Cover not available
Part of
Understanding L2 Proficiency: Theoretical and meta-analytic investigations
Edited by Eun Hee Jeon and Yo In'nami
[Bilingual Processing and Acquisition 13] 2022
► pp. 369–385

Chapter 12
Discussion, limitations, and future research

ORCID logo | University of North Carolina at Pembroke
ORCID logo | Chuo University
ORCID logo | Seisen University

This chapter synthesizes the results of the six meta-analyses (Chapters 3, 5, 6, 8, 10, and 11) included in this volume and interprets the findings in reference to the theories and models of L2 proficiency and assessment. We first review influential theories and models of L2 proficiency starting with Spearman’s (1904, 1927) and Oller’s (1979) unitary view of language proficiency, leading to the most recent, Hulstijn’s (2015, 2019) core-periphery model. We then discuss the findings of 4 meta-analyses which reported on the correlations between each of the four L2 skills and its external correlates. Next, we discuss the findings of 2 meta-analyses which reported on the correlations between productive L2 skills (writing and speaking) and their internal correlates. The chapter then discusses the limitations and future research directions.

Article outline
  • 1.Introduction
  • 2.Relevant theories and models of L2 proficiency
  • 3.Synthesis of findings of the 4 meta-analyses examining the relationship between L2 skills and their external correlates
    • 3.1Strengths of association between correlates and target L2 skills found across the four meta-analyses
    • 3.2On processing efficiency
    • 3.3Relationship between language-general correlates and L2 proficiency
  • 4.Synthesis of findings of the two meta-analyses examining the relationship between L2 skills and their internal correlates
  • 5.Limitations and future research
  • 6.Conclusion
  • References
Available under the Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives (CC BY-NC-ND) 4.0 license.

For any use beyond this license, please contact the publisher at [email protected].

Published online: 4 August 2022
DOI logo
https://doi.org/10.1075/bpa.13.12jeo
References
Bachman, L. F.
(1990) Fundamental considerations in language testing. Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
(2007) What is the construct? The dialectic of abilities and contexts in defining constructs in language assessment. In J. Fox, M. Wesche, D. Bayliss, L. Cheng, C. E. Turner, & C. Doe (Eds.), Language testing reconsidered (pp. 41–71). University of Ottawa Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Bachman, L. F., & Cohen, A. D.
(1998) Interfaces between second language acquisition and language testing research. Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Bachman, L. F., & Palmer, A. S.
(1982) The construct validation of some components of communicative proficiency. TESOL Quarterly, 16 (4), 449–465. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
(1983) The construct validation of the FSI Oral Interview. In J. W. Oller, Jr. (Ed.), Issues in language testing research (pp. 154–169). Newbury House.Google Scholar
(1996) Language testing in practice. Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Biber, D., Johansson, S., Leech, G., Conrad, S., & Finegan, E.
(1999) Longman grammar of spoken and written English. Pearson.Google Scholar
Canale, M., & Swain, M.
(1980) Theoretical bases of communicative approaches to second language teaching and testing. Applied Linguistics, 1 (1), 1–47. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Carroll, J. B.
(1961) Fundamental considerations in testing for English language proficiency of foreign students. Testing the English proficiency of foreign students. Center for Applied Linguistics.Google Scholar
(1972) Fundamental considerations in testing for English language proficiency of foreign students. In H. B. Allen & R. N. Campbell (Eds.), Teaching English as a second language: A book of readings (pp. 313–320). McGraw-Hill.Google Scholar
(1983) Psychometric theory and language testing. In J. W. Oller Jr. (Ed.), Issues in language testing research. Newbury House.Google Scholar
Chalhoub-Deville, M.
(1997) Theoretical models, assessment frameworks and test construction. Language Testing, 14 (1), 3–22. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Cheung, M. W.-L.
(2015) Meta-analysis: A structural equation modeling approach. Springer. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Davidson, F. G.
(1988) An exploratory modeling survey of the trait structures of some existing language test datasets. (Doctoral dissertation). Retrieved from Retrieved from ProQuest Dissertations & Theses Global. (8815771)
De Jong, J. H. A. L., & Verhoeven, L.
(1992) Modeling and assessing language proficiency. In L. Verhoeven & J. H. A. L. De Jong (Eds.), The construct of language proficiency: Applications of psychological models to language assessment (pp. 3–19). John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Goldberg, A.
(2006) Constructions at work: The nature of generalization in language. Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Hoover, W., & Gough, P.
(1990) The simple view of reading. Reading and Writing, 2 , 127–160. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Hulstjin, J. H.
(2015) Language proficiency in native and non-native speakers: Theory and research. John Benjamins.Google Scholar
Hulstijn, J. H.
(2019) An individual-differences framework for comparing nonnative with native speakers: Perspectives from BLC theory. Language Learning, 69 (s1), 157–183. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Hymes, D.
(1972) On communicative competence. In J. B. Pride & A. Holmes (Eds.), Sociolinguistics: Selected readings (pp. 269–293). Penguin.Google Scholar
Juel, C., Griffith, P. L., & Gough, P. B.
(1986) Acquisition of literacy: A longitudinal study of children in first and second grade. Journal of Educational Psychology, 78 (4), 243–255. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Lado, R.
(1961) Language testing. Longmans, Green, and Co.Google Scholar
Luoma, S.
(2004) Assessing speaking. Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
McNamara, T. F.
(1996) Measuring second language performance. Longman.Google Scholar
Oller, J.
(1979) Language tests at school: A pragmatic approach. Longman.Google Scholar
Oller, J. W., Jr.
(1983) Evidence for a general language proficiency factor: An expectancy grammar. In Oller, J. W., Jr. (Ed.), Issues in Language Testing Research (pp. 3–10). Newbury House.Google Scholar
Paquot, M., Gries, S. T., & Yoder, M.
(2021) Measuring lexicogrammar. In P. Winke & T. Brunfaut (Eds.), The Routledge handbook of second language acquisition and language testing (pp. 223–232). Routledge.Google Scholar
Plonsky, L., & Oswald, F.
(2014) How big is “big”? Interpreting effect sizes in L2 research. Language Learning, 64 (4), 878–912. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Römer, U.
(2009) The inseparability of lexis and grammar: Corpus linguistic perspectives. Annual Review of Cognitive Linguistics, 7 (1), 140–162. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
(2017) Language assessment and the inseparability of lexis and grammar: Focus on the construct of speaking. Language Testing, 34 (4), 477–492. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Ruegg, R., Fritz, E., & Holland, J.
(2011) Rater sensitivity to qualities of lexis in writing. TESOL Quarterly, 45 (1), 63–80. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Spearman, C.
(1904) “General Intelligence,” objectively determined and measured. The American Journal of Psychology, 15 (2), 201–292. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
(1927) The abilities of man: Their nature and measurement. Macmillan.Google Scholar
Van Lissa, C. J.
(2020) Small sample meta-analyses: Exploring heterogeneity using MetaForest. In R. van de Schoot & M. Miočević, (Eds.), Small sample size solutions: A guide for applied researchers and practitioners (pp. 186–202). DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Vollmer, K., & Sang, F.
(1983) Competing hypotheses about second language ability: A plea for caution. In J. W. Oller Jr. (Ed.), Issues in language testing research (pp. 29–79), Newbury House.Google Scholar
Wallace, M. P.
(2022) Individual differences in second language listening: Examining the role of knowledge, metacognitive awareness, memory, and attention. Language Learning, 72(1), 5–44. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Wang, M., Liu, Y., & Perfetti, C. A.
(2004) The implicit and explicit learning of orthographic structure and function of a new writing system. Scientific Studies of Reading, 8 (4), 357–379. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Wiernik, B. M., & Dahlke, J. A.
(2020) Obtaining unbiased results in meta-analysis: The importance of correcting for statistical artifacts. Advances in Methods and Practices in Psychological Science, 3 (1), 94–123. DOI logoGoogle Scholar