A second-order synthesis of 12 CALL meta-analyses yields a mean effect size of d=.64, a medium effect of CALL on learning¶
Claim · All claims
Evidence · 1 study · quant-synthesisr1·q2
Currency · newest study 2016 · not yet checked against its sources · not reviewed by a person
Subclaims¶
Reading the evidence codes
q is the design tier, i the impact, n the sample, and the kind with its r
the rigour judged within that kind: what each code means.
This claim: no standardized effect is recorded in observations/ for it yet, so no benchmark reading is possible.
q2 i? Across 12 meta-analyses of CALL effects versus control or comparison groups, the mean effect size is d=.64, characterised as barely a medium effect under field-specific benchmarks. → 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 · r1
A second-order synthesis of 12 meta-analyses in CALL (derived largely from Plonsky & Ziegler 2016 and Oswald & Plonsky 2010) reports the pooled mean effect of CALL use in experimental versus control/comparison groups: "The mean is .64". No confidence interval is printed.
"The mean is .64, the pessimistic conclusion being that CALL work as a whole has barely a medium effect on learning."
Discussion¶
Related Claims¶
- CALL is at least as effective as traditional teaching: the synthesis meets the minimal d=0 (or Hattie's d=.4) expectation — a broader claim this one bears on
- Prior meta-analyses of feedback (Li 2010; Kang & Han 2015; Van der Kleij et al. 2015) reported positive effects but none was devoted entirely to feedback in CALL — related
- Variation in meta-analytic effect sizes stems from synthesists' methodological choices (inclusion criteria, data extraction, formulas, outlier handling) and from study quality — a broader claim this one bears on
- A meta-analysis of corpus use in language learning was published in Language Learning in 2017 by Boulton and Cobb. — related
- Earlier meta-analyses, as reported second-hand, find that glosses improve L2 vocabulary learning and that text-and-picture glosses outperform single-mode glosses — related
Page metadata
| Field | Value |
|---|---|
type |
claim |
id |
call-meta-analyses-mean-effect-d-064 |
title |
A second-order synthesis of 12 CALL meta-analyses yields a mean effect size of d=.64, a medium effect of CALL on learning |
description |
A second-order synthesis of 12 CALL meta-analyses yields a mean effect size of d=.64, a medium effect of CALL on learning |
status |
review |
evidence_strength |
moderate |
newest_evidence |
2016 |
generated |
by process:wiki-ingest on 2026-09-27 |
trust |
unverified — no one has confirmed this page's content |
sources |
1 — boulton-2016 |
Frontmatter is the page's machine-readable record — see the Schema & Guide.