CALL中的复制

IF 4.6 1区 文学 Q1 EDUCATION & EDUCATIONAL RESEARCH Recall Pub Date : 2023-04-14 DOI:10.1017/S0958344023000083
C. Tschichold
{"title":"CALL中的复制","authors":"C. Tschichold","doi":"10.1017/S0958344023000083","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Scholars are in agreement that replication studies are essential in the field of computer-assisted language learning (CALL), as well as in its cognate disciplines, if our aim is to establish a more robust evidence base and to strengthen the theoretical background of CALL. In order to justify the widespread adoption of technology in as well as out of the foreign language classroom, replication studies are essential, not just to enhance the reliability of empirical findings but also to ensure that at least a significant proportion of learners can benefit from the introduction of CALL in the curriculum. But despite this often-invoked need for more replications, the number of published replication studies remains relatively low (e.g. Marsden, Morgan-Short, Thompson & Abugaber, 2018; McManus, 2022). Why are these calls for more replications not heeded more widely? We easily understand that using a standardized language proficiency test is the better choice when grouping language learners into levels compared to using one that was created by the researcher for one study only; the results will be reliable and comparable beyond the small group tested. Replication studies simply take this principle a step further and apply it across most of the methodology of a study. Notwithstanding several calls for more replications specifically in CALL within the last decade (e.g. Handley, 2014; Plonsky, 2015; Smith & Schulze, 2013) as well as in other areas of second language acquisition (SLA), perhaps as few as 1 in 400 studies are ever replicated (Marsden et al., 2018). Even proponents of more replications recognize that there is still a certain lack of prestige (McManus, 2022) that may well contribute to the fact that, as a field, CALL does not have the number of replication studies it should have. Perhaps too many students are still taught that finding the “gap in the research” is essential to their own first research project, and that this gap cannot be filled by a replication study if they want to make their mark as aspiring researchers in their field. McManus’s (2022) survey shows that academic respondents agreed about the important contribution replications make to their field, but views on originality, innovation and the perceived contribution of replication studies to the author’s academic career progression were less clear. However, as long as journal editors accept submissions of replication studies – and, clearly, those who publish special issues on this topic do – such studies are an excellent tool to further one’s academic credentials. Marsden et al. (2018) even suggest that replication studies have an advantage over what they call “initial studies” where citations are concerned. In fact, the conditions for replication studies, both for conducting such studies and for publishing them, have never been better. There are excellent and easily accessible databases such as IRIS (https://www.iris-database.org/), detailed instructions on how to conduct replications (Porte & McManus, 2019), and a small but constantly growing list of published replication studies (e.g. in the journal Language Teaching) that can be consulted to see successful replication publications. The various calls for more replication studies and the increased perception of replication","PeriodicalId":47046,"journal":{"name":"Recall","volume":"35 1","pages":"139 - 142"},"PeriodicalIF":4.6000,"publicationDate":"2023-04-14","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Replication in CALL\",\"authors\":\"C. Tschichold\",\"doi\":\"10.1017/S0958344023000083\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"Scholars are in agreement that replication studies are essential in the field of computer-assisted language learning (CALL), as well as in its cognate disciplines, if our aim is to establish a more robust evidence base and to strengthen the theoretical background of CALL. In order to justify the widespread adoption of technology in as well as out of the foreign language classroom, replication studies are essential, not just to enhance the reliability of empirical findings but also to ensure that at least a significant proportion of learners can benefit from the introduction of CALL in the curriculum. But despite this often-invoked need for more replications, the number of published replication studies remains relatively low (e.g. Marsden, Morgan-Short, Thompson & Abugaber, 2018; McManus, 2022). Why are these calls for more replications not heeded more widely? We easily understand that using a standardized language proficiency test is the better choice when grouping language learners into levels compared to using one that was created by the researcher for one study only; the results will be reliable and comparable beyond the small group tested. Replication studies simply take this principle a step further and apply it across most of the methodology of a study. Notwithstanding several calls for more replications specifically in CALL within the last decade (e.g. Handley, 2014; Plonsky, 2015; Smith & Schulze, 2013) as well as in other areas of second language acquisition (SLA), perhaps as few as 1 in 400 studies are ever replicated (Marsden et al., 2018). Even proponents of more replications recognize that there is still a certain lack of prestige (McManus, 2022) that may well contribute to the fact that, as a field, CALL does not have the number of replication studies it should have. Perhaps too many students are still taught that finding the “gap in the research” is essential to their own first research project, and that this gap cannot be filled by a replication study if they want to make their mark as aspiring researchers in their field. McManus’s (2022) survey shows that academic respondents agreed about the important contribution replications make to their field, but views on originality, innovation and the perceived contribution of replication studies to the author’s academic career progression were less clear. However, as long as journal editors accept submissions of replication studies – and, clearly, those who publish special issues on this topic do – such studies are an excellent tool to further one’s academic credentials. Marsden et al. (2018) even suggest that replication studies have an advantage over what they call “initial studies” where citations are concerned. In fact, the conditions for replication studies, both for conducting such studies and for publishing them, have never been better. There are excellent and easily accessible databases such as IRIS (https://www.iris-database.org/), detailed instructions on how to conduct replications (Porte & McManus, 2019), and a small but constantly growing list of published replication studies (e.g. in the journal Language Teaching) that can be consulted to see successful replication publications. The various calls for more replication studies and the increased perception of replication\",\"PeriodicalId\":47046,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Recall\",\"volume\":\"35 1\",\"pages\":\"139 - 142\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":4.6000,\"publicationDate\":\"2023-04-14\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Recall\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"98\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1017/S0958344023000083\",\"RegionNum\":1,\"RegionCategory\":\"文学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q1\",\"JCRName\":\"EDUCATION & EDUCATIONAL RESEARCH\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Recall","FirstCategoryId":"98","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1017/S0958344023000083","RegionNum":1,"RegionCategory":"文学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"EDUCATION & EDUCATIONAL RESEARCH","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

学者们一致认为,如果我们的目标是建立更有力的证据基础并加强计算机辅助语言学习的理论背景,那么复制研究在计算机辅助语言教学领域及其相关学科中是必不可少的。为了证明技术在外语课堂内外的广泛采用是合理的,复制研究至关重要,这不仅是为了提高实证结果的可靠性,也是为了确保至少有很大一部分学习者能够从课程中引入CALL中受益。但是,尽管这经常需要更多的复制,但已发表的复制研究数量仍然相对较低(例如,Marsden,Morgan Short,Thompson和Abugaber,2018;McManus,2022)。为什么这些要求更多复制的呼吁没有得到更广泛的重视?我们很容易理解,与只使用研究人员为一项研究创建的水平测试相比,在将语言学习者分组时,使用标准化语言能力测试是更好的选择;结果将是可靠的和可比的,超出了小组测试。复制研究只是将这一原则进一步应用于研究的大部分方法。尽管在过去十年中有几次呼吁进行更多的复制,特别是在CALL中(例如,Handley,2014;Plonsky,2015;Smith和Schulze,2013)以及第二语言习得(SLA)的其他领域,但可能只有1/400的研究被复制(Marsden et al.,2018)。即使是更多复制的支持者也认识到,仍然存在一定程度的声望不足(McManus,2022),这很可能导致CALL作为一个领域没有应有的复制研究数量。也许有太多的学生仍然被教导,找到“研究中的差距”对他们自己的第一个研究项目至关重要,如果他们想在自己的领域成为有抱负的研究人员,那么复制研究就无法填补这一差距。McManus(2022)的调查显示,学术受访者同意复制对其领域的重要贡献,但对原创性、创新性以及复制研究对作者学术生涯发展的感知贡献的看法并不明确。然而,只要期刊编辑接受复制研究的提交——很明显,那些发表关于这个主题的特刊的人也接受——这些研究就是提升一个人学术证书的绝佳工具。Marsden等人(2018)甚至认为,在引用方面,复制研究比他们所称的“初始研究”更有优势。事实上,复制研究的条件,无论是进行此类研究还是发表这些研究,都从未如此之好。有优秀且易于访问的数据库,如IRIS(https://www.iris-database.org/),关于如何进行复制的详细说明(Porte&McManus,2019),以及一个小但不断增长的已发表复制研究列表(例如,在《语言教学》杂志上),可以查阅这些列表以查看成功的复制出版物。各种各样的呼吁需要更多的复制研究和增加对复制的认识
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
Replication in CALL
Scholars are in agreement that replication studies are essential in the field of computer-assisted language learning (CALL), as well as in its cognate disciplines, if our aim is to establish a more robust evidence base and to strengthen the theoretical background of CALL. In order to justify the widespread adoption of technology in as well as out of the foreign language classroom, replication studies are essential, not just to enhance the reliability of empirical findings but also to ensure that at least a significant proportion of learners can benefit from the introduction of CALL in the curriculum. But despite this often-invoked need for more replications, the number of published replication studies remains relatively low (e.g. Marsden, Morgan-Short, Thompson & Abugaber, 2018; McManus, 2022). Why are these calls for more replications not heeded more widely? We easily understand that using a standardized language proficiency test is the better choice when grouping language learners into levels compared to using one that was created by the researcher for one study only; the results will be reliable and comparable beyond the small group tested. Replication studies simply take this principle a step further and apply it across most of the methodology of a study. Notwithstanding several calls for more replications specifically in CALL within the last decade (e.g. Handley, 2014; Plonsky, 2015; Smith & Schulze, 2013) as well as in other areas of second language acquisition (SLA), perhaps as few as 1 in 400 studies are ever replicated (Marsden et al., 2018). Even proponents of more replications recognize that there is still a certain lack of prestige (McManus, 2022) that may well contribute to the fact that, as a field, CALL does not have the number of replication studies it should have. Perhaps too many students are still taught that finding the “gap in the research” is essential to their own first research project, and that this gap cannot be filled by a replication study if they want to make their mark as aspiring researchers in their field. McManus’s (2022) survey shows that academic respondents agreed about the important contribution replications make to their field, but views on originality, innovation and the perceived contribution of replication studies to the author’s academic career progression were less clear. However, as long as journal editors accept submissions of replication studies – and, clearly, those who publish special issues on this topic do – such studies are an excellent tool to further one’s academic credentials. Marsden et al. (2018) even suggest that replication studies have an advantage over what they call “initial studies” where citations are concerned. In fact, the conditions for replication studies, both for conducting such studies and for publishing them, have never been better. There are excellent and easily accessible databases such as IRIS (https://www.iris-database.org/), detailed instructions on how to conduct replications (Porte & McManus, 2019), and a small but constantly growing list of published replication studies (e.g. in the journal Language Teaching) that can be consulted to see successful replication publications. The various calls for more replication studies and the increased perception of replication
求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
Recall
Recall Multiple-
CiteScore
8.50
自引率
4.40%
发文量
17
期刊最新文献
Forty-two years of computer-assisted language learning research: A scientometric study of hotspot research and trending issues Different interlocutors, different EFL interactional strategies: A case study of intercultural telecollaborative projects in secondary classrooms Examining the relationships among motivation, informal digital learning of English, and foreign language enjoyment: An explanatory mixed-method study ReCALL editorial September 2023 issue Sampling and randomisation in experimental and quasi-experimental CALL studies: Issues and recommendations for design, reporting, review, and interpretation
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1