Guessing at a multiple-choice test of listening comprehension EALTA, Krakow 20.5 2006

1. Guessing at a multiple-choice test of listening comprehensionEALTA, Krakow20.5 2006 Joanna Anckar CALS, Jyväskylä University, Finland

2. Data • Short written introspection: • 226 test-takers justify their selection of a particular option at 17 items • 973 responses (25% of all responses): ”a guess”, ”to guess” or similar  Why & how? •  247 of these include further comments  10 types of guessing Joanna Anckar CALS, Jyväskylä University, Finland

3. Examples ’They talked too quickly, the answer is a pure guess’ ‘I did understand what was said on the tape, but I don’t understand options B and C, B is a stronger guess’ ’I made a guess, as I wasn’t sure’ Joanna Anckar CALS, Jyväskylä University, Finland

4. MC-tests and guessing • Seldom completely random • Informed guessing: • language use situations • problem solving in general • Use affected by: • personality characteristics, • ability level • nature of the task (Haladyna, 1994; Bachman & Palmer, 1996; Linn & Miller, 2005) Joanna Anckar CALS, Jyväskylä University, Finland

5. 10 types of guessing

6. Type of guessing and success

7. Examples ’I heard the word restaurant and I made a guess’ ’A half-guess, she said something about losing weight’ ‘At least it can’t be A so either B or C. C is a guess…’ ’Not a complete guess, nor a sure answer either’ Joanna Anckar CALS, Jyväskylä University, Finland

8. Comments on guessing at a MC-test • Guessing is indeed seldom random guessing, but is often based on available knowledge • Guessing is not automatically a bad strategy associated with the MC-test format. • Rather, bad items require bad guessing; a good item may lead to the use of the strategies of inferring, reasoning and elimination - ingredients of many communicative language use situations! Joanna Anckar CALS, Jyväskylä University, Finland

9. Thank you for listening! Joanna Anckar CALS, Jyväskylä University, Finland