Get 20M+ Full-Text Papers For Less Than $1.50/day. Start a 14-Day Trial for You or Your Team.

Learn More →

A Comparison of Distractor Selection Among Proficiency Levels in Reading Tests: A Focus on Summarization Processes in Japanese EFL Learners:

A Comparison of Distractor Selection Among Proficiency Levels in Reading Tests: A Focus on... This study aimed to compare selection patterns of distractors (incorrect options) according to test taker proficiency regarding Japanese students’ summarization skills of an English paragraph. Participants included 414 undergraduate students, and the test comprised three summarization process types—deletion, generalization, and integration. Within the questions, which represented summary candidates for a final version of a test, distractors were created reflecting typical student errors related to each summarization process. Six distractor types were tested. Results showed that distractors that were missing important information for the summary functioned well for determining low-, middle-, and high-proficiency students regarding deletion items. For generalization items, both distractor types, those containing examples and those with inappropriate superordinates, were attractive for low- and middle-proficiency students. Regarding integration items, it was found that distractors missing the author’s viewpoint in the summary were more attractive only for less-proficient students. Several tips to guide future item writing are provided. http://www.deepdyve.com/assets/images/DeepDyve-Logo-lg.png SAGE Open SAGE

A Comparison of Distractor Selection Among Proficiency Levels in Reading Tests: A Focus on Summarization Processes in Japanese EFL Learners:

SAGE Open , Volume 10 (1): 1 – Jan 28, 2020

A Comparison of Distractor Selection Among Proficiency Levels in Reading Tests: A Focus on Summarization Processes in Japanese EFL Learners:

SAGE Open , Volume 10 (1): 1 – Jan 28, 2020

Abstract

This study aimed to compare selection patterns of distractors (incorrect options) according to test taker proficiency regarding Japanese students’ summarization skills of an English paragraph. Participants included 414 undergraduate students, and the test comprised three summarization process types—deletion, generalization, and integration. Within the questions, which represented summary candidates for a final version of a test, distractors were created reflecting typical student errors related to each summarization process. Six distractor types were tested. Results showed that distractors that were missing important information for the summary functioned well for determining low-, middle-, and high-proficiency students regarding deletion items. For generalization items, both distractor types, those containing examples and those with inappropriate superordinates, were attractive for low- and middle-proficiency students. Regarding integration items, it was found that distractors missing the author’s viewpoint in the summary were more attractive only for less-proficient students. Several tips to guide future item writing are provided.

Loading next page...
 
/lp/sage/a-comparison-of-distractor-selection-among-proficiency-levels-in-ZIOKkCCm9w
Publisher
SAGE
Copyright
Copyright © 2022 by SAGE Publications Inc, unless otherwise noted. Manuscript content on this site is licensed under Creative Commons Licenses.
ISSN
2158-2440
eISSN
2158-2440
DOI
10.1177/2158244020902087
Publisher site
See Article on Publisher Site

Abstract

This study aimed to compare selection patterns of distractors (incorrect options) according to test taker proficiency regarding Japanese students’ summarization skills of an English paragraph. Participants included 414 undergraduate students, and the test comprised three summarization process types—deletion, generalization, and integration. Within the questions, which represented summary candidates for a final version of a test, distractors were created reflecting typical student errors related to each summarization process. Six distractor types were tested. Results showed that distractors that were missing important information for the summary functioned well for determining low-, middle-, and high-proficiency students regarding deletion items. For generalization items, both distractor types, those containing examples and those with inappropriate superordinates, were attractive for low- and middle-proficiency students. Regarding integration items, it was found that distractors missing the author’s viewpoint in the summary were more attractive only for less-proficient students. Several tips to guide future item writing are provided.

Journal

SAGE OpenSAGE

Published: Jan 28, 2020

Keywords: distractor; summarization; item development; typical errors

References