Understanding proficiency assessment practices in SLA research: Insights from researcher beliefs and practices

IF 4.9 1区 文学 Q1 LINGUISTICS
Hae In Park, Megan Solon, Kwangmin Lee
{"title":"Understanding proficiency assessment practices in SLA research: Insights from researcher beliefs and practices","authors":"Hae In Park, Megan Solon, Kwangmin Lee","doi":"10.1017/s0272263125101058","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p>While much discussion has focused on what researchers do and should do in second language proficiency assessment, less attention has been given to why persistent trends continue. This study investigated second language acquisition (SLA) researchers’ beliefs, reported practices, and decision-making rationales regarding proficiency assessment. Using an online survey, we collected responses from 111 SLA researchers. Findings revealed that while researchers generally endorsed recommended methodological standards, practical constraints—such as time, accessibility, and ease of administration—frequently influenced their reported practices. A consistent belief–practice gap emerged across several key areas. Notably, reduced redundancy tests were rated favorably for both validity and practicality, reflecting a growing shift toward efficient, validated tools. These findings suggest that although methodological awareness is high, practical barriers continue to challenge the adoption of more rigorous proficiency assessment practices in SLA research.</p>","PeriodicalId":22008,"journal":{"name":"Studies in Second Language Acquisition","volume":"3 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":4.9000,"publicationDate":"2025-09-04","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Studies in Second Language Acquisition","FirstCategoryId":"98","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1017/s0272263125101058","RegionNum":1,"RegionCategory":"文学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"LINGUISTICS","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

While much discussion has focused on what researchers do and should do in second language proficiency assessment, less attention has been given to why persistent trends continue. This study investigated second language acquisition (SLA) researchers’ beliefs, reported practices, and decision-making rationales regarding proficiency assessment. Using an online survey, we collected responses from 111 SLA researchers. Findings revealed that while researchers generally endorsed recommended methodological standards, practical constraints—such as time, accessibility, and ease of administration—frequently influenced their reported practices. A consistent belief–practice gap emerged across several key areas. Notably, reduced redundancy tests were rated favorably for both validity and practicality, reflecting a growing shift toward efficient, validated tools. These findings suggest that although methodological awareness is high, practical barriers continue to challenge the adoption of more rigorous proficiency assessment practices in SLA research.

理解二语习得研究中的熟练程度评估实践:来自研究者信念和实践的见解
虽然很多讨论都集中在研究人员在第二语言能力评估中做什么和应该做什么,但很少有人关注为什么持续的趋势会持续下去。本研究调查了二语习得研究者对二语习得水平评估的看法、实践报告和决策依据。通过在线调查,我们收集了111名SLA研究人员的反馈。研究结果显示,虽然研究人员普遍认可推荐的方法标准,但实际限制——如时间、可及性和管理的便利性——经常影响他们报告的实践。在几个关键领域出现了一致的信念与实践差距。值得注意的是,减少冗余的测试在有效性和实用性方面都得到了好评,这反映了向高效、经过验证的工具的转变。这些发现表明,尽管方法论意识很高,但在二语习得研究中采用更严格的熟练程度评估实践仍然存在实际障碍。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
CiteScore
8.00
自引率
9.80%
发文量
52
期刊介绍: Studies in Second Language Acquisition is a refereed journal of international scope devoted to the scientific discussion of acquisition or use of non-native and heritage languages. Each volume (five issues) contains research articles of either a quantitative, qualitative, or mixed-methods nature in addition to essays on current theoretical matters. Other rubrics include shorter articles such as Replication Studies, Critical Commentaries, and Research Reports.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:604180095
Book学术官方微信