Despite its critical role for the development of the field, little is known about replication in second language (L2) research. To better understand replication practice, we first provide a narrative review of challenges related to replication, drawing on recent developments in psychology. This discussion frames and motivates a systematic review, building on syntheses of replication in psychology, education, and L2 research. We coded 67 self-labeled L2 replication studies found across 26 journals for 136 characteristics. We estimated a mean rate of 1 published replication study for every 400 articles, with a mean of 6.64 years between initial and replication studies and a mean of 117 citations of the initial study before a replication was published. Replication studies had an annual mean of 7.3 citations, much higher than averages in linguistics and education. Overlap in authorship between initial and replication studies and the availability of the initial materials both increased the likelihood of a replication supporting the initial findings. Our sample contained no direct (exact) replication attempts, and changes made to initial studies were numerous and wide ranging, which likely obscured, if not undermined, the interpretability of replication studies. To improve the amount and quality of L2 replication research, we propose 16 recommendations relating to rationale, nomenclature, design, infrastructure, and incentivization for collaboration and publication.

Article:McManus, Kevin orcid.org/0000-0002-7855-6733 and Marsden, Emma orcid.org/0000-0003-4086-5765 (2017) L1 explicit instruction can improve L2 online and offline performance. Studies in Second Language Acquisition. pp. 459-492. ISSN 1470459-492. ISSN -1545 https://doi.org/10.1017/S027226311600022X eprints@whiterose.ac.uk https://eprints.whiterose.ac.uk/ Reuse Items deposited in White Rose Research Online are protected by copyright, with all rights reserved unless indicated otherwise. They may be downloaded and/or printed for private study, or other acts as permitted by national copyright laws. The publisher or other rights holders may allow further reproduction and re-use of the full text version. This is indicated by the licence information on the White Rose Research Online record for the item. TakedownIf you consider content in White Rose Research Online to be in breach of UK law, please notify us by emailing eprints@whiterose.ac.uk including the URL of the record and the reason for the withdrawal request. Explicit information and practice in L2 learningThe usefulness of providing L2 learners with explicit information (EI) about a target feature and subsequent practice in processing the input is not fully understood. As noted by Henry, Culman and VanPatten (2009, p.573) Ònot all EI is the same, not all structures are the same, and the interaction of EI, structure, and processing problem may yield different results in different studiesÓ. The current study investigates the effects of EI with practice in the L2 and also, in light of research documenting persistent difficulty when the L1 and L2 express the same meaning differently (Izquierdo & Collins, 2008;McManus, 2013McManus, , 2015Roberts & Liszka, 2013), whether additional EI about the L1 with L1 practice can help a specific processing problem Ð interpreting the habitual versus ongoing meanings of L2 French Imparfait for L1 English learners. We tested whether making this conceptual distinction explicit, via EI and meaning-based practice in both L1 and L2, would aid form-meaning mapping. First, we briefly discuss research into L2 EI and practice, before justifying the investigation of a role for L1 EI and practice, and then move on to discuss why EI and practice (in L2 and L1) may have an effect on online processing. L2 EI and PracticeEI about the L2 is useful for learning, according to information processing and skill acquisition theories, because some declarative information can become proceduralised via practice and automatized, resulting in automatised declarative knowledge and/or knowledge that appears indistinguishable from implicit knowledge (DeKeyser, 2015). 'Weaker' accounts suggest that learners can use EI to segment or parse the input (Terrell, 1991), notice features (Schmidt, 1990), understand a rule and help production (Leow, 2015), and arrive at correct interpretations with fewer practice items (Henry et al., 2009 4 ! to depend on several factors, including its precise nature Ð the type of information conveyed and the feature in focus. T...

This article provides two illustrations of some of the factors that can influence findings from pre-and post-test research designs in evaluation studies, including regression to the mean (RTM), maturation, history and test effects. The first illustration involves a re-analysis of data from a study by Marsden (2004), in which pre-test scores are plotted against gain scores to demonstrate RTM effects. The second illustration is a methodological review of single group, pre-and post-test research designs (pre-experiments) that evaluate causal relationships between intervention and outcome. Re-analysis of Marsden's prior data shows that learners with higher baseline scores consistently made smaller gains than those with lower baseline scores, demonstrating that RTM is clearly observable in single group, pre-post test designs. Our review found that 13% of the sample of 490 articles were evaluation studies. Of these evaluation studies, about half used an experimental design. However, a quarter used a single group, pre-post test design, and researchers using these designs did not mention possible RTM effects in their explanations, although other explanatory factors were mentioned. We conclude by describing how using experimental or quasi-experimental designs would have enabled researchers to explain their findings more accurately, and to draw more useful implications for pedagogy.

Self-paced reading tests (SPRs) are being increasingly adopted by second language (L2) researchers. Using SPR with L2 populations presents specific challenges, and its use is still evolving in L2 research (as well as in first language research, in many respects). Although the topic of several narrative overviews (Keating & Jegerski, 2015; Roberts, 2016), we do not have a comprehensive picture of its usage in L2 research. Building on the growing body of systematic reviews of research practices in applied linguistics (e.g., Liu & Brown, 2015; Plonsky, 2013), we report a methodological synthesis of the rationales, study contexts, and methodological decision making in L2 SPR research. Our comprehensive search yielded 74 SPRs used in L2 research. Each instrument was coded along 121 parameters, including: reported rationales and study characteristics, indicating the scope and nature of L2 SPR research agendas; design and analysis features and reporting practices, determining instrument validity and reliability; and materials transparency, affecting reproducibility and systematicity of agendas. Our findings indicate an urgent need to standardize the use and reporting of this technique, requiring empirical investigation to inform methodological decision making. We also identify several areas (e.g., study design, sample demographics, instrument construction, data analysis, and transparency) where SPR research could be improved to enrich our understanding of L2 processing, reading, and learning.

We conducted a multisite replication study with aspects of preregistration in order to explore the feasibility of such an approach in second language (L2) research. To this end, we addressed open questions in a line of research that has examined whether having learners attend to form while reading or listening to a L2 passage interferes with comprehension. Our results are consistent with findings from the specific paradigm that we replicated in that no effects on comprehension were detected in analyses conducted over all sites. However, further investigation is warranted due to site‐specific effects and methodological limitations. We found all aspects of the multisite registered replication approach to be useful although the registration component itself appeared to be an especially feasible and valuable first step toward increasing the robustness and generalizability of findings in our field. Open Practices This article has been awarded Open Data, Open Materials, and Preregistered Research Design badges. The following information is publicly accessible via the Open Science Framework: registered materials and protocol (https://osf.io/tvuer), registered data entry template (https://osf.io/d5s2t), open data (https://osf.io/vwytd), and open analysis (https://osf.io/nz3su). Learn more about the Open Practices badges from the Center for Open Science: https://osf.io/tvyxz/wiki.