Passage Dependence in Standardized Reading Comprehension: Exploring the College English Test

doi:10.65961/AJELT-2002-1-008

PDF(374 KB)

Asian Journal of English Language Teaching ›› 2002, Vol. 12 ›› Issue (1) : 163-178. DOI: 10.65961/AJELT-2002-1-008

Learning and Teaching English in the Chinese Context

Passage Dependence in Standardized Reading Comprehension: Exploring the College English Test

Liying CHENG and Lingyun GAO

Author information +

History +

Abstract

This paper explores the extent to which Chinese university-level students rely on reading passages in answering multiple-choice reading comprehension tests. It is commonly believed among teachers and students in China that students do not need to read carefully or even comprehend passages to pass the test, and that multiple-choice reading comprehension tests do not accurately indicate students’ actual reading comprehension ability. It has been discovered that students can answer some multiple-choice reading comprehension questions correctly without reading or comprehending the associated passages (Powers & Leung, 1995). Another finding has been that even if students read the passages, multiple-choice reading comprehension tests demonstrate more a searching and matching skill than actual reading comprehension (Johnston, 1984). In order to investigate these claims, this study examines the reading test scores of groups of Chinese university- level students taking the standardized multiple-choice reading comprehension test of the College English Test in China under two different sets of testing conditions. Our findings show that students perform better when they are not allowed to go back and forth between the questions and passages when compared with a normal reading comprehension test situation; that passage comprehension is relevant to reading comprehension test performance and that students need to read the passages in order to answer most questions correctly. However, even without the associated passages, students still achieved scores above chance level (39.91% and 28.89% respectively for two groups of students), with some test items getting a mean item difficulty of .94 and .88, suggesting that the students’ use of test-taking skills such as ‘guessing’ in such a multiple-choice reading comprehension test was prevalent.

Cite this article

EndNote

Ris (Procite)

Bibtex

Download Citations

Liying CHENG and Lingyun GAO. (2002). Passage Dependence in Standardized Reading Comprehension: Exploring the College English Test.Asian Journal of English Language Teaching , 12(1): 163-178. https://doi.org/10.65961/AJELT-2002-1-008

References

Alderson J. C.(2000). Assessing reading. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Alderson, J. C. (1984) Reading in a foreign language. London: Longman.
Cheng, L. (1996). What do foreign language learners do in their EAP reading? Issues in Applied Linguistics, 7(2), 279-296.
Connor, U., & Read, C. (1978). Passage dependency in ESL reading compre- hension tests. Language Learning, 28, 149-157.
Daneman, M., & Hannon, B. (2001). Using working memory theory to investigate the construct validity of multiple-choice reading comprehension tests such as the SAT. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 130, 208-223.
Drum P. A., Calfee R. C., & Cook L. K. (1981). The effects of surface structure variables on performance in reading comprehension tests. Reading Research Quarterly, 16, 486-514.
Farr R., Pritchard R., & Smitten B. (1990). A description of what happens when an examinee takes a multiple-choice reading comprehension test. Journal of Educational Measurement, 27, 209-226.
Freedle, R., & Kostin, I. (1999). Does the text matter in a multiple-choice test of comprehension? The case for the construct validity of TOEFL’s minitalks.Language Testing, 1999, 16(1), 2-32.
Freedle, R., & Kostin, I. (1994). Can multiple-choice reading tests be construct- valid? Psychological Science, 5, 107-110.
Grabe, W. & Stoller, F. L. (2001). Reading for academic purposes: Guidelines for the ESL/EFL teacher. In M. Celce-Murcia.(Ed.) Teaching English as a Second or Foreign Language. Heinle & Heinle: Boston, MA.
Hanna, G. S., & Oaster, T. R. (1980). Studies of the seriousness of three threats to passage dependence. Educational and Psychological Measurement, 40, 405-411.
Johnston, P. (1984). Prior knowledge and reading comprehension test bias. Reading Research Quarterly, 19, 219-239.
Katz S., Blackburn A. B., & Lautenschlager G. J. (1991). Answering reading comprehension items without passages on the SAT when items are quasi- randomized. Educational and Psychological Measurement, 51, 747-753.
Katz, S., Lautenschlager, G. J. (1995). The SAT reading task in question: Reply to Freedle and Kostin. Psychological Science, 6, 126-127.
Katz, S., Lautenschlager, G. J. (2001). The contribution of passage and no-passage factors to item performance on the SAT reading task. Educational Assessment, 7, 165-176.
Katz S., Lautenschlager G. J., Blackburn A. B., & Harris F. H. (1990). Answering reading comprehension items without passages on the SAT. Psychological Science, 1, 122-127.
Perkins, K., & Jones, B. (1985). Measuring passage contribution in ESL reading comprehension. TESOL Quarterly, 19, 137-153.
Powers, D. E., & Leung, S. W. (1995). Answering the new SAT reading comprehension questions without the passages. Journal of Educational Measurement, 32, 105-129.
Pyrczak, F. (1976). Determining the passage dependence of reading compre- hension exercises: A call for replications. Journal of Reading, 19, 279-283.
Tuinmann, J.J. (1974). Determining the passage dependency of comprehension questions in 5 major tests. Reading Research Quarterly, 9, 206-223.
Yang, H. (1999). The validation study of the National College English Test. Conference paper presented at AILA, Tokyo, Japan.