Abstract
This meta-analysis aims at investigating the impact of English language teaching practices on language outcomes. The literature search yielded 90 meta-analyses that were published between January, 1995 and December, 2019. The current study analyzed 90 meta-analysis and these studies comprised 3496 studies, 7870 effect sizes and nearly 700,000 students. Three moderator variables were examined: year of publication, setting and educational level. The results showed that a) language learning strategies had medium impact on language outcomes in general and generated the largest impact on speaking (d=0.90), b) technology-based language learning had medium impact on language outcomes in general and generated the largest impact on vocabulary (d=0.98), c) explicit instruction had medium impact on language outcomes in general and generated the largest impact on grammar (d=1.26), d) mobile-based language learning had small impact on language outcomes in general and generated the largest impact on listening (d=0.73), and e) setting and educational level significantly moderated the impact of teaching practices on language outcomes. The findings were discussed and implication and future research were proposed.
Highlights
1.1 BackgroundThe debate about the best practices of teaching English as a second or foreign language has been a controversial issue for decades
2.1 Defining the Domain of Research. This meta-analysis aimed to compute the effect size of the previous meta-analysis studies regarding the effectiveness of English language teaching practices on language outcomes
This study considers these four independent variables as the main categories of English language teaching practices: explicit instruction, language learning strategies, technology-based language learning, and mobile-based language learning
Summary
1.1 BackgroundThe debate about the best practices of teaching English as a second or foreign language has been a controversial issue for decades. Hundreds of meta-analyses were conducted to synthesize the effects of these practices on listening (e.g., Kang, 2015; Perez et al, 2013), speaking (e.g., Lee et al, 2014; Lin, 2014a; Wang, 2014), reading (e.g., Chaury, 2015; Hall & Burns, 2018; Jeon & Day, 2016; Maeng, 2014; Puzio & Colby, 2010), writing(e.g., Chen, 2017; Kao, 2013; Kao & Wible, 2014; Graham et al, 2015), vocabulary (e.g., Liu & Zhang, 2018; Marulis & Neuman, 2010; Tsai & Tsai, 2018; Yousefi & Biria, 2018; Yun, 2011), grammar (e.g., Alsadhan, 2011; Lee & Huang, 2008; Shintani, 2015; Shintani et al, 2013), and language proficiency (e.g., Chiu et al, 2012; Kao, 2014; Lyster & Saito, 2010; Sung et al, 2016; Stockard et al, 2018) These meta-analyses synthesized thousands of studies that integrated different English language teaching practices, which included explicit instruction, strategy-based instruction, skill-based instruction, technology-based learning, mobile learning, feedback, peer instruction, and other types of instruction such as textual enhancement, visual input enhancement, elicited imitation, corpus linguistics, graphic organizers, data-driven learning approach, game-based learning, within-class grouping, different gloss types, and others
Sign-in/Register to view highlights & summary Sign-in/Register to access full text options 
Talk to us
Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have
Schedule a callDisclaimer: All third-party content on this website/platform is and will remain the property of their respective owners and is provided on "as is" basis without any warranties, express or implied. Use of third-party content does not indicate any affiliation, sponsorship with or endorsement by them. Any references to third-party content is to identify the corresponding services and shall be considered fair use under The CopyrightLaw.
