Acknowledgments

Measuring Writing Development and Proficiency Gains Using Indices of Lexical and Syntactic Complexity: Evidence From Longitudinal Russian Learner Corpus Data

“…Vyatkina (2012), for example, noted a significant increase in the number of subordinating conjunctions in the texts by two L2 German speakers as they progressed from the beginner level of proficiency over the course of four semesters. This three‐phase model has also found (partial) confirmation in other studies (Byrnes et al., 2010; Mazgutova & Kormos, 2015; Polat et al., 2020). Evidence to the contrary has also been found: Bulté & Housen (2014) and Crossley & McNamara (2014), for example, did not find an increase in the number of subordinate structures in descriptive essays by intermediate L2 English learners.…”

“…Another reason for the observed inconsistency of results across different studies may have to do with the fact that approaches to defining and operationalizing levels of linguistic skill across studies differ (Gablasova et al., 2017). Proficiency levels in previous research have either been assumed as learners move through a program of study (Mazgutova & Kormos, 2015) or operationalized in a number of different ways: (a) school level (Byrnes et al., 2010; Lu, 2011), (b) a holistic writing score based on an internal rubric (Jiang et al., 2019; Verspoor et al., 2012), or (c) test scores (Common European Framework of Reference [CEFR], Test of English as a Foreign Language [TOEFL], International English Language Testing System [IELTS]; Barkaoui & Hadidi, 2020; Higginbotham & Reid, 2019; Treffers–Daller et al., 2018).…”

“…Even when clearly defined, such operationalizations may fall short of providing a common yardstick for comparison: Proficiency based on a curricular level may be critiqued on the grounds that not all students in the same course progress at the same rate and are expected to have varying abilities across linguistic skills, such as speaking and writing. In fact, placement decisions are almost never discussed in research study design descriptions since study participants are either grouped based on the semester they started their foreign language major (Byrnes et al., 2010; Menke & Strawbridge, 2019), or they are divided into groups only for the purposes of the study (Barkaoui & Hadidi, 2020; Friginal & Weigle, 2014).…”

Beyond the Language‐Content Divide: Research on Advanced Foreign Language Instruction at the Postsecondary Level

“…These trends help respond to critiques regarding how a holistic, integrated curriculum as proposed in the MLA report (2007) might be realized in pedagogical and programmatic terms. For example, Byrnes (2010) stated that although the MLA report "wrestles with how to relate language and content or culture learning," it did not match its vision of cultural learning "by an equally appealing-and workable-notion of completely integrated and concurrent language learning" (p. 316). Pfeiffer (2008) further argued that the report did not specifi cally foreground "the sustained and consistent linkage of content areas with appropriate language forms in the FL" (p. 296).…”

Book Review: The Routledge Handbook of Language Testing

“…Among these, a chapter addressing teacher assessment literacy might have been a particularly helpful addition, space providing (see, for example, East, 2012;Norris & Raish, 2017;Pill & Harding, 2013). The inclusion of a chapter on assessment of young learners was a nice addition, and it raises the question of whether additional coverage of the CBA of other specific language learner populations might be called for, such as university foreign language learners (e.g., Adair-Hauck et al, 2013;Byrnes et al, 2010). Lastly, though mention is made of the influence of task-based language teaching on classroom practice, no mention is made of task-based language assessment, which seems anomalous, especially given that it is particularly well suited for CBA (e.g., Norris, 2009;Norris & East, 2021).…”