Examining the Suitability of Multiple-Choice Questions for Assessing Grammatical Ability in Foreign Language Testing
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.59992/IJESA.2024.v3n7p9Keywords:
Foreign Language Teaching/Learning, Foreign Language Testing, Grammatical Knowledge, Grammatical Ability, Multiple-Choice Format, Linguistic Proficiency LevelAbstract
Despite the widespread use of multiple-choice (MC) tests in language teaching and the recognized importance of grammar instruction in language acquisition and assessment, there remains a dearth of research examining the suitability of MC tests for evaluating second language (L2) or foreign language (FL) learners’ grammatical ability – their proficiency in using grammar accurately and effectively across different contexts. This study aims to address this gap by investigating whether MC tests, which assess knowledge of grammar through the selection of correct answers from options, adequately reflect learners’ ability to use grammatical structures accurately, meaningfully, and appropriately. Data were collected from 68 English FL learners using two assessment tools: an MC task and a gap-filling task (GF task). Results indicate significant performance disparities between the MC and GF tasks, suggesting that MC tests may not consistently gauge learners’ true grammatical proficiency. This inconsistency underscores the limitations of MC testing as a singular measure of grammatical ability, particularly in assessing learners’ capacity to apply grammar meaningfully across diverse contexts. Further research is warranted to explore this issue comprehensively.
References
1. Abosalem, Y. (2016). Assessment techniques and students‟ higher-order thinking skills. International Journal of Secondary Education, 4 (1), 1-11.
2. Amini, M., and Ibrahim-González, N. (2012). The washback effect of cloze and multiple-choice tests on vocabulary acquisition. Language in India, 12(7), 71-91. Retrieved March 8, 2018, from http://www.languageinindia.com/july2012/v12i7july2012.pdf.
3. Bachman, L. F., and Palmer, A. S. (1996). Language testing in practice. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
4. Bailey, K. (1998). Learning about Language Assessment: Dilemmas, Decisions, and Directions. Heinle & Heinle, Pacific Grove, CA.
5. Bailey, K. M., and Curtis, A. (2015). Learning about language assessment: Dilemmas, decisions, and directions (2nd ed.). Boston, MA: National Geographic Learning.
6. Brown, H. D., and Abeywickrama, P. (2010). Language assessment: Principles and classroom practices (2nd ed.). New York, NY: Pearson.
7. Celce-Murcia, M. (2001). Language Teaching Approaches: An Overview. In M. Celce- Murcia (Ed.), Teaching English as a Second or Foreign Language (3rd Ed.). Boston: Heinle & Heinle Publishers.
8. Celce-Murcia, M., and Larsen-Freeman, D. (1999). The grammar book: An ESL/EFL teacher’s course (2nd ed.). Boston, MA: Heinle and Heinle.
9. Currie, M., and Chiramanee, T. (2010). The effect of the multiple-choice item format on the measurement of language structure. Language Testing, 27(4), 471–91.
10. Dávid, G. (2007). Investigating the performance of alternative types of grammar items. Language Testing, 24 (1), 65–97.
11. Ellis, R. (2001b). Introduction: Investigating form-focused instruction. Language Learning, 51, 1–46.
12. Haladyna, T.M. (2004). Developing and validating multiple-choice test items (3rd ed.). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Earlbaum Associates.
13. Haladyna, T.M., Downing, S.M., and Rodriguez, M.C. (2002). A review of multiple choice item-writing guidelines for classroom assessment. Applied Measurement in Education, 15(3), 309–334.
14. Hinkel, E. and Fotos, S. (2001a). New Perspectives on Grammar Teaching in Second Language Classrooms New York: Routledge.
15. Hinkel, E. and Fotos, S. (2001b). From Theory to Practice: A Teacher's View. In E. Hinkel, & S. Fotos (Eds.), New Perspectives on Grammar Teaching in Second Language Classrooms (pp. 1-12). New York: Routledge.
16. Hughes, A. (2003). Testing for language teachers (2nd ed.). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
17. Keck, C. and Kim, Y. (2014). Pedagogical Grammar. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
18. Kılıçkaya, F. (2019). Assessing L2 vocabulary through multiple-choice, matching, gap-fill, and word formation items. Lublin Studies in Modern Languages and Literature, 43 (3), 155-166.
19. Kremmel, B., and Schmitt, N. (2016). Interpreting vocabulary test scores: What do various item formats tell us about learners’ ability to employ words? Language Assessment Quarterly, 13(4), 377-392. DOI: 10.1080/15434303.2016.1237516
20. Larsen-Freeman, D. (2001). Teaching grammar. In M. Celce-Murcia (Ed.), Teaching English as a second or foreign language (3rd ed., pp. 251–85). MA: Heinle & Heinle.
21. Larsen-Freeman, D. (2003). Teaching language: From grammar to grammaring. Boston: Thomson Heinle.
22. Larsen-Freeman, D. (2009). Teaching and testing grammar. In M.H. Long & C. J. Doughty (eds.) The Handbook of Language Teaching (p.518-542). Oxford: Blackwell.
23. Larsen-Freeman, D. (2020). Teaching and Researching Grammar skills: Theory-and Research-Based Practices. In N. Polat, T. Gregersen & P. MacIntyre (eds.), Research-Driven Pedagogy: Implications of L2A Theory and Research for the Teaching of Language Skills (pp. 97-124). New York, NY: Routledge.
24. Larsen-Freeman, D., and Anderson, M. (2011). Techniques and principles in language teaching (3rd ed.). Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.
25. Liao, Y.-F. A. (2009). Construct validation study of the GEPT reading and listening sections: Re-examining the models of L2 reading and listening abilities and their relations to lexico- grammatical knowledge (Unpublished dissertation). Columbia University.
26. Long, M. (1991). Focus on form: A design feature in language teaching methodology. In K. DeBot, R. Ginsberge, & C. Kramsch (Eds.), Foreign language research in cross- cultural perspective (pp. 39–52). Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
27. Long, M. (2000). Focus on form in task-based language teaching. In R. D. Lambert, & E. Shohamy (Eds.), Language policy and pedagogy: Essays in honor of A. Ronald Walton (pp. 179–92). Philadelphia, PA: John Benjamins.
28. Mansory, M. (2020). The significance of non-traditional and alternative assessment in English language teaching: Evidence from literature. International Journal of Linguistics, 12(5), 210-225.
29. Mayo MDPG, Mangado MJG and Adrián MM (2013) Contemporary approaches to second language acquisition. John Benjamins Publishing.
30. Moreno, R., Martínez, R. J., & Mu˜ niz, J. (2006). New guidelines for developing multiple- choice items. Methodology, 2(2), 65–72. https://doi.org/10.1027/1614-2241.2.2.65.
31. Nassaji, H., and Fotos, S. (2011). Teaching grammar in second language classrooms: Integrating form-focused instruction in communicative context. New York: Routeledge.
32. Norris, J. M., and Ortega, L. (2001). Does type of instruction make a difference? Substantive findings from a meta-analytic review. Language Learning, 51, 157–213.
33. Purpura, J. E. (2004). Assessing grammar. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
34. Quansah, F. (2018). Traditional or performance assessment: What is the right way to assessing learners? Research on Humanities and Social Sciences, 8(1), 21-24.
35. Richards, J. and Rodgers, T. (2001). Approaches and Methods in Language Teaching. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
36. Savignon, S. (2005). Communicative language teaching: Strategies and goals. In E. Hinkel (Ed.), Handbook on research in second language teaching and learning (pp. 635–51). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
37. Vafaee, P., Basheer, N., and Heitner, R. (2012). Application of confirmatory factor analysis in construct validity investigation: The case of the grammar sub-test of the CEP place- ment exam. Iranian Journal of Language Testing, 2(1), 1–19.
38. VanPatten, B. and Williams, J. (2015). Theories in second language acquisition: An introduction. New York, NY: Routledge.
39. Wang, F. (2010). The necessity of grammar teaching. English Language Teaching, 3(2), 78–81.
