Dergiler / International Journal of Assessment Tools in Education / 2020 / Cilt: 7 - Sayı: 1

What You might not be Assessing through a Multiple Choice Test Task

Sayfa
98–113
Yayın Tarihi
2022-10-19
DOI
—
🏛️Bu makalenin bibliyografik verileri ve tam metin bağlantısı DergiPark üzerinden sağlanmıştır.
DergiPark Kaydı ↗
✨

Yapay Zeka Hızlı Bakış & Çıkarımlar

AI Insight
⚡ TL;DR(1 Cümlede Hızlı Çıkarım)

The findings provided substantial evidence of the inefficacy of the multiple choice test technique in facilitating test takers’ macrostructure formation and thus pointed at yet another threat to the validity of this test technique.

📌 3 Maddede Bu Makale

🎯
Amaç & Hipotez:Comprehending a text involves constructing a coherent mental representation of it and deep comprehension of a text in its entirety is a critical skill in academic contexts.
📊
Temel Bulgular & Veri:Interpretations on test takers’ ability to comprehend texts are made on the basis of performance in test tasks but the extent to which test tasks are effective in directing test takers towards reading a text to understand the whole of it is questionable.
💡
Sonuç & Katkı:The findings provided substantial evidence of the inefficacy of the multiple choice test technique in facilitating test takers’ macrostructure formation and thus pointed at yet another threat to the validity of this test technique.
🔬Tür:Araştırma Makalesi
📍Kapsam:Genişletilmiş Akademik Örneklem
⚙️Değişkenler:Textual reading comprehension · Macrostructure formation · Reading operations

Özet

Comprehending a text involves constructing a coherent mental representation of it and deep comprehension of a text in its entirety is a critical skill in academic contexts. Interpretations on test takers’ ability to comprehend texts are made on the basis of performance in test tasks but the extent to which test tasks are effective in directing test takers towards reading a text to understand the whole of it is questionable. In the current study, tests based on multiple choice items are investigated in terms of their potential to facilitate or preclude cognitive processes that lead to higher level reading processes necessary for text level macrostructure formation. Participants’ performance in macrostructure formation after completing a multiple choice test and a summarization task were quantitatively and qualitatively analyzed. Task performances were compared and retrospective verbal protocol data were analyzed to categorize the reading processes the participants went through while dealing with both tasks. Analyses showed that participants’ performance in macrostructure formation of the texts they read for multiple choice test completion and summarization task differed significantly and that they were less successful in comprehending the text in its entirety when they were asked to read to answer multiple choice questions that followed the text. The findings provided substantial evidence of the inefficacy of the multiple choice test technique in facilitating test takers’ macrostructure formation and thus pointed at yet another threat to the validity of this test technique.

Abstract

Comprehending a text involves constructing a coherent mental representation of it and deep comprehension of a text in its entirety is a critical skill in academic contexts. Interpretations on test takers’ ability to comprehend texts are made on the basis of performance in test tasks but the extent to which test tasks are effective in directing test takers towards reading a text to understand the whole of it is questionable. In the current study, tests based on multiple choice items are investigated in terms of their potential to facilitate or preclude cognitive processes that lead to higher level reading processes necessary for text level macrostructure formation. Participants’ performance in macrostructure formation after completing a multiple choice test and a summarization task were quantitatively and qualitatively analyzed. Task performances were compared and retrospective verbal protocol data were analyzed to categorize the reading processes the participants went through while dealing with both tasks. Analyses showed that participants’ performance in macrostructure formation of the texts they read for multiple choice test completion and summarization task differed significantly and that they were less successful in comprehending the text in its entirety when they were asked to read to answer multiple choice questions that followed the text. The findings provided substantial evidence of the inefficacy of the multiple choice test technique in facilitating test takers’ macrostructure formation and thus pointed at yet another threat to the validity of this test technique.

🔖

Bu Makaleye Atıf Yap

KAYARKAYA, B., ÜNALDI, A. (2022). What You might not be Assessing through a Multiple Choice Test Task. International Journal of Assessment Tools in Education, Cilt: 7 - Sayı: 1, 98–113. https://ajindex.com/articles/540129

📄 Tam Metin PDF Okuyucu

📄

PDF görüntüleyici hazırlanıyor...

Kaynakça (7)

  1. Alderson, J. C. (2000).
  2. Assessing reading. Cambridge, UK; New York, NY, USA. ALTE (2011). Manual for Language Test Development and Examining, Strasbourg, Council of Europe. Retrieved from https://rm.coe.int/manual-for-language-test-development-and-examining-for-use-with-the-ce/1680667a2b
  3. Airasian, P. W. (1994) Classroom assessment (2nd ed.). New York: McGraw-Hill. Anderson, R. C., Hiebert, E. H., Scott, J. A., & Wilkinson, I. A. (1985). Becoming a nation of readers: the report of the Commission on Reading. Pittsburgh, PA: National Academy of Education. Bachman, L. F. (1990). Fundamental considerations in language testing. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
  4. Bachman, L. F., & Palmer, A. S. (2010). Language assessment in practice. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
  5. Bachman, L. F. (2000). Language Testing in Practice. Oxford: OUP. Bax, S. (2013). The cognitive processing of candidates during reading tests: Evidence from eye tracking. Language Testing, 30(4), 441-465. doi:10.1177/0265532212473244 Bernhardt, E. B. (1983). Three approaches to reading comprehension in intermediate German. The Modern Language Journal, 67(2), 111-115. doi:4781.1983.tb01478.x Britt, M., Rouet, J.F., Durik, A. M. (2017). Literacy beyond Text Comprehension. New York: Routledge, https://doi.org/10.4324/9781315682860
  6. Brown, J. D. (1996). Testing in language programs. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice Hall Regents. Cerdan, R., Vidal-Abarca, E., Martinez, T., Gilabert, R., & Gil, L. (2009). Impact of question-answering tasks on search processes and reading comprehension. Language and Instruction, 19(1), 13-27.
  7. Cohen, A. (1984). On taking language tests. Language Testing. 1(1). 70-81. doi:10.1177/026553228400100106 Cohen, A. D., & Upton, T. A. (2007). `I want to go back to the text’: Response strategies on the reading subtest of the new TOEFL®. Language Testing, 24(2), 209–250. doi:10.1177/0265532207076364 Cutting, L.E., & Scarborough, H.S. (2006). Prediction of reading comprehension: Relative contributions of word recognition, language proficiency, and other cognitive skills can depend on how comprehension is measured. Scientific Studies of Reading, 10(3), 277-299. doi:10.1207/s1532799xssr1003_5 Enright, M.K, Grabe, W., Koda, K., Mulcahy-Ernt, P., & Schedl, M. (2000). TOEFL 2000 reading framework: a working paper. Princeton, NJ: ETS. Fuhrman, M. (1996). Developing Good Multiple-Choice Tests and Test Questions. Journal of Geoscience Education, 44(4), 379-384. doi:10.5408/1089-9995-44.4.379 Gerns