A meta-analysis of effectiveness studies on computer technology-supported language learning

With the aim of summarizing years of research comparing pedagogies for second/foreign language teaching supported with computer technology and pedagogy not-supported by computer technology, a meta-analysis was conducted of empirical research investigating language outcomes. Thirty-seven studies yielding 52 effect sizes were included, following a search of literature from 1970 to 2006 and screening of studies based on stated criteria. The differences in research designs required subdivision of studies, but overall results favored the technology-supported pedagogy, with a small, but positive and statistically significant effect size. Second/foreign language instruction supported by computer technology was found to be at least as effective as instruction without technology, and in studies using rigorous research designs the CALL groups outperformed the non-CALL groups. The analyses of instructional conditions, characteristics of participants, and conditions of the research design did not provide reliable results because of the small number of effect sizes representing each group. The meta-analysis results provide an empirically-based response to the questions of whether or not technology-supported pedagogies enhance language learning, and the process of conducting the meta-analysis pointed to areas in research methodology that would benefit from attention in future research

Validity Arguments for Diagnostic Assessment Using Automated Writing Evaluation

Two examples demonstrate an argument-based approach to validation of diagnostic assessment using automated writing evaluation (AWE). Criterion ®, was developed by Educational Testing Service to analyze students’ papers grammatically, providing sentence-level error feedback. An interpretive argument was developed for its use as part of the diagnostic assessment process in undergraduate university English for academic purposes (EAP) classes. The Intelligent Academic Discourse Evaluator (IADE) was developed for use in graduate EAP university classes, where the goal was to help students improve their discipline-specific writing. The validation for each was designed to support claims about the intended purposes of the assessments. We present the interpretive argument for each and show some of the data that have been gathered as backing for the respective validity arguments, which include the range of inferences that one would make in claiming validity of the interpretations, uses, and consequences of diagnostic AWE-based assessments