Student-Generated Tests and Their Impact on EFL Students' Learning of Grammar / Öğrencilerin Ürettiği Testler ve Onların Yabancı Dil Olarak İngilizce Öğrenen Öğrencilerin Dilbilgisi Öğrenimi Üzerindeki Etkisi

Year 2014, Volume: 10 Issue: 3, 627 - 642, 22.02.2014

Sasan Baleghızadeh Zahra Zarghamı

Abstract

The purpose of this study was to examine the impact of student-generated tests on grammar learning of EFL learners. Sixty-eight Iranian intermediate university students were randomly assigned to experimental and control conditions. The participants in the experimental group were asked to make ten grammar test items for each of the four main grammar topics covered in their course of study. The participants in this group received written feedback from the course instructor on the quality of the items they had made and discussed the answer to 10 items for each topic in the class. The participants in the control group studied the same grammatical topics and were exposed to the same items discussed in the experimental condition. However, they were not involved in the process of item construction. At the end of the treatment period, the participants in both groups took two forty-item grammar tests: a student-generated one and a standardized one. The results showed that the participants in the experimental group significantly outperformed their peers in the control group. This suggests that the experience of test generation throughout the treatment period had a positive impact on grammar learning of the students.

Keywords

Student-generated tests; Assessment for learning; Alternative assessments; classroom assessment techniques

STUDENT-GENERATED TESTS AND THEIR IMPACT ON EFL STUDENTS’ LEARNING OF GRAMMAR (ÖĞRENCİLERİN ÜRETTİĞİ TESTLER VE ONLARIN EFL ÖĞRENCİLERİNİN DİLBİLGİSİ ÖĞRENİMİ ÜZERİNDEKİ ETKİSİ)

Abstract

Bu çalışma, İngilizce’yi yabancı dil olarak öğrenen öğrencilerin ürettikleri testlerin onların dilbilgisi öğrenimlerine etkisi hakkında bir araştırmayı rapor etmektedir. Bu bağlamda, orta düzeydeki 68 İranlı üniversite öğrencisi deney ve control gruplarına yerleştirilmiştir. Araştırma sonucunda deney grubundaki öğrenciler kontrol grubundakilerden anlamlı derecede daha iyi bir performans sergilemişlerdir. Bu da test hazırlamanın öğrencilerin dilbilgisi öğrenimleri üzerinde olumlu bir etkisi olduğunu göstermektedir.

Keywords

öğrencilerin ürettiği testler, alternatif değerlendirmeler, sınıf-içi değerlendirme teknikleri

References

• Angelo, T. A., & Cross, P. A. (1993). Classroom assessment techniques: A handbook for college teachers. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
• Ashtiani, N. S., & Babaii, E. (2007). Cooperative test construction: The last temptation Educational reform? Studies in Educational Evaluation, 33, 213,2
• Assessment Reform Group. (2002). Assessment for Learning: 10 Principles. Port Melbourne: Cambridge University Press.
• Brink, J., Capps, E., & Sutko, A. (2004). Student exam creation as a learning tool. College Student Journal, 38, 262-272.
• Bobak, K. A. (2008). Use of student-generated test questions as a classroom assessment technique within the chiropractic technique classroom. Journal of Chiropractic Education, 22, 49-50.
• Brown, H. D. (2004). Language assessment: Principles and classroom practice. White Plains, NY: Pearson Education.
• Brown, J. D., & Hudson, T. (1998). The alternatives in language assessment. TESOL Quarterly, 32, 653- 675.
• Brown, L. W. (1991). To learn is to teach is to create the final exam. College Teaching, 39, 150-153.
• Enerson, D. M., Plank, K. M., & Johnson, R. N. (2007). An introduction to Classroom Techniques. Retrieved 20, 3, 2010, from http:// www. Schreyerinstitute.edu/.
• Frase, L.T., & Schwartz, B.J. (1975). Effect of question production and answering on Prose recall. Journal of Educational Psychology, 67, 6286
• Harmer, J. (1987). Teaching and learning grammar. London: Longman.
• Haugen, L. (1999). Classroom assessment techniques. Retrieved 3, 9, 2009, from http:// www.Celt.iastste.edu/teaching/cat.html .
• Klenowski, V. (2009). Editorial: Assessment for learning revisited: An AsiaPacific perspective. Assessment in Education: Principles, Policy, and Practice, 16, 263–268.
• Kumaravadivelu, B. (2001). Toward a postmethod pedagogy. TESOL Quarterly, 35, 537-560.
• Lam, R. (2014). Can student-generated test materials support learning?. Studies in Educational Evaluation (in press). Retrieved 30, 5, 2014 from http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0191491X1400008X . Lee, I. (2007). Assessment for learning: Integrating assessment, teaching, and learning in the ESL/EFL writing classroom. The Canadian Modern Language Review, 64, 199-214.
• Leung, C., & Mohen, B. (2004). Teacher Formative Assessment and Talk in Classroom Contexts: Assessment as Discourse and Assessment of Discourse. Language Testing, 21, 335-359.
• Morris, T. (2004). CAT characteristics. Retrieved 23, 9, 2009, from http:// IAR Assess Teaching.html.
• Murphey, T. (1995). Tests: Learning Through Negotiated Interaction. TESOL Journal, 4, 12-16.
• Pearson, J.A. (1991). Testing the ecological validity of teacher-provided versus student-generated postquestions in reading college science text. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 28, 485-504.
• Rash, A. M. (1997). An alternative method of assessment: using studentcreated problems. PRIMUS, 7, 89-95.
• Stiggins, R. (2004). New assessment beliefs for a new school mission. Phi Delta Kappan, 86, 22- 27.
• Stiggins, R., & Chappuis, J. (2005). Using student-involved classroom assessment to close achievement gaps. Theory and Practice, 44, 11- 18. William, D. (2011). What is assessment for learning? Studies in Educational Evaluation. 37, 3-14.
• Wongsri, N., Cantwell, R. H., & Archer, J. (2002). The validation of measures of self-efficacy, motivation, and self-regulated learning among Thai tertiary students. Paper presented at the Annual Conference of the Australian Association for Research in Education, Brisbane. Retrieved November, 2009, from: http://www.aare.edu.au/02pup/won02088.htm.