Looking for a Needle in a Haystack: CALL and Advanced Language Proficiency
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.1558/cj.31594Keywords:
advanced, meta-analysis, proficiency, ACTFL, instructional technologyAbstract
The goal of this meta-analysis is to evaluate how instructional technology has impacted advanced second language (AL2) development. Although numerous meta-analyses have been conducted within the CALL literature over the past two decades, they primarily focus upon learning outcomes and related effect sizes. None focus on advanced learning per se. Where AL2 is even mentioned, which is only rarely, little or no attention is paid to critical research parameters within the studies that are analyzed. Most notably, in summarizing learning outcomes, the linguistic competence of learners claimed to be at advanced level is simply taken at face value. So, too, no consideration is given to the difficulty level of tasks undertaken by students or their appropriateness to students’ claimed proficiency. It is the intent of this general overview of the contribution of CALL to AL2 to address these issues through a comprehensive analysis of the publications in four prominent CALL journals (CALICO, CALL, Language Learning & Technology, and ReCALL) over some 30 years. In so doing, the Performance Descriptors (PD) and NCSSFL- Can-Do Statements (CDS) of the American Council on the Teaching of Foreign Languages’ (ACTFL) are adopted as external criteria for establishing student competence level, task difficulty and appropriateness. This study concludes that not only are CALL AL2 studies extremely limited in number and focus, but also that they suffer from serious design flaws that call into question a great portion of the claims made regarding the contribution of instructional technology to the furthering of advanced-level foreign language competence.References
ACTFL. (2010). ACTFL K–12 foreign-language report 2010. https://www.ced.org/pdf/actfl-k12-foreign-language-for-global-society.pdf
ACTFL. (2015a). ACTFL performance descriptors for language learners. https://www.actfl.org/sites/default/files/pdfs/ACTFLPerformance-Descriptors.pdf
ACTFL. (2015b). NCSSFL-ACTFL can-do statements. http://www.actfl.org/sites/default/files/pdfs/Can-Do_Statements_2015.pdf
Adelman, C. (1995). The new college course map and transcript file. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Education. http://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/ED434647.pdf
ALTE. (2002). The ALTE can do project. http://www.alte.org/attachments/files/alte_cando.pdf
Blake, R. J. (2013). Brave new digital classroom: Technology and foreign language learning. Washington, DC: Georgetown University Press.
Burston, J. (2015). Twenty years of MALL project implementation: A meta-analysis of learning outcomes. ReCALL, 27(01), 4–20. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0958344014000159
Carroll, J. (1967). Foreign language proficiency levels attained by language majors near graduation from college. Foreign Language Annals, 1(2), 131–151. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1944-9720.1967.tb00127.x
Chiu, Y. H., Kao, C. W., & Reynolds, B. L. (2012). The relative effectiveness of digital game?based learning types in English as a foreign language setting: A meta?analysis. British Journal of Educational Technology, 43(4), E104–E107. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-8535.2012.01295.x
European Commission. (2012). First European survey on language competences – Final report. http://ec.europa.eu/languages/library/studies/executive-summary-eslc_en.pdf
Felix, U. (2005). What do meta-analyses tell us about CALL effectiveness? ReCALL, 17(2), 269–288. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0958344005000923
Felix, U. (2008). The unreasonable effectiveness of CALL: What have we learned in two decades of research? ReCALL, 20(2), 141–161. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0958344008000323
Glisan, E., Swender, E., & Surface, E. (2013). Oral pro?ciency standards and foreign language teacher candidates: Current findings and future research directions. Foreign Language Annals, 46(2), 264–289. https://doi.org/10.1111/flan.12030
Goldberg, D., Looney, D., & Lusin, N., (2015). Enrollments in languages other than English in United States institutions of higher education, Fall 2013. New York: Modern Language Association of America. https://apps.mla.org/pdf/2013_enrollment_survey.pdf
Krashen, S. (1981). Second language acquisition and second language learning. Oxford: Pergamon.
Lin, H. (2014). Establishing an empirical link between computer-mediated communication (CMC) and SLA: A meta-analysis of the research. Language Learning & Technology, 18(3), 120–147. http://llt.msu.edu/issues/october2014/lin.pdf
Lusin, N. (2012). The MLA survey of postsecondary entrance and degree requirements for languages other than English, 2009–10, 1–9. Modern Language Association of America. https://www.mla.org/content/download/3316/81618/requirements_survey_200910.pdf
Nguyen, L. V. (2008). Computer mediated communication and foreign language education: Pedagogical features. International Journal of Instructional Technology and Distance Learning, 5(12), 23–44. http://itdl.org/Journal/Dec_08/article02.htm
Plonsky, L., & Ziegler, N. (2016). The CALL–SLA interface: Insights from a second-order synthesis. Language Learning & Technology, 20(2), 17–37. http://llt.msu.edu/issues/june2016/plonskyziegler.pdf
Taylor, A. (2013). CALL versus paper: In which context are L1 glosses more effective? CALICO Journal, 30(1), 63–81. https://doi.org/10.11139/cj.30.1.63-81
Verhelst, N., Van Avermaet, P., Takala, S., Figueras, N., & North, B. (2009). Common European framework of reference for languages: Learning, teaching, assessment. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. http://www.coe.int/t/dg4/linguistic/Source/Framework_EN.pdf
Vygotsky, L. (1978). Mind in society: The development of higher psychological processes. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
Yun, J. (2011). The effects of hypertext glosses on L2 vocabulary acquisition: A meta-analysis. Computer Assisted Language Learning, 24(1), 39–58. https://doi.org/10.1080/09588221.2010.523285
Ziegler, N. (2016). Synchronous computer-mediated communication and interaction: A meta-analysis. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 38(3), 553–586. http://journals.cambridge.org/action/displayAbstract?aid=10000601
ACTFL. (2015a). ACTFL performance descriptors for language learners. https://www.actfl.org/sites/default/files/pdfs/ACTFLPerformance-Descriptors.pdf
ACTFL. (2015b). NCSSFL-ACTFL can-do statements. http://www.actfl.org/sites/default/files/pdfs/Can-Do_Statements_2015.pdf
Adelman, C. (1995). The new college course map and transcript file. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Education. http://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/ED434647.pdf
ALTE. (2002). The ALTE can do project. http://www.alte.org/attachments/files/alte_cando.pdf
Blake, R. J. (2013). Brave new digital classroom: Technology and foreign language learning. Washington, DC: Georgetown University Press.
Burston, J. (2015). Twenty years of MALL project implementation: A meta-analysis of learning outcomes. ReCALL, 27(01), 4–20. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0958344014000159
Carroll, J. (1967). Foreign language proficiency levels attained by language majors near graduation from college. Foreign Language Annals, 1(2), 131–151. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1944-9720.1967.tb00127.x
Chiu, Y. H., Kao, C. W., & Reynolds, B. L. (2012). The relative effectiveness of digital game?based learning types in English as a foreign language setting: A meta?analysis. British Journal of Educational Technology, 43(4), E104–E107. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-8535.2012.01295.x
European Commission. (2012). First European survey on language competences – Final report. http://ec.europa.eu/languages/library/studies/executive-summary-eslc_en.pdf
Felix, U. (2005). What do meta-analyses tell us about CALL effectiveness? ReCALL, 17(2), 269–288. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0958344005000923
Felix, U. (2008). The unreasonable effectiveness of CALL: What have we learned in two decades of research? ReCALL, 20(2), 141–161. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0958344008000323
Glisan, E., Swender, E., & Surface, E. (2013). Oral pro?ciency standards and foreign language teacher candidates: Current findings and future research directions. Foreign Language Annals, 46(2), 264–289. https://doi.org/10.1111/flan.12030
Goldberg, D., Looney, D., & Lusin, N., (2015). Enrollments in languages other than English in United States institutions of higher education, Fall 2013. New York: Modern Language Association of America. https://apps.mla.org/pdf/2013_enrollment_survey.pdf
Krashen, S. (1981). Second language acquisition and second language learning. Oxford: Pergamon.
Lin, H. (2014). Establishing an empirical link between computer-mediated communication (CMC) and SLA: A meta-analysis of the research. Language Learning & Technology, 18(3), 120–147. http://llt.msu.edu/issues/october2014/lin.pdf
Lusin, N. (2012). The MLA survey of postsecondary entrance and degree requirements for languages other than English, 2009–10, 1–9. Modern Language Association of America. https://www.mla.org/content/download/3316/81618/requirements_survey_200910.pdf
Nguyen, L. V. (2008). Computer mediated communication and foreign language education: Pedagogical features. International Journal of Instructional Technology and Distance Learning, 5(12), 23–44. http://itdl.org/Journal/Dec_08/article02.htm
Plonsky, L., & Ziegler, N. (2016). The CALL–SLA interface: Insights from a second-order synthesis. Language Learning & Technology, 20(2), 17–37. http://llt.msu.edu/issues/june2016/plonskyziegler.pdf
Taylor, A. (2013). CALL versus paper: In which context are L1 glosses more effective? CALICO Journal, 30(1), 63–81. https://doi.org/10.11139/cj.30.1.63-81
Verhelst, N., Van Avermaet, P., Takala, S., Figueras, N., & North, B. (2009). Common European framework of reference for languages: Learning, teaching, assessment. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. http://www.coe.int/t/dg4/linguistic/Source/Framework_EN.pdf
Vygotsky, L. (1978). Mind in society: The development of higher psychological processes. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
Yun, J. (2011). The effects of hypertext glosses on L2 vocabulary acquisition: A meta-analysis. Computer Assisted Language Learning, 24(1), 39–58. https://doi.org/10.1080/09588221.2010.523285
Ziegler, N. (2016). Synchronous computer-mediated communication and interaction: A meta-analysis. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 38(3), 553–586. http://journals.cambridge.org/action/displayAbstract?aid=10000601
Downloads
Published
2017-12-14
Issue
Section
Articles
How to Cite
Burston, J., & Arispe, K. (2017). Looking for a Needle in a Haystack: CALL and Advanced Language Proficiency. CALICO Journal, 35(1), 77-102. https://doi.org/10.1558/cj.31594
