Test Construction Principles Violated in Selected Summative Tests in English

Authors

  • Jay-ar Cristobal Mariano Marcos State University, Philippines

DOI:

https://doi.org/10.54536/ajahs.v1i2.317

Keywords:

Principle, Summative, Test, Violation

Abstract

Teachers give many forms of assessment to measure their students’ performance and achievement. Paper and pencil test might be considered as an old and traditional form of assessment, but it is still effective until now. However, it has been observed that many test papers contain erroneous test papers. Thus, this descriptive study aimed to determine the test construction principles violated in sixteen summative tests in English gathered from high school teachers in a public secondary school in San Nicolas, Ilocos Norte, Philippines.  Frequency counts and percentages were used to treat the data gathered. Interpretation and analysis of data were guided by the test construction principles used in the study of Lin (2002). Results of the study show that most of the vocabulary items violated the principle on making all the options with the same word class. On the other hand, the majority of the grammar test items used mixed options. When it comes to the reading comprehension section, most of the items can be answered from general knowledge. These test construction violations, in many ways, could hamper effective and successful assessments.

Downloads

Download data is not yet available.

References

Allanson, P., & Notar, C. (2019). Writing multiple choice items that are reliable and valid. American International Journal of Humanities and Social Science, 5(3), 1-9, Retrieved from https://ijehd.cgrd.org/images/vol5no3/1.pdf

Bachman, L., & Palmer, A. (1996). Language testing and practice. Hong Kong: OUP.

Bailey, K. M. (1998). Learning about language assessment: dilemmas, decisions, and directions. Heinle& Heinle: US.

Begum, T. (2012). A guideline on developing effective multiple-choice questions and construction of single best answer format. Journal of Bangladesh College of Physicians and Surgeons, 30(3), 159-166. doi: https://doi.org/10.3329/jbcps.v30i3.12466

Brown, D. (2004). Language assessment principle and classroom practice. San Fransisco: Longman.

Hansen, J. D., & Dexter, L. (1997). Quality multiple-choice test questions: Item-writing guidelines and an analysis of auditing test banks. Journal of Education for Business, 73, 94-97. doi: https://doi.org/10.1080/08832329709601623

Harris, D.P. (1969). Testing English as a Second Language. MaGraw-Hill, Inc, New York, U.S.A.

Henning, G. (1982). Twenty common testing mistakes for EFL teachers to avoid. English Teaching Forum, 20 (3), 33-37. Retrieved from https://americanenglish.state.gov/files/ae/resource_files/50_3_8_henning.pdf

Lin, Y. (2002). Principles for Writing Multiple-Choice Items in Vocabulary, Grammar, and Reading Tests: A Study on the Test Making Process of an Achievement Test at Fooyin Institute of Technology. Thesis. Fooyin Institute of Technology.

Linn, R.L., & Gronlund, N.E. (1995), Measurement and assessment in teaching. Prentice-Hall, Inc, New Jersey, U.S.A.

Madziyire, N. C. (2010). Supervision and leadership. Harare: Zimbabwe Open University.

Mpofu, B. (2011). Formative evaluation versus summative evaluation. Harare: Longman.

Rubin, D. L., Daly, J., McCroskey, J. C., & Mead, N. A. (1982). A review and critique of procedures for assessing speaking and listening skills among preschool through grade twelve students. Communication Education, 31(4), 285-303. doi: https://doi.org/10.1080/03634528209384697

Sax, G. (2007). Principles of educational and psychological measurement and evaluation. Belomont: Wadsworth Publishing Company.

Sharma, Mani. (2020). Perceptions on language testing and assessment: A Case study of B.Ed students' in Nepal. Journal of Advances in Humanities and Social Sciences, 6(1), 27-33. doi: 10.20474/jahss-6.1.4.

Downloads

Published

2022-06-22

How to Cite

Cristobal, J.- ar. (2022). Test Construction Principles Violated in Selected Summative Tests in English. American Journal of Arts and Human Science, 1(2), 33–39. https://doi.org/10.54536/ajahs.v1i2.317