Research Methods and Resources: Language and Linguistics 2021-2021

TASK 1.3

Review questions 1
1. Order the steps to be followed in the process of scientific research

2 . Establishment of hypothesis/es 6 . Data analysis and interpretation

3 . Literature review 4 . Research design and methodology
7 . Results and conclusions 5 . Data collection
8 . Replication 1 . Selection of a topic or problem

2. Indicate four characteristics of a sound research method:

a. Validity

b. Credibility

c. Reliability

d. Accurate

3. Complete the following statements:

Research is a careful, disciplined, and principled study of information using systematic

method in order to create a new knowledge. It is principled in a way that before
conducting a research you already have a set aim or principle that you want to prove
at the end of the process and it is careful and disciplined in a way that it should follow
systems of methods in order to collect data and accurately interpret them to derive a
conclusion.

Research is carried out in order to create a new knowledge, to refute an existing

knowledge or theory, to solve practical problems, or in the field of literature, to fill
gaps in the literature.

4. Are the following statements true (T) or false (F)?

a. A research paper should make a contribution to the literature. T

b. The literature review section should make a very general review of the topic under
investigation, without giving consideration to the research questions. F

Explanation:

1
Research Methods and Resources: Language and Linguistics 2021-2021
TASK 1.3

The general review of the topic is not introduced in the literature section.
Instead, it is presented in the rationale of the research. The literature review section
should convince the readers the credibility of the researcher himself on how he/she
synthesizes and critically evaluates his study by providing relevant and related readings
or researches to his/her study. Apart from that, it also proves the credibility of the
research itself. The research question is one of most important considerations in this
section as this is the basis for the selection of the relevant materials.

c. The literature review section demonstrates one’s ability to critically evaluate

relevant research, and illustrates one’s ability to integrate and synthesize information.
T

d. A study in which a researcher wishes to study the effects of being male or female on
students’ performance on a language placement test is a quantitative piece of
research. F

Explanation:

A quantitative design involves collection of data which results to primarily

numerical data using statistical methods. However, in this scenario, as the researcher
wishes to study the effects of being male or female on the students’ performance on a
language placement test, I believe that it is not solely quantitative. The result of the
language placement test does not provide necessary results yet to attain this aim. It
needs to be interpreted descriptively in order to give correspondence to the result of
the statistics per se.

e. Qualitative methods of inquiry are unscientific because they do not lead to

numerical results. F

Explanation:

Although there have been claims of qualitative method of inquiry being

unscientific due to the subjective nature of its process, it is essential to the scientific
method of research. The basis for an inquiry to be scientific does not merely rely on
the numerical results but on the principles applied in the process of obtaining data
which in this method of inquiry, it follows a “systematic and a self-critical approach”
(Sale, 2018).

5. Read the sections below in the article “Searching for words: One strategic use of the
mother tongue by advanced Spanish EFL students” published in the Journal of Second
Language Writing. Do you think, based on common sense, that there is enough
information in the study to replicate it?

Method and procedure

2
Research Methods and Resources: Language and Linguistics 2021-2021
TASK 1.3

This study forms part of a larger body of data collected for the Murcia Writing Project (see Manchón &
Roca de Larios, 2007; Manchón, Murphy, & Roca de Larios, 2005; Manchón, Roca de Larios, & Murphy,
2009; Roca de Larios, Murphy, & Manchón, 1999; Roca de Larios, Marín, & Murphy, 2001; Roca de
Larios, Manchón, & Murphy, 2006). In the wider project 21 students did four writing tasks: two in the L1
and two in the L2. The present study draws its data from the advanced level group carrying out the L2
tasks: an argumentative and a narrative essay.

Informants

The informants were seven students who had just graduated from The University of Murcia English
Department after completing a 5-year first degree in English Language and Literature (Filología Inglesa).
There were six women and one man, a balance that was roughly representative of the year group, and
they were all aged 23–24. The seven writers had been studying English at school and university from
sixth-grade, a total of 12 years, and obtained scores between 174 and 190 on the Oxford Placement Test
(Allan, 1983), which was used as a measure of their second language proficiency. This test involves 200
items presented in two sections: the Listening Test, primarily a test of reading/listening and of vocabulary
size, and the Grammar Test, which assesses grammar, vocabulary, and reading skills ‘‘tested as far as
possible in context’’ (Allan, 2004). According to Allan, this score is roughly equivalent to C2 Mastery
level (very proficient user) in the European Common Reference Framework and to a score of 670/293 and
over on the TOEFL test. These graduates had taken no specific writing courses as part of their degree
course although they had had plenty of writing practice in their language classes and in their other content
courses (e.g., literature modules) as well as in their examinations.

Data collection procedures

We chose to use concurrent protocols as we needed access to our writers’ online processing in order to
see the ways they employed their two languages. We are quite aware of the problems associated with the
think aloud (TA) method, such as the dangers of interaction between researcher and writer, of influencing
the writer through modelling the method, of a possible reactivity effect of the method, and of the
difficulty of thinking aloud through the L2 (for a full discussion of these, see Manchón et al., 2005).We
took principled decisions to counteract these as far as possible by the instructions given to students, the
creation of a non-threatening environment, and the conditions for the recordings described below. As far
as the instructions given to informants and the trial run were concerned, we followed standard procedures
in eliciting protocol data (see Manchón et al., 2005). Before the first recording, our participants were
asked in Spanish to verbalize all their thinking while composing their essays, but we avoided modelling
the method so as not to influence their choice of language since we were particularly interested in the
spontaneous use of the mother tongue. They were then assigned a mock-composition to practice thinking
aloud while the researchers selectively listened in, occasionally encouraging them to keep verbalizing,
until the informants had clearly grasped the technique (about 20 minutes). Following this trial run, they
were allowed an hour to complete the task. 3 It should be noted that, as a result of this time limit, our
findings and conclusions can only be applied to time-compressed writing. All students were recorded at
the same time in separate language laboratory booths to avoid any interaction between them and to reduce
interaction with the researchers, one of whom was their former English language teacher. These
recordings took place outside normal classroom time. Writers had one hour to complete each task, and
two weeks elapsed between each session. Because all the students belonged to the same class, counter-
balancing the tasks was not an option since they would have been able to inform one another of the tasks
between the different sessions. In view of this, following Whalen and Ménard (1995), we decided to set
them the more difficult task first—in this case, the argumentative one—as we felt that the practice effect
would be lessened by doing so. Since the focus of the general study was strategy use as writers struggled
with composing problems, no dictionary use was allowed.

Answer:

Based on common sense, the information provided are not enough to replicate this study, primarily
because the aim of the study was not mentioned nor implied in the data presented. Apart from this some
relevant information are necessary to be presented in order to consider a research to be replicable. First,
the presentation and explanation of the system was not properly carried out. There are lapses that take out
the logic in the information about the informants which is one of the primary basis for the replication of
the study. For example, the wider project is consisting of 21 students; however, only 7 students were used
in the study which is not a balance of the representation of the whole group. Also, as I read through the

3
Research Methods and Resources: Language and Linguistics 2021-2021
TASK 1.3

data given, I inferred that the study is focused on the writing skills. However, the basis for the selection of
informants for this study was the Oxford Placement test which, according to the researcher’s description
of the test, is presented into two sections (Listening and Grammar test). The scores taken from this exam
was used as the measure of their L2 proficiency. For me, this type of test is not relevant to the research
per se.