The Predominance Of Integrative Tests Over Discrete Point Tests In Evaluating The Medical Students' General English Knowledge

Maryam Heydarpour Meymeh

Abstract


217

Background and purpose: Multiple choice tests are the most common type of tests used in evaluating the general English knowledge of the students in most medical universities, however the efficacy of these tests are not examined precisely. Wecompare and examine the integrative tests and discrete point tests as measures of the English language knowledge of medical students.
Methods: Three tests were given to 60 undergraduate physiotherapy and Audiology students in their second year of study (after passing their general English course). They were divided into 2 groups.
The first test for both groups was an integrative test, writing. The second test was a multiple - choice test 0.(prepositions for group one and a multiple - choice test of tensesfor group two. The same items which were mostfi-equently used wrongly in thefirst test were used in the items of the second test. A third test, a TOEFL, was given to the subjects in order to estimate the correlation between this test and tests one and two.
Results: The students performed better in the second test, discrete point test rather than the first which was an integrative test. The same grammatical mistakes in the composition were used correctly in the multiple choice tests by the students.
Conclusion:Our findings show that student perform better in non-productive rather than productive test. Since being competent English language user is an expected outcome of university language courses it seems warranted to switch to integrative tests as a measure of English language competency.
Keywords: INTEGRATIVE TESTS, ENGLISH LANGUAGE FOR MEDICINE, ACADEMIC ENGLISH

Keywords


INTEGRATIVE TESTS, ENGLISH LANGUAGE FOR MEDICINE, ACADEMIC ENGLISH

Full Text:

PDF

113

References


Palmer L., Spolsky B. Papers in language testing-WashigtonDC: TESOL; 2004. 125-8

American Psychological Association Standards for educational and Psychological testing - 5th ed.- Washington DC: American Psychological Association; 1999. 87-103

Berk R.A. A guide to criterion-referenced test construction-3rd ed.- Baltimore, Md.: The Johns Hopkins University Press; 2001, 4-23

Brennan R.L. Estimating the dependability of scores - 5thed. - Burk: Olmando; 2002. 63-69

Brindley G.P. The assessment of second language proficiency: Issues and approaches - 2nded. Adelaide: National Curriculum Resource

Center; 1999. 121-125

Brown G., Yule G Discourse Analysis-3rd ed. - Cambridge: Cambridge University Press; 1983.20-27

Canale M. On some dimensions of language proficiency-2nd ed.- England: OIler; 2000. 97-111

Carroll J. Fundamental considerations in testing for English language proficiency-4th ed. - Washington D.C.: Center for Applied Linguistics;

8-12

Carroll J. Language and thougt-2nd ed. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall; 2003, 43- 45

Davidson F. Language testing: 66 operationalization in classroom measurements and L2 research-Yd ed. - Rowley, Mass: Newbyry House; 1998.78-80

Ebel R.L. The social consequences of educational testing-2nd ed.- Princeton, NJ: Educational Testing Service; 2003,186-195

Grotjahn R. Test validation and comgnitive psychology -pt ed. -New York: Macmillan; 2003. 14-21




DOI: https://doi.org/10.22037/jme.v7i2.833

Creative Commons License
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.