大学英语四级写作测试语境效度实证研究被引量：2

A Survey Study on the Context Validity of the Writing Test of CET-4

下载PDF

导出

摘要大学英语四、六级考试,作为一项大规模的全国性考试,日益受到相关教育部门及社会各界的广泛关注。为了保证考试对考生的英语能力的准确测定以实现对其学习的积极反馈作用,写作测试效度的研究尤为重要。研究基于巴克曼的交际测试理论以及语言测试专家威尔的情景效度理论,将结果研究和过程研究结合起来,通过写作测试、问卷调查、观察、回顾和访谈等多种研究方法收集了多方面数据,着重研究大学英语四级写作测试的效度。通过定量分析和定性分析相结合的方法,研究表明:学生在目前实施的写作测试中表现良好,能够较真实地发挥写作水平。然而,写作测试在考试环境、考试尺度、写作输入、期待答复等方面仍有待提高。同时,超过半数的考生对"情景/观点+题目"的考试形式支持。 As a largescale national examination, College English Test （CET） has received much attention from the relevant educational departments and the society. To ensure the exact judgment of candidates＇ proficiency in English and the positive feedback on their learning,it is essential to guarantee a high validity.The present study aims to investigate the ＂context validity＂ introduced by Cyril Weir （2005） of the writing text in CET- 4, and find out whether the composition can really test the intended writing abilities. The results indicate： 1 ） students＇ performance was favorable under current testing environment.2） the context validity of the writing component of CET- 4, in general, is acceptable. However, efforts are still needed to improve the aspects of the test environment, the rubric, the input and the expected response. More than half subjects were pleased with the test format of ＂situation/opinion ＋ rifle＂

作者陈晨

机构地区东南大学外国语学院

出处《教育与教学研究》 2013年第3期84-89,共6页 Education and Teaching Research

关键词实证研究语境效度大学英语四级考试写作测试 survey study context validity CET - 4 wriring test

分类号 G642 [文化科学—高等教育学]

引文网络
相关文献

参考文献5

1Bachman, Lyle F. Fundamental Considerations in Language Testing[ M]. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1990.
2全国大学英语四、六级考试委员会.大学四级考试大纲(2006修订版)[z].上海:上海外语教育出版社,2006.
3李清华.语言测试之效度理论发展五十年[J].现代外语,2006,29(1):87-95. 被引量：97
4邹中.语言测试[M].上海:上海外语教育出版社,2005.
5Weir, C. J. Language testing and validation: An evidence - based approach[ M] .Palgrave: Macmillan,2005.

二级参考文献50

1Linn, R. L. 1997. Evaluating the validity of assessments: The consequences of use [J]. Educational Measurement, Issues and Practice 16 (2) : 14-16.
2Messick, S. 1988. The once and future issues of validity: assessing the meaning and consequences of measurement [A]. In H. Wainer & H. Braun (eds.). Test Validity [C]. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaun.
3Messick, S. 1989. Validity [A]. In R. L. Linn (ed.). Educational Measurement (3rd edition) [C]. New York : Macmillan.
4Messick, S. 1994. The interplay of evidence and consequence in the validation of performance assessments [J]. Educational Researcher 23 (2) :13-23
5Messick, S. 1995. Validity of psychological assessment: Validation of inferences from person's responses and performance as scientific inquiry into scoring meaning [J]. American Psychologist 9: 741-49.
6Messick, S. 1996. Validity and washback in language testing [J]. Language Testing 13 (3): 241-56.
7Moss, P. A. 1992. Shifting conceptions of validity in educational measurement: Implications for performance assessment [J]. Review of Educational Research 62: 229-258.
8Oiler, J. W. 1979. Language Tests at School [M]. London : Longman.
9Qi, Luxia. 2005. Stakeholders' conflicting aims undermine the washback function of a high-stakes test [J]. Language Testing 22 (2): 142-173.
10Shepard, L. A. 1993. Evaluating test validity [J]. Review of Research in Education 19: 405-50.