IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/sae/sagope/v10y2020i1p2158244020902087.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

A Comparison of Distractor Selection Among Proficiency Levels in Reading Tests: A Focus on Summarization Processes in Japanese EFL Learners

Author

Listed:
  • Takahiro Terao
  • Hidetoki Ishii

Abstract

This study aimed to compare selection patterns of distractors (incorrect options) according to test taker proficiency regarding Japanese students’ summarization skills of an English paragraph. Participants included 414 undergraduate students, and the test comprised three summarization process types—deletion, generalization, and integration. Within the questions, which represented summary candidates for a final version of a test, distractors were created reflecting typical student errors related to each summarization process. Six distractor types were tested. Results showed that distractors that were missing important information for the summary functioned well for determining low-, middle-, and high-proficiency students regarding deletion items. For generalization items, both distractor types, those containing examples and those with inappropriate superordinates, were attractive for low- and middle-proficiency students. Regarding integration items, it was found that distractors missing the author’s viewpoint in the summary were more attractive only for less-proficient students. Several tips to guide future item writing are provided.

Suggested Citation

  • Takahiro Terao & Hidetoki Ishii, 2020. "A Comparison of Distractor Selection Among Proficiency Levels in Reading Tests: A Focus on Summarization Processes in Japanese EFL Learners," SAGE Open, , vol. 10(1), pages 21582440209, January.
    • Handle: RePEc:sae:sagope:v:10:y:2020:i:1:p:2158244020902087
    DOI: 10.1177/2158244020902087
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/10.1177/2158244020902087
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1177/2158244020902087?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Iraj Khoshnevis & Sorour Parvinnejad, 2015. "The Effect of Text Summarization as a Cognitive Strategy on the Achievement of Male and Female Language Learners' Reading Comprehension," International Journal of Learning and Development, Macrothink Institute, vol. 5(3), pages 57-75, September.
    2. Michael C. Rodriguez & Ryan J. Kettler & Stephen N. Elliott, 2014. "Distractor Functioning in Modified Items for Test Accessibility," SAGE Open, , vol. 4(4), pages 21582440145, October.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.

      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:sae:sagope:v:10:y:2020:i:1:p:2158244020902087. 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.

      If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with 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: SAGE Publications (email available below). General contact details of provider: .

      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.