Marwa & Erlik Widiyani Styati
Defining Test-wiseness
Test-wiseness
(TW hereafter) is a skill that permits a test-taker to utilize the
characteristics and forms of tests and/ or test-taking situation to receive a
high score. Some researchers (e.g., Benson, 1988; Rogers and Bateson, 1991)
believe that TW is a cognitive ability or a set of test-taking strategies that
a test taker can use to improve a test score no matter what the content area of
a test. Bond (1981) distinguishes between test-wiseness and test-coaching. TW
is independent of content areas whereas test-coaching refers to: “sustained
instruction in the domain presumably being measured”.
While
a part of language test performance is dependent on the knowledge that the
learners have about the target language, another part is dependent on their
test-wiseness, independent of their language knowledge. This does not imply
that knowledge of content is totally irrelevant. Rogers and Bateson (1991)
indicated that the effective application of TW strategies is dependent on some
partial knowledge of content. This partial knowledge, although inadequate to
respond to a test item solely on the basis of this knowledge, is sufficient
when coupled with knowledge of the TW principles to increase the probability of
correctly responding to items susceptible to TW. Roger and Bateson (1991)
provided evidence that the cognition of the skilled test takers consist of:
a. a
cognitive monitor that controls which abilities and skills are going to be
engaged to answer the item under consideration;
b. knowledge,
abilities, and skills relevant to the content or trait being measured;
c. knowledge
of TW principles; and
d. the
response (selection and record of choice).
Test-wiseness strategies taxonomies
In
the general educational literature, different taxonomies for test-wiseness
strategies have been proposed. Nitko (2001), for example, classified TTS into
three categories: 1- Time-using strategies (e.g., Begin to work as rapidly as
possible with reasonable assurance of accuracy); 2- Error-avoidance strategies
(e.g., Pay careful attention to directions, determining clearly the nature of
the task and the intended basis of response); 3- Guessing strategies (e.g.,
Always guess if right answers only are scored). Sarnacki (1979) used a
five-category taxonomy: 1- Test-using strategies (e.g., Being able to work as
rapidly as possible with reasonable accuracy); 2- Error-avoidance strategies
(e.g., Paying close attention to directions); 3- Guessing strategies (e.g.,
guessing when there is not a severe penalty for guessing); 4- Deductive
reasoning strategies (e.g., Making use of relevant content information in other
test items and options); 5- Intent consideration and cue-using strategies
(e.g., Recognizing and making use of any consistent idiosyncrasies of the test
that distinguish the correct answer from incorrect options).
A
widely used taxonomy in the general educational literature is classifying TW
strategies into three major categories (Watter & Siebert,1990;
Wenden,1991):
1)
Strategies used before answering the test such as: read all questions first to
start with the easy one/s; write an outline for each question first; read instructions carefully; budget time
(i.e. allocate specific time to each question according to its difficulty or
length); form a mental image of the
answer; and underline key words in the questions.
2) Strategies
used during answering the test such as: answer questions in chronological order;
revise each question immediately after answering it; use all available test time; immediately
write what comes to mind; answer all questions even the one/s I do not know.
3) Strategies
used after answering the test such as: revise answers to correct spelling and
grammatical mistakes; re-read all questions to make sure I understood them
correctly; revise both content and language; and avoid last minute changes.
Thus,
if it could be assumed that all but inborn factors were equal for all learners
(e.g. environment and/or training), the test score obtained could be considered
as representing the learners’ true ability.
If the nature of the test material is such that some students are at an
advantage from having past experience in test taking, then some inaccuracy in
measurement can occur. A test-wise examinee can be expected to obtain a higher
score on an aptitude, achievement, or teacher-made test, than an equally
competent examinee who lacks test sophistication. According to Dolly &
Williams (1986), a student who possesses a characteristic labeled as TW could
do well on tests even though their level of preparation is less than adequate.
References
Benson, J. (1988). ‘The psychometric and cognitive
aspects of test-wiseness: a review of the literature.’ In M. Kean (Ed.)
Test-wiseness. Bloomington, IN: Phi Delta Kaplan.
Bond, D. (1981). ‘Before the test: coaching, equity,
and admission.’ In B.Green. (ed.) New directions for testing and measurement.
San Francisco: Jossy-Bass.
Nitko,
J. (2001). Educational assessment of students. New York: Merrill
Prentice Hall.
Rogers, W. and D. Bateson. (1991). ‘Verification of a
model of test-taking behavior of high school seniors.’ Journal of
Experimental Education 59: 331-349.
Sarnacki, R.(1979). ‘An examination of test-wiseness
in the cognitive domain.’ Review of Educational Research 49: 252-279.
Watter, T. and A. Siebert. (1990). Students’
success: how to succeed in college and still have time for your friends.
New York: Holt, Rinehart and Winston, Inc.
Wenden, A.L. (1991). Learner strategies for learner
autonomy. Englewood Cliffs. NJ: Prentice-Hall.
Tidak ada komentar:
Posting Komentar