Advertisement

In Advanced L2 Reading Proficiency Assessments, Should the Question Language Be in the L1 or the L2?: Does It Make a Difference?

  • Troy L. CoxEmail author
  • Jennifer Bown
  • Teresa R. Bell
Chapter
Part of the Educational Linguistics book series (EDUL, volume 37)

Abstract

When investigating foreign language (FL) proficiency in reading in higher education, one must first determine what proficient reading entails and how to operationalize it. The American Council on the Teaching of Foreign Languages (ACTFL) proficiency guidelines provide a starting point in this process, but they do not provide instructions for assessing reading. Clifford and Cox (Foreign Lang Ann 46(1):45–61, 2013) define proficient reading as “the active, automatic, far-transfer process of using one’s internalized language and culture expectancy system to efficiently comprehend an authentic text for the purpose for which it was written (p. 50).” According to this definition, reading is an asynchronous, written two-way interaction between author and reader, in which the reader’s primary task is to comprehend the author’s intent. However, since the cognitive processes involved in reading cannot be directly observed, researchers use observable tasks (e.g., answering questions, reading aloud, etc.) to make inferences about the FL learner’s reading proficiency. Shohamy (Lang Test 1(2):147–170, 1984) notes that this reliance on indirect methods of assessment places a “heavy burden on the testing method and therefore may create greater variations in scores obtained as a result of these methods” (p. 149). Thus, researching how test method affects test scores is paramount to ensure that any variance in scores is due to differences in proficiency rather than choice of test method. In designing tasks to assess reading comprehension, the issue of question language (QL) arises. That is, scholars must decide whether the QL should be in the same language as the reading passage—the learners’ second language (L2) or in the native language (L1) of the learner. When the QL is in the L1, it is easier to infer what the reader has understood. When the QL is in the L2, the responses are dependent on the examinees’ comprehension of both the questions and the text. However, as L2 learners gain reading proficiency, they should also better be able to comprehend questions in the L2. The present study sought to fill these gaps in the research literature by examining the effect of QL on the scores of advanced readers of Russian on a criterion-referenced test of reading proficiency. Understanding the effect of QL on readers with Advanced-level proficiency will allow practitioners to make more informed decisions about design of reading assessments in general and of high-stakes, criterion-referenced tests of reading proficiency in particular.

Keywords

Russian Russian reading proficiency Reading proficiency Question language Reading proficiency test Learner perception 

References

  1. ACTFL. (2012). ACTFL proficiency guidelines 2012. Alexandria, VA: American Council on the Teaching of Foreign Languages. Retrieved from https://www.actfl.org/sites/default/files/pdfs/public/ACTFLProficiencyGuidelines2012_FINAL.pdf Google Scholar
  2. Anderson, N. J. (1991). Individual differences in strategy use in second language reading and testing. The Modern Language Journal, 75(4), 460–472.  https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1540-4781.1991.tb05384.x CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Bernhardt, E. (2005). Progress and procrastination in second language reading. Annual Review of Applied Linguistics, 25, 133–150.  https://doi.org/10.1017/s0267190505000073 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Brantmeier, C. (2005). Effects of reader’s knowledge, text type, and test type on L1 and L2 reading comprehension in Spanish. The Modern Language Journal, 89(1), 37–53.  https://doi.org/10.1111/j.0026-7902.2005.00264.x CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Brantmeier, C. (2006). The effect of language of assessment and L2 reading performance on advanced readers’ recall. The Reading Matrix, 6(1), 1–17. Retrieved from: https://pages.wustl.edu/files/pages/imce/brantmeierlanguageresearch/effects_of_language_of_assesment_0.pdf Google Scholar
  6. Bügel, K., & Buunk, B. P. (1996). Sex differences in foreign language text comprehension: The role of interests and prior knowledge. The Modern Language Journal, 80(1), 15–31.  https://doi.org/10.2307/329055 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Clifford, R. (2016). A rationale for criterion-referenced proficiency testing. Foreign Language Annals, 49(2), 224–234.  https://doi.org/10.1111/flan.12201 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Clifford, R., & Cox, T. (2013). Empirical validation of reading proficiency guidelines. Foreign Language Annals, 46(1), 45–61.  https://doi.org/10.1111/flan.12033 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Corder, S. P. (1978). Language learner language. In J. Richards (Ed.), Understanding second and foreign language learning: Issues and approaches (pp. 71–93). Rowley, MA: Newbury House.Google Scholar
  10. Filipi, A. (2012). Do questions written in the target language make foreign langauge listening comprehension tests more difficult? Language Testing, 29(4), 511–532.  https://doi.org/10.1177/0265532212441329 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Godev, C. B., Martinez-Gibson, E. A., & Toris, C. C. (2002). Foreign language reading comprehension test: L1 versus L2 in open-ended questions. Foreign Language Annals, 35(2), 202–221.  https://doi.org/10.1177/026553229601300205 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Gordon, C. M., & Hanauer, D. (1995). The interaction between task and meaning construction in EFL reading comprehension tests. TESOL Quarterly, 29(2), 299.  https://doi.org/10.2307/3587626 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Harrison, C., & Dolan, T. (1979). Reading comprehension: A psychological viewpoint. In R. Mackay, B. Barkman, & R. R. Jordan (Eds.), Reading in a second language (pp. 13–23). Rowley, MA: Newbury House.Google Scholar
  14. Holden, R. B. (2010). Face validity. In I. B. Weiner & W. E. Craighead (Eds.), The Corsini encyclopedia of psychology (4th ed., pp. 637–638). Hoboken, NJ: Wiley.Google Scholar
  15. Lee, J. F. (1986). On the use of the recall task to measure L2 reading comprehension. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 8(2), 201.  https://doi.org/10.1017/s0272263100006082 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Linderholm, T., & van den Broek, P. (2002). The effects of reading purpose and working memory capacity on the processing of expository text. Journal of Educational Psychology, 94(4), 778–784.  https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-0663.94.4.778 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Lorch, R. F., Lorch, E. P., & Klusewitz, M. A. (1993). College students’ conditional knowledge about reading. Journal of Education al Psychology, 91, 239–252.  https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-0663.85.2.239 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Nevo, N. (1989). Test-taking strategies on a multiple-choice test of reading comprehension. Language Testing, 6(2), 199–215.  https://doi.org/10.1177/026553228900600206 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Poh, T., & Hock, L. (1979). The performance of a group of Malay-medium students in an English reading comprehension test. RELC Journal, 10(1), 81–89.  https://doi.org/10.1177/003368827901000106 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Shiotsu, T., & Weir, C. J. (2007). The relative significance of syntactic knowledge and vocabulary breadth in the prediction of reading comprehension test perofmrance. Language Testing, 24(1), 99–128.  https://doi.org/10.1177/0265532207071513 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Shohamy, E. (1984). Does the testing method make a difference? The case of reading comrehension. Language Testing, 1(2), 147–170.  https://doi.org/10.1177/026553228400100203 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Upton, T. (1997). First and second language use in reading comprehension strategies of Japanese ESL students. Teaching English as a Second or Foreign Language – The Electronic Journal for English as a Second Language, 3(1), 1–23. Retrieved from: http://www.tesl-ej.org/wordpress/issues/volume3/ej09/ej09a3/ Google Scholar
  23. Upton, T., & Thompson, L. (2001). The role of the first language in second language reading. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 23, 469–495.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Center for Language StudiesBrigham Young UniversityProvoUSA
  2. 2.Department of German and RussianBrigham Young UniversityProvoUSA

Personalised recommendations