[Each day in October, I analyze one of the 31 item writing rules from Haladyna, Downing and Rodriquez (2002), the super-dominant list of item authoring guidelines.]
Style concerns: Use correct grammar, punctuation, capitalization, and spelling.
I will try to put aside the common mistake of referring to word choice, punctuation, spelling and other conventions of language as “grammar.” Grammar is about syntax. The folks who say they care so much about “grammar” are exactly the folks who get offended by such misuse of language when others do it. This rule ought to be labeled “Language conventions,” not “correct grammar.” But I will put that aside, because although I was an English teacher, I am not of that sort. (I am just bothered by the hypocrisy of these people who look down their noses at the language use of others.)
So, what about evaluating this rule as a rule? Yeah. It’s a good rule. It is something that we ought to all be able to agree on. Heck, I would make it the first rule. It’s not challenging or controversial. It does not really need to be explained.
Buried in the middle of the list? Meh. Not great. Things that we can all agree on should go at the beginning of the list, with more challenging ideas coming later.
But, with my own view of language use—grounded as it is in what I have learned from actual scholarly linguists (i.e., those who study actual grammar and syntax) and the beauty of literature—there really isn’t a “correct grammar.” Rather, there is a preferred style, usually one of formal English, though usually one that falls short of the formality of academic writing. This rule would be much improved if it spoke of “formal grammar” rather than “correct grammar.”
But how would I know? I’m just an English teacher who studied linguistics in college.
(And yeah, this rule is mentioned by barely half of their 2002 sources. Not really a consensus to endorse.)
[Haladyna et al.’s exercise started with a pair of 1989 articles, and continued in a 2004 book and a 2013 book. But the 2002 list is the easiest and cheapest to read (see the linked article, which is freely downloadable) and it is the only version that includes a well formatted one-page version of the rules. Therefore, it is the central version that I am taking apart, rule by rule, pointing out how horrendously bad this list is and how little it helps actual item development. If we are going to have good standardized tests, the items need to be better, and this list’s place as the dominant item writing advice only makes that far less likely to happen.
Haladyna Lists and Explanations
Haladyna, T. M. (2004). Developing and validating multiple-choice test items. Routledge.
Haladyna, T. M., & Rodriguez, M. C. (2013). Developing and validating test items. Routledge.
Haladyna, T., Downing, S. and Rodriguez, M. (2002). A Review of Multiple-Choice Item-Writing Guidelines for Classroom Assessment. Applied Measurement in Education. 15(3), 309-334
Haladyna, T.M. and Downing, S.M. (1989). Taxonomy of Multiple Choice Item-Writing Rules. Applied Measurement in Education, 2 (1), 37-50
Haladyna, T. M., & Downing, S. M. (1989). Validity of a taxonomy of multiple-choice item-writing rules. Applied measurement in education, 2(1), 51-78.
Haladyna, T. M., Downing, S. M., & Rodriguez, M. C. (2002). A review of multiple-choice item-writing guidelines for classroom assessment. Applied measurement in education, 15(3), 309-333.
]