Beyond the Bubble: Reconsidering the Role of Multiple-Choice Questions in Language Assessment

Abstract

This paper examines the role of multiple-choice questions (MCQs) in language assessment, combining a review of existing research with a focused case study from Uzbekistan. From a pedagogical and psychometric perspective, the paper explores both the affordances and limitations of MCQs as tools for assessing language knowledge, receptive skills, and aspects of discourse and pragmatics. Drawing on sources such as Phakiti and Leung (2024), Hughes and Hughes (2020), and Bachman and Palmer (2010), the analysis highlights the standardisation, efficiency, and diagnostic precision that MCQs can offer, particularly in large-scale and high-stakes testing environments. At the same time, it addresses critical concerns, including the inability of MCQs to assess productive language skills, their tendency to fragment language knowledge, and their potential to distort teaching and learning. The paper also evaluates alternative assessment formats (e.g., cloze tests, constructed-response tasks, portfolios) and outlines principles for writing effective MCQs. The second part of the paper presents a document-based case study of the Pedagogical Excellence and International Assessment Centre in Uzbekistan and its use of MCQs in national summative assessments. The research material includes government resolutions and sample items from the end-of-quarter summative exams (ChSB), supported by critical commentary from local media sources. Analysis of this material suggests that MCQs have been instrumental in supporting the country’s transition to criterion-referenced, CEFR-aligned assessment, but that tensions may remain between goals of standardisation and concerns about test validity, teacher autonomy, and pedagogical washback. The paper concludes that MCQs are neither inherently flawed nor universally appropriate: their effectiveness depends on alignment with construct definitions, assessment purposes, and broader educational values.