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.

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.

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.