Multiple-Choice Test Items of Foreign Language Vocabulary

Öz

This paper reviews the various multiple-choice formats used in testing foreign language vocabulary with special reference to the underlying constructs of vocabulary competence. While all formats are argued to categorically measure recognition of second language word meaning, they are claimed to differ with respect to whether they measure receptive recognition or productive recognition, following a distinction drawn by Nation (2001). A further distinction is made between those formats that measure abstract knowledge of vocabulary and those that measure lexical ability. The paper also discusses problems associated with the contextualization of the target items in the receptive recognition ability formats and considers three proposals for ensuring the processing of the context by the test-taker. It further discusses how receptive formats could be transformed into productive formats by manipulating the relative difficulty of the target and the choice words using word frequency as an index of difficulty. 

Anahtar Kelimeler

• Foreign language,vocabulary tests,multiple-choice tests,test formats,contextualization

Multiple-Choice Test Items of Foreign Language Vocabulary

Öz

Bu makalede yabancı dilde sözcük bilgisinin ölçülmesinde kullanılan çoktan seçmeli soru tipleri incelenmekte ve bu soru tipleriyle sözcük bilgisinin hangi yönlerinin ölçüldüğü irdelenmektedir. Söz konusu soru tiplerinin tümünde sözcük anlamlarını tanıma becerisinin ölçüldüğü öne sürülerek, bu soru tipleri çeşitli kriterler kullanılarak gruplandırılmaktadır. Makalede ayrıca ölçülmek istenen sözcüklerin bir metin içerisinde sunulmasına ilişkin problemler ve soruların metne dayalı olarak cevaplandırılmasını gerekli kılacak öneriler tartışılmaktadır. Bunun yanısıra, seçeneklerdeki sözcüklerin farklı kullanım sıklığı düzeylerinden seçilmesi suretiyle soru tiplerinin birbirine nasıl dönüştürüleceği açıklanmaktadır.

Anahtar Kelimeler

• Yabancı dil, sözcük testleri, çoktan seçmeli testler, soru tipleri, metin içerisinde ölçme

Kaynakça

1. Alderson, J.C. and Banerjee, J. 2002. Language testing and assessment (Part 2). Language Teaching 35, 79-113.
2. Banerjee, J., and Clapham, C. 2003. The TOEFL CBT (Computer-based test). Language Testing 20 (1), 111-123.
3. Bachman, L.F. 1986. The Test of English as a Foreigh Language as a measure of communicative competence. In Stansfield, C. W. (Editor) Toward communicative competence testing: Proceedings of the second TOEFL invitational conference. TOEFL Research Reports, 21, 69-88.
4. Bachman, L.F. & A.S. Palmer. 1996. Language Testing in Practice. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
5. Chapelle, C. 1998. Construct definition and validity inquiry in SLA research. In Bachman, L.F. and A.D. Cohen (Editors) Interfaces Between Second Language Acquisition and Language Testing Research. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 32-70.
6. Coniam, D. 1997. A preliminary inquiry into using corpus word frequency data in the automatic generation of English language cloze tests. CALICO Journal 14 (2-4), 15-33.
7. Hale, G.A., Stansfield, C.W., Rock, D.C., Hicks, M.M., Butler, F.A., and Oller, J.W.Jr. 1988. Multiple-choice cloze items and the test of English as a foreign language. TOEFL Research Reports, 26. Princeton, NJ: Educational Testing Service.
8. Henning, G.H. 1991. A study of the effects of contextualisation and familiarization on responses to the TOEFL vocabulary test items. TOEFL Research Reports, 35. Princeton, NJ: Educational Testing Service.

9. Hughes, A. 2003. Testing for Language Teachers. Second Edition. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
10. Jonz, J. 1990. Another turn in the conversation: what does cloze measure? TESOL Quarterly 24, 61-83.
11. Livewire, S. 2005. Why self-employment? Retrieved April 8, 2005 from: http://www.prospects.ac.uk/cms/ShowPage/Home_page/Self_employmen t/Getting_started/p emXjF
12. Nation, I.S.P. 2001. Learning Vocabulary in Another Language. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
13. Nation, I.S.P. 1990. Teaching and Learning Vocabulary. Boston: Heinle & Heinle.
14. Ozturk, M. 2003. Lexical competence in the Common European Framework of Reference for Languages. Paper presented at the I. International Symposium on the Common European Framework and Foreign Language Education in Turkey. Bursa.
15. Ozturk, M. 1998. Knowing What a Word Means: Acquisition of Noun Polysemy in English by Turkish Learners. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, University of Reading.
16. Pike, L.W. 1979. An evaluation of alternative item formats for testing English as a foreign language. TOEFL Research Reports, 2. Princeton, NJ: Educational Testing Service.
17. Read, J. 2000. Assessing Vocabulary. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
18. Read, J. 1997. Vocabulary and testing. In Schmitt, N. and M. Mc-Carthy (Editors) Vocabulary: Description, Acquisition, and Pedagogy. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 303-320.
19. Richards, J. 1976. The role of vocabulary teaching. TESOL Quarterly 10, 77-89.
20. Schmitt, N. 1999. The relationship between TOEFL vocabulary items and meaning, association, collocation and word class knowledge. Language Testing 16 (2), 189-216.
21. Schmitt, N. 1998. Tracking the incremental acquisition of second language vocabulary: A longitudinal study. Language Learning 48 (2), 281-317. The Teaching English Site, The British Council & the BBC. (URL:http://www.teachingenglish.org.uk/download/quizzes.shtml#vocab ulary)
22. TOEFL Practice Tests. 1995. Princeton, NJ: Educational Testing Service.
23. Verspoor, M., & Lowie, W. 2003. Making sense of polysemous words. Language Learning 53 (3), 547-586.
24. Watcyn-Jones, P. 1994. Target Vocabulary 2. London: Penguin Books.
25. Wesche, M., & Paribakht, T.S. 1996. Assessing second language vocabulary knowledge: depth vs. bredth. Canadian Modern Language Review 53, 13- 39.