8.1 Introduction

Using mixed-methods analyses, the present volume thus far has generated various findings regarding what L2 learners and professionals in higher education believe to be the most important characteristics of advanced-level Spanish, and how they assess it. Responding to Reference Serafini, Menke and MalovrhSerafini’s (2021) call for a more sociocognitive approach to examining advancedness, we dedicated the first part of the volume to understanding the L2 learner. We found that they tend to emphasize extralinguistic features of language use as being the most important, but that with age and classroom experience they increasingly emphasize pronunciation of the language and de-emphasize sophisticated language use. In terms of their ability to assess advancedness, we found that they were sensitive to the importance of the intercultural competence of the speaker. Quantitative data showed us that when the speaker was rated with a higher level of intercultural competence, the L2 listener considered their use of grammar, fluency, sophistication, and overall proficiency to be higher than when the speaker had a low level. And when the listener placed more emphasis on the sophistication of the speaker, they tended to rate them more highly.We construed those findings as samples of behavioral phenomena of which the participants may have only been implicitly aware. Our qualitative analyses in Chapter 4 showed us that when the participants were able to use their own words to describe their beliefs and their ratings of other advanced-level speakers, those who were younger still emphasized linguistic structure, but as their age increased, so did their explicit metalanguage awareness of other facets of the speaker, including the way they communicated, and their identity.We posited that as L2 learners develop at the tertiary level, they become increasingly (explicitly) aware of intercultural competence and learner identity, and we hypothesized that their ability to incorporate such features in the way they imagine advancedness empowers them with agency as L2 learners.

In the second part of the volume, we examined the individual differences of professionals working in higher education and their effect on beliefs and language assessment. We found that licensed, professional teachers, when responding to questionnaires based on popular formal assessment metrics, focused more on linguistic structure and less on sophisticated language use. We found that higher levels of education predicted greater emphasis on sophisticated language use and that instructors at the upper tier emphasized pronunciation more than those at the lower tier, and that those who were more familiar with the L2 learning process put greater emphasis on grammar. Based on our quantitative analyses, we concluded that our participants were professionals who disassociated extralinguistic features of language use from an overall assessment of proficiency, and we posited that the disassociation was fostered by the institutionalization of formal assessment metrics. Our qualitative analyses in Chapter 7, however, revealed that when able to use their own words, they prioritized sophisticated language use, followed by proficiency, and then by the L2 speaker’s identity.We concluded that language professionals in higher education expect an advanced speaker to exercise agency, and their imagined description of advancedness included features of language use and the language user beyond that which is measured by formal proficiency scales.

When considering Parts I and II of the volume together, we note similarities between our participant L2 students and our participant language professionals in that both groups consider agency and L2-learner identity as characteristics of advancedness; also, both groups lack explicit awareness of such characteristics; and both groups appear to be institutionally constrained from imagining what advancedness looks like, or from assessing it.In the third and final part of the volume, we explore alternative methods of assessing advancedness from the viewpoint of L2 identity and critical language awareness. While we do not suggest abandoning formal proficiency metrics as an important constituent of overall advancedness, we do argue that additional constructs regarding L2 identity and critical language awareness need to be incorporated into our learning outcomes that target L2 advancedness and global citizenship. Ironically, we assert that the preponderance of criticism leveled at current formal assessment metrics provides us with another indicator that academia is missing the point. That is, current proficiency assessments, relative to other language assessments used to measure outcomes, are highly successful in accomplishing what they set out to do: to measure proficiency in terms of communicative competence. If we criticize popular proficiency tests for not measuring advancedness as we have come to define it, then we cannot in the same breath neglect to acknowledge that it is we (i.e., the practitioners, researchers, and administrators in higher education) who need to evolve in our understanding of how to measure it. Furthermore, we need to reflect on the extent to which we are paying attention to the social demands for advanced language use that are increasingly imposed on our students. Do we understand what those demands require in terms of language use, and are we educating our students on what is expected of them?

In the present chapter, we continue our examination of sociocognitive approaches to advancedness by considering how we assess its various constructs, and we argue for the need to establish metrics that address language awareness and self-awareness among our students, and that will gauge the development of an L2 learner on a trajectory toward becoming a global citizen empowered by their own agency to participate as actors on a global stage. As a first step in that process, it is necessary to understand what our learners’ awareness and conceptualization of L2 advancedness are.

8.2 Assessment As an Evolving Practice

Assessment can be defined as the collection of data about a learner’s language ability, based upon which subsequent actions are taken (Reference Takala and RobinsonTakala, 2015). How to collect this type of data, however, is at times not as straightforward, particularly when the goal of the assessment instrument is to establish whether the L2 learners have achieved advanced proficiency. The first issue arises with defining what advancedness looks like; as we have seen throughout the present volume, the term is elusive and is open to interpretation in various ways. Are we qualifying a student as advanced based on the correct answers they give on an exam meant to elicit a grammatical competence? Or are we interested in Reference Ortega and ByrnesOrtega and Byrnes’ (2008) definition of advancedness, in which linguistic competence is not sufficient if it is not accompanied by pragmatic and communicative competence?

Up until the middle of the twentieth century, L2 assessment consisted of testing learners’ knowledge of the target language as discrete forms, void of any context (Reference BarnwellBarnwell, 1996). By contrast, most of today’s assessments targeting L2 development, and advanced proficiency, rely on measuring a speaker’s oral communicative competence, which most often is reduced to oral proficiency (Reference Soneson, Menke and MalovrhSoneson, 2021). Soneson contends that this trend to focus narrowly on speaking has also extended to research on proficiency. Despite the efforts of focusing on learners’ speaking skills, especially at the lower levels of instruction, as students move up in their major courses sequence, instructors find it more difficult to strike a healthy balance between introducing subject matter corresponding to upper-level curricula with continued practice of oral expression (Reference Hamilton, Korte, Carrillo Cabello, Paesani and SonesonHamilton & Korte, 2019) and availability of corrective feedback (Reference Zyzik and PolioPolio & Zyzik, 2008; Reference Polio and ZyzikZyzik & Polio, 2009). Institutionally, practitioners have come to place proficiency benchmarks at the end of a curriculum in which its development is only directly targeted by half of it (i.e., the lower tier of basic-language instruction).

The origins of tests that emphasize communicative competence can be traced back to the early and mid-1980s, when the popularity and diffusion of the Communicative Language Teaching (CLT) approach had begun to dominate the L2 classrooms (Reference Canale and OllerCanale, 1983a, Reference 273Canale1983b; Reference Canale and SwainCanale & Swain, 1980). Proficiency tests became the logical next step to measure the learner’s ability to fully engage with and successfully complete the goal of a communicative task. Around the same time, outside the context of tertiary-level foreign-language education, the United States Department of State launched an initiative to train its Foreign Service Officers. It needed to offset their poor knowledge of foreign languages that came from the weak foreign-language education curricula of secondary schools across the country. Swiftly and efficiently the government created an intensive language program along with its corresponding functional and objective holistic scales and interview protocol to accurately rate proficiency in a foreign language. By 1958, proficiency tests became compulsory for all Foreign Service members. Years later, based on what became known as the government’s ILR (Interagency Language Roundtable) scales, the ACTFL Proficiency Guidelines (1982, 1986, 1992, 2012) were established, which are widely used in academic and professional settings in the US. Also developed by ACTFL was the OPI, an oral assessment instrument that used the interview protocol developed by the ILR as its foundation. As we explained in Chapter 2, the federal government and ACTFL – coming from different directions but with the shared goal of assessing how aptly their learners can communicate in the L2 – designed and set in place important assessment instruments that have not evolved to equitably address different levels of proficiency (Reference Menke, Malovrh, Malovrh and MenkeMenke & Malovrh, 2021).

The development described in the preceding paragraph was not limited to academia or to an American context, specifically. In Europe, the CEFR produced its scale (Council of Europe, 2001), and in 2019, the Centre for Canadian Language Benchmarks created its own assessment. Many commercial standardized, computer-delivered testing tools include a conversion table that matches their scores to one of the scales described above (see Table 2.1 in Chapter 2). Clearly, these scales have provided practitioners and the private sector with a scoring system that is generalizable and accepted in various settings. The levels have become a common benchmark that Reference Liskin‐GasparroLiskin-Gasparro (2003) referred to as common currency, given its widespread usage. Interestingly, how each stakeholder – be it the government, the private industry, school districts, teaching licensure accrediting institutions – conceptualizes the baseline to perform well in its setting also varies immensely (Reference Brown and BownBrown & Bown, 2015). As the demand for high-level language use increases, so does the heterogeneous notions of what it is, the contexts in which it should be used, and its purpose in the age of global citizenship. Examining the ACTFL scale, we can see that the inverted pyramid model presupposes that proficiency increases at each level with respect to the immediately lower level in both quantity (how much functional, discursive language the learner can produce) and quality (how sophisticated their speech sample is in terms of complexity and accuracy). If we aim to address the development of L2 learner identity and intercultural competence, how and where are we able to identify it and measure it?

8.3 Challenges to Assessing Advancedness

The brief (and broad) overview of how language assessment has evolved since the middle of the twentieth century makes clear that, as conceptualizations of language use change, so does the method for measuring it. As the 2007 MLA report highlighted, the challenge we face is keeping up with the rapidly changing world, in terms of advances in communication, technology, and global interdependence. In order to implement change, several obstacles need to be acknowledged. Regarding popular proficiency assessment, one of them, as pointed out by Reference Menke, Malovrh, Malovrh and MenkeMenke and Malovrh (2021), is the deductive nature of the tests themselves. Reference Lantolf and FrawleyLantolf and Frawley (1988) warned that having a specific organization develop a proficiency test and also train the test takers could lead to a relationship in which the test determines the desired learning outcomes rather than the outcomes engendering the assessment method. Language programs make a concerted effort to be congruent with matching the type of teaching approach with their assessment instruments, and we can deduce that if the dominant teaching methodology follows a communicative approach, the testing will aim to assess communicative competence. This could explain the proliferation of proficiency-oriented tests that have emerged in the higher education market, targeting L2 programs that are looking for a stream-lined, easy-to-administer, and self-graded assessment to take over the traditional paper-and-pen placement tests of yore, administered to incoming students. The demand is also high for exit exams and tests that can be used to demonstrate proficiency among candidates who wish to fulfill specific professional licensure requirements. This means that test scores hinge on how well a learner performs or completes communicative or functional tasks that become progressively more complex as the test advances. If one of the final benchmarks to receive professional licensure is to become advanced at orally maneuvering such tasks, then what happens when such skills are predominately targeted in the lower tier of the two-tier system but not the upper tier? The main challenge we identify is for higher education to embrace and to institute updated learning outcomes guided by mission statements that appropriately conceptualize advancedness, and to then design curricula that adhere to such missions, rather than rely on proficiency tests, and then criticize them for falling short of doing so. To that end, we need to agree on what we should assess, beyond proficiency.

8.4 Beyond Proficiency: What Should We Assess?

In Chapters 2 and 4 we asserted that language departments need to engage in a more explicit discourse with their students regarding what advanced language use is, is not, what the world will expect of it, and how to set upon a trajectory to achieve it. The empirical data attest to the fact that we are falling short of doing so; our students’ explicit awareness of language use is limited to formal or informal references to structure and structural use; they note grammatical accuracy, “good” pronunciation, and knowledge of vocabulary as characteristics of the advanced speaker, while they are clearly influenced by the speakers’ level of intercultural competence.When asked to produce their own language to describe advanced language, however, they use descriptors that at first glance appear to refer to language (e.g., clear, confident, sounds like a native, speaks professionally), but when further analyzed seem to allude to the identity of the speaker, the content of the message, and the command of the language. In the following sub-sections, we discuss the focus of current research in the context of how our student participants in previous chapters conceptualize advanced language use to demonstrate the extent to which our research foci align with their awareness, with the goal of better understanding which aspects of advancedness our students deem worthy of assessment.

8.5 Where Have We Fallen Short?

From what we have reviewed so far, we can conclude that the largest shortcoming in the way we assess our students is that we are still isolating various components of language. When we assess communicative proficiency, we are not tapping into our learners’ cultural competency. When we attempt to test their pragmatic competence, we are doing so via monologic and decontextualized approaches that do not reflect what happens in the real world.

The issues of how we assess also resonate in the methodologies we use in our research. Have we narrowed our focus to the point of analyzing just production and leaving perception aside? As Reference Menke, Malovrh, Malovrh and MenkeMenke and Malovrh (2021) argued, the current proficiency-based assessment practices – mostly standardized and computer-delivered – while useful in ascribing descriptions for each proficiency level, have not helped us advance our understanding of how complex, multi-layered, and varied advancedness can be.

Standardized output-based proficiency assessments have been useful in educating students, instructors, administrators, and even employers outside academia, in identifying benchmarks that recognize different levels of proficiency in a foreign language because they assume that a speaker must be able to convey, communicate, or relay a message: make a list of items in the room, ask and respond to a neighbor who needs you to housesit for a few weeks, explain to the police how exactly your accident occurred, and so forth. In short, the overarching approach to assessing proficiency has been greatly communicative, which, on paper, works well because it goes hand in hand with the current predominant teaching approach. Again, one of the main tenets for a well-designed curriculum is to have matching teaching and assessment philosophies, after all.

There have been proposals for alternative foci that can complement a communicative language curriculum, of course. Reference Kern, Byrnes and MaximKern (2004), for example, argues that familiarizing advanced students with new content and materials (e.g., new genres, social practices, and technological proficiency) falls under the scope of literacy. Students at the advanced level can get by communicatively; however, Kern observed, they seem ill-prepared to use the L2 successfully in an academic setting. A literacy-based curriculum would allow learners to critically problematize meaning by pointing out differences between their own culture and the target culture. Literacy, according to Kern, goes beyond reading and writing skills – it includes “sensitizing students to relationships between language, texts, and social contexts” (p. 4). Our takeaway is that assessing advancedness will not be done by one template, or one rubric, or one test. It will require a curriculum.

8.6 The Need for Sociocognitive Assessments of Advancedness

As we have examined the state of affairs regarding assessment in this chapter, we have seen that as much as the field has strived to test learners as they are taught – communicatively – the scope of assessment is narrow and insufficient: It has been limited to the learners’ speaking proficiency, and it is deficient in capturing their holistic proficiency level. The shortcomings of the assessment instruments are also unveiling problems with the two-tier curriculum already discussed in previous chapters of this volume: The emphases that are placed in each tier are unbalanced and do not facilitate a trajectory toward advancedness. To make matters more complex, data show that only if learners have achieved high levels of proficiency in reading and listening will they attain a high degree of proficiency in speaking (Reference Soneson, Menke and MalovrhSoneson, 2021).

Since most of the research and assessment design focus has been placed on speaking as the chosen modality and as the subject of study, we make a call for all practitioners and researchers to expand the scope of their fields to encompass the other three skills as well as other forms of literacy and culture awareness. In terms of proficiency, not only will this bring about more well-rounded L2 speakers, but Spanish learners will attain the coveted AL or higher score in speaking once the other skills are developed (Reference CohenCohen, 2020). As Reference Soneson, Menke and MalovrhSoneson’s (2021) results indicated, our learners are not given enough opportunities to continue the development of their speaking skills as they reach upper-level courses; we should give serious thought to changing the curriculum so that more emphasis is placed on speaking, and not just to reading, listening, and writing. His study, along with a cohort of related studies (Reference Winke, Gass, Malovrh and BenatiWinke and Gass, 2018; Reference Winke, Uebel, Gass, Menke and MalovrhWinke et al., 2021), show that it may be time to redefine the term “advancedness” to include an average of all four skills, which means that testing too must not be limited to OPI or similar tests. Reference Hamilton, Korte, Carrillo Cabello, Paesani and SonesonHamilton and Korte (2019), for example, suggest turning some of the assignments that would entail writing into speaking tasks at the upper-level courses and, within the context of the flipped class they designed, also recommend using a portion of the in-class time to peer-to-peer discussions and small-group presentations to develop social interaction.

What we find most lacking in the institutional assessment of advancedness in higher education is the reconceptualization of learning outcomes and the implementation of curricula that foster advanced development beyond language proficiency. To that end, the present volume has thus far demonstrated the need for a sociocognitive dimension of research in the study of advancedness in order to address issues pertaining to critical language awareness, the development of metalanguage, identity construction, and intercultural communication, all of which constitute global citizenship. In Parts I and II of the volume, we combined quantitative and qualitative analyses, to reveal patterns in our L2 learners’ beliefs and behaviors regarding advancedness, and those of language professionals. What we have yet to explore, however, is the self-perception of L2 learners as a specific group of users within a larger target-language community. How do they identify themselves relative to other language users, such as heritage speaking bilinguals, or monolingual native speakers? Are they proud of their L2 identity? And how do they behave with others in intercultural contexts as L2 speakers?

In the remaining chapters we explore such questions. In Chapter 9 we explore critical language awareness and its relationship with L2 identity. In Chapter 10 we examine intercultural competence and global citizenship, as they relate to L2 identity. Through our analyses, we aim to establish the need for assessments that measure a learner’s self-awareness and identification as fundamental characteristics to L2 advancedness.

9.1 Introduction

In the first part of this volume, we discussed the various ways in which undergraduate L2 learners conceptualize advanced-level Spanish, and we drew conclusions regarding their beliefs of what is most important. We also examined their ratings and assessments of two different L2-Spanish speakers, previously rated as “advanced-low” by an ACTFL-OPI, but who differed in their accent-markedness and in their degree of intercultural competence. We found that the perceptions and reported beliefs among learners of L2 Spanish mirrored those of many foreign-language professionals (see Chapters 6 and 7) in that they appeared to focus more on linguistic than on extralinguistic features as they qualified an “ideal” advanced speaker.The quantitative and qualitative data collected in Chapters 3 and 4 also highlighted and confirmed the fact that, despite an explicit move in the field of ISLA that began in the mid-1980s to place more emphasis on the communicative value of the L2, learners’ beliefs still reflect a rather conservative and form-centered view about what constitutes sounding like a proficient and advanced Spanish speaker. In other words, even though theoretically and epistemologically ISLA has moved past prescriptivism, this new turn in the field has not necessarily trickled down to L2 classrooms. Learners’ views seem to be frozen in time, holding on to beliefs that were popular from the 1950s to the late 1970s when structuralist linguistics was mostly concerned with the knowledge of phonology, morphology, and syntax of an L2 (Reference EllisEllis, 1985). Is this a by-product of what practitioners are conveying in their classes? Are instructors also trapped in a prescriptivist and structuralist model, in which the use of the more prestigious standard is favored over the others, and one in which L2 learners are taught they must sound like native speakers? If so, what might the effect be on an L2 student’s development toward advancedness in terms of sophisticated language use and socio-cultural interaction? How would one learn to be (and develop as) a global citizen if they are overly concerned with linguistic structure and less concerned with communication?

Studies focusing on heritage language (HL) learners have found that to be the case (Reference 280Leeman and PotwoskiLeeman, 2018), and have reported on the linguistic insecurities that such trends have imposed on them (see also Reference Beaudrie, Amezcua and LozaBeaudrie, Amezcua, & Loza, 2021). Among L2 Spanish courses, the effects of such prescriptivist approaches may not be as apparent; L2 learners could be unaware of the ideologies that underlie dominant L2 curricula, and the way said ideologies can shape not only their views of the target language and its culture, but also the perceptions about their own sociopolitical roles and identity construction as speakers of that language. If learners are emulating the attitudes and the ideologies of their instructors, where are the latter forming their sets of linguistic beliefs? Some of these ideologies could be rooted in foreign-language education programs where L2 instructors are completing their training. Reference QuanQuan (2021) found that foreign-language education programs could benefit from an approach that included critical language pedagogy and demonstrated the positive results from a critically oriented methods course she designed for pre-service teachers. Her goal was to integrate critical pedagogy in language-teacher education programs in order to raise awareness of the social meanings and power dynamics of language use that are perpetuated in most foreign-language education training programs. In addition to what takes place in teacher training, it is possible that the type of research that reaches practitioners unwittingly reinforces a more structuralist and rigid view of language use. Reference OrtegaOrtega (2005) suggested that the community of scholars reflect on who the beneficiaries of ISLA research are. Ultimately, the most important stakeholders should be L2 learners, and we cannot serve them appropriately if the focus of the teaching/learning process solely lies on producing standard forms of a language, and when we – practitioners and researchers alike – ignore the sociopolitical context in which L2 learners develop as L2 speakers. Is ISLA providing practitioners with an adequate theoretical foundation on which to base their teaching practices that take social context into consideration?

To answer that question, we must get better acquainted with who the L2 learners are. In this volume, our goal has been to study L2 advancedness through a sociocognitive lens to paint a more complete picture of who L2 advanced speakers/learners of Spanish are. In this chapter, following Reference Gasca Jiménez and Adrada-RafaelGasca-Jiménez and Adrada-Rafael’s (2021) and Reference Beaudrie, Amezcua and LozaBeaudrie et al.’s (2019) work, we quantitatively analyze L2 learners’ responses to a questionnaire that addresses language ideology and critical language awareness.We include additional questions in order to elicit insights about L2 learners’ identities as L2 users and to help us establish how these identities and beliefs vary according to length of study and the instructional focus of the Spanish classes they were enrolled in. We focus on the status of Spanish as an L2 in the US and of native Spanish speakers and their bilingualism. We also examine how L2 learners regard themselves as speakers of Spanish by analyzing their responses to questions pertaining to accentedness, perceived accuracy, and general competence. Learners’ confidence in using the L2 will be contrasted with what they perceive to be important in L2 classes and what they consider that Spanish programs should prioritize in their curricular design. If L2 advancedness does indeed consist of intercultural competence and socioculturally interactive global citizens, are our students embracing (or assuming) such a role in their self-perceived identities as L2 speakers?

9.2 Background

9.3 The Present Study

The present study examines the degrees of CLA that learners from a large public southeastern American university, enrolled in Tier-I and Tier-II courses, possess. Among the Tier-II courses, we will compare the results between participants who are in a culture class and those that are in linguistics courses.The results will shed light on various current topics that are of interest in ISLA, including the ethnolinguistic perceptions of Spanish as an L2 and its speakers among college students in a PWI, the differential impact of critical pedagogy on these beliefs, and the construction of L2 learner identities. We will also compare length of time of study, and varying course content and their differential effects on L2 learners’ attitudes and perceptions about the L2 and its speakers in the US, and ultimately, about themselves. Having described the framework that will serve as the theoretical tenet for this chapter, and identifying the gap in previous literature that addresses sociocognitive approaches to study and teach advanced speakers of L2 Spanish, we pose the following guiding research questions:

1. 1. What are L2 learners’ levels of CLA in:

   1. a. Basic language courses?

   2. b. Culture-content courses?

   3. c. Linguistics-content courses?

2. 2. How do L2 learners express their identity as:

   1. a. Advanced Spanish learners?

   2. b. Spanish speakers in the US?

9.4 Method

9.5 Results

For the first set of items (1, 2, 3, and 4) regarding language ideologies and attitudes toward Spanish and Spanish speakers (see Table 9.2), we ran a one-way ANOVA to compare the answers to all four items by the three different course types (Basic Language, Culture, and Linguistics) (see Table 9.3). Despite the unequal sample sizes between groups, a Levene’s test of homogeneity indicated that the variance was equal across groups. The items that our participants responded to regarding ideologies and attitudes were:

• Question 1: People from Spain speak the purest form of Spanish.

• Question 2: In my opinion, Spanish speakers should use standard Spanish to communicate all the time.

• Question 3: I believe Spanish-speaking Hispanics in the US don’t speak correct Spanish.

• Question 4: I feel speaking Spanish is less prestigious than speaking other foreign languages such as French.

For items 1 and 2, which addressed the prestige of the peninsular dialect over the others and the correctness with which Spanish speakers use the language, the results indicated that participants mostly and somewhat disagree with the statements; in other words, they did not consider one dialectal variation superior to the other, and they also showed awareness about the use of different registers among Spanish native speakers. For item 1, even though the differences between groups was not statistically significant, F(2, 64) = 2.263, p = .112, a trend in the results indicated that Tier-I mean scores were lower than Tier-II (Basic Language: M = 3.24, SD = 1.46; Culture: M = 2.78, SD = 1.48; Linguistics: M = 2.31, SD = 1.45). The same trend emerged for item 2. A one-way ANOVA yielded near-significance, F(2, 64) = 2.922, p = .061; a post hoc analysis was conducted using Tukey’s post hoc test, which showed that the comparison between Group 1 (Intermediate) (G1) and Group 3 (Linguistics) (G3) neared significance, p = 0.057. As with item 1, the scores in item 2 (G1: M = 2.15, SD = 1.18; G2: M = 1.72, SD = 1.13; G3: M = 1.38, SD = 0.81) showed that as Spanish learners advance from Tier-I to Tier-II, their awareness of register increases.

Items 3 and 4 touched on attitudes toward Hispanics in the US specifically, and their use of “correct” Spanish, and toward the language and its prestige in comparison to other foreign languages. A one-way ANOVA was conducted to determine if the statement about the “correctness” of Spanish-speaking Hispanics in the US yielded different responses. The scores decreased from the basic language courses (M = 1.58, SD = 0.97) to linguistics (M = 1.19, SD = 0.54) to culture (M = 1.17, SD = 0.51), but the difference was not statistically significant, F(2, 64) = 2.194, p = .120. Even though all three groups were within the range of 1–2 on the Likert scale (strongly disagree – somewhat disagree), the same trend for instructional level that we saw in items 1 and 2 comes up again, which is that learners at Tier-I depicted higher scores than those at Tier-II. The difference between the type of content of the courses (culture vs. linguistics) is interesting in that the results show a reverse order, where the culture-course participants disagreed slightly more determinedly than the participants in the linguistics course when prompted to respond to the statement that Spanish-speaking Hispanics in the US did not speak “correct” Spanish. For item 4, which tapped on the participants’ perception of the prestige of Spanish against that of other languages, the scores showed the same trend as with item 3, in decreasing order from Basic Language courses (M = 1.73, SD = 1.26) to Linguistics (M = 1.50, SD = 0.97) to Culture (M = 1.33, SD = 0.68), but the difference was not statistically significant, F(2, 64) = .839, p = .437.

In Section II we addressed participants’ views of their own competence and language use as L2 speakers of Spanish. We first inquired about their views of sounding like a native-speaker and the importance of what they say versus how they sound when they speak. The aspects we addressed are included in the statements copied below, followed by Table 9.3, which contains the descriptive statistics of the results:

• Item 6: If I were to give a professional presentation in Spanish, I would avoid working with a partner who has a strong English accent.

• Item 8: I believe it is important to sound as native like as possible when I speak Spanish.

• Item 10: I believe that what I have to say is more important than how I sound when I say it.

• Item 17: I don’t think that I sound like a true speaker of Spanish.

• Item 20: I am proud of myself when I speak Spanish, even when I do not sound like a native speaker.

Item 6 elicited responses regarding how participants felt about accented bilingualism by asking them if they would avoid presenting in a professional setting with someone who had a strong English accent when speaking Spanish. The familiar pattern we have seen regarding years of study repeats itself here; Tier-I Spanish learners disagreed (M = 2.91; SD = 1.38) while their Tier-II culture counterparts somewhat disagreed (M = 2.11; SD = 1.18) and the Tier-II linguistics students were in the middle of both categories (M = 2.50; SD = 1.55). The one-way ANOVA did not show any statistical differences F(2, 64) = 2.022, p = .141. The same statistical analyses were used to determine the differential responses between course groups for item 8. The response of the groups followed this order of agreement: Linguistics (M = 3.75; SD = 1.06), Culture (M = 4.06; SD = 1.21), and Basic Language (M = 4.70; SD = 0.92). There was homogeneity of variances, assessed by Levene’s test of homogeneity of variances (p = .521). The one-way ANOVA analysis yielded differential results that were statistically significant F(2, 64) = 5.162, p = .008. A Tukey’s post hoc test indicated that the significance was found between the Tier-I responses and those of the Tier-II linguistics courses (p = .011); the difference between the culture and the linguistics courses was nonsignificant. What these results showed is that learners in the lower tier of courses agree more strongly than those from the upper tier that their pronunciation is important.

Item 10 readdressed an issue we had analyzed in previous chapters of this volume: the linguistic and extralinguistic aspects of language (form vs. meaning; or formal aspects vs. communicative ability). In this study, participants from the three course groups indicated that they agreed with the statement that what they had to say was more important than how they sounded in the following order: Basic Language (M = 4.42; SD = 1.09), Linguistics (M = 4.63; SD = 1.45), and Culture (M = 4.78; SD = 1.06). Statistical analyses did not find a significant difference between the groups F(2, 64) = .549, p = .580.

Items 17 and 20 tapped into what these L2 Spanish learners thought about their “sounding” like a true speaker of Spanish and if that influenced how accomplished they felt about their knowledge of the language. For item 17, the one-way ANOVA did not show a statistically significant difference between groups; participants in all three groups agreed that they did not think they sounded like true Spanish speakers. The responses are presented in increasing order from weaker to stronger agreement to the statement that they do not believe they sound like true Spanish speakers: Linguistics (M = 4.31; SD = 1.62) to Basic Language (M = 4.52; SD = 1.23) to Culture (M = 4.83; SD = 0.92). It was not surprising to see that participants in the Linguistics course displayed the weakest form of agreement to the statement, considering they would have studied the phonological and phonetic system of Spanish and would have been taught how to realize certain sounds of Spanish in more detail than their Basic Language or Culture counterparts. It is interesting to observe that the participants in the Basic Language courses show more confidence in how they sound than their Tier-II culture course counterparts. For item 20, there was no statistically significant difference between groups, F(2, 63) = .285, p = .753, and the trends go from weaker to stronger agreement as follows: from Linguistics (M = 4.93; SD = 1.44) to Basic Languages (M = 4.97; SD = 0.77) to Culture (M = 5.17; SD = 0.99), making the Culture students the proudest of their Spanish even when knowing that they do not sound nativelike.

In Section III, the items pertained to the issue of attitudes and perceptions about themselves as leaners and users of Spanish as an L2. Below are the statements that served as prompts, followed by Table 9.4 with the descriptive statistics. Items 14, 21, and 23 revolved around how the L2 leaners saw themselves in terms of competence and confidence, while items 7, 12, and 13 tapped into L2 learners’ construction of their identities as L2 users and life-long speakers of Spanish.

The results from item 14 reveal that most L2 learners from this study fell between the agree and disagree options. While the one-way ANOVA did not reveal statistically significant differences between the three course type groups, the data showed that the most hesitant group was the linguistics course (M = 3.81; SD = 1.83), followed by the basic language courses (M = 3.70; SD = 1.47), and then by the participants in the culture course (M = 3.39; SD = 1.50). However, the pride in speaking the language despite grammatical inaccuracies is revealed in scores from item 21. The results followed the order of time of study: Basic Language (M = 4.64; SD = 1.17) > Culture (M = 4.72; SD = 1.07) and Linguistics (M = 4.88; SD = 1.41). There were no statistically significant differences between groups F(2, 64) = .211, p = .810. The same trends can be observed in the responses that were given to item 23, when the participants were prompted to self-assess as being “good speakers” of Spanish. The order followed time of study of the language: Basic Language (M = 3.91; SD= 1.18) < Culture (M = 4.22; SD = 1.00) and Linguistics (M = 4.44; SD = 1.31).

Item 7 in this section asked L2 learners to assess their future commitment to continue developing their language skills beyond graduation. The mean score for all respondents was at 4.5 (between “likely” and “somewhat likely”). The one-way ANOVA did not yield statistically significant results. We observed an inverse outcome from what we have seen in the other questions thus far; from least likely to more likely, the results revealed this order: Linguistics (M = 4.38; SD = 1.45) to Culture (M = 4.56; SD = 1.04) to Basic Language (M = 4.58; SD = 1.06). In other words, it was the learners with less experience with the language who seemed more ready to commit to a post-graduation engagement with the language than their older peers in either one of the content courses. The next item (12) asked about the participants’ efforts to find activities outside of school in which they can use Spanish; in the responses, it is clear that those students with more time spent studying the language report to be more likely to engage in extracurricular activities in Spanish: Basic Language (M = 3.36; SD = 1.08), followed by participants in the Culture course (M = 3.44; SD = 1.25), and spear-headed by those in the Linguistics courses (M = 3.88; SD = 1.45). The last item in this part of the data inquired about the participants’ social media presence in Spanish. Even though the one-way ANOVA did not yield a statistically significant difference between groups, F(2, 64) = 1.038, p = .360, the descriptive statistics indicate that the younger learners chose “somewhat unlikely” when judging if their social media presence was in Spanish while the participants in the content courses chose only “unlikely.” Out of the two content courses, those participants in the culture class registered a higher likelihood to have Spanish in their social media than the students in the linguistics courses.

The last part of this section examined opinions about curricular choices directly from L2 learners, important stakeholders at tertiary institutions whose voices we should include more often. The descriptive data is included in Table 9.5. The questions we examined were:

• Item 15: I wish there were more native Spanish speakers in my classes with me.

• Item 16: I believe programs at the university level should have separate Spanish classes for native Spanish speakers and native English speakers.

• Item 11: I believe that my university Spanish classes should focus on developing my ability to sound like a native speaker.

For item 15, the one-way ANOVA did not yield statistically significant results; however, we can observe that participants from Group 2 (Culture) agree slightly more strongly than their counterparts with the wish that more Spanish native speakers were in the same class as L2 learners. The scores, presented in ascending order: Basic Language (M = 4.06; SD = 1.27), Linguistics (M = 4.06; SD = 1.29), Culture (M = 4.22; SD = 1.22). Similarly, we did not find statistically significant differences between groups for Question 16, F(2, 64) = .453, p = .638, which elicited participants’ opinions about separating L2 learners from native speakers in Spanish classes. The trend here showed that participants in the basic language courses and in the culture class were in stronger disagreement with the statement than the participants enrolled in the linguistics courses.

Finally, item 11 allowed for participants to express their opinions about what the focus of their L2 learning should be. The question mentioned “sounding” like a native speaker; we included this question given that pronunciation and accentedness had emerged as important constructs in other chapters of this volume. The results showed the following trend, in ascending order: from Linguistics (M = 3.31; SD = 1.35) to Culture (M = 3.33; SD = 1.08) to Basic Language (M = 3.48; SD = 1.01); these results indicate that the participants in the linguistics-content courses leaned more towards disagreeing with the statement that Spanish programs should focus on their sounding like native speakers than their culture and basic-language peers. However, the one-way ANOVA analysis did not show any statistically significant differences between groups, F(2, 64) = .808, p = .450.

9.6 Discussion and Conclusions

If we want SLA and ISLA to be in synchronicity with our times, we need to adopt Reference BrumfitBrumfit’s (1991) stance that applied linguistics is the realm of “theoretical and empirical investigation of real-world problems in which language is the central issue” (p. 46). Also, heeding to the call that Reference Firth and WagnerFirth and Wagner (1997) made twenty-five years ago, we have adhered to an approach that is exploratory and more social in nature; that is, we have aimed to conduct a study that is more emic than etic, more concerned with the researched individuals as we explored their data in the context of their socioeconomic and political environment. The results gave us new information with which we can begin to address the question in Reference OrtegaOrtega’s (2005) article – “For what and for whom is our research?” Through our data, we have also fulfilled the fourth and final goal that Atkinson wished to achieve through a sociocognitive approach in SLA, to see L2 learners as people who think, feel, and enact social agency in the real world (Reference Atkinson2002, p. 539).

Unlike Reference QuanQuan’s (2020, Reference Quan2021) work, the courses we used for this study did not have modules that explicitly contained CLA elements; we wanted to explore what, if any, signs of CLA could be detected among students going through a “traditional” two-tier Spanish language curriculum. What we found is that through content courses, some awareness can be raised; applied linguistics courses seem especially relevant to bring social justice issues to the forefront (expressions of bilingualism, dialectal varieties, among others), although interdisciplinary courses addressing issues pertaining to communication, intercultural competence, and identity (to name a few), would certainly accentuate this line of content. While students in linguistics courses appeared to be more aware, they also showed more self-consciousness about their linguistic deficits.

In terms of L2 learner identity, our study showed that L2 learners only saw themselves as L2 learners; they appear to still fear the judgment of native speakers and show only timid levels of confidence in their speaking abilities and general competence.Additionally, they do very little to help its visibility or to engage with it outside of class. In other words, as aware as they may be of the sociopolitical context that is attached to being a Spanish speaker and user in the US, they do not appear to be committed to being advocates for the language.

Finally, in terms of their opinions about Spanish curricula, the general response about having more classes with native speakers was to mildly agree with it, but there was also a generalized disagreement with the statement that proposed to have separate tracks for L2 and HL learners. The linguistics group showed stronger disagreement than its counterparts. And although all three groups disagreed that a Spanish program curriculum should focus more on their ability to sound like a native speaker, the scores are only in the mild disagreement range. The group that showed stronger disagreement levels was Linguistics (M = 3.31), followed by Culture (M = 3.33) and then Basic Languages (M = 3.64).

9.7 Limitations and Future Directions

The present study is a first attempt at eliciting data from L2 learners about CLA in the larger context of L2 advancedness. We have seen that some awareness begins to emerge after taking content courses, but our results only show trends. Future studies should continue this line of research in two ways: 1) by gathering multi-site data of current Spanish curricula to gauge what the state of our advanced students is in regard to CLA and general identity as L2 learners and L2 speakers; and 2) by following up the first set of data collection with a redesign of their Spanish programs, marking that as the starting point of a longitudinal study that could chronicle changes in both students’ CLA levels and in the construction of their identities as L2 learners.

A limitation in this chapter is that our data were collected from only one large public American university. We invite scholars to continue this line of research with classes in various parts of the country and world to further our understanding of CLA among different populations of L2 learners. Multisite replications would also help to emulate Reference BlockBlock’s (2012) work on the impact of social class and ISLA, which entails investigating to what extent socioeconomic categories affect key elements that come into play in ISLA research.

A more careful analysis of current materials used in the L2 classroom is also in order. There is a neoliberal thread of content in the textbooks that is reflected in the consumerist approach to the L2 language and culture. That is what Reference AnyaAnya (2020) has brought to light in the sphere of Spanish as L2 textbooks, which is similar to what Reference Gray, Block, Gray and HolborowGray (2012) found for English-language materials and what Reference Block, Gray, Coffey and WingateBlock & Gray (2018) encountered for French-language textbooks as well. Researchers and practitioners could help in raising awareness about these trends when speaking to textbook publishers about their needs or when creating their own teaching materials.

Finally, as we have seen throughout the present volume, qualitative analyses of phenomena may reveal patterns of behavior that were not captured in a quantitative research design. What can we learn about our participants, regarding their L2 identity, their perceived position in the larger target-language community, and their role as multilingual global citizens? In the following chapter we continue our analysis of L2 identity as we focus on its relationship with intercultural competence.

10.1 Introduction

Throughout the present volume we have used cognitive and social frameworks and mixed methods analyses to explore L2 learners’ and L2 professionals’ beliefs, attitudes, and behaviors in terms of their assessment and understanding of L2 advancedness. Through our analyses we have noted the interplay of linguistic and extralinguistic phenomena, with the latter being characterized in the context of sophisticated language use, as conceptualized by Reference Ortega and ByrnesOrtega and Byrnes (2008). In Chapters 3 and 4 we focused on American university-level Spanish minors enrolled in an undergraduate content course. We found that they were mainly concerned with the language use itself, and that they emphasized extralinguistic features contributing to what we consider to be sophisticated language use. However, we also found that as the age of the students increased, so did their emphasis on “good” pronunciation. In terms of their awareness of advancedness, we found that their ratings of other L2 speakers with advanced-level proficiency were influenced by (1) the value listeners placed on intercultural competence, and (2) the level of intercultural competence demonstrated by the speaker. We concluded that L2 learners are only implicitly aware of intercultural competence; they lack the metalinguistic knowledge to identify it, but they are nonetheless affected by it. Assuming that intercultural competence is an integral part of L2 advancedness, we concluded that L2 learners are limited in their ability to imagine advancedness; they lack the agency to do so.

In Chapters 6 and 7 we examined L2 professionals working as members of second/foreign-language programs and departments in higher education at various locations around the world. We found considerable variability. Professionally trained, licensed teachers working as instructors at the lower tier of the curriculum emphasized grammar more so than instructors who are not professionally trained teachers. In addition, non-native Spanish-speaking professionals rated the pronunciation of L2 learners higher than native-speaking professionals did. Furthermore, tertiary-level instructors with higher levels of education de-emphasized grammar and placed more importance on sophisticated language use when describing idealized, advanced-level Spanish.When considering instructors, research professors, and academic administrators together, we found that professionals in higher education tended to place the most importance on sophisticated language use, then on linguistic structure, and then on the identity of the L2 learner, and that they tended to associate “good” pronunciation with higher levels of sophistication. Most importantly, we found that L2 professionals expected agency and volition as defining characteristics of advanced language users. Our conclusions were threefold. We found that professionals’ assessment of L2 advancedness is constrained by preconceived notions of advanced proficiency engendered by formal assessment metrics; that the field needs a revised mission statement that emphasizes the development (and co-construction) of L2 identity among its students; and that it needs training regarding more current understandings of L2 advancedness.

The present chapter responds to the conclusions we arrived at throughout the volume by more closely assessing L2 students’ awareness of identity as non-native speakers of Spanish and its relationship with their understanding of intercultural competence and global citizenship. Unlike Chapter 9, in which we primarily explored L2 identity and critical language awareness in the context of L2 advancedness, in the present chapter we focus on how they situate themselves in contexts that require the co-construction of identity through intercultural competence in order to obtain global citizenship, and if the way they do so changes across a tertiary-level curriculum. If L2 learners are limited in their ability to imagine what advancedness is, as we asserted in Chapter 4, then to what extent are they able to imagine sophisticated language use in terms of who they are as non-native-speaking members of a global community, as well as what their role is? And if L2 professionals designing and implementing curricula in higher education do indeed expect agency and volition as desired learning outcomes among their language students, then how are they identifying it, developing it, and assessing it? What does agency “look like”? Recent research has operationalized or characterized agency among L2 learners in a number of ways, such as intersubjectivity through co-constructed discourse (Reference Czerwionka, Showstack, Czerwionka, Showstack and Liskin-GasparroCzerwionka & Showstack, 2022; Reference Kley, Czerwionka, Showstack and Liskin-GasparroKley, 2022), one’s ability to appropriate knowledge and claim authority (Reference Colcher, Czerwionka, Showstack and Liskin-GasparroColcher, 2022; Reference Raymond, Cashman, Czerwionka, Showstack and Liskin-GasparroRaymond & Cashman, 2022), asserting one’s self through stance (Reference Czerwionka, Menke and MalovrhCzerwionka, 2021; Reference Menke, Menke and MalovrhMenke, 2021; Reference Yasui, Czerwionka, Showstack and Liskin-GasparroYasui, 2022), written reflection essays (Reference Anton, Pendexter, Czerwionka, Showstack and Liskin-GasparroAntón & Pendexter, 2022), and the ability to imagine discourse through drama-based pedagogy (Reference Pearson, Czerwionka, Showstack and Liskin-GasparroPearson, 2022). The present chapter extends the findings of recent research regarding L2 agency and uses social and cognitive frameworks to examine the extent to which L2 learners are aware of such constructs, and whether such an awareness is evident in their identity as L2 learners. In doing so, we aim to better understand the breadth and depth of curricular changes needed to better facilitate the development of L2 identity and global citizenship. If social discourse establishes contexts in which identity can be localized and co-constructed (Reference Czerwionka, Showstack, Czerwionka, Showstack and Liskin-GasparroCzerwionka & Showstack, 2022), how prepared are L2 learners to engage in such discourse, to (co)index their own or the other’s identity, to claim knowledge, and to pursue intersubjectivity?

10.2 Background

10.3 The Present Study

When considered together, the studies reviewed in the previous section reveal important findings regarding the learning process in terms of co-constructed metalanguage. It depends on prior metalinguistic knowledge (Reference Azkarai, Oliver and Gil-BerrioAzkarai et al., 2022); it progresses as learners aim to come to a consensus with each other (Reference Toth and Gil-BerrioToth & Gil-Berrio, 2022); and it consists of variability constrained by instructor expertise/experience, learners’ background knowledge, and learner agency (Reference Davin and KushkiDavin & Kushki, 2022). In terms of context and co-constructed discourse, they reveal the reciprocal relationship between context and identity, and that a priori notions of (non)expert will affect how actors co-index identity. In terms of intersubjectivity and agency, they reveal that L2 learners are constrained by their linguistic abilities as they attempt to be global citizens in a specific language community. Furthermore, when we consider the findings in previous chapters of the present volume – that L2 professionals expect L2 learners to demonstrate agency and that they vary in terms of what they perceive as being more/less advanced (Chapters 6 and 7), that L2 speakers with advanced oral proficiency may widely vary in terms of their intercultural competence and that such variability will affect how they are perceived by others (Chapters 3 and 4), and that L2 learners possess a unique language identity, distinct from native and heritage speakers (Chapter 9) – combined with the aforementioned research, it becomes evident that in order to understand L2 advancedness, we need to also understand and assess how L2 learners situate themselves as global citizens in contexts requiring intercultural competence.

In the present study we explore the relationship between L2 identity, how L2 learners locate their language development in terms of global citizenship and intercultural competence, and how L2 learners say they would navigate contexts involving co-constructed identity. We assert L2 learners’ co-constructed metalinguistic knowledge is similar to their co-constructed identity, in that it is developmentally constrained based on the changing knowledge they bring to a given context; in that the context will be shaped by varying levels of (non)expertise among the participants in the process; in that it (the process) could be taught using tools such as INEs to help L2 learners break down the process of fostering intersubjectivity; and in that explicit awareness of the process could enhance one’s ability to engage in it. What remains to be known, however, is the extent to which tertiary-level L2 learners are aware of such phenomena, across a curriculum, and how pre-existing notions of L2 identity would need to be intervened with in order to more successfully scaffold L2 learners’ development toward advancedness. To fill such lacunae, the present study is guided by the following research questions:

1. 1. Do L2 learners of Spanish enrolled in an undergraduate curriculum associate their L2 learning experience with the development of intercultural competence?

   1. a. Do such associations vary according to age?

   2. b. Do such associations vary according to gender?

   3. c. Do such associations vary according to instructional level?

   4. d. Do such associations vary according to the major focus of study/specialization?

2. 2. Do L2 learners of Spanish conceptualize language proficiency and competence differently than they conceptualize sophisticated language use?

3. 3. How do L2 learners of Spanish conceptualize global citizenship and its relationship with multilingualism?

10.4 Method

10.5 Results

10.6 Discussion

Throughout the present volume we have interwoven social and cognitive dimensions, using quantitative and qualitative analyses, regarding L2 learners’ beliefs, assessment, and awareness of L2 advancedness. To more thoroughly understand L2 (undergraduate) learners’ conceptualization of advancedness and its relationship with identity, the present chapter analyzed an entirely different group of L2 learners from those analyzed in Chapters 3 and 4, enrolled in various Spanish courses across the curriculum, ranging from Tier-I to Tier-II courses, and explored their beliefs and self-reported behaviors as they relate to intercultural competence and global citizenship. Since co-constructed discourse is the process by which we co-index our identities, create meaning, and determine a jointly held understanding of shared social context (Reference Czerwionka, Showstack, Czerwionka, Showstack and Liskin-GasparroCzerwionka et al., 2022), we set out to better understand how our L2 learners interact and locate themselves as global citizens in intercultural contexts. To that end, we asked if they could imagine intercultural competence and global citizenship, and what we found helps us to more clearly understand our findings in previous chapters.

10.7 Conclusion

The present chapter set out to explore the L2 learner’s self-perceived identity as a user of an L2, to better understand their conceptualization and awareness of intercultural competence and global citizenship, and to evaluate their tendencies when interacting in intercultural contexts. Given the reciprocal relationship of one’s a priori categorization as a certain “type” of speaker and the context in which one co-constructs identity, appropriates knowledge, and claims (non)expertise, we examined how behavior, attitude/belief, and context determine one’s intercultural competence and participation as actors on a global stage. Using a mixed-methods design, quantitative and qualitative data yielded novel findings regarding the development of L2 identity among a tertiary-level undergraduate L2 population. It also revealed specific limitations in our L2 learners’ conceptualizations of global citizenship and L2 identity that we asserted would be detrimental to one’s ability to develop as a sophisticated language user having advanced status. In short, we find that our L2 learners enrolled in language programs do not show signs of being prepared to engage in intercultural contexts as active participants with agency in the co-construction of context and identity with the ability to pursue intersubjectivity. Our findings bring to light the necessity for departments and programs of language learning in higher education to implement curricular changes in order to better prepare their students to be actors as global citizens. Principal among such changes is the scaffolding of higher levels of language awareness involving cognitive and social dimensions of language use.

We also note specific limitations of the present study that need to be addressed by future research. Further research is needed, for example, to determine the extent to which the findings of the present chapter are representative of a distinctly American population of tertiary-level undergraduate students, and whether such phenomena would also be identified among L2 learners of other target languages, representing other native cultures. Whereas Chapters 6 and 7 provided mixed methods analyses of L2 professionals located in various regions of the world, the present chapter was limited to a domestic population. In addition, future research should further examine the relationship between a priori notions of one’s self-perceived L2 identity and one’s behavior in intercultural contexts in order to establish a more direct connection between L2 identity and global citizenship. Furthermore, while the present study aimed to examine L2 learners’ awareness, it subsequently made inferences regarding how those L2 learners would behave in specific contexts. Future research should examine L2 (actual) behavior according to varying situational contexts. Finally, our analyses did not consider the effect(s) of studying abroad. Ample research highlights its positive effect on linguistic development. How might it affect the development of L2 identity construction?

11.1 Introduction

In the introductory chapter of this volume, we began with a brief historical overview of the MLA’s (2007) call for language programs in higher education to revisit their departmental missions, their programmatic structure, and the underlying theory guiding their practice. Their report established the context in which much of the work in SLA regarding L2 advancedness throughout the subsequent fifteen years would be couched. If language programs in higher education were to implement changes that would meet the demands of the changing world, they would need to acquire a better understanding of L2 development and realistic learning outcomes. Furthermore, they would need to be cognizant of the societal demands for L2 speakers with the necessary proficiency to fill a variety of roles in the workplace. Consequently, they would need to better understand current methods for assessing proficiency. In short, in order for change to occur, higher education would need to reflect on its practices, its underlying theory, and its guiding mission. This book was an attempt at such a reflection.

Recent research investigating L2 advancedness set the stage for the present volume. Reference Malovrh and BenatiMalovrh and Benati’s (2018) handbook providing an overview of research within various theoretical frameworks and across different linguistic domains made the complexity of discussing L2 advancedness clear. They concluded the volume by stating that far more questions than answers remained as we continue to tease apart its multiple facets and dimensions. With regard to the present volume, Malovrh and Benati’s volume underscored two important issues regarding the study of L2 advancedness. One was the predominance of cognitive and socially oriented frameworks through which researchers were approaching the topic. Yet, as the volume revealed, what we ultimately would accumulate from two theoretical approaches were isolated findings that still make it difficult to formulate a larger picture of L2 advancedness. The other issue was in regard to the notion of advancedness posited by Reference Byrnes, Leaver and ShekhtmanByrnes (2002) and Reference Ortega and ByrnesOrtega and Byrnes (2008), and in particular, the construct of sophisticated language use in context. How could the term be deconstructed to reveal the multiple constituents of sophistication? And would it be possible to give shape to a seemingly amorphous construct?

Since the publication Reference Malovrh and BenatiMalovrh and Benati (2018), more research has surfaced regarding L2 advancedness, with specific attention given to L2 Spanish, that established research agendas, some of which the present volume addresses. Reference Serafini, Menke and MalovrhSerafini (2021), for example, called for more longitudinal research that examines how cognitive ability interacts with sociocultural phenomena. While not including longitudinal research specifically, the present volume used a socio-cognitive approach to shed light on L2 learners’ awareness of advanced L2 use, as well as the sociocultural context of the language users. Research such as Reference Czerwionka, Menke and MalovrhCzerwionka (2021) examined the multifaceted nature of advancedness by comparing lexico-grammatical development with that of intercultural competence. She found that the two did not develop in tandem; L2 learners who were rated as advanced-level speakers did not necessarily have advanced levels of intercultural competence. The present study examined intercultural competence in terms of its effect on L2 listeners to reveal if L2 learners are aware of it, and if it affects their appraisal of another L2 speaker’s use of Spanish. Finally, there is a growing body of research examining identity construction and critical language awareness. Regarding the former, Reference Menke, Menke and MalovrhMenke (2021) examined stance as a way L2 writers can claim authority in given contexts; Reference Colcher, Czerwionka, Showstack and Liskin-GasparroColcher (2022) looked at claimed expertise by speakers in specific interactional contexts; and Reference Kley, Czerwionka, Showstack and Liskin-GasparroKley (2022) studied the relationship between L2 speaking ability and intersubjectivity in co-constructed discourse. Regarding critical language awareness, research continues to examine our understanding of heritage-speaker identity (Reference Gasca Jiménez and Adrada-RafaelGasca Jiménez & Adrada-Rafael, 2021; Reference Serafini, Menke and MalovrhLeeman & Serafini, 2021), while surprisingly little is known regarding L2-learner identity construction. The present study extended the aforementioned research to examine L2 learners’ awareness of sophisticated language use, as well as their own identity.

The significance of L2 research regarding advancedness and the MLA’s (2007) call for reform in higher education is increasingly clear as research foci shift toward a new way of discussing advancedness. As Reference Czerwionka, Menke and MalovrhCzerwionka (2021) points out, research addressing the development of communicative competence as a measure of advancedness in terms of sociopragmatic phenomena “has largely focused on language users’ individual competencies rather than on how they use them to co-construct discourse” (p. 275). She further noted that, as a response to such a limitation, researchers have turned to more interactional phenomena that more appropriately reflect contemporary expectations of advanced language use in the multilingual world, in which “social realities and identities are jointly constructed” (p. 275). At the same time, research is more closely examining what our students want out of their L2-Spanish education. They are indeed cognizant of professional demands for high-level language use (Reference Rose, Liskin-Gasparro, Carrillo Cabello, Paesani and SonesonRose & Liskin-Gasparro, 2019). To further support this position, we note studies showing that undergraduate students prefer instruction of language over instruction of cultural literacy (Reference Hertel and DingsHertel & Dings, 2017; Reference Mills and MoultonMills & Moulton, 2017), and that they emphasize communicative competence as the more important outcome (Reference Mills and MoultonMills & Moulton, 2017). Not only do we find increasing evidence that L2 learners in higher education are choosing to study second/foreign languages as a means to achieve professional goals, but also that they increasingly associate advanced language proficiency as the successful benchmark of obtaining them. Given this development in students’ attitudes, and given that higher education continues to rely on formal assessments of proficiency as the “most common parlance” of our time (Reference Zhang, Winke and ClarkZhang et al., 2020, p. 809), a few fundamental questions arise, which are the impetus for this book. Do our students understand the difference between advanced proficiency and advancedness? Do they consider constructs such as sophisticated language use, global citizenship, and L2 identity as fundamental components of what the world is coming to expect from an advanced L2 user? Do they recognize the presence or absence of those components in the Spanish of other L2 speakers? Is the professoriate aware of such changes and trends in the field? And our administrations? In short, are we communicating with each other? And do we really know what our students know regarding L2 advancedness? The present volume obtained answers to such questions by approaching them from various sociocognitive perspectives and through mixed-methods analyses, with the aim of generating hypotheses to be further tested as we collectively generate a new parlance for discussing, studying, and assessing L2 advancedness.

11.2 Tertiary-Level L2 Students

Prior to the present volume the field of SLA had already been yielding important findings regarding tertiary-level undergraduate students who were successfully achieving advanced-speaking status in L2 Spanish. A trove of previous research already existed examining internal factors that predict successful L2 acquisition, but typically discussed development in the context of ultimate attainment (Reference DeKeyser and Larson-HallDeKeyser & Larson-Hall, 2005; Reference Hyltenstam, Abrahamsson, Fraurud and HyltenstamHyltenstam & Abrahamsson, 2003). In the present volume we were more concerned with advancedness than we were with ultimate attainment, because the framework of advancedness involves research from cognitive and sociocultural frameworks. Through that lens, we already knew that advanced-level learners were those who were highly engaged with the target language beyond the classroom, that they enjoyed engaging with the target culture, and that they engaged with it in various social media venues (Reference Winke, Gass, Malovrh and BenatiWinke & Gass, 2018; Reference Winke, Uebel, Gass, Menke and MalovrhWinke et al., 2021). We knew that they were those who most likely studied abroad, who had begun to use late-acquired linguistic structure, and who do so with variable use (Reference Malovrh, Lee, Menke and MalovrhMalovrh & Lee, 2021). We knew that they may or may not manifest high levels of intercultural competence (Reference Czerwionka, Menke and MalovrhCzerwionka, 2021). And we knew that they were those who began their study of Spanish at the secondary level for at least two years (Reference Isbell, Winke and GassIsbell et al., 2019; Reference Zhang, Winke and ClarkZhang et al., 2020).

Through the individual studies presented in this book we have gained new insights regarding undergraduate students in higher education. Using quantitative and qualitative analyses of their beliefs and perceptions of other L2 speakers’ Spanish, we learned that they are only explicitly aware of some beliefs and perceptions, and implicitly aware of others. We already knew, for example, that classroom learners possess a higher level of metalinguistic knowledge than those who learn in other contexts (Reference Kley, Czerwionka, Showstack and Liskin-GasparroKley, 2022; Reference Malovrh, Lee, Menke and MalovrhMalovrh & Lee, 2021), and that L2 learners index their metalinguistic authority in contexts involving heritage learners (Reference Kley, Czerwionka, Showstack and Liskin-GasparroKley, 2022; Reference Serafini, Menke and MalovrhLeeman & Serafini, 2021). We learned in Chapters 3 and 4 that they increasingly emphasize the importance of linguistic (i.e., formal) features of advancedness as they ascend through an undergraduate curriculum, while being comparably more influenced by a speaker’s level of intercultural competence in their assessment of the speaker’s language use. We found that our students are indeed aware of different forms of sophisticated language use, and that they do, in fact, associate them with higher levels of advancedness, but that their awareness in this regard is implicit. Their declarative, explicit descriptions of their own beliefs and of other L2 speakers’ use of Spanish appeared to be dominated more by structural features of language, such as pronunciation and grammar. We suggested (in Chapter 3) that their explicit awareness of advanced-level language was institutionally influenced; that it reflected a bias among the professoriate and curricula designers to emphasize structural use of language over sophisticated use. We suggested that they (the students) may be saying what they think they are “supposed” to say, and that, even though they intend to use their L2 Spanish for employment purposes, they remained explicitly unaware of the importance of extralinguistic language use.

Our findings in Chapters 3 and 4 raised concerns regarding L2 learner agency. If they are not explicitly aware of their potential role as a global citizen, as one who can assert themselves and their world views in a given context to co-construct shared meaning, and do so in a way that is interculturally competent, then would they possess the agency to develop as L2 learners according to the constructs of L2 advancedness? In Chapters 9 and 10 we more closely examined learner identity, as it relates to other constructs, such as critical language awareness, intercultural competence, and global citizenship. We found that they are proud of their status as L2 speakers of Spanish and particularly as speakers with a high level of metalinguistic knowledge, but that they identify as learners, first and foremost. They fear judgement from their native- or heritage-speaking counterparts, and are overly modest when it comes to their own self-assessment. Furthermore, we found that they are not strong advocates for the use of Spanish in the US. While seemingly altruistic and good-natured, our L2 learners appeared to have limited levels of critical language awareness; they appear reluctant to place themselves in a context that involves intersubjectivity and the co-construction of shared knowledge. Their identity as a learner obscures their self-perception as an actor.

Our qualitative analyses in Chapter 10 helped us to better understand our participants. In them we found a conflicted sense of their own identity. While they overwhelmingly believe that learning an L2 leads to global citizenship, they also overwhelmingly avoid using Spanish with native speakers when discussing sensitive issues, as a means to avoid misunderstanding or conflict. In this regard, while our L2 participants certainly had an imagined sense of what global citizenship is, they did not appear to be ready to act as a global citizen. We interpreted this finding as an echo of that which we found in Chapter 9; the L2 learners we analyzed lacked the agency to assert themselves as equal members of an L2 language community, one that is shared with native and heritage speakers.

Interestingly, we found that L2 identity is developmental, just as L2 proficiency. Our younger learners, and those enrolled in Tier-I courses, did not tend to view language learning as a means to learn more about oneself and other people. As the age and instructional tier of our learners increased, however, they showed a significantly higher tendency to view language learning as a means to self-discovery and to worldly knowledge. And, similar to Chapters 3 and 4, which analyzed a completely different group of L2 learners, we found that with age came an increasing emphasis on metalinguistic knowledge as a sign of sophistication. The L2 learners in all of our different studies associated structural command of the target language with sophistication, and they did so more at the upper tier of instruction. This also reinforces Reference Serafini, Menke and MalovrhLeeman and Serafini’s (2021) claim that L2 learners willingly identify as metalinguistic authorities.

When we analyzed our participants in terms of global citizenship, we found that their L2 identity constrains their agency as actors with symmetrical relationships and who can contribute as experts to a given context. Our participants’ self-identification as “learners” was starkly evident in their own descriptions of what it means to be sophisticated, to be a global citizen, and to be interculturally competent. They see themselves as recipients of knowledge, not (co)constructors of it. They repeatedly report that their purpose is to learn, not to teach. They appear to associate global citizenship with membership in a language community, or with being a passive participant in sociocultural contexts, but not as actors who can demonstrate stance and foster change.

Our findings regarding L2 learners’ beliefs, perceptions of other speakers, and their own self-perceived identities establish the need for updated formal intervention at the tertiary level. Based on our data and our analyses, L2 students of Spanish enrolled at the undergraduate level are uninformed when it comes to their conceptualization of L2 advancedness. They are in need of instruction that addresses L2 acquisition, its developmental trajectory, its structural and extralinguistic manifestations, and its interaction with L2 identity. They need to be educated on the importance as well as limited effect that accurate grammar has on one’s ability to demonstrate sophistication; they need to be educated on the realistic expectations of developing phonologically, with specific accents of speech. They need to be educated on notions such as nativespeakerism and elite bilingualism, and gain a greater sense of critical language awareness. In short, our L2 students need to embrace their L2 identity, to not perceive it in terms of “inferior” pronunciation, and assert it in sociocultural contexts involving global citizenship. In Chapter 2 we suggested that departments in higher education should revisit their advising and guidance practices so that students can be better informed of such issues, but they could also be incorporated on a curricular level at earlier instructional sequences. Just as one learns language by using it, as we have professed throughout the communicative-teaching era, one also needs to develop intercultural competence and a positive L2 identity through active engagement. We believe this could be facilitated through instruction, even among novice learners. Without doing so, their engagement with the globalized world may be stunted.

11.3 Institutions and Actors

Prior to this volume, there was a significant body of research investigating individual instructor differences within a cognitive-interactionist framework. The central claim was that instructors’ preferences regarding which aspects of L2 language use should be emphasized most in the classroom will lead to a bias in terms of the sort of feedback they give to their students, thus steering their developmental trajectory. In Chapters 6 and 7 we reviewed an extensive strand of previous research identifying various biases, and we noted Reference Gurzynski-Weiss and Gurzynski-WeissGurzynski-Weiss’s (2014) claim that research discussing (non)native-speaking status among instructors often fails to further analyze the other distinguishing characteristics within such categories. We extended the analysis of factors that previously were found to have a significant effect on instructor–student interaction, namely, native language, area of professional expertise, age, formal-versus-informal teacher training experience. We added factors such as the tier in which one predominately teaches, one’s emphasis on culture versus language-focused instruction, and one’s familiarity with the L2 learning process. Furthermore, we included administrators, researchers, and practitioners/instructors among our participants, and we analyzed their beliefs regarding the ideal advanced language use, and their ability to assess L2 speakers who were already rated with advanced oral proficiency by the ACTFL-OPI. We found significant individual differences among the various actors designing and implementing language programs and curricula. Some of them expect “very good” pronunciation; some expect an impressive command of lexico-grammatical structure; and some emphasize sophisticated language use. We found various significant factors predicting professional beliefs, such as native language, age, familiarity with the L2 learning process, level of education, and the level of formal teacher-training experience. We concluded that professionals in higher education are not on the same page when it comes to conceptualizations of what L2 advancedness is and should be.

Our mixed-methods analysis of our language professionals allowed us to dig deeper and find common ground among them. We found that they impressively were able to distinguish between different sub-levels of advanced oral proficiency when assessing L2 speakers. We found that the sophistication of an L2 speaker did not affect their assessment of their Spanish; they assessed them on purely communicative and structural use of language. And we found traces of elite bilingualism and nativerspeakerism, based on the differential assessments they gave a heritage speaker compared to an L2 learner rated at the same sub-level of advanced proficiency on the ACTFL (2012) scale. Finally, we found that, as a whole, the professionals expected L2 advanced speakers to be individuals who possess agency in interactive situations.

Much like the analyses of our students, we found that among our professionals, there were varying degrees of explicit and implicit awareness of the different characteristics of L2 advanced speakers that they expected, and different nuances that affected their assessment of L2 speakers. We noted similarities between the two populations, such as the preoccupation with linguistic structure, with pronunciation, and the implicit awareness of intercultural competence and speaker identity traits. We believe this strengthens our hypothesis that L2 learners’ conceptualization of L2 advancedness is limited due to the constraints imposed on them by institutions of higher learning, although we acknowledge that more research would need to be done to substantiate such a claim. More importantly, we interpret our results such that higher education is in dire need of being educated on the different aspects of L2 advancedness, and that various updates are still needed in terms of institutional structure and teacher-training programs. To that end, we assert that the field needs to adopt a new parlance for addressing L2 development toward advancedness, as it continues to try to restructure to meet the demands of the changed world.

11.4 A New Parlance for Reconceptualizing L2 Advancedness

In order to better track our L2 students’ development toward advancedness, we need to update tertiary curricula so that it more appropriately addresses their social and cognitive realities. As Reference Zhang, Winke and ClarkZhang et al. (2020) pointed out, we continue to adhere mainly to ratings using proficiency scales borne out of the communicative era; we need to assess our students beyond communicative competence. In the age of global citizenship and intercultural connectedness, we need to foster the development of our L2 learners as much as the development of their language. They need to be instilled with the critical language awareness that affords them the agency to not only engage with the world, but also to change it; to not only view themselves as a learner, but also a teacher and a speaker, who possesses an L2 identity that does not need to be defined by their pronunciation or the preferences of native speakers. Rather, it should be an identity that they co-construct with agency and that they embrace as an autonomous and equally important global citizen. This is the sort of parlance we posit is necessary, among students and professionals in higher education alike, as we investigate L2 advancedness.

Fortunately, much is already happening to this end. In terms of teaching, Reference Anton, Pendexter, Czerwionka, Showstack and Liskin-GasparroAntón and Pendexter (2022) found that having L2 learners write reflective essays promotes their development of agency as L2 speakers. This, combined with our findings in Chapters 3 and 4, could not be more timely. Reference Kley, Czerwionka, Showstack and Liskin-GasparroKley (2022) found that L2 learners’ speaking abilities affect their displays of understanding in co-constructed discourse, thus affecting their ability to exercise intersubjectivity. Interestingly, however, they found that task-type affected intersubjectivity; interviews versus conversations, for example, could be used differentially in pedagogical contexts to facilitate the development of L2 identity and co-constructed contexts. Reference Pearson, Czerwionka, Showstack and Liskin-GasparroPearson (2022) showed how drama-based pedagogy allows L2 learners to imagine discourse. We cannot emphasize this finding enough; throughout this volume, we repeatedly found that L2 learners (and professionals) lacked an imagined sense of what advancedness is; they were constrained by their own explicit knowledge and preconceived notions. Furthermore, we found that our L2 learners struggled to imagine L2 identity and global citizenship. Pearson’s study provides evidence that such obstacles may be overcome through formal intervention. Finally, recent research has explored ways to integrate speaking at the advanced level in L2 classrooms, using collaborative dialogues, and emphasizing development of complexity, accuracy, and fluency, from target languages ranging from Arabic, to French, German, and Spanish, to name a few (Reference Carrillo Cabello, Paesani and SonesonCarrillo Cabello et al., 2019).

In terms of research, ongoing empirical studies address language identity by examining heritage learners (Reference Gasca Jiménez and Adrada-RafaelGasca-Jiménez & Adrada-Rafael, 2021), context and co-constructed discourse (Reference Czerwionka, Showstack, Czerwionka, Showstack and Liskin-GasparroCzerwionka et al., 2022), and multiliteracy frameworks (see Reference Paesani and AllenPaesani & Allen, 2020, for an overview of research). Such research collectively addresses issues pertaining to advancedness, such as the analysis of cultural and other world views, conventional language use, and historical and political relevance. Furthermore, it establishes multiple frameworks through which issues pertaining to L2 advancedness can continue to be addressed. The present volume contributed to this ongoing line of research by combining cognitive and social perspectives, along with mixed-methods analyses, to shed light on the level of awareness among our students and professionals alike who constitute language departments in higher education. We have demonstrated empirically that what Reference Marsden and KasprowiczMarsden and Kasprowicz (2017) noted among practitioners and researchers in the field – a lack of synergy – unfortunately exists with our students as well. Until this communication breakdown is addressed, higher education will fall short of meeting the expectations of the MLA’s (2007) call for change.

11.5 Future Research

Like Reference Malovrh and BenatiMalovrh and Benati (2018), we conclude the present volume by acknowledging that more questions than answers remain as we move forward to gain better understandings of L2 advancedness and its ramification on the way we structure and implement L2 curricula in higher education. Reference Serafini, Menke and MalovrhSerafini’s (2021) call for sociocognitive research emphasized that it should be longitudinal. The studies presented in this volume were not longitudinal, and we echo Serafini’s call for this sort of research. How might we track the development of L2 identity, awareness, and language use by following a cohort of learners over the course of their undergraduate career?

The research presented in this volume addressed students and L2 Spanish professionals working in contexts of L2 Spanish in higher education. The learners we analyzed were all students enrolled at a large research university in the United States. They have a unique shared experience as L2 learners of Spanish given their shared sociocultural and sociopolitical landscape. What differences might we find by examining L2 learners of different target languages, representing different native languages and cultures? Future research should test the cross-linguistic and cross-cultural generalizability of our findings. We suspect similar phenomena will be found, given that the pool of professionals we analyzed in this volume represented L2 Spanish at universities and institutions of higher learning in three different continents. While circumstances will vary, we posit that the value of constructs such as L2 identity and critical language awareness will remain constant. Finally, as we stated throughout the present volume, our aim was not to disparage the effectiveness of current formal assessments of proficiency; they continue to provide the best measure of a crucial aspect of what we consider advancedness, that being advanced proficiency. Our task now is to continue to understand how they can be incorporated into a larger framework measuring L2 advancedness. What we do know is that doing so will require a greater amount of communication between researchers, practitioners, and administrators, between Tier-I and Tier-II practitioners, between language and content, linguistics and literature, and above all, with our students.

11.6 Concluding Hypotheses

The primary aim of the present volume, as we noted in Chapter 1, was to generate hypotheses that can be further tested by future research as an important step in creating a new parlance for us to discuss institutional reform, our students, and ourselves as researchers, practitioners, and/or administrators in higher education. In the previous section we noted specific limitations of the empirical studies carried out in Chapters 3, 4, 6, 7, 9, and 10. In addition, the scope of this work was to examine awareness; it was not to analyze actual behavior according to a variety of situational phenomena. Due to such limitations, the hypotheses we posited throughout the book, as hypotheses, are meant to be tested; they are not by any means scripture. We summarize them for our fellow researchers, pedagogues, and administrators in foreign languages within higher education to carry out similar research that may or may not support them. We provide them here, along with their respective chapters:

• L2 learners’ beliefs regarding advanced-level L2 Spanish are institutionally constrained by curricula and formal instruction. (Chapter 3)

• The institutionalization of formal assessment metrics as the main descriptor of advanced language proficiency throughout higher education constrains L2-learner beliefs. (Chapter 3)

• L2 learners’ perception/assessment of other L2 speakers is determined by the L2 speaker’s use of stance and demonstrated intercultural competence. (Chapter 3)

• L2 learners are only implicitly aware of intercultural competence as a defining characteristic of advanced language use. (Chapter 3)

• L2 students are groomed by academia to talk about advanced language use using a specific and limited vernacular. (Chapter 3)

• L2 listeners’ limited understanding of L2 advancedness inhibits their ability to develop an L2 identity. (Chapter 4)

• L2 learners explicitly emphasize linguistic structure as the most important characteristic of advanced language use. (Chapter 4)

• L2 learners’ perception of other L2 speakers’ identity is explicitly determined by the pronunciation of the L2 speaker. (Chapter 4)

• L2 learners’ self-perceived inferior pronunciation leads to disempowerment in their self-perceived L2 identity. (Chapter 4)

• Nativespeakerism and elitebilingualism contribute to FL professionals’ assessment of L2 speakers and their identity. (Chapter 7)

• FL professors and practitioners expect an advanced L2 speaker to possess agency and stance as components of their L2 identity. (Chapter 7)

• Teacher training, student guidance/advising, and language departmental missions in higher education can facilitate advanced-level L2 development, intercultural competence, and L2 identity. (Chapter 7)

• L2 identity is developmental, and the way that one imagines oneself in intercultural context changes over time. (Chapter 10)

• L2 learners self-identify according to self and others’ perceptions of their pronunciation. (Chapter 10)

• L2 learners do not identify as actors on a global stage, but merely as passive members of a community. (Chapter 10)

• L2 learners’ L2 identity is limited to that of a learner; not as a teacher or expert. Therefore, they choose not to take a stance discourse co-constructed with different L2 identities. (Chapter 10)