Document Type : Article Reviews

Authors

1 Department of English, Torbat -e Heydarieh Branch, Islamic Azad University, Torbat -e Heydarieh, Iran

2 Department of English, University of Bojnord

Abstract

< p>What is “the best method” of language teaching? It has been one of the oldest questions of language teaching and learning during the last century. However, no comprehensive quantitative study has tackled the issue. In order to answer this question, the researchers meta-analyzed 56 studies with 7960 participants from many contexts. A coding scheme of 46 variables, in the form of four major moderator sets, including design characteristics, language characteristics, participant characteristics, and teaching characteristics, was developed. The overall effect size (g= 1.00) was found to be positive, strong, and significant for all language teaching methods. The findings showed that all language teaching methods, irrespective of various contexts, were positively effective. The results of moderator analysis showed that most of the moderators, excluding language skills and place of the study, had no significant effect on language teaching methods. Implications for current theory and practice, for both method and postmethod, are discussed.

Keywords

Main Subjects

Abraham, L. B. (2008). Computer-mediated glosses in second language reading comprehension and vocabulary learning: A meta-analysis. Computer Assisted Language Learning, 21(3), 199-226.
Abu Radwan, A. (1999). Focus -on -form instruction and the acquisition of English dative alternation: Does noticing help? Unpublished doctoral dissertation. Georgetown University.
Akakura, M. (2012). Evaluating the effectiveness of explicit instruction on implicit and explicit L2 knowledge. Language Teaching Research, 16(1), 9-37.
Al Muhaimeed, S. A. (2015). Task-based language teaching vs. traditional way of English language teaching in Saudi intermediate schools: A comparative study. Unpublished doctoral dissertation. Kent State University College.
Alamri, K., & Rogers, V. (2018). The effectiveness of different explicit vocabulary-teaching strategies on learners’ retention of technical and academic words. The Language Learning Journal, 46(5), 622-633.
Amer, A. A. (1992). The Effect of story grammar Instruction on EFL students'' comprehension of narrative text. Reading in a Foreign Language, 8(2), 711-720.
Ando, J. (1992). The Effects of two EFL (English as a Foreign Language) teaching approaches studied by the cotwin control method: A comparative study of the communicative and the grammatical approaches. Acta geneticae medicae et gemellologiae: twin research, 41(4), 335-352.
Bai, B. (2015). The effects of strategy-based writing instruction in Singapore primary schools. System, 53, 96-106.
Bakhshandeh, S., & Jafari, K. (2018). The effects of input enhancement and explicit instruction on developing Iranian lower-intermediate EFL learners’ explicit knowledge of the passive voice. Asian-Pacific Journal of Second and Foreign Language Education, 3(1), 18.
Bangert-Drowns, R. L.-R., Lawrence M. (1991). Meta-analysis in educational research. ERIC clearinghouse on tests measurement and evaluation Washington DC.
Bataineh, R. F., Al-Qeyam, F. R., & Smadi, O. M. (2017). Does form-focused instruction really make a difference? Potential effectiveness in Jordanian EFL learners’ linguistic and pragmatic knowledge acquisition. Asian-Pacific Journal of Second Foreign Language Education, 2(1), 17.
Bejarano, Y. (1987). A cooperative small-group methodology in the language classroom. TESOL Quarterly, 21(3), 483-504.
Bell, D. M. (2003). Method and postmethod: Are they really so incompatible? TESOL Quarterly, 37(2), 325-336.
Benati, A. (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(1), 67-93.
Block, D. (2001). An exploration of the art and science debate in language education. In Reflections on language and language learning: In honour of Arthur van Essen (pp. 63–74). John Benjamins.
Blokdyk, G. (2020). Meta-analysis a complete fuide - 2020 edition. Emereo Pty Limited.
Bolton, K., & Graddol, D. (2012). English in China today. English Today, 28, 3-9.
Borenstein, M., Hedges, L., Higgins, J., & Rothstein, H. (2013). Comprehensive meta Analysis In (Version 3) Biostat.
Borg, S. (2003). Teacher cognition in language teaching: A review of research on what language teachers think, know, believe, and do. Language Teaching, 36(2), 81-109.
Bryfonski, L., & McKay, T. H. (2017). TBLT implementation and evaluation: A meta-analysis. Language Teaching Research, 0(0), 1362168817744389.
Canagarajah, a. S. (2006). TESOL at forty: what are the issues? TESOL Quarterly, 40(1), 9-34.
Chan, M. (2019). The role of classroom input: processing instruction, traditional instruction, and implicit instruction in the acquisition of the English simple past by Cantonese ESL learners in Hong Kong. System, 80, 246-256.
Chang, A. C.-S., & Read, J. (2006). The effects of listening support on the listening performance of EFL learners. TESOL Quarterly, 40(2), 375-397.
Cole, M. W. (2014). Speaking to read: meta-analysis of peer-mediated learning for English language learners. Journal of Literacy Research, 46(3), 358-382.
Colovic-Markovic, J. (2013). The effects of explicit instruction of formulaic sequences on second-language writers. Unpublished doctoral dissertation. The University of Utah.
Cooper, H., Hedges, L. V., & Valentine, J. C. (2009). The handbook of research synthesis and meta-analysis 2nd edition. In The Hand. of Res. Synthesis and Meta-Analysis, 2nd Ed. (pp. 1-615). Russell Sage Foundation.
Cruz-Arcila, F. (2013). Accounting for difference and diversity in language teaching and learning in Colombia. Educación y Educadores, 16, 80-92.
De Vos, J. F., Schriefers, H., Nivard, M. G., & Lemhöfer, K. (2018). a meta-analysis and meta-regression of incidental second language word learning from spoken input. Language Learning, 68(4), 906-941.
*Doughty, C. J. S. (1988). The effect of instruction on the acquisition of relativization in English as a second language. Unpublished doctoral dissertation. The University of Pennsylvania.
Dueñas Vinuesa, M. (2002). Diane larsen-freeman. 2000. Techniques and principles in language teaching. Second edition. (Vol. 3).
Durlak, J. A. (2009). How to select, calculate, and interpret effect sizes. Journal of Pediatric Psychology, 34(9), 917-928.
Duval, S., & Tweedie, R. (2000, Jun). Trim and fill: A simple funnel-plot-based method of testing and adjusting for publication bias in meta-analysis. Biometrics, 56(2), 455-463.
Duval, S., & Tweedie, R. (2000). Trim and fill: A simple funnel–plot–based method of testing and adjusting for publication bias in meta-analysis. Biometrics, 56(2), 455-463.
Ellis, R. (2010). Second language acquisition, teacher education and language pedagogy. Language Teaching, 43(2), 182-201.
Ellis, R., Loewen, S., & Erlam, R. (2006). Implicit and explicit corrective feedback and the acquisition of l2 grammar. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 28(2), 339-368.
Farsani, H. M., Tavakoli, M., & Moinzadeh, A. (2012). The effect of task-based instruction on the acquisition and use of English existential constructions by Iranian EFL learners. Innovation in Language Learning and Teaching, 6(1), 45-67.
Fitton, L., McIlraith, A. L., & Wood, C. L. (2018). Shared book reading interventions with English learners: A meta-analysis. Review of Educational Research, 88(5), 712-751.
Fordyce, K. (2014). The differential effects of explicit and implicit instruction on efl learners’ use of epistemic stance. Applied Linguistics, 35(1), 6-28.
Fukuta, J. (2016). Effects of task repetition on learners’ attention orientation in L2 oral production. Language Teaching Research, 20(3), 321-340.
approach for the development of second language oral fluency, comprehensibility, and accentedness. TESOL Quarterly, 51(1), 115-142.
Ghavamnia, M., Eslami-Rasekh, A., & Vahid Dastjerdi, H. (2018). The effects of input-enhanced instruction on Iranian EFL learners'' production of appropriate and accurate suggestions. The Language Learning Journal, 46(2), 114-131.
Haidar, S., & Fang, F. (2019). English language in education and globalization: a comparative analysis of the role of English in Pakistan and China. Asia Pacific Journal of Education, 39(2), 165-176.
Hansol, L., Mark, W., & Ho, L. J. (2018). The effects of corpus use on second language vocabulary learning: A multilevel meta-analysis. Applied Linguistics.
Harlen, W., & Crick, R. D. (2002). A systematic review of the impact of summative assessment and tests on students'' motivation for learning. Research Evidence in Education Library.
Hee, J. E., & Junko, Y. (2014). L2 reading comprehension and its correlates: A meta-analysis. Language Learning, 64(1), 160-212.
Heidari-Shahreza, M. A., & Tavakoli, M. (2016). The effects of repetition and L1 lexicalization on incidental vocabulary acquisition by Iranian EFL Learners. The Language Learning Journal, 44(1), 17-32.
Higgins, J. P. T., Thomas, J., Chandler, J., Cumpston, M., Li, T., Page, M. J., & Welch, V. A. (2019). Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Reviews of Interventions. Cochrane, 2019.
Hinenoya, K., & Lyster, R. (2015). Identifiability and accessibility in learning definite article usages: A quasi-experimental study with Japanese learners of English. Language Teaching Research, 19(4), 397-415.
Hu, G. (2002). Potential cultural resistance to pedagogical imports: The case of communicative language teaching in China. Language, Culture and Curriculum, 15(2), 93-105.
Huang, S., Willson, V., & Eslami, Z. (2012). The effects of task involvement load on l2 incidental vocabulary learning: A meta-analytic study. Modern Language Journal, 96(4), 544-557.
Jak, S. (2015). Meta-analytic structural equation modeling. Springer.
Jeffery, J. V., & Van Beuningen, C. (2020). Language education in the EU and the US: Paradoxes and parallels. PROSPECTS, 48(3), 175-191.
Jeon, E., & Day, R. (2016). The effectiveness of ER on reading proficiency: A meta-analysis. Reading in a Foreign Language, 28(2), 246–265.
Jiang, X. (2007). The impact of graphic organizer instruction on English -as-a -foreign -language college students'' reading comprehension. Unpublished doctoral dissertation. Northern Arizona University.
Jones, N. B. (1993). Comparison of instructional strategies for teaching English in a Taiwan college: Traditional Chinese approach vs. Natural language approach Unpublished doctoral dissertation. Washington State university
Kim, J.-W. (2008). A comparative study of the effects of explicit-inductive/cooperative instruction versus explicit-deductive/individualistic instruction on the second language acquisition of English relative clauses in Korean university-level EFL learners. Unpublished doctoral dissertation. Allian International University.
Kim, Y. (2013). Effects of pretask modeling on attention to form and question development. TESOL Quarterly, 47(1), 8-35.
Kim, Y., & McDonough, K. (2011). Using pretask modeling to encourage collaborative learning opportunities. Language Teaching Research, 15(2), 183-199.
Kumaravadivelu. (1994). The postmethod condition: (e)merging strategies for second/foreign language teaching. TESOL Quarterly, 28(1), 27-48.
Kumaravadivelu. (2006). Understanding language teaching: From method to postmethod. Routledge.
Kupferberg, I., & Olshtain, E. (1996). Explicit contrastive instruction facilitates the acquisition of difficult l2 forms. Language Awareness, 5(3-4), 149-165.
Lakens, D. (2013). Calculating and reporting effect sizes to facilitate cumulative science: a practical primer for t-tests and ANOVAs. Frontiers in Psychology, 4(863).
Larsen-Freeman, D. (2012). From unity to diversity... to diversity within unity. English Teaching Forum, 50(2), 6.
Leather, S., & Motallebzadeh, K. (2015). Effecting methodological change through a trainer-training project: a tale of insider-outsider collaboration. British Council Iran.
Lee, J., Jang, J., & Plonsky, L. (2015). The effectiveness of second language pronunciation instruction: A meta-analysis. Applied Linguistics, 36(3), 345-366.
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.
Lightbown, P. M., & Spada, N. (1990). Focus-on-form and corrective feedback in communicative language teaching: Effects on second language learning. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 12(4), 429-448.
Lindblad, T., & Levin, L. (1970). Teaching grammar. An experiment in applied psycholinguistics. Assessing three different methods of teaching grammatical structures in English as a foreign language.
Liu, J., & Zhang, J. (2018). The effects of extensive reading on English vocabulary learning: A meta-analysis. English Language Teaching, 11(6), 1-15.
Macdonald, D., Yule, G., & Powers, M. (1994). Attempts to improve english l2 pronunciation: The variable effects of different types of instruction. Language Learning, 44(1), 75-100.
Manan, S. A., David, M. K., & Dumanig, F. P. (2016). English language teaching in Pakistan: Language policies, delusions and solutions. In R. Kirkpatrick (Ed.), English Language Education Policy in Asia (Vol. 11). Springer.
McGuthrie, M. E. L. (2015). An interventional study: Adult ESL beginners and advanced learners on acquiring and producing pragmatic requests. Unpublished master''s thesis. California State University.
Mirhosseini, S.-A., & Khodakarami, S. (2016). Aspects of English language education policies in Iran: ‘Our own beliefs’ or ‘out of who you are’? Journal of Multicultural Discourses, 11(3), 283-299.
Mitsugi, M. (2017). Schema-based instruction on learning English polysemous words: Effects of instruction and learners'' perceptions. Journal of Pan-Pacific Association of Applied Linguistics, 21(1), 21-43.
Mizumoto, A., & Takeuchi, O. (2009). Examining the effectiveness of explicit instruction of vocabulary learning strategies with Japanese EFL university students. Language Teaching Research, 13(4), 425-449.
Moher, D., Liberati, A., Tetzlaff, J., & Altman, D. G. (2009, Jul 21). Preferred reporting items for systematic reviews and meta-analyses: the PRISMA statement. PLoS Med, 6(7).
Muranoi, H. (1997). Effects of interaction enhancement on restructuring of interlanguage grammar: A cognitive approach to foreign language instruction. Unpublished doctoral dissertation.Georgetown University, Ann Arbor.
Muranoi, H. (2000). Focus on form through interaction enhancement: Integrating formal instruction into a communicative task in EFL classrooms. Language Learning, 50(4), 617-673.
Nakatani, Y. (2005). The effects of awareness-raising training on oral communication strategy use. The Modern Language Journal, 89(1), 76-91.
Namaziandost, E., Dehkordi, E. S., & Shafiee, S. (2019). Comparing the effectiveness of input-based and output-based activities on productive knowledge of vocabulary among pre-intermediate EFL learners. Asian-Pacific Journal of Second Foreign Language Education, 4(1), 2.
Nassaji, H. (2020). The importance of using multiple measures or data sources in L2 instructional research. Language Teaching Research, 24(2), 131-135.
Nematollahi, B., Behjat, F., & Kargar, A. (2017). A meta-analysis of vocabulary learning strategies of EFL learners. English Language Teaching 10(5).
Niu, R., & Helms-Park, R. (2014). Interaction, modality, and word engagement as factors in lexical learning in a Chinese context. Language Teaching Research, 18(3), 345-372.
Park, J. K. (2000). The effects of forms and meaning-focused instruction on ESL learners'' phonological acquisition. Unpublished doctoral dissertation. University of Pennsylvania, Ann Arbor.
Peckham, D. W. (2000). Attention and consciousness in second language acquisition: An investigation into the effects of instruction on noticing. Unpublished doctoral dissertation. The University of Pittsburgh.
Pennycook, A. (1989). The concept of method, interested knowledge, and the politics of language teaching. TESOL Quarterly, 23(4), 589-618.
Prabhu, N. S. (1990). There is no best method—why? TESOL Quarterly, 24(2), 161-176.
Qi, X. E. (1994). Consciousness-raising in ESL writing: Its effects on the syntactic skills and writing proficiency of university students. Unpublished doctoral dissertation.State University of New York at Buffalo.
Qin, J. (2008). The effect of processing instruction and dictogloss tasks on the acquisition of the English passive voice. Language Teaching Research, 12(1), 61-82.
Rassaei, E. (2012). The effects of input-based and output-based instruction on l2 development. TESL-EJ: Teaching English as a Second or Foreign Language, 16(3).
Richards, J. C. (1990). The language teaching matrix. Cambridge University Press.
Robert, L., & Lawrence, M. (2006). Meta-analysis in educational research. Practical Assessment, Research, and Evaluation, 2(8).
Seiba, Z. (2002). Classroom instruction and second language acquisition: The effect of explicit form-focused instruction on l2 learners'' linguistic competence. Unpublished doctoral dissertation. The University of Mississippi.
Selinker, L., & Tomin, R. S. (1986). An empirical look at the integration and separation of skills in ELT. ELT Journal, 40(3), 227-235.
Shabani, K., & Hosseinzadeh, S. (2013). A comparative study of the effects of teacher-initiated planned preemptive and reactive focus on form on L2 learners’ accuracy in narrative writing. Innovation in Language Learning and Teaching, 13(1), 76-92.
Shintani, N. (2011). A comparative study of the effects of input-based and production-based instruction on vocabulary acquisition by young EFL learners. Language Teaching Research, 15(2), 137-158.
Shintani, N. (2012). Input-based tasks and the acquisition of vocabulary and grammar: A process-product study. Language Teaching Research, 16(2), 253-279.
Shintani, N. (2013). The effect of focus on form and focus on forms instruction on the acquisition of productive knowledge of l2 vocabulary by young beginning-level learners. TESOL Quarterly, 47(1), 36-62.
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.
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.
Shirinbakhsh, S., Rasekh, A. E., & Tavakoli, M. (2018). Metapragmatic instruction (6Rs) versus input-based practice: a comparison of their effects on pragmatic accuracy and speed in the recognition and oral production of English refusals. The Language Learning Journal, 46(4), 514-537.
Sims, J. M. (1997). A comparative study of improvements in reading comprehension of skill-based instruction and extensive reading for pleasure with Taiwanese freshman university students. Unpublished doctoral dissertation. The Florida State University.
Slavin, R. E., & Cheung, A. (2005). A synthesis of research on language of reading instruction for English language learners. Review of Educational Research, 75(2), 247-284.
Spada, N., Jessop, L., Tomita, Y., Suzuki, W., & Valeo, A. (2014). Isolated and Integrated form-focused instruction: Effects on different types of L2 knowledge. 18(4), 453-473.
Stern, H. H., Tarone, E. E., Stern, H. H., Yule, G., & Stern, H. (1983). Fundamental concepts of language teaching: Historical and interdisciplinary perspectives on applied linguistic research. OUP Oxford.
Tammenga-Helmantel, M., Arends, E., & Canrinus, E. T. (2014). The effectiveness of deductive, inductive, implicit and incidental grammatical instruction in second language classrooms. System, 45, 198-210.
Tode, T. (2007). Durability problems with explicit instruction in an EFL context: the learning of the English copula be before and after the introduction of the auxiliary be. Language Teaching Research, 11(1), 11-30.
Waters, A. (2009). A guide to Methodologia: past, present, and future. ELT Journal, 63(2), 108-115.
West, A. J. (2016). Adaptation of communicative language teaching methodology to an English textbook for English language learning of Nida students. PASAA: A Journal of Language Teaching & Learning in Thailand, 52, 25-52.
Yoshimura, F. (2006). Does manipulating foreknowledge of output tasks lead to differences in reading behavior, text comprehension, and noticing of language form? Language Teaching Research, 10(4), 419-434.