Campus Units
English
Document Type
Article
Publication Version
Published Version
Publication Date
2016
Journal or Book Title
Language Learning & Technology
Volume
20
Issue
1
First Page
148
Last Page
165
Abstract
Multiple-choice formats remain a popular design for assessing listening comprehension, yet no consensus has been reached on how multiple-choice formats should be employed. Some researchers argue that test takers must be provided with a preview of the items prior to the input (Buck, 1995; Sherman, 1997); others argue that a preview may decrease the authenticity of the task by changing the way input is processed (Hughes, 2003). Using stratified random sampling techniques, more and less proficient Japanese university English learners (N = 206) were assigned one of three test conditions: preview of question stem and answer options (n = 67), preview of question stem only (n = 70), and no preview (n = 69). A two-way ANOVA, with test condition and listening proficiency level as independent variables and score on the multiple-choice listening test as the dependent variable, indicated that the amount of item preview affected test scores but did not affect high and low proficiency students’ scores differently. Item-level analysis identified items that were harder or easier than expected for one or more of the conditions, and the researchers posit three possible sources for these unexpected findings: 1) frequency of options in the input, 2) location of item focus, and 3) presence of organizational markers.
Copyright Owner
Koyama, et al.
Copyright Date
2016
Language
en
File Format
application/pdf
Recommended Citation
Koyama, Dennis; Sun, Angela; and Ockey, Gary, "The Effects of Item Preview on Video-Based Multiple-Choice Listening Assessments" (2016). English Publications. 73.
https://lib.dr.iastate.edu/engl_pubs/73
Included in
Bilingual, Multilingual, and Multicultural Education Commons, Curriculum and Instruction Commons, Curriculum and Social Inquiry Commons, Educational Methods Commons
Comments
This is an article from Language Learning & Technology 20 (2016): 148. Posted with permission.