Email this article 
Hide
Show all
Role of Question Types in Assessing Content Knowledge
Abstract
This study sets out to examine whether ESL teachers design evaluation criteria according to the demands of different question types assessing literary competence. Four students enrolled in an MA TESL programme were asked to respond to three types of questions – a summary, a content based question, and a reader response question - based on one literary text. Five ESL teachers were asked to select appropriate evaluation criteria for each question type and assess student performance. The results show that all the teachers differentiate between content knowledge and language competence in identifying evaluation criteria for the three questions. But most of them do not select criteria to reflect variations in demands made by each question type. A pedagogical implication of the study is that ESL teachers need training to design evaluation criteria that can match the demands of different question types. This would make content based assessment fair, ensure high inter-rater reliability and produce beneficial washback for ESL students.
Keywords
Full Text:
PDFReferences
Achebe, C. (1989). The truth of fiction. In Hopes and Impediments: Selected Essays. New York: Doubleday.
Bachman, L. F. (1990). Fundamental Considerations in Language Testing. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Bloom, B. S. (1956). Taxonomy of Educational Objectives, Handbook I: The Cognitive Domain. New York: David McKay Co Inc.
Brown, H. D., & Abeywickrama, P. (2010). Principles of language assessment. In Language Assessment: Principles and classroom practices (2nd ed.) (pp. 25-51). White Plains, NY: Pearson Education.
Cho, D. (2008). A study on ESL writing assessment: Inter-rater reliability of ESL compositions. Melbourne Papers in Language Testing, 1-24.
Council of Europe. (2011). Common European Framework of Reference for Languages: Learning, Teaching, Assessment. Council of Europe.
Crandall, J. (Ed.). (1987). ESL through content area instruction. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall Regents.
Elliot, R. (1990). Encouraging reader-response to literature in ESL situations. ELT Journal, 44(3), 191-198.
Freedman, S. (1979). How characteristics of student essays influence teachers’ evaluation. Journal of Educational Psychology, 71, 328-338.
Gottileb, M. (2006). Assessing English language learners: Bridges from language proficiency to academic achievement. Thousand Oaks, California: Corwin Press.
Hamp-Lyons, L. (1990). Second language writing: Assessment issues. In Barbara Kroll (Ed.) Second Language Writing. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Krathwohl, D. R. (2002). A revision of bloom's taxonomy: An overview. Theory into Practice, 41 (4), 212-218.
Kroll, B. (1998). Assessing writing abilities. Annual Review of Applied Linguistics, 18, 219-240.
Lukmani, Y. (1996). Linguistic accuracy versus coherence in assessing examination answers in content subjects. In Michael Milanovic and Nick Saville (Eds.). Performance Testing, Cognition and Assessment (pp.130-150). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Nimehchisalem, V., & Mukundan, J. (2011). Determining the evaluative criteria of an argumentative writing scale. English Language Teaching, 4(1), 58-69.
Shohamy, E.C., Gordon M., and Kraemer, R. (1992). The effect on rater’s background and training on the reliability of direct writing tests. Modern Language Journal. 76(1).
Snow, M.A., & Brinton, D. M. (Eds.). (1997). The content based classroom: Perspectives on integrating language and content. White Plains, NY: Addison-Wesley.
Sperling, M. (1998). Teachers as readers of Students’ Writing. In Nancy Nelson and Robert C Calfee (Eds.) The Reading-Writing Connection (pp. 131-157). Chicago, Illinois: University of Chicago Press.
DOI: https://doi.org/10.7575/aiac.ijalel.v.2n.5p.185
Refbacks
- There are currently no refbacks.
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.
2012-2023 (CC-BY) Australian International Academic Centre PTY.LTD.
International Journal of Applied Linguistics and English Literature
To make sure that you can receive messages from us, please add the journal emails into your e-mail 'safe list'. If you do not receive e-mail in your 'inbox', check your 'bulk mail' or 'junk mail' folders.