The Contribution of CALL to Advanced-Level Foreign/Second Language Instruction

This paper evaluates the contribution of instructional technology to advanced-level foreign/second language learning (AL2) over the past thirty years. It is shown that the most salient feature of AL2 practice and associated Computer-Assisted Language Learning (CALL) research are their rarity and restricted nature. Based on an analysis of four leading CALL journals (CALICO, CALL, LL&T, ReCALL), less than 3% of all CALL publications deal with AL2. Moreover, within this body of research, the range of languages involved is very restricted. Three languages, English, German and French, account for nearly 87% of the studies. Likewise, in nearly 81% of the cases, the learning focus is on the written language. Attention to oral-aural skills accounts for only 18% of all AL2 CALL projects. Whatever the targeted language or linguistic focus, the most striking aspect of advanced-level L2 CALL studies is the lack of information given regarding the competency level of students and the linguistic level of the activities undertaken. The determination of these critical parameters is thus of necessity very much a highly interpretive process. Based on the available evidence, it is estimated that half of the learners in these AL2 studies were in fact within the Common European Framework of Reference (CEFR) B1 range, i.e. below what would generally be considered as advanced-level competency. So, too, half of the assigned tasks were deemed to have been below the B2 level, with 40% of these below the B1 level. This study concludes that both quantitatively and qualitatively the contribution of instructional technology to advanced-level L2 acquisition has been very limited

Preoperative staging of rectal cancer with MRI: correlation with pathologic staging

[INTRODUCTION] An accurate preoperative rectal cancer staging is crucial to the correct management of the disease. Despite great controversy around this issue, pelvic magnetic resonance (RM) is said to be the imagiologic standard modality. This work aimed to evaluate magnetic resonance accuracy in preoperative rectal cancer staging comparing with the anatomopathological results. METHODS We calculated sensibility, specificity, positive (VP positive) and negative (VP negative) predictive values for each T and N. We evaluated the concordance between both methods of staging using the Cohen weighted K (Kw), and through ROC curves, we evaluated magnetic resonance accuracy in rectal cancer staging. RESULTS 41 patients met the inclusion criteria. We achieved an efficacy of 43.9% for T and 61% for N staging. The respective sensibility, specificity, positive and negative predictive values are 33.3%, 94.7%, 33.3% and 94.7% for T1; 62.5%, 32%, 37.0% and 57.1% for T2; 31.8%, 79%, 63.6% and 50% for T3 and 27.8%, 87%, 62.5% and 60.6% for N. We obtained a poor concordance for T and N staging and the anatomopathological results. The ROC curves indicated that magnetic resonance is ineffective in rectal cancer staging. CONCLUSION Magnetic resonance has a moderate efficacy in rectal cancer staging and the major difficulty is in differentiating T2 and T3.(undefined