IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/ibn/eltjnl/v5y2012i11p143.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

C-test vs. Multiple-choice Cloze Test as Tests of Reading Comprehension in Iranian EFL Context: Learners' Perspective

Author

Listed:
  • Parviz Ajideh
  • Sorayya Mozaffarzadeh

Abstract

Cloze tests have been widely used for measuring reading comprehension since their introducing to the testing world by Taylor in 1953. But in 1982, Klein-Braley criticized cloze procedure mostly for their deletion and scoring problems. They introduced their newly developed testing procedure, C-test, which was an evolved form of cloze tests without their deficiencies (Klein-Braley, 1982 cited in Baghaei, 2008). After that, the effectiveness of C-test and cloze test became the main interest of the scientists in the field of language testing. The present study aims to compare the results of multiple-choice cloze test with those of C-test as measures of reading comprehension. To this end, one traditional C-test and one fixed ratio (n=7) multiple-choice cloze test were prepared from reading passages with similar readability level. The subjects of the study were 27 female EFL advanced learners. The results of the study revealed that multiple-choice cloze is a better measure of reading comprehension. Through a retrospective study which was done at the end of the tests, the students' impressions and opinions about tests and their own performance were recorded and taken into consideration. The implications of the findings and suggestions for more studies are discussed within a foreign language testing context.

Suggested Citation

  • Parviz Ajideh & Sorayya Mozaffarzadeh, 2012. "C-test vs. Multiple-choice Cloze Test as Tests of Reading Comprehension in Iranian EFL Context: Learners' Perspective," English Language Teaching, Canadian Center of Science and Education, vol. 5(11), pages 143-143, November.
  • Handle: RePEc:ibn:eltjnl:v:5:y:2012:i:11:p:143
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://ccsenet.org/journal/index.php/elt/article/download/20903/13633
    Download Restriction: no

    File URL: https://ccsenet.org/journal/index.php/elt/article/view/20903
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    More about this item

    JEL classification:

    • R00 - Urban, Rural, Regional, Real Estate, and Transportation Economics - - General - - - General
    • Z0 - Other Special Topics - - General

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:ibn:eltjnl:v:5:y:2012:i:11:p:143. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    We have no bibliographic references for this item. You can help adding them by using this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Canadian Center of Science and Education (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://edirc.repec.org/data/cepflch.html .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.