Press.
Carpenter, H. S. (2008). A behavioural and electrophysiological investigation of different aptitudes for L2 grammar in learners equated for proficiency level. Ph.D. dissertation, Georgetown University.
Cooper, H. (2016). Research synthesis and meta-analysis: A step-by-step approach (5th ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE.
Cumming, G. (2012). Understanding the new statistics: Effect sizes, confidence intervals, and metaanalysis. New York: Routledge.
Dixon, L., Zhao, J., Shin, J., Wu, S., Su, J., Burgess-Brigham, R., & Snow, C. (2012). What we know about second language acquisition: A synthesis from four perspectives. Review of Educational Research, 82(1), 5–60.
Ellis, R. (2002). Does form-focused instruction affect the acquisition of implicit knowledge? A review of the research. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 24(2), 223–236.
Glass, G. (1976). Primary, secondary, and meta-analysis of research. Education Researcher, 5, 3–8.
Imel, S. (2011). Writing a literature review. In T. Rocco & T. Hatcher (Eds.), The handbook of scholarly writing and publishing (pp. 145–160). San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
Jesson, J., Matheson, L., & Lacey, F. (2011). Doing your literature review: Traditional and systematic approaches. Los Angeles, CA: SAGE.
Li, S. (2010). The effectiveness of corrective feedback in SLA: A meta-analysis. Language Learning, 60(2), 309–365.
Li, S. (2015). The associations between language aptitude and second language grammar acquisition: A meta-analytic review of five decades of research. Applied Linguistics, 36(3), 385–408.
Li, S. (2017). Teacher and learner beliefs about corrective feedback. In H. Nassaji & E. Kartchava (Eds.), Corrective feedback in second language teaching and learning (pp. 143–157). New York, NY: Routledge.
Li, S., Shintani, N., & Ellis, R. (2012). Doing meta-analysis in SLA: Practices, choices, and standards. Contemporary Foreign Language Studies, 384(12), 1–17.
Lipsey, M., & Wilson, D. (1993). The efficacy of psychological, educational, and Behavioural treatment: Confirmation from meta-analysis. American Psychologist, 48(12), 1181–1209.
Lipsey, M., & Wilson, D. (2001). Practical meta-analysis. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Machi, L., & McEvoy, B. (2012). The literature review: Six steps to success. Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin.
Ortega, L. (2015). Research synthesis. In B. Paltridge & A. Phakiti (Eds.), Research methods in applied linguistics: A practical resource (pp. 225–244). London: Bloomsbury.
Plonsky, L. (2013). Study quality in SLA: An assessment of designs, analyses, and reporting practices in quantitative L2 research. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 35, 655–687.
Plonsky, L., & Gass, S. (2011). Quantitative research methods, study quality, and outcomes: The case of interaction research. Language Learning, 61(2), 325–366.
Plonsky, L., & Oswald, F. L. (2015). Meta-analyzing second language research. In L. Plonsky (Ed.), Advancing quantitative methods in second language research (pp. 106–128). New York, NY: Routledge.
Sun, S., Pan, W., & Wang, L. (2010). A comprehensive review of effect size reporting and interpreting practices in academic journals in education and psychology. Journal of Educational Psychology, 102(4), 989–1004.
Valentine, J., Pigott, T., & Rothstein, H. (2010). How many studies do you need? A primer on statistical power for meta-analysis. Journal of Educational and Behavioral Statistics, 3(2), 215–247.
Xu, Y., Maeda, Y., Lv, J., & Jinther, A. (2015). Elicited imitation as a measure of second language proficiency: A narrative review and meta-analysis. Language Testing, 33(4), 497–528.
Zaporozhetz, L. (1987). The dissertation literature review: How faculty advisors prepare their doctoral candidates. Ph.D. dissertation, The University of Oregon.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Editor information
Editors and Affiliations
Copyright information
© 2018 The Author(s)
About this chapter
Cite this chapter
Li, S., Wang, H. (2018). Traditional Literature Review and Research Synthesis. In: Phakiti, A., De Costa, P., Plonsky, L., Starfield, S. (eds) The Palgrave Handbook of Applied Linguistics Research Methodology. Palgrave Macmillan, London. https://doi.org/10.1057/978-1-137-59900-1_6
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1057/978-1-137-59900-1_6
Publisher Name: Palgrave Macmillan, London
Print ISBN: 978-1-137-59899-8
Online ISBN: 978-1-137-59900-1
eBook Packages: Social SciencesSocial Sciences (R0)