Static.cambridge.org



Supplementary MaterialEffect sizes contributed by each primary study based on oral proficiency traitsStudy nameOutcomeHedges’s g S. E. Abrams (2003)Syntactic complexity0.020.18Fluency-0.240.61Lexical richness-0.270.18Lexical density-0.290.18AbuSeileek (2007)Overall1.350.19Ahn (2006)Overall0.120.34Alastuey (2010)Pronunciation0.520.22Alastuey (2011)Overall0.300.40Blake (2009)Overall0.250.25Blake et al. (2008)Overall-0.060.21Chang (2007)Overall0.070.32Accuracy-0.980.30Chang (2008)Overall0.290.20Chen (2008)Overall1.490.44Huang & Hung (2010)Fluency0.660.37Lexical richness0.810.37Syntactic complexity0.380.36Kost (2004)Overall-0.030.18Li (2008)Overall0.730.24Lord (2008)Pronunciation0.940.36Payne & Whitney (2002)Overall0.330.20Pyun (2003)Syntactic complexity-0.900.44Accuracy0.810.34Sanders (2005)Overall-0.290.26Satar & ?zdener (2008)Overall1.610.21Sequeira (2009)Overall0.850.28Sun (2012)Accuracy-0.300.13Syntactic complexity-0.270.12Fluency-0.350.13Pronunciation-0.210.12Volle (2005)Pronunciation0.270.18Accuracy-0.010.32Overall0.610.33Wang (2010)Overall0.460.28Fluency-1.880.23Lexical complexity1.710.32Syntactic complexity2.510.37Accuracy-1.630.32Xiao (2007)Accuracy2.070.54Syntactic complexity1.630.50Fluency1.780.51Yang (2006)Lexical density-0.010.24Lexical richness0.130.24Fluency0.010.24Syntactic complexity0.350.25Zheng (2010)Syntactic complexity-0.780.23Fluency-1.321.72Lexical complexity0.610.33Accuracy-0.970.76Research design and type of data for each primary study StudyResearch designData typeAbrams (2003)Pre-postest control vs. experimentNaturalistic AbuSeileek (2007) Posttest only control (F2F) vs. experimentElicitedAhn (2006)One group only pre-posttestElicitedAlastuey (2010)One group only pre-posttestElicitedAlastuey (2011)Pre-postest control (F2F) vs. experimentElicitedBlake (2009)Pre-postest control (F2F) vs. experimentElicitedBlake et al. (2008)Posttest only control (F2F) and experimentElicitedChang (2008)Pre-postest control (F2F) vs. experimentElicitedChang (2007)Posttest only control (F2F) vs. experimentNaturalistic Chen (2008)Pre-postest control vs. experimentElicitedHuang & Hung (2010)Pre-postest control vs. experimentElicitedKost (2004)Pre-postest control (F2F) vs. experimentElicitedLi (2008)One group only pre-posttestElicitedLord (2008)One group only pre-posttestElicitedPayne & Whitney (2002)Pre-postest control (F2F) vs. experimentElicitedPyun (2003)Posttest only control (F2F) and experimentNaturalistic Sanders (2005) Posttest only control (F2F) vs. experimentElicitedSatar & ?zdener (2008)Pre-postest control vs. experimentElicitedSequeira (2009)Pre-postest control (F2F) vs. experimentElicitedSun 2012One group only pre-posttestNaturalistic Volle (2005)One group only pre-posttestElicitedWang (2010)Pre-postest control (F2F) vs. experimentElicitedXiao (2007)Pre-postest control (F2F) vs. experimentNaturalistic Yang (2006)One group only pre-posttestNaturalistic Zeng (2010)Posttest only control (F2F) vs. experimentNaturalistic Measures, assessment task and reported reliability in primary studiesElicited Language DataNaturalistic language DataLanguage testActivity/taskData typeReliabilityStudyPerformance-based production tasksLanguage testStandardized testAbrams (2003)———Oral discussionTranscriptsInter-rater AbuSeileek (2007)Oral interview ————Inter-rater Ahn (2006)Oral interview ————Inter-rater Alastuey (2010)open-ended two-way information exchange ————Inter-rater Alastuey (2011)Oral Power Point presentationProficiency test———Test Blake et al. (2008)——Versant for Spanish——Test Blake (2009)Audio recordings (open-ended response to a written prompt )————N.A.Chang (2007)———Teacher-student conversation on a topicTranscriptsN.A.Chang (2008)Prepared speech————Test Chen (2008)——GEPT——Test Huang & Hung (2010)Audio recordings (voice their opinions on a topic)————Inter-rater Kost (2004)——ACTFL ——Inter-rater Li (2008)Recorded interview comprised of response to five open-ended questions————Inter-rater Lord (2008)Audio recordings: reading aloud texts————Inter-rater Payne &Whitney (2002)Audio recordings: response to a topic ————Inter-rater Pyun (2003)———Two 15-minute discussion on topicsTranscriptsN.A.Sanders (2005)Oral interview (OPI) via telephone————N.A.Satar& ?zdener (2008)Multiple (picture descriptions, responses to questions, role play, discussions)————Inter-rater Sequeira (2009)——ACTFL ——Inter-rater Sun (2012)———Voice-blog entriesTranscriptsInter-rater Volle (2005)Voice email and oral conversation————Inter-rater Wang (2010)speech giving————Inter-rater Xiao (2007)———Videoconferencing sessions TranscriptsInter-raterYang (2006)———Written discussionTranscriptsInter-rater Zheng (2010)———Informal debates, discussion of issues after video watchingTranscriptsInter-raterVersant for Spanish: read aloud, listen and repeat, say the opposite, answer short questions, build sentences from jumbled-up word combinations, answer open-endedGEPT: read aloud, repeat, Q and ACoding of study characteristicsStudyNSettingInterlocutorTemporalityaModeDurationb GroupingToolPublicationcL2L1Abrams (2003)96EFLPeersBBothS (13 weeks)MixedWebCTJGermanMixedAbuSeileek (2007)131EFLPeersBVoiceL (16 weeks)MixedForumJEnglishArabicAhn (2006)16ESLPeersSVoiceL (1 semester)SmallSkypeDEnglishMixedAlastuey (2010)70NAPeersSVoiceS (45 hours/15 weeks)PairSkypeJEnglishMixedAlastuey (2011)49EFLPeersSVoiceS (15 weeks)SmallSkypeJEnglishMixedBlake et al. (2008)334ESLPeersSTextS (10 weeks)NAWebCTJSpanishMixedBlake (2009)48ESLPeersSTextS (6 weeks )NAAdobe BreezeJEnglishMixedChang (2007)50EFLTeacherSVoiceS (12 minutes of SCMC;3 minutes of F2F)ClassMSNDEnglishChineseChang (2008)104EFLPeersSTextL (18 weeks)PairChatroomJEnglishChineseChen (2008)113EFLPeersBVoiceS (8 weeks)PairMixedTEnglishChineseHuang & Hung (2010)30EFLPeersAVoiceL (one semester)ClassBlogJEnglishChineseKost (2004)94EFLPeersSVoiceL (one semester)SmallIRCDGermanMixedLi (2008)90EFLPeersSVoiceL (16 weeks)SmallChatroomTEnglishChineseLord (2008)16NAPeersAVoiceL (one semester)SmallPodcastJSpanishNAPayne & Whitney (2002)58MixedPeersSTextS (15 weeks)SmallChatroomJSpanishMixedPyun (2003)20MixedNASTextS (an academic quarter)PairMSNDEnglishKoreanSanders (2005)55ESLPeersBTextL (2 years)NAWebCTJSpanishMixedSatar & ?zdener (2008)90EFLPeersSBothS (40~45 minute*4 sessions(160-180 minutes/4 weeks)PairRD platformJEnglishTurkishSequeira (2009)58EFLPeersSTextL (one semester/4 months)PairMoodleDSpanishEnglishSun (2012)46EFLPeersAVoiceL (one semester)PairBlogJEnglishChineseVolle (2005)19EFLPeersBVoiceL (one semester)MixedEmailJSpanishEnglishWang (2010)52EFLPeersSVoiceS (14 weeks)SmallChatroomTEnglishChineseXiao (2007)20EFLMixedSVoiceS (10 weeks)PairSkypeDEnglishChineseYang (2006)33EFLPeersSTextL (16 weeks)LargeMSNDEnglishChineseZheng (2010)20EFLPeersSTextL (one semester)MixedChatroomTEnglishChineseNote. a B: both synchronous and asynchronous; A: asynchronous; S: synchronous; b S: Short <=15 weeks; L: Long >15 weeks; c J: Journal article; T: Thesis; D: Dissertation.Meta-analytic data for the 25 included studiesStudyNaKbHedges’s gS.E.Lower Upperp-ValueAbrams (2003)964-0.190.34-0.860.480.57AbuSeileek (2007)13111.350.190.981.730.00Ahn (2006)1610.120.34-0.560.790.74Alastuey (2010)7010.520.220.090.960.02Alastuey (2011)4910.300.40-0.491.090.45Blake (2009)33410.250.25-0.230.740.30Blake et al. (2008)481-0.060.21-0.470.340.77Chang (2007)1041-0.460.31-1.060.150.14Chang (2008)5020.290.20-0.100.670.14Chen (2008)11311.490.440.622.360.00Huang & Hung (2010)3030.620.36-0.101.330.09Kost (2004)941-0.030.18-0.370.310.87Li (2008)9010.730.240.251.210.00Lord (2008)1610.940.360.221.650.01Payne & Whitney (2002)5810.330.20-0.060.710.10Pyun (2003)202-0.040.39-0.810.720.91Sanders (2005)551-0.290.26-0.800.230.28Satar & Ozdene (2008)9011.610.211.202.010.00Sequeira (2009)5810.850.280.311.390.00Sun (2012)464-0.280.13-0.53-0.040.02Volle (2005)1930.290.28-0.260.850.30Wang (2010)5250.230.31-0.370.840.45Xiao (2007)2031.820.520.812.840.00Yang (2006)3340.120.24-0.360.600.62Zheng (2010)204-0.620.96-2.511.270.52Summary:1,712 490.40 0.13 0.15 0.65 0.002Note: Na indicates total sample size for each study, and Kb indicates the number of effect sizes contributed by each study.Average effect sizes for naturalistic and elicited data conditionsAssessment taskN ES S.E. Upper LowerNaturalisticInteraction Transcripts7-0.150.10-0.340.04Average7-0.150.10-0.340.04Elicited Speech-giving20.270.17-0.050.60Oral Power-point presentation10.300.40-0.491.09Oral interview 50.460.100.250.66Read aloud10.940.360.221.65Response to topics40.440.120.200.68Information exchange10.520.220.090.96Average180.500.060.390.62Q(7)=42.021, p=.000Effect sizes for oral proficiency traitsOral ComponentStudy Hedge’s gS.E.Lower Upper p-ValueAccuracy (k=7)Chang (2007)-0.980.30-1.56-0.400.00Pyun (2003)0.810.340.141.480.02Sun (2012)-0.300.13-0.55-0.060.02Volle (2005)-0.010.32-0.630.610.98Xiao (2007)2.070.541.013.120.00Wang (2010)-1.630.32-2.25-1.010.00Zheng (2010)-0.970.76-2.470.520.20Mean ES　-0.170.35-0.860.520.63Fluency (k=7)Abrams (2003)-0.240.61-1.440.960.70Huang & Hung (2010)0.660.37-0.051.380.07Sun (2012)-0.350.13-0.60-0.110.01Xiao (2007)1.780.510.782.780.00Yang (2006)0.010.24-0.460.490.95Wang (2010)-1.880.23-2.33-1.420.00Zheng (2010)-1.321.72-4.702.060.44Mean ES　-0.110.41-0.910.680.78Lexical level (k=7)Wang (2010)1.710.321.082.340.00Zheng (2010)0.610.33-0.031.240.06Abrams (2003)-0.290.18-0.630.050.10Abrams (2003)-0.270.18-0.610.080.13Yang (2006)-0.010.24-0.490.460.96Yang (2006)0.130.24-0.340.610.58Huang & Hung (2010)0.810.370.081.540.03Mean ES0.340.24-0.140.810.17Pronunciation (k=4)Alastuey (2010)0.530.220.090.960.02Lord (2008)0.940.360.221.650.01Sun (2012)-0.210.12-0.450.040.09Volle (2005)0.270.18-0.090.630.15Mean ES　0.310.23-0.150.770.18Syntactic level (k=8)Abrams (2003)0.020.18-0.340.380.91Huang & Hung (2010)0.380.36-0.331.080.29Pyun (2003)-0.900.44-1.75-0.040.04Sun (2012)-0.270.12-0.52-0.030.03Xiao (2007)1.630.500.652.610.00Yang (2006)0.350.25-0.130.830.15Wang (2010)2.510.371.793.230.00Zheng (2010)-0.780.23-1.23-0.340.00Mean ES　0.320.30-0.270.910.29Holistic (k=16)AbuSeileek (2007)1.360.190.981.730.00Ahn (2006)0.120.34-0.560.790.74Alastuey (2011)0.300.40-0.491.090.45Blake (2009)0.250.25-0.230.740.30Blake et al. (2008)-0.060.21-0.470.340.77Chang (2008)0.290.20-0.100.670.14Chang (2007)0.070.32-0.570.700.84Chen (2008)1.490.440.622.360.00Kost (2004)-0.030.18-0.370.310.87Payne & Whitney (2002)0.330.20-0.060.710.10Sanders (2005)-0.290.26-0.800.230.28Satar & ?zdener (2008)1.610.211.202.010.00Sequeira (2009)0.850.280.311.390.00Volle (2005)0.610.33-0.021.250.06Wang (2010)0.460.28-0.091.010.10Li (2008)0.730.240.251.210.00Mean ES　0.500.150.200.790.00Q(5)=4.458, p=.486Effect sizes for studies with different treatment durationsDurationStudyES S.ELowerUpperLONGAbuSeileek (2007) 1.350.190.981.73Ahn (2006)0.120.34-0.560.79Chang (2008)0.290.20-0.100.67Huang & Hung (2010)0.620.36-0.101.33Kost (2004)-0.030.18-0.370.31Lord (2008)0.940.360.221.65Sanders (2005) -0.290.26-0.800.23Sequeira (2009)0.850.280.311.39Sun 2012-0.280.13-0.53-0.04Volle (2005)0.290.28-0.260.85Yang (2006)0.120.24-0.360.60Li (2008)0.730.240.251.21Zheng (2010)-0.620.96-2.511.27Average (k=13)0.250.060.120.37SHORTAbrams (2003)-0.190.34-0.860.48Alastuey (2010)0.520.220.090.96Alastuey (2011)0.300.40-0.491.09Blake (2009)0.250.25-0.230.74Blake et al. (2008)-0.060.21-0.470.34Chang (2007)-0.460.31-1.060.15Chen (2008)1.490.440.622.36Payne & Whitney (2002)0.330.20-0.060.71Pyun (2003)-0.040.39-0.810.72Satar & ?zdener (2008)1.610.211.202.01Xiao (2007)1.820.520.812.84Wang (2010)0.230.31-0.370.84Average (k=12)0.440.08 0.290.60Q(1)=3.679, p=.055 ................
................

In order to avoid copyright disputes, this page is only a partial summary.

Google Online Preview   Download