Abstract
AbstractThis study proposes a classification method for multiple text reading test formats in English language proficiency tests. A preliminary study involving 11 proficiency tests revealed two tests that fit the scope of the main study. Results show that multiple text reading test formats use complementary texts rather than conflicting texts. As for questions in a set of test forms in multiple text reading test formats, cognitive processing on integrating the contents of texts was different in proficiency tests. Moreover, the type of connection formation required by the questions differed among the proficiency tests. Implications for pedagogy are presented.
Funder
Japan Society for the Promotion of Science
Publisher
Springer Science and Business Media LLC
Reference89 articles.
1. Alderson, J. C. (2000). Assessing reading. Cambridge University Press.
2. Alexander, P. A., & The Disciplined Reading and Learning Research Laboratory. (2012). Reading into the future: Competencies for the 21st century. Educational Psychologist, 47(4), 259–280. https://doi.org/10.1080/00461520.2012.722511
3. Anmarkrud, Ø., Bråten, I., & Strømsø, H. I. (2014). Multi-document literacy: Strategic processing, source awareness, and argumentation when reading multiple conflicting documents. Learning and Individual Differences, 30, 64–76. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.lindif.2013.01.007
4. Ashmore, E., Duke, T., & Sakano, J. (2018). Background and goals of the TOEIC Listening and Reading update project. In D. Powers and J. Schmidgall (Eds.), The research foundation for the TOEIC tests (Vol. 3, pp. 31–38). ETS. https://www.ets.org/s/toeic/pdf/research-compendium.pdf
5. ALC Press. (2019a). GTEC kako mondai shu advanced [GTEC official tests for advanced learners]. Authors.