The present study quantitatively identifies undergraduate L2 Spanish learners’ beliefs regarding advanced-language use to determine if they influence how they perceive advanced Spanish, how they differentiate between different levels of intercultural competence, and how they rate overall language use of advanced L2 speakers. We found a disparity between L2 beliefs and behaviors, in terms of what they consider the most important, compared to what they are most sensitive to when evaluating the Spanish of advanced L2 speakers. We associate the disparity with constraints imposed institutionally by higher education and called for a reevaluation of societal and professional demands for advanced-language use, as well as academia’s institutionalized conceptualization of it, in order to generate greater synergy between students, language programs in higher education, and society at large. Doing so requires the implementation of assessment metrics measuring multiple dimensions of language use, and will ultimately facilitate the transformation of curricula and outcomes to more effectively meet the demands of the globalized landscape.

Following Atkinson’s (2002) proposal for what a sociocognitive approach to instructed second language acquisition (ISLA) should focus on to consider L2 learners not merely as an input receptacle but as members of their social context, this chapter contrasts the levels of critical language awareness (CLA) between L2-Spanish learners enrolled in Tier-I and II courses. It 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.

Previous chapters showed that learners are ready to engage in instruction that addresses sophistication. It therefore behooves the field to examine what the construct of “pronunciation” means to both learners and practitioners.

The present chapter explores the need for new assessment criteria; it makes a call for research incorporating variables that would examine, for example, L2 learners’ awareness of what we call “sophisticated-language use” so as to match their manifested beliefs with how they are able to describe what advancedness should look like.

Are we, as scholars, helping to perpetuate elite-bilingualism and nativespeakerism? And how do we affect identity construction among L2 learners and heritage speakers? We assert that the communicative approach in teaching and assessment needs to shift to a more holistic and sociocognitive approach. This also extends to the need to reconceptualize our focus of assessment so that all skills, as well as other forms of literacy and cultural awareness are included.

What remains to be examined in the next chapters is learners’ self-perception, identity construction and awareness of their own social agency as L2 speakers

This chapter examines the effects of various instructor individual differences (IDs) on their beliefs regarding the “ideal” L2 Spanish and their assessment of speech samples of different advanced oral proficiency sub-levels as determined by the ACTFL-OPI. It also answers the question of whether different language components are rated differently, and if such ratings match the evaluators’ ideologies. Quantitative data were collected from a survey distributed among N=77 members of academic institutions who occupied various professional roles around the world consisting of administrators, researchers, and practitioners. The survey examined constructs such as linguistic structure, sophisticated language use, and sociocultural appropriateness. Results show that instructor IDs affect beliefs regarding advanced language use, that they create bias in assessing it, and that consequently foreign-language departments need to educate its constituents about evolving definitions of advancedness, about the reality of individual biases in assessment, and that they need to provide the leadership to implement them in curricular design.

The present chapter uses a mixed-methods analysis to examine if L2 learners associate their learning with developing intercultural competence, and if these associations vary according to individual differences. It compares how L2 learners view language proficiency and sophisticated language use, and explores how they associate global citizenship with multilingualism. Responses to a survey were collected from N=67 L2 learners enrolled in either Tier I (basic language) or II (linguistics or culture) courses. Quantitative analyses revealed that age and instructional tier had a main effect on their level of intercultural awareness. Qualitative data showed that learners do not conceptualize language proficiency differently than sophisticated language use. Their definitions of global citizenship showed that they see multilingualism as the gateway to being a global citizen and language learning as the means to network with and learn from a global community. Agency and their roles as global citizens were only minimally mentioned; they self-identified primarily as L2 learners, not as L2 users with the ability to be agents of change on a global stage.

The present chapter provides an overview of the book by introducing its main tenet, advancedness, a term coined by Ortega and Brynes (2008), in the context of higher education. It also conceptualizes L2 learners as actors on a global stage, emphasizing the importance of their views of language use and of their own identity as L2 learners. It then provides an overview of the book. Through quantitative and qualitative analyses, Part I examines L2 Spanish learners’ beliefs about, and assessment of, advanced-level oral Spanish in social and cognitive contexts, and posits hypotheses about L2 learner identity. Part II taps into language ideologies of professionals working in the field of foreign/second languages in higher education. Quantitative and qualitative analyses yield individual as well as institutional biases about bilingualism and the “ideal” L2 speaker. Finally, Part III addresses assessment of advancedness through the lens of critical language awareness and L2 learner identity using mixed methodologies. The book’s last chapter presents conclusions based on the findings of its studies and makes a call to continue investigating advancedness from a sociocognitive perspective.

Advancedness--high-level language use sophisticated enough to adapt to a variety of sociocultural contexts--encapsulates essential elements of L2 learners’ identity. Advanced proficiency, on the other hand, refers to learners’ communicative ability as determined by formal assessments via pre-established criteria (Brown, Thompson, & Cox, 2021). In addition, the term ‘advanced’ has been erroneously defined by non-experts as being ‘fluent’ or ‘bilingual.’ Conflicting definitions reflect varying perspectives among professionals involved in language programs, which could hinder the establishment of curricula and appropriate assessment metrics. After reviewing the most commonly-used assessment scales (ACTFL, CEFR, and ILR), the chapter focuses on what research has found regarding sociocultural and psycholinguistic individual differences, such as study abroad as well as extracurricular habits and behaviors, pre-tertiary education, age of onset, aptitude, motivation, perseverance, and L2 grit. Other facilitating factors are also mentioned, such as equity in accessing extracurricular opportunities; better academic advising, and acknowledgment of the learners’ construction of an L2 identity.

The present chapter set out to complement the quantitative analyses in Chapter 3 with more qualitative analyses of L2 learners’ beliefs and assessment of advancedness. We analyzed the different metalinguistic descriptors they produced to describe their beliefs and other speakers’ actual use of language, its content, manner, and the L2 speaker’s identity. We found that our L2 learners were only partially explicitly aware of the language, the content, and the manner exhibited by our L2 speakers, but that they were implicitly sensitive to categorically different levels of intercultural competence among different L2 speakers. We concluded that our L2 listeners could only partially imagine L2 advancedness, and we hypothesized that the lack of a full understanding of advancedness, operationalized as a lack of language awareness, could inhibit their ability to develop an L2 identity. Consequently, we call for future research to examine how institutional intervention, through curricular design or student advising, may help to make students more explicitly aware of the multifaceted nature of advancedness, as well its empowering effect on their identity and agency as an L2 speaker.

The present chapter provides qualitative analyses of ideologies and practices toward the assessment of advanced L2 Spanish based on descriptors produced by L2 professionals. As a supplement to the quantitative findings in Chapter 6, we generated more nuanced descriptions of beliefs and practices. We found that advancedness goes beyond the scope of mainstream conceptualizations. In addition, different foci of assessment were not merely limited to constructs of functional communication, linguistic structure, and sophistication, but also extended to L2 speaker identity. We concluded that institutionalized methods of assessing advanced language use should evolve, and that professionals’ values should be free of biases toward specific learner identities. Among such values are the emphasis on language proficiency, on sophisticated language use, and on the L2 speaker’s identity as an autonomous L2 learner developing agency in socio- and intercultural interaction, rather than one that strives to be “nativelike.” We suggest that future research consider the construct of L2 identity as an essential component of advancedness, and that language departments emphasize L2 identity construction.