Use a pupil-plays-teacher error-correction game format for language testing¶

Strategy · All strategies
Evidence · 6 claims (6 for) · 1 study (1 design), q2 · 0 of 1 report an effect size · 6 claims rest on one study

Description¶

Each test presents a naturalistic composition seeded with typical language errors, and the pupil corrects it as if grading another pupil's work: "Correct by drawing a single line through words or expressions used incorrectly, and placing the correct words above them." This game framing yields a scorable count of rights while engaging pupils in editing authentic-sounding writing rather than answering isolated grammar items.

Design Implications¶

Context¶

Requirements¶

• Directions read aloud by the teacher with pupils following; a worked example ('He has went home' corrected to 'gone') is provided in the directions

Constraints¶

• Scoring counts rights only; the author notes directions were to be revised and simplified later

Target Learners¶

• School pupils in grades III to XII

Target Learning Goals¶

• Recognition and correction of incorrect words and expressions in written English

Claims¶

• Test A contains 28 errors and Tests B and C contain 29 each, yet scores for rights are practically the same [+W]
• Percentage of pupils making each error runs surprisingly close across the three test forms [+W]
• The three Wilson Language Error Tests (A, B, and C) approach equality across grades III to XII [+W]
• The probable error of a score on the language error tests is 2.24 [+W]
• Tests B and C correlate 0.901 when given to the same pupils in grades III to VIII [+W]
• Twelve-year-old pupils score a median of 23 on all three test forms [+W]

Related Strategies¶

• Erroneous Examples
• Self Correction_Routines

Examples¶

-

Key Sources¶

• Wilson, G. M. (1922). Language error tests. Journal of Educational Psychology, 13(6), 341–349. doi:10.1037/h0064444