AUTOMATING THE CONSTRUCTION OF SELECTED-RESPONSE ITEMS WITH A TEXT-TO-ITEMS CONVERTER

  • Wojciech Malec Institute of English Studies, John Paul II Catholic University of Lublin, Lublin
Keywords: language testing, web-based test construction, selected-response items, text-to-items converter, WebClass

Abstract

This paper focuses on the role of technology in facilitating the process of language test development in online settings. In particular, it takes an in-depth look at one specific step in the entire testing cycle: the construction of (selected-response) test items with the aid of the text-to-items converter on WebClass, the author’s own online learning management system (webclass.co). The text converter can be used to edit an entire set of questions in a single editor pane (similar to a word processor) and then submit them to a parsing script which converts them into test items proper. The main advantage of using the converter is time efficiency: instead of moving step-by-step from one item to the next (which may be time-consuming), a large number of test items can be created in one go.

References

Bachman, L. F., & Palmer, A. S. (1996). Language Testing in Practice: Designing and Developing Useful Language Tests. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Bruno, J. E., & Dirkzwager, A. (1995). Determining the optimal number of alternatives to a multiple-choice test item: An information theoretic perspective. Educational and Psychological Measurement, 55, 959–966.

Douglas, D. (2010). Understanding Language Testing. London: Hodder Education.

Fulcher, G. (2010). Practical Language Testing. London: Hodder Education.

Gierl, M. J., & Haladyna, T. M. (Eds.). (2013). Automatic Item Generation: Theory and Practice. New York and London: Routledge.

Haladyna, T. M. (2013). Automatic item generation: A historical perspective. In M. J. Gierl & T. M. Haladyna (Eds.), Automatic Item Generation: Theory and Practice (pp. 13–25). New York and London: Routledge.

Haladyna, T. M., Downing, S. M., & Rodriguez, M. C. (2002). A review of multiple-choice item-writing guidelines for classroom assessment. Applied Measurement in Education, 15, 309–334.

Landrum, R. E., Cashin, J. R., & Theis, K. S. (1993). More evidence in favor of three-option multiple-choice tests. Educational and Psychological Measurement, 53, 771–778.

Malec, W. (2012). WebClass [learning management system]. Retrieved from http://webclass.co

Malec, W. (2015). Testing collocational knowledge: the question of item format. In A. Bloch-Rozmej & K. Drabikowska (Eds.), Within Language, Beyond Theories: Studies in Applied Linguistics (pp. 74–92). Newcastle upon Tyne, UK: Cambridge Scholars Publishing.

Parshall, C. G., Spray, J. A., Kalohn, J. C., & Davey, T. (2002). Practical Considerations in Computer-Based Testing. New York: Springer-Verlag.

Plannedparrothood (n. d.). Retreived from http://www.plannedparrothood.com/jokes.html

Roever, C. (2001). Web-based language testing. Language Learning & Technology, 5(2), 84–94.

Trevisan, M. S., Sax, G., & Michael, W. B. (1994). Estimating the optimum number of options per item using an incremental option paradigm. Educational and Psychological Measurement, 54, 86–91.

Webclass (a) (n. d.). Retrieved from http://webclass.co/tests_edit/import-from-text.php

Webclass (b) (n. d.). Retrieved from http://webclass.co/tests_edit/index.php

Webclass (c) (n. d.). Retrieved from http://webclass.co/tests/tests.preview.php

Webclass (d) (n. d.). Retrieved from http://webclass.co/tests_edit/import-from-text.php; the text in the editor area adapted from http://www.bbc.com/earth/story/20160412-what-really-happened-when-we-met-neanderthals

Webclass (e) (n. d.). Retrieved from http://webclass.co/tests/tests.preview.php

Published
2016-09-26