
doi: 10.5539/ells.v8n2p1
We explored using multiple-choice cloze (MCC) tests for classroom instruction. The practice of “testing leading teaching” is frequently criticized because it might distort the original teaching objectives. We do not primarily emphasize how to get high scores; instead, we show how to use testing techniques and teaching activities to provide feedback that energizes teaching methods and increases learning effectiveness. We analyzed MCC test-taking strategies, which include leading students to: 1) skim for the first and the last sentence in cloze passages; 2) read the whole cloze passage to grasp its general idea; 3) look for contextual clues; 4) orally express (“thinking out loud”) their reasons for choosing one MCC test item instead of another; and 5) conduct group discussions. Finally, 6) teachers guided the entire class, discussed contextual and situational clues, and provided feedback about student choices and reasons. The experimental design of this research primarily compared the performance between two groups: Experimental and Control. Differences in cloze scores between the two groups were significant, but differences in reading comprehension scores were not. After six 25-minute MCC test lessons, Experimental group students had better MCC test scores than did Control group students. Our findings supported our hypothesis that MCC instruction, even for a short time, would improve performance on a cloze test. We also discuss how to use MCC tests to teach strategies for answering MCC test items.
| selected citations These citations are derived from selected sources. This is an alternative to the "Influence" indicator, which also reflects the overall/total impact of an article in the research community at large, based on the underlying citation network (diachronically). | 0 | |
| popularity This indicator reflects the "current" impact/attention (the "hype") of an article in the research community at large, based on the underlying citation network. | Average | |
| influence This indicator reflects the overall/total impact of an article in the research community at large, based on the underlying citation network (diachronically). | Average | |
| impulse This indicator reflects the initial momentum of an article directly after its publication, based on the underlying citation network. | Average |
