CALL is at least as effective as traditional teaching: the synthesis meets the minimal d=0 (or Hattie's d=.4) expectation¶

Claim · All claims
Evidence · 1 study · quant-synthesis r2 · q2
Currency · newest study 2016 · not yet checked against its sources · not reviewed by a person

Subclaims¶

q2 i? The pooled CALL effect meets the minimal expectation that CALL is at least as good as traditional teaching (d=0, or d=.4 by Hattie's benchmark), though this does not establish superiority. → Boulton 2016

Evidence¶

Boulton 2016¶

Boulton, A. (2016). Quantifying CALL: significance, effect size and variation. In S. Papadima-Sophocleous, L. Bradley & S. Thouësny (Eds), CALL communities and culture – short papers from EUROCALL 2016 (pp. 55-60). Research-publishing.net. https://doi.org/10.14705/rpnet.2016.eurocall2016.538

q2 · i? · quant-synthesis · r2

Interpretation of the second-order synthesis: the author states the minimal hope is that "CALL is at least as good as traditional teaching", and that this is "the case here". No superiority claim is made.

"what we would hope to find is that CALL is at least as good as traditional teaching, with an effect size of d=0 (or, according to Hattie, 2009, d=.4), which is the case here."

Discussion¶

Related Claims¶

• A second-order synthesis of 12 CALL meta-analyses yields a mean effect size of d=.64, a medium effect of CALL on learning — a narrower finding that bears on this claim
• A meta-analysis of corpus use in language learning was published in Language Learning in 2017 by Boulton and Cobb. — related
• Hattie's synthesis identifies lesson study, formative evaluation of teaching, discussion of learning, and feedback as instructional factors with high effect sizes on student learning