Replication in CALL

Scholars are in agreement that replication studies are essential in the field of computer-assisted language learning (CALL), as well as in its cognate disciplines, if our aim is to establish a more robust evidence base and to strengthen the theoretical background of CALL. In order to justify the widespread adoption of technology in as well as out of the foreign language classroom, replication studies are essential, not just to enhance the reliability of empirical findings but also to ensure that at least a significant proportion of learners can benefit from the introduction of CALL in the curriculum. But despite this often-invoked need for more replications, the number of published replication studies remains relatively low (e.g. Marsden, Morgan-Short, Thompson & Abugaber, 2018; McManus, 2022). Why are these calls for more replications not heeded more widely? We easily understand that using a standardized language proficiency test is the better choice when grouping language learners into levels compared to using one that was created by the researcher for one study only; the results will be reliable and comparable beyond the small group tested. Replication studies simply take this principle a step further and apply it across most of the methodology of a study. Notwithstanding several calls for more replications specifically in CALL within the last decade (e.g. Handley, 2014; Plonsky, 2015; Smith & Schulze, 2013) as well as in other areas of second language acquisition (SLA), perhaps as few as 1 in 400 studies are ever replicated (Marsden et al., 2018). Even proponents of more replications recognize that there is still a certain lack of prestige (McManus, 2022) that may well contribute to the fact that, as a field, CALL does not have the number of replication studies it should have. Perhaps too many students are still taught that finding the “gap in the research” is essential to their own first research project, and that this gap cannot be filled by a replication study if they want to make their mark as aspiring researchers in their field. McManus’s (2022) survey shows that academic respondents agreed about the important contribution replications make to their field, but views on originality, innovation and the perceived contribution of replication studies to the author’s academic career progression were less clear. However, as long as journal editors accept submissions of replication studies – and, clearly, those who publish special issues on this topic do – such studies are an excellent tool to further one’s academic credentials. Marsden et al. (2018) even suggest that replication studies have an advantage over what they call “initial studies” where citations are concerned. In fact, the conditions for replication studies, both for conducting such studies and for publishing them, have never been better. There are excellent and easily accessible databases such as IRIS (https://www.iris-database.org/), detailed instructions on how to conduct replications (Porte & McManus, 2019), and a small but constantly growing list of published replication studies (e.g. in the journal Language Teaching) that can be consulted to see successful replication publications. The various calls for more replication studies and the increased perception of replication