Computer Adaptive Placement Test of Vocabulary and Grammar Components: Investigation of Test Anxiety in Persian/Farsi Non-Native Learners

Document Type : مقالات علمی پژوهشی

Authors
Z. saeedi 1
R. M. Sahraee 1
F. kelari 2
1 Associate Professor and Faculty Member of Allameh Tabataba'i University, Tehran, Iran
2 MA Student of Teaching Persian to Non-Persians, Allameh Tabataba'i University, Tehran, Iran.
10.48311/LRR.15.4.63
Abstract
The research aims to compare anxiety of non-native (Iraqi) Persian language learners in computer adaptive placement test of Persian grammar and vocabulary with its linear computerized test counterpart. The main concern of this study was to scrutinize the probable relationship between linear and adaptive vocabulary and grammar placement tests and testees’ anxiety (in case there is any)?" Explanatory mixed-method approach was used in the present study. The procedure for data collection was field research via the application of questionnaire and tests. The designed test was given to 48 Iraqi male and female students with the age range of 25-40 years from Persian language center of Tarbiat Modares University, with different language levels and in two forms of adaptive and linear computerized tests. According to positive upper and lower limits of average variance, the researcher came up to the conclusion that the average of anxiety component in linear computer test is more than the average 3. The findings revealed that test anxiety level of Iraqi students in adaptive test was lower than the linear computer test. These results help to encourage teachers and educational centers to design more computer adaptive tests.



1. Introduction

The inefficiency of the language level test cannot be ignored at all. Even if a learner is misplaced and placed in a course that does not suit his needs, it does not diminish the importance of this issue. Inconsistency in the content or at least in the framework of tests will be considered a big weakness in education. Lack of valid placement test means lack of correct identification; and misdiagnosing the learner's level means assessing the needs, determining the wrong goal and curriculum, as well as wasting his and the teacher's energy, and ultimately discouraging the learner. On the one hand, this issue will also lead to increased anxiety in the language learner. On the other hand, according to the world of communication and the ever-increasing progress in technology, more efficient and appropriate methods should be used for test-making or test implementation. In this regard, it should be kept in mind that the quality of the test does not sacrifice its appearance and shape.

Research Question(s)

The main research question of this study can be formulated as follows:

 What is the relationship between linear computerized test and computer adaptive placement test of Farsi vocabulary and grammar on the testee’s anxiety level, if there is a relationship?

Following this question, the present hypothesis is proposed:

The level of test anxiety in the computer adaptive placement test is lower than in the equivalent linear computerized test.



2. Literature Review

Measurement is the process by which a better understanding of existing knowledge is gained. Quantitative and qualitative features are involved in this process. Measurement can be as simple as the teacher's personal judgment based on his classroom observations of language learners in the class, or it can be as complex as a standard test lasting several hours (Birjandi & Mosallinejad, 2012). In the teaching-learning environment, assessment is always needed to measure the efficiency or quality and efficiency of the teaching or learning process (Masters, 2014). This important process, which is generally called assessment, is not only done after teaching but can also be done before teaching or during the teaching process. Assessment and testing are two inseparable and complementary pillars of language teaching. The relationship between teaching and testing is so closely interdependent that it is not possible to only address one of them without paying attention to the other (Zandi et al., 2018).

Until recently, test designers and teachers used traditional paper-and-pencil tests to assess and measure the achievement of cognitive learning goals (Weiss & Kingsbury, 1984). The use of computers in the field of language testing and assessment dates back to 1935 when correctional officers used computers to quickly calculate test scores in the United States (Abukhzam, 2013). Computerized tests opened a new window in future tests to measure the language skills of language learners (Fleming & Hiple, 2004).

There are different types of computer-based tests. The two main types of computer-based tests are adaptive computer tests and direct computer tests. Direct (linear) computerized tests refer to the use of a computer for a test that is the same as a paper-and-pencil test format. In this way, this test has the same questions as the paper-and-pencil test, and the items are displayed in the same order as the paper-and-pencil version. Most computer-based tests are designed based on the classical test theory and extensive studies have been conducted on them (Dunn et al., 1972; Elwood, 1969; Kiely et al., 1986).

However, there will undoubtedly always be those for whom the computer is a mystery. Therefore, computers and how to use them in the language test should be introduced and taught for their needs. Anxiety is a reaction caused by internal feelings in response to external threats (Casbarro, 2005). Test anxiety is an important issue that arises during tests. This multidimensional structure has two main factors: the cognitive dimension and the emotional dimension. The cognitive dimension deals with mental activities around the test situation and leads to worry and unrelated or negative thoughts along with feelings of discomfort. The emotional dimension is related to the psychological component, which includes anxiety, physical reaction, and arousal (Cassady, 2004; Zeidner, 2007).

 

3. Methodology

To evaluate the correctness of the proposed hypotheses, the integrated research method was used. The method of data collection is in the field and using questionnaires and tests. In this way, firstly, the vocabulary and grammar test questions were designed in computer format for male and female Persian learners aged 25-40 with Iraqi nationality at the Persian Language Center for non-Persian speakers of Tarbiat Modares University, Shahid Beheshti University and Imam Khomeini International University, at different language levels. In the form of a computerized test, the characteristics of the test were determined. Then, 48 male and female foreign students of Iraqi nationality, who had participated in the Farsi course of Tarbiat Modares Language Center and were studying at the university at the time of the research, participated in both tests and passed the test. After the test, all language learners completed the test anxiety questionnaire.



4. Results

To answer the question of the present research, the Donald Powers (1999) questionnaire was used after the tests. Examining the research data showed that the average score of the anxiety component in the adaptive test is lower than the average. On the other hand, the average score of the anxiety component in the computer test is more than average. In this way, the average scores of anxiety in the computer test are higher than the adaptive test.

Also, the examination of the scores of both tests showed that the mean scores of anxiety in computerized and adaptive test have a significant difference. Therefore, the average score of computerized test anxiety is significantly higher than the average score of adaptive test. As a result, the level of test anxiety in adaptive computer test is lower than the linear computerized test. These findings are in line with Henning's (1991) research. However, it is contrary to the research findings of Hooper and Hannafin (1989) that computer tests cause more anxiety in testees.

These results help to encourage teachers and educational centers to design more computer adaptive tests. It also shows the effect of these tests in reducing the anxiety of language learners compared to paper-and-pencil tests or direct computer tests. Therefore, by using adaptive computer tests, language learners can take the test according to their level at home or in the institution with less anxiety, and the test results will be more reliable.

 

Keywords

Subjects

بیرجندی، پرویز؛ باقری دوست، اسماعیل؛ مصلی نژاد، پرویز (1382). language testing a concise collection for graduate applicants ، انتشارات شهید مهدوی: تهران، چاپ دوم
زندی، بهمن، روشن، بلقیس، وکیلی فرد، امیررضا، و گل‌پور، لیلا. (1398). ﻃﺮاﺣﻲ و اﻋﺘﺒﺎر ﺑﺨﺸﻲ آزﻣﻮن اﺳﺘﺎﻧﺪارد زﺑﺎن ﻓﺎرﺳﻲ(ﺑﺮ ﭘﺎﻳﺔ ﭼﻬﺎر ﻣﻬﺎرت زﺑﺎﻧﻲ). جستارهای زبانی، 10 (54)، 139- 171.
صحرایی، رضامراد، و مرصوص، فائزه. (1395). استاندارد مرجع آموزش زبان فارسی. نشر دانشگاه علامه طباطبائی: تهران.
قنسولی، بهزاد. (1389). طراحی و روایی‌سنجی آزمون بسندگی زبان فارسی. پژوهش زبان‌های خارجی، 57، 115، 129.
محمودی، فاطمه. (1393). طراحی آزمون‌های انطباقی رایانه‌ای زبان فارسی برای سنجش سطح زبانی غیر فارسی‌زبانان. پایان‌نامه کارشناسی ارشد، دانشگاه علامه طباطبائی.

Abukhzam, Omar Mohammad. (2013). Tracing the Journey of the Use of Computer Technology in the Field of Second and Foreign Language Assessment & Testing. International Refereed & Indexed Journal of English Language & Translation Studies, 1(1), 87- 99.
Birjandi, Parviz; Bagheridust, Esmaiel; Mosalanejad, Parviz. (2004). language testing a concise collection for graduate applicants, Shahid Mahdavi Pub.: Tehran, second ed.
Brown, H. Douglas. (1980). " Principles of Language Learning and Teaching ". Fifth edition. Pearson Publication.
Casbarro, H. (2005). Test anxiety and what you can do about it: A practical guide for teachers, parents, and kids. Port Chester, NY: Dude Publishing.
Cassady, J. C. (2004). The influence of cognitive test anxiety across the learning-testing cycle. Learning and Instruction, 14, 569–592. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.learninstruc.2004.09.002.
Dunn, T. G., Lushene, R. E., & O’neil, H. F. (1972). Complete Automation of the MMPI and a Study of Its Response in Latencies. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 39, 381–387.
Elwood, D. L. (1969). Automation of Psychological Testing. American Psychologist, 24 , 287–289.
Fleming, Stephen, & Hiple, David. (2004). Distance Education to Distributed Learning: Multiple Formats and Technologies in Language Instruction. CALICO Journal, 22 (1), 63-82.
Fritts, B. E., & Marszalek, J. (2010). Computerized adaptive testing, anxiety levels, and gender differences. Social Psychology of Education, 13(3), 441-458. http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s11218-010-9113-3
Ghonsouli, B. (2010). Development and Validation of a Persian Proficiency Test. Pazhuhesh-E Zabanha-Ye Khareji, 57, 115-129.
Guttman, L. (1944) A Basis for Scaling Qualitative Data. American Sociological Review, 9, 139-150.
http://dx.doi.org/10.2307/2086306.
Hembree, R. (1988). Correlates, causes, effects and treatment of text anxiety. Review of Educational Research, 58, 47–77.
Henning, G. T. (1991). Validating an item bank in a computer-assisted or computer-adaptive test: Using Item Response Theory for the process of validating CATS. In Dunkel, 209-22.
Ju, Gin-Fon Nancy. (1993). A computer-based Chinese edition of DAT mechanical reasoning: Comparing computer-based and paper-pencil formats of a timed pictorial tests in Taiwan. University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign.
Kiely, G. L., Zara, A. R., & Weiss, D. J. (1986). Equivalency of computer and paper-and-pencil Armed Services Vocational Aptitude Battery tests. Brooks Air Force Base, TX: Air Force Human Resources Laboratory.
Kirschner, P. A., Kirschner, F., & Janssen, J. (2014). The collaboration principle in multimedia learning. In R. Mayer (Ed.), The Cambridge handbook of multimedia learning (Second edition) (pp. 547–575). New York: Cambridge University Press.
Kizlik, R. J., Measurement, assessment, and evaluation in education, 2012. Retrieved on October 2019. [Online]. Available: https://www.adprima.com/measurement.htm].
Kline, RB. (2005). Principles and practice of structural equation modeling. 2. New York: The Guilford Press.
Larson, J. W. & Madsen. H. S. (1985). Computer-adaptive language testing: Moving beyond computer-assisted testing. CALICO Journal, 2(3), 32-6.
Lilley, M. (2007). The development and application of computer-adaptive testing in a higher education environment. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Hertfordshire University, England.
Linden, & Glas. (2000). Computerized Adaptive Testing: Theory and Practice. Boston: Kluwer, 163-182.
Madsen, H. S. (1991). Computer-adaptive test of listening and reading comprehension: The Brigham Young University approach. In P. Dunkel (Ed.), Computer-assisted language learning and testing: Research issues and practice, 237-257, New York: Newbury House.
Masters, G., Getting to the essence of assessment, 2014. Retrieved on October 2019. [Online]. Available: https://rd.acer.org/article/getting-to-the-essence-of-assessment .
Mmahmoudi, Fatemeh. (2014). Designing Computerized Adaptive Tests for Evaluating the Language Level of Non-Persian Speakers. M.A thesis: Allameh Tabataba'i University.
Noijons, J. (1994). Testing computer assisted language tests: Towards a checklist for CALT. CALICO Journal, 12(1), 37—58.
Olea, J., V., Revuelta, J., Ximenez, M.C., & Abad, F. J. (2000). Psychometric and psychological effects of review on computerized fixed and adaptive tests. Psicologaí , 21, 157-173.
Rezaie M, & Golshan M. Computer adaptive test (CAT): Advantages and limitations (2015). Int J Educ Investig.2-5:128–37. www.ijeionline.com.
Richards, Jack C. (1994). Teacher Thinking and Foreign Language Teaching. MEXTESOL Journal, 18(2), 7-13.
Sahraie. Reza Morad, & Marsus, Faezeh. (2017). Persian Language Teaching Standard Reference. Allameh Tabataba'i University Publication: Tehran.
Stiggins, R. (2009). Essential formative assessment competencies for teachers and school leaders. In. H.L. Andrade & G. J Cizek (Eds.), Handbook of formative assessment. New York: Routledge.
Taras, Maddalena. (2005). Assessment: Summative and Formative: Some Theoretical Reflections. British Journal of Educational Studies, 53 (4), 466 – 478.
Van der Linden, W., & Hambleton, R. (Eds.). (1997). Handbook of modern item response theory. New York: Springer-Verlag.
Ward, T., Hooper, S., & Hannafin, K. (1989). The Effect of Computerized Tests on the Performance and Attitudes of College Students. Journal of Educational Computing Research,327 - 333. https://doi.org/10.2190/4U1D-VQRM-J70DJEQF.
Weiss, D. J., & Kingsbury, G. G. (1984). Application of computerized adaptive testing to educational problems. Journal of Educational Measurement, 21, 361-375. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1745-3984.1984.tb01040.x.
Wright, B. D., & Stone, M. H. (1979). Best Test Design: Rasch Measurement. Chicago, IL: Mesa Press.
Zandi B, Rovshan B, Vakilifard A, & Golpour L. (2020). Planning and validating Persian language Standard test (On the Basis of Four Language Skills). LRR. 10 (6) :139-171
URL: http://lrr.modares.ac.ir/article-14-46367-fa.html
Zeidner, M. (1998). Test anxiety: The state of the art. New York, NY: Plenum Press. Zeidner, M. (2007). Test anxiety in educational contexts: Concepts, findings, and future directions. In M. Zeidner, P. A. Schutz, & R. Pekrun, (Eds.), Emotion in education, Educational psychology series (pp. 165-184). San Diego, CA: Elsevier Academic Press. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/B978-012372545-5/50011-3
Language Related Research
Volume 15, Issue 4 - Serial Number 82
September and October 2024
Pages 63-96