The importance of quantitative research in language testing and assessment: in the context of social works
Keywords:advantages, disadvantages, language testing assessment, quantitative research, research methods, social works
These studies, in multiple fields, use many statistical analysis techniques and practices for these current studies. Some of these researchers like to be attributed to quantitative studies. Investigators are therefore intensely sharply divided, and they start competing to point out the advantages of their very own preferred techniques and technologies. However, both techniques and technologies possess pros and cons for all research teams. The objectives of this research are to know the advantages and disadvantages of using statistical research methodology for language measurement and evaluation. Focusing on ethical considerations, this study also found some strong points in the use of grounded theory for language assessment and research testing, such as the generation of more in-depth insights into the design, management, and interpretation of assessment and testing; and the exploration of behaviour, perceptions, feelings, and ability to understand of test subjects. A few other weak points are, for instance, smaller sample sizes and time-consuming quantitative research methods. However, on the other hand, they involve a large sample size and therefore do not necessitate a sufficiently long time to conduct.
Akçay?r, M., & Akçay?r, G. (2017). Advantages and challenges associated with augmented reality for education: A systematic review of the literature. Educational Research Review, 20, 1-11. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.edurev.2016.11.002
Alderson, J. C., & Banerjee, J. (2002). Language testing and assessment (Part 2). Language teaching, 35(2), 79-113.
AlHassan, L., & Wood, D. (2015). The effectiveness of focused instruction of formulaic sequences in augmenting L2 learners' academic writing skills: A quantitative research study. Journal of English for Academic Purposes, 17, 51-62. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jeap.2015.02.001
Apuke, O. D. (2017). Quantitative research methods: A synopsis approach. Kuwait Chapter of Arabian Journal of Business and Management Review, 33(5471), 1-8.
Ary, D., Jacobs, L. C., Razavieh, A., & Sorensen, C. (2013). Introduction to research in education: Cengage Learning. Journal of Correctional Education, 9-22.
Bachman, L. F. (2000). Modern language testing at the turn of the century: Assuring that what we count counts. Language testing, 17(1), 1-42.
Biletska, I. O., Paladieva, A. F., Avchinnikova, H. D., & Kazak, Y. Y. (2021). The use of modern technologies by foreign language teachers: developing digital skills. Linguistics and Culture Review, 5(S2), 16-27. https://doi.org/10.37028/lingcure.v5nS2.1327
Black, T. R. (1998). Doing quantitative research in the social sciences: An integrated approach to research design, measurement and statistics. Sage.
Blaikie, N. (2007). Approaches to social enquiry: Advancing knowledge. Polity.
Blaxter, L., Hughes, C., & Tight, M. (2010). How to research. McGraw-Hill Education (UK).
Bornmann, L. (2014). Do altmetrics point to the broader impact of research? An overview of benefits and disadvantages of altmetrics. Journal of informetrics, 8(4), 895-903. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.joi.2014.09.005
Bouwer, R., Béguin, A., Sanders, T., & Van den Bergh, H. (2015). Effect of genre on the generalizability of writing scores. Language Testing, 32(1), 83-100.
Bryman, A. (2003). Quantity and quality in social research (Vol. 18). Routledge.
Bryman, A., & Cramer, D. (2012). Quantitative data analysis with IBM SPSS 17, 18 & 19: A guide for social scientists. Routledge.
Carr, L. T. (1994). The strengths and weaknesses of quantitative and qualitative research: what method for nursing?. Journal of advanced nursing, 20(4), 716-721.
Carroll, P. E., & Bailey, A. L. (2016). Do decision rules matter? A descriptive study of English language proficiency assessment classifications for English-language learners and native English speakers in fifth grade. Language Testing, 33(1), 23-52.
Coghlan, D., & Brydon-Miller, M. (Eds.). (2014). The SAGE encyclopedia of action research. Sage.
Connolly, P. (2007). Quantitative data analysis in education: A critical introduction using SPSS. Routledge.
Corbetta, P. (2003). Social research: Theory, methods and techniques. Sage.
Crano, W. D., Brewer, M. B., & Lac, A. (2014). Principles and methods of social research. Routledge.
Dane, F. C. (1990). Research Methods, Brooks. Cole Pacific Grove, CaUfomia.
Darlington, Y., & Scott, D. (2003). Qualitative research in practice: Stories from the field. Social Work Education: The International Journal, 22(1), 115-118.
Denzin, N. K. (1989). Interpretive interactionism. Newbury Park, CA: Sage.
Douglas, D. (2014). Understanding language testing. Routledge.
Eyisi, D. (2016). The usefulness of qualitative and quantitative approaches and methods in researching problem-solving ability in science education curriculum. Journal of Education and Practice, 7(15), 91-100.
Farrimond, H. (2012). Doing ethical research. Macmillan International Higher Education.
Fidalgo, A. M., Alavi, S. M., & Amirian, S. M. R. (2014). Strategies for testing statistical and practical significance in detecting DIF with logistic regression models. Language Testing, 31(4), 433-451.
Fulcher, G. (2013). Practical language testing. Routledge.
Fulcher, G., & Davidson, F. (2007). Language testing and assessment. New York: Routledge.
Gómez, A. R. (2014). Foreign language testing through competence assessment rubrics and oral interviews in the European higher education area. Procedia-Social and Behavioral Sciences, 141, 524-532. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.sbspro.2014.05.091
Gu, L. (2015). Language ability of young English language learners: Definition, configuration, and implications. Language Testing, 32(1), 21-38.
Hack, M. A. (1997). Assessment strategies in the contests of male crickets, Acheta domesticus (L.). Animal Behaviour, 53(4), 733-747. https://doi.org/10.1006/anbe.1996.0310
Hammersley, M. (Ed.). (2007). Educational research and evidence-based practice. Sage.
Hammersley, M., & Traianou, A. (2012). Ethics and educational research. London: British Educational Research Association.
Holloway, S., Black, P., Hoffman, K., & Pierce, D. (2009). Some considerations of the import of the 2008 EPAS for curriculum design. Retrieved October, 29, 2009.
Howard, M. O., McMillen, C. J., & Pollio, D. E. (2003). Teaching evidence-based practice: Toward a new paradigm for social work education. Research on Social Work Practice, 13(2), 234-259.
Jang, E. E., Wagner, M., & Park, G. (2014). Mixed methods research in language testing and assessment. Annual Review of Applied Linguistics, 34, 123-153.
Jenson, J. M. (2005). Connecting science to intervention: Advances, challenges, and the promise of evidence-based practice. Social Work Research, 29(3), 131-135.
Jones, C. (2011). Ethical issues in online research. British Educational Research Association Online Resource. Available from.
Jones, M. C. (2009). Kumaraswamy’s distribution: A beta-type distribution with some tractability advantages. Statistical methodology, 6(1), 70-81. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.stamet.2008.04.001
Karavas, K. (2013). Fairness and ethical language testing: The case of the KPG. Directions in Language Teaching and Testing, 1.
Katzenberger, I., & Meilijson, S. (2014). Hebrew language assessment measure for preschool children: A comparison between typically developing children and children with specific language impairment. Language Testing, 31(1), 19-38.
Kauber, P. (1986). What's wrong with a science of MIS. In the Proceedings of the Annual Meeting of the American Decision Science Institute.
Khan, S. Z. (2009). 10. Imperialism of International Tests: An EIL Perspective (pp. 190-206). Multilingual Matters.
Klein, H. K., & Myers, M. D. (1999). A set of principles for conducting and evaluating interpretive field studies in information systems. MIS quarterly, 67-93.
Kroeze, J. H. (2012). Postmodernism, interpretivism, and formal ontologies. In Research methodologies, innovations and philosophies in software systems engineering and information systems (pp. 43-62). IGI Global.
Kumazawa, T., Shizuka, T., Mochizuki, M., & Mizumoto, A. (2016). Validity argument for the VELC Test® score interpretations and uses. Language Testing in Asia, 6(1), 1-18.
Langfield-Smith, K. (2006). A review of quantitative research in management control systems and strategy. Handbooks of management accounting research, 2, 753-783. https://doi.org/10.1016/S1751-3243(06)02012-8
Lietz, C. A., & Zayas, L. E. (2010). Evaluating qualitative research for social work practitioners. Advances in Social work, 11(2), 188-202.
Loizos, P. (2000). Video, film, and photographs. Qualitative researching with text image and sound: A practical handbook, 93-107.
Marcon, T., & Gopal, A. (2005). Uncertain knowledge, uncertain time. ASAC 2005, 248-261.
McNamara, T. (2000). Language testing. Oxford University Press.
Morrow, K. (2012). Communicative language testing. The Cambridge guide to second language assessment, 140.
Payne, G., & Payne, J. (2004). Key concepts in social research. Sage.
Powers, D. E., & Powers, A. (2015). The incremental contribution of TOEIC® Listening, Reading, Speaking, and Writing tests to predicting performance on real-life English language tasks. Language Testing, 32(2), 151-167.
Préfontaine, Y., Kormos, J., & Johnson, D. E. (2016). How do utterance measures predict raters’ perceptions of fluency in French as a second language?. Language Testing, 33(1), 53-73.
Purpura, J. E. (2011). Quantitative research methods in assessment and testing. In Handbook of research in second language teaching and learning (pp. 749-769). Routledge.
Rasinger, S. M. (2013). Quantitative research in linguistics: An introduction. A & C Black.
Read, J. (2008). Identifying academic language needs through diagnostic assessment. Journal of English for academic purposes, 7(3), 180-190. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jeap.2008.02.001
Richardson, A. J. (2012). Paradigms, theory and management accounting practice: A comment on Parker (forthcoming)“Qualitative management accounting research: Assessing deliverables and relevance”. Critical Perspectives on Accounting, 23(1), 83-88. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cpa.2011.05.003
Roever, C., & McNamara, T. (2006). Language testing: The social dimension. International Journal of Applied Linguistics, 16(2), 242-258.
Sandberg, J. (2005). How do we justify knowledge produced within interpretive approaches?. Organizational research methods, 8(1), 41-68.
Schofield, J. W. (1993). Increasing the generalizability of qualitative research. Social research: Philosophy, politics and practice, 200-225.
Sims, J. M., & Kunnan, A. J. (2016). Developing evidence for a validity argument for an English placement exam from multi-year test performance data. Language Testing in Asia, 6(1), 1-14.
Talebian, S., Mohammadi, H. M., & Rezvanfar, A. (2014). Information and communication technology (ICT) in higher education: advantages, disadvantages, conveniences and limitations of applying e-learning to agricultural students in Iran. Procedia-Social and Behavioral Sciences, 152, 300-305. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.sbspro.2014.09.199
Villa, F. T., Natividad, A. N., & Tulod, R. C. (2021). Research and extension completed and on-going registered programs database system (RECORDS). Linguistics and Culture Review, 5(S1), 214-222. https://doi.org/10.37028/lingcure.v5nS1.1346
Wacker, J. G. (1998). A definition of theory: research guidelines for different theory-building research methods in operations management. Journal of operations management, 16(4), 361-385. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0272-6963(98)00019-9
Weber, R. (2004). Editor's comments: the rhetoric of positivism versus interpretivism: a personal view. MIS quarterly, iii-xii.
Weigle, S. C. (2007). Teaching writing teachers about assessment. Journal of Second Language Writing, 16(3), 194-209. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jslw.2007.07.004
Weir, C. J. (2005). Language testing and validation. Hampshire: Palgrave McMillan, 10, 9780230514577.
How to Cite
Copyright (c) 2021 Linguistics and Culture Review
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0 International License.