【Abstract】Multiple-choice （MC） has been widely adopted as an instrument for language testing. Despite attacks on it in recent years， it is now still an important format for many language tests， either at the regional or global level. In this paper， I will first give a description of the MC format. I will then discuss to what extent it is communicative in character.

【Key words】MC format；language testing；communicative

1. Description

MC format consists of three parts： a stem， a correct answer and a set of distractors. A stem defines a problem. It can be a question or an incomplete statement （a partial sentence）. The correct choice can be a word， a phase or a sentence， which is the only right answer to the problem presented by the stem. A distractor is a wrong answer to the problem. It is sometimes called a foil. It often resembles the correct choice in terms of grammatical form， style and length （Haladyna， 2004）. It is also plausible to the test taker； however， instead of misleading students who do know the right answer， a distractor is designed to attract students who do not know the right answers （Cohen， 1994）.

Here is an example of multiple-choice items：

Enid has been here_______half an hour.

A. during B. for C. while D. since （Hughes， 2004，p75）

In this example， “Enid has been here_______half an hour” is the stem， option B is the correct answer， while option A， C and D are the distractors.

For listening and reading comprehension test， source texts are given prior to multiple-choice items. For other testing such as grammar and vocabulary， MC items might be constructed independently. The test takers are then simply required to make choices form the alternative； a piece of answer sheet is usually given along with the test paper.

2. Discussion： communicative nature of MC tests

Before we discuss to what extent the MC format is communicative， we have to first clarify what “communicative language tests” are and what their distinguishing features are. Communicative language testing basically has two features. One is that it requires test takers to be engaged in communication， either receptive or productive， or both； the other is it emphasizes real life situations， and requires candidates to perform themselves according to their social roles. The second feature is a significant one distinguishing communicative testing from other integrative testing. It is also said that a communicative test should represent real life as closely as possible. In this sense， the MC format may be problematic. It should be noticed that our real life is seldom multiple-choice. If people ask each other questions， they are unlikely to give the others several options to choose from. This is especially the case when people having job interviews. An interviewee， who we may assume as a “test taker”， seldom has multiple-choice questions from his/her interviewer.

Canale and Swain （1980：34） declared that communicative testing “ must be devoted not only to what the learner knows about the second language and about how to use it （competence）， but also to what extent the learner is able to actually demonstrate this knowledge in a meaningful communicative situation.” Some of the MC format in language testing might appear to be communicative on the surface. As an example， in the listening comprehension test in TOEFL， the test content aims to resemble real life situations. Most of the texts accompanying the test items are about student life on campus such as accommodation inquires and lectures on different subjects. These are some situations that the candidates have to deal with once they are enrolled in university. Provided these listening comprehension tests can be well constructed， they can be valuable indicators of candidates knowledge of the language related to real life situations. However， such tests do not provide candidates the opportunities to “demonstrate their knowledge in a meaningful communicative situation” （ibid）， which is an important component of communicative language testing.

From the above discussion， one might concludes that the MC format does not have many communicative features. Nevertheless， we should not go to the extreme to assert that the MC format is not communicative at all. The MC format can still provide us with information about candidates knowledge related to real-life communication.

3. Conclusion

Like any other test instrument， MC format is not without its problems. However， MC format may still have important status in the language testing. It is still quite applicable if we want to test the cognitive knowledge of a large number of candidates. Of course， if we want to get a full picture of the candidate's communicative language ability， it is better for us to use a combination of various test instruments.

References：

[1]Canale， M.& Swain， M.，1980， Theoretical bases of communicative approaches to second language teaching and testing， Applied linguistics 1， 1：1-47.

[2]Cohen， A.D.， 1994， Assessing language ability in the classroom （2nd edition）， Heinle & Heinle Publishers.

[3]Haladyna， T， M.， 2004， Developing and Validating Multiple-choice Test Items， Lawrence Erlbaum Associates， Inc.

[4]Hughes， A.， 2003， Testing for Language Teachers （ second edition）， Cambridge University Press.

作者簡(jiǎn)介：

吳雪媚 （ 1979.11 -） 女，漢族，廣東佛山人。