Assessing L2 vocabulary through multiple-choice, matching, gap-fill, and word formation items

• Authors: Ferit Kilickaya
• Languages of publication: EN

Abstracts

EN

The current study aims to determine the effect of multiple-choice, matching, gap-fill and word formation items used in assessing L2 vocabulary on learners’ performance and to obtain the learners’ views regarding the use of these types of items in vocabulary assessment. The convenience sampling method was selected, and the participants of the study included 30 freshmen enrolled in the General English course offered in the Department of Public Administration at a state university in Turkey. The main findings revealed that the participants considered the multiple-choice and matching items were easy to understand and to answer and that gap-fill and word formation items were difficult due to several reasons.

DE

Der Band enthält die Abstracts ausschließlich in englischer Sprache.

FR

L'article contient uniquement les résumés en anglais.

Keywords

EN

: assessing vocabulary; multiple-choice; matching; gap-fill; word formation

DE

FR

• Publisher: Wydawnictwo Uniwersytetu Marii Curie-Skłodowskiej
• Journal: Lublin Studies in Modern Languages and Literature
• Year: 2019
• Volume: 43
• Issue: 3

Dates

published

2019

online

2019-11-14

Contributors

author

Ferit Kilickaya

References

• Amini, M., & Ibrahim-González, N. (2012). The washback effect of cloze and multiple-choice tests on vocabulary acquisition. Language in India, 12(7), 71-91. Retrieved March 8, 2018, from http://www.languageinindia.com/july2012/v12i7july2012.pdf.
• Bachman, L. F., & Palmer, A. S. (1996). Language testing in practice. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
• Bailey, K. M., & Curtis, A. (2015). Learning about language assessment: Dilemmas, decisions, and directions (2nd ed.). Boston, MA: National Geographic Learning.
• Brown, J. D., & Trace, J. (2017). Fifteen ways to improve classroom assessment. In E. Hinkel (Ed.), Handbook of research in second language teaching and learning (Vol. 3, pp. 490-505). New York, NY: Routledge.
• Brown, H. D., & Abeywickrama, P. (2010). Language assessment: Principles and classroom practices (2nd ed.). New York, NY: Pearson.
• Brown, J. D. (2005). Testing in language programs. New York, NY: McGraw-Hill.
• Cambridge English Proficiency. (2016). Cambridge English proficiency: Handbook for teachers for exams from 2016. Cambridge: Cambridge English Language Assessment. Retrieved March 8, 2018, from http://www.cambridgeenglish.org/images/168194-cambridge-english-proficiency-teachers-handbook.pdf.
• Coombe, C., Folse, K., & Hubley, N. (2007). A practical guide to assessing English language learners. Ann Arbor, MI: The University of Michigan Press.
• Coxhead, A. (2018). Vocabulary assessment. In J. I. Liontas (Ed.), The TESOL encyclopedia of English language teaching (pp. 1-6). John Wiley & Sons, Inc. DOI: 10.1002/9781118784235.eelt0628.
• Heaton, J. B. (1990). Writing English language tests. New York, NY: Longman.
• Hughes, A. (2003). Testing for language teachers (2nd ed.). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
• Kılıçkaya, F. (2011). Yabancı dil sınavlarında boşluk tamamlama sorularının öğrenci başarısındaki etkisinin karşılaştırılması [Comparing the effects of gap-fill on the test takers’ performance in the foreign language tests]. International Conference on New Trends in Education and Their Implications Papers (pp. 80-86). Ankara: Siyasal Kitabevi. Retrieved March 8, 2018, from http://www.iconte.org/FileUpload/ks59689/File/014..pdf.
• Kremmel, B., & Schmitt, N. (2016). Interpreting vocabulary test scores: What do various item formats tell us about learners’ ability to employ words? Language Assessment Quarterly, 13(4), 377-392. DOI: 10.1080/15434303.2016.1237516.
• McCarthy, M. (2003). Vocabulary. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
• McCarthy, M., O’Keeffe, A., & Walsh, S. (2010). Vocabulary matrix: Understanding, learning, teaching. Hampshire: Heinle, CENGAGE Learning.
• Miller, M. D., Linn, R. L., & Gronlund, N. (2013). Measurement and assessment in teaching (11th ed.). New York, NY: Pearson.
• Milton, J., & Hopkins, N. (2006). Comparing phonological and orthographic vocabulary size: Do vocabulary tests underestimate the knowledge of some learners. Canadian Modern Language Review, 63(1), 127-147. Retrieved June 10, 2018, from https://utpjournals.press/doi/pdf/10.3138/cmlr.63.1.127.
• Nation, I. S. P. (2008). Teaching vocabulary: Strategies and techniques. Boston, MA: Heinle Cengage Learning.
• Özer, Y. E., & Koçoğlu, Z. (2017). The use of Quizlet flashcard software and its effects on vocabulary learning. Language Journal, 168(1), 61-81. Retrieved March 8, 2018, from http://dergiler.ankara.edu.tr/dergiler/27/2188/22676.pdf.
• Read, J. (2000). Assessing vocabulary. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
• Read, J. (2012). Assessing vocabulary. In C. Coombe, P. Davidson, B. O’Sullivan, & S. Stoynoff (Eds.), The Cambridge guide to second language assessment (pp. 257-264). Cambridge, MA: Cambridge University Press.
• Redston C., & Cunningham, Gillie. (2012). Face2face: Elementary student’s book (2nd ed.). Cambridge, MA: Cambridge University Press.
• Riahi, I. (2018). Techniques in teaching and testing vocabulary for learners of English in an EFL context. In S. Hidri (Ed.), Revisiting the assessment of second language abilities: From theory to practice (pp. 289-310). Cham, Switzerland: Springer International Publishing.
• Schmitt, N., & McCarthy, M. (1997). Vocabulary: Description, acquisition and pedagogy. Cambridge, MA: Cambridge University Press.
• Shen, W.-W. (2003). Current trends of vocabulary teaching and learning strategies for EFL setting. Feng Chia Journal of Humanities and Social Sciences, 7, 187-224. Retrieved June 10, 2018, from http://www.fcu.edu.tw/wSite/public/Attachment/f1378105968860.pdf.
• Stopar, A. (2014). Testing and assessing English word-formation. Romanian Journal of English Studies, 11(1), 1-8. DOI: 10.2478/rjes-2014-0033.
• Toksöz, İ., & Kılıçkaya, F. (2017). Review of journal articles on washback in language testing in Turkey (2010-2017). Lublin Studies in Modern Languages & Literature, 41(2), 184-204. DOI: 10.17951/lsmll.2017.41.2.184.
• Tuyen, L. V. (2015). An investigation into the effectiveness of learning assessment for non-English major students at the tertiary level. International Journal on Studies in English Language and Literature, 3(5), 14-31. Retrieved June 10, 2018, from https://www.arcjournals.org/pdfs/ijsell/v3-i5/3.pdf.
• Ur, P. (2012). A course in English language teaching (2nd ed.). Cambridge, MA: Cambridge University Press.

Identifiers

DOI

10.17951/lsmll.2019.43.3.155-166