Using Standardized Test Unconventionally: An Adapted Reading Assessment

By Liu, Ping; Parker, Richerd et al. | Reading Improvement, Spring 2001 | Go to article overview
Save to active project

Using Standardized Test Unconventionally: An Adapted Reading Assessment


Liu, Ping, Parker, Richerd, Lara, Rafael, Reading Improvement


The appropriateness of standardized, selection-type reading tests have been challenged, especially for students learning English as a Second Language (ESL). This study investigated the use of a multi-step Test Item Post-Conference (TIPC) procedure with thirty ESL students. The procedure results in an "adjustment" of standardized multiple choice test scores. Acceptable interrater reliability of the TIPC procedure was obtained. Strong alternate form reliability of the TIPC scores was also obtained, compared to low alternate form scores obtained for the original (pre-adjustment) test scores. The procedure proved relatively efficient and the results were we l-received by the participating ESL teachers. Detailed advantages and disadvantages of the TICP are discussed.

Despite widespread criticism of its use (Cohen, 1988; Cummins, 1984, 1989; Freeman & Freeman, 1992; Neill 8,: Medina, 1989; Rothman, 1990; Scarcella, 1990; Valencia & Pearson, 1987), standardized testing is seen by some constituencies as both useful and necessary (Allerson & Grabe, 1986; Fart & Beck, 1991). In fact, the use of standardized tests is increasing (Pikulski, 1990). Standardized testing intersects the field of ESL/Bilingual education at two points. First, ESL professional, need to prepare students for standardized testing; for many it is a truly foreign experience (Deyhle, 1987). Second, ESL professionals need to ensure that ESL students' standardized testing provides reliable and valid information on students' abilities (Crawford, 1993; Scarcella, 1990). This entails scrutinizing the reliability and validity of test scores, and the appropriateness of the testing format for culturally and linguistically distinct populations (Cohen, 1988). This second need is the focus of the present study.

Standardized test scores are end products of a complex process. Educators assume that the scores are good indicators about a common process across students. But the processes of text understanding and test-taking may not be common to all students. These processes may differ greatly because of large cultural and linguistic differences (Crawford, 1993; Scarcella, 1990). Where these differences are great, the test score alone is an inadequate indicator of the underlying process of reading with understanding. For these students, educators need additional information to meaningfully interpret test scores (Cohen, 1988). This additional information may come from a variety of other classroom tasks and observations (e.g. portfolio assessment), or it may be derived directly from a closer scrutiny of performance on the standardized test (Langer, 1987; Farr & Beck, 1991; Valencia & Pearson, 1987). Our study takes the latter approach.

One missing element in interpreting standardized reading test scores for ESL students is the role which English language fluency may play. Reading performance cannot be isolated from language competency; particular receptive and expressive language capabilities are relied both on in reading and in responding to the test task. Although listening/speaking and reading/writing are separately observable tasks, they are also windows into a more diffuse language competency (Widdowson, 1978). For ESL students with limited English proficiency, it is especially important that reading assessment permits educators to interpret reading competency in light of English language competencies.

The most popular standardized testing format is multiple-choice selection, wherein students read and select best responses from distractors (Hill & Parry, 1992). Among the assumptions made by this format are: that students have read and are responding to the text, that students can read and understand all options, that students have a common cognitive schema for all options (a common cultural experience which indicates their relative relevance), and that students have common strategies or facilities for coping with this testing format.

The rest of this article is only available to active members of Questia

Sign up now for a free, 1-day trial and receive full access to:

  • Questia's entire collection
  • Automatic bibliography creation
  • More helpful research tools like notes, citations, and highlights
  • Ad-free environment

Already a member? Log in now.

Notes for this article

Add a new note
If you are trying to select text to create highlights or citations, remember that you must now click or tap on the first word, and then click or tap on the last word.
Loading One moment ...
Project items
Notes
Cite this article

Cited article

Style
Citations are available only to our active members.
Sign up now to cite pages or passages in MLA, APA and Chicago citation styles.

Cited article

Using Standardized Test Unconventionally: An Adapted Reading Assessment
Settings

Settings

Typeface
Text size Smaller Larger
Search within

Search within this article

Look up

Look up a word

  • Dictionary
  • Thesaurus
Please submit a word or phrase above.
Print this page

Print this page

Why can't I print more than one page at a time?

While we understand printed pages are helpful to our users, this limitation is necessary to help protect our publishers' copyrighted material and prevent its unlawful distribution. We are sorry for any inconvenience.
Full screen

matching results for page

Cited passage

Style
Citations are available only to our active members.
Sign up now to cite pages or passages in MLA, APA and Chicago citation styles.

Cited passage

Welcome to the new Questia Reader

The Questia Reader has been updated to provide you with an even better online reading experience.  It is now 100% Responsive, which means you can read our books and articles on any sized device you wish.  All of your favorite tools like notes, highlights, and citations are still here, but the way you select text has been updated to be easier to use, especially on touchscreen devices.  Here's how:

1. Click or tap the first word you want to select.
2. Click or tap the last word you want to select.

OK, got it!

Thanks for trying Questia!

Please continue trying out our research tools, but please note, full functionality is available only to our active members.

Your work will be lost once you leave this Web page.

For full access in an ad-free environment, sign up now for a FREE, 1-day trial.

Already a member? Log in now.

Are you sure you want to delete this highlight?