* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
LINGUIST List logo Eastern Michigan University Wayne State University *
* People & Organizations * Jobs * Calls & Conferences * Publications * Language Resources * Text & Computer Tools * Teaching & Learning * Mailing Lists * Search *
* *


LINGUIST List 23.4978

Thu Nov 29 2012

Disc: Multiple Choice Technique for Assessing Writing

Editor for this issue: Kristen Dunkinson <kristenlinguistlist.org>

Date: 17-Nov-2012
From: Kisno Shinoda <d.shinoda85gmail.com>
Subject: Multiple Choice Technique for Assessing Writing
E-mail this message to a friend

I have an interesting study case in a university in Batam Island, Indonesia. According to some books I have read, writing is a productive skill, meaning there should be a product of one's or a student's writing and there are some items that should be assessed in writing test such as grammar, vocabulary, stylistics, mechanics, and cohesion and coherence. Some references suggest that some items could be assessed through a multiple choice technique. But, is it fair when we intend to measure the writing skill of a student using only a multiple choice test? Isn't it more objective if a teacher asks a student to write instead of asking a student to do a multiple choice test on writing?

Now, the issue is about cohesion and and coherence. Is it possible if we want to know that one's writing is achieving the cohesion and coherence through multiple choice? If yes, what is the technique of testing cohesion and coherence through multiple choice? Are there any books or references suggesting that cohesion and coherence of one's writing could possibly be assessed through a multiple choice testing technique?


Linguistic Field(s): Applied Linguistics

Subject Language(s): English (eng)




Read more issues|LINGUIST home page|Top of issue



Page Updated: 29-Nov-2012

Supported in part by the National Science Foundation       About LINGUIST    |   Contact Us       ILIT Logo
While the LINGUIST List makes every effort to ensure the linguistic relevance of sites listed on its pages, it cannot vouch for their contents.