Test Yönteminin İngilizce Okuma Becerileri Üzerindeki Etkisi

Bu çalışma üç farklı test yönteminin yabancı dil olarak İngilizce öğrenen Türk öğrencilerin okuma becerileri performansı üzerindeki etkiyi araştırmaktadır. Ayrıca, öğrencilerin bu üç yöntemin kendi okuma becerilerini ölçme performansı ve güçlük dereceleri hakkındaki gö- rüşlerini de ortaya koymaktadır. Bir TOEFL hazırlık kitabından üç metin seçilmiş ve metin ile ilgili çoktan seçmeli, tamamlama ve açık uçlu test maddeleri hazırlanmıştır. 97 İngilizce Öğretmenliği Lisans programı birinci sınıf öğrencisine üç farklı test türü uygulanmış- tır. Testin sonunda bir de anket uygulanmıştır. Verilerin nicel analizi öğrencilerin çoktan seçmeli sorularda tamamlama ve açık uçlu sorulara nazaran daha ba- şarılı olduklarını ortaya koymuştur. Nitel analizler ise öğrencilerin çoktan seçmeli maddeleri hem en kolay hem de kendi okuma anlama performanslarını en iyi ölçen test yöntemi olarak belirlediklerini göstermiştir. Bulgular hâlihazırdaki ölçe değerlendirme yöntemleri çerçevesinde tartışılmaktadır.

Effect of Test Method on EFL Reading Comprehension

This study aims to investigate the effects of three different test methods on Turkish EFL learners’ reading comprehension performances. It also questions the perceptions of students about the effectiveness of different test types to measure their reading comprehension abilities and perceived difficulty level of these tests. Three reading texts from a TOEFL Practice Book were selected as the research task. Questions were designed in three different test methods for each text: multiple-choice, completion, and open-ended. 97 first year university students enrolled in Distant English Language Teaching Program were given the three texts each with a different test method. A follow-up questionnaire was also given to learn about students’ perceptions. The analyses of the quantitative data suggested that students were significantly more successful at multiple choice items than the completion and open-ended items. The qualitative data, on the other hand, indicated that the participants saw the multiple-choice test as the best to test their reading comprehension performance, and it was perceived as the easiest to answer among the three test methods. The findings of the study are discussed in terms of the current testing practices in the program

PDF

___

Brantmeier, C. (2005). Effects of reader’s knowledge, Text type, and test type on L1 and L2 reading comprehension in Spanish. The Modern Language Journal, 89(1), 37-53.
Cihangirli, E. (2000). Do Different Testing Methods Yield Different Scores in Assessing Reading Comprehension? Unpublished MA thesis, Anadolu University, Eskişehir.
Davies, A., Brown, A., Elder, C., Hill, K. Lumley, T. & McNamara, T. (1999). Dictionary of Language Testing. Cambridge: CUP. Feng, L. (2011). A short analysis of the reader variables affecting reading and testing reading. CrossCultural Communication, 7(2), 105-108.
Freedle, R. & Kostin, I. (1993). The prediction of TOEFL reading item difficulty: implications for construct validity. Language Testing, 10, 133-170.
Greene, B.B. (2001). Testing reading comprehension of theoretical discourse with cloze. Journal of Research in Reading, 24(1), 82-98.
Heaton, J.B. (1988). Writing English Language Tests. Harlow: Longman.
Huck, S. W. (2000). Reading statistics and research. New York: Longman.
Jafarpur, A. (2003). Is the test constructor a facet? Language Testing, 20(1), 57-87.
Karacaer, Z. (2001). Does the test-taker’s score on reading comprehension remain stable across a number of testing methods? Proceedings of the 5th InternationL Inged-Anadolu ELT Conference: Teaching and Learning English: Meeting the Challenges (pp. 94-102). November 15-17, 2001, Eskişehir.
Katz, S. & Lautenschlager, G. J. (2001). The contribution of passage and no-passage factors to item performance on the SAT reading task. Educational Assessment, 7(2), 165-176.
Khodadady, E. (1998). Multiple Choice Items in Testing: Practice and Theory. Tehran: Rahnama. Madsen, H. S. (1983). Techniques in Testing. Oxford: OUP.
McMillan, J. H. (2004). Classroom Assessment: Principles and Practice for Effective Instruction. (3rd ed.). Boston: Pearson Education, Inc.
McNamara, T. (2000). Language Testing. Oxford: OUP. Mousavi, S. A. (1999). A Dictionary of Language Testing. Tehran: Rahnama Publications.
Shohamy, E. (1984). Does the testing method make a difference? The case of reading comprehension. Language Testing, 1(1), 147-170.
Weigle, S. C. (2004). Integrating reading and writing in a competency test for non-native speakers of English. Assessing Writing, 9, 27-55.
Weir, C. J. (1997). The testing of reading in a second language. In C. Clapham, & D. Corson (Eds.). Encyclopedia of Language and Education: Language Testing and Assessment. (pp. 39-50). Dordrecht: Kluwer.
Wolf, D. F. (1993). A comparison of assessment tasks used to measure foreign language reading comprehension. The Modern Language Journal, 77, 473-489. Note:
Earlier versions of this paper was presented in the CLaSIC 2006 Conference in Singapore on December 7-9, 2006.